The modern hero is less than perfect, to put it mildly. Think Showtime’s “Dexter,” or films like the “Bourne” franchise where shades of gray are the order of the day.

The era of John Wayne-style heroes is no more.

Enter “Safe House,” the new Denzel Washington thriller about a rogue CIA agent who possesses a file so important people are lining up to kill him. Washington’s character, Tobin Frost, is a prime example of the modern anti-hero. He’s a mastermind who went off the grid a decade ago against the will of his government.

At least that’s what we’re told.

The film keeps us guessing about Tobin’s true nature, and that’s part of the story’s appeal. But “Safe House’s” impressive nuance ends abruptly when it’s time to give us a typical Hollywood finale. (Major Spoilers Ahead)

The story’s big reveal involves a number of government spy agencies trying to hide damaging information on some of their members. So one of the film’s key characters chooses to leak the information in toto so the bad guys can be outed – and punished.

But what other information got leaked? Were there field agents compromised by the intelligence dump? Could the move impact ongoing missions or terrorism tracking efforts?

The film just doesn’t care. The screenwriters insist full and complete transparency, in the grand WikiLeaks style, is the order of the day. The leaker is deemed a hero for dumping the data. Real life doesn’t work that way, and the film is poorly served by pretending it does.

So which is it, Hollywood? Are anti-heroes and shades of gray the building blocks for great stories? Or are they gimmicks to be set aside when there’s an agenda in play?

Sometimes, The Material Girl is the sexually charged songstress posing nude for a coffee table book or dry humping one of her tour dancers. Next, she’s the primly dressed children’s book author trying to be a good role model for her own kids.

This week, the latter piped up to chastise singer M.I.A. for flipping the audience the bird during Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime show.

Madonna has taken to the airwaves to express her disappointment with M.I.A.’s decision to flip the bird at cameras during the halftime show, calling the move a “teenager … irrelevant thing to do.” Madge was chatting with Ryan Seacrest about her performance when he brought up the incident.

To the pop star, the middle finger was simply “out of place” at a show characterized by “such a feeling of love and good energy and positivity.

M.I.A. would have better served the event by making out with another woman, apparently.

One wonders if Madonna has truly learned the error of her shocking ways, or if she’s grumpy people are still talking about M.I.A. and not her.

Denzel Washington stars as a rogue CIA agent who turns himself in to U.S. authorities, and before you can say “human rights abuse” his character undergoes a waterboarding treatment.

Had “Safe House” come out five years ago, the scene might have included jabs at the Bush administration, the War on Terror or both. Likely both. Instead, the scene arrives and leaves without any sermonizing to lessen the moment’s impact.

We’re supposed to learn that Washington’s character, the colorfully named Tobin Frost, is a certifiable bad-ass, and that the information he possesses is critically important to the story. And that’s it.

Nice.

Left unsaid is the notion that if an Oscar winner like Washington is willing to be waterboarded for a movie, perhaps the technique isn’t as torturous as Bush critics once claimed it to be?

The former talk show queen’s self-named magazine is also suffering a significant sales drop, according to The New York Post:

Newsstand sales plunged to 413,363 copies — down 32 percent from the same period a year ago, when she was selling 608,212 copies.

Winfrey’s last syndicated talk show aired in May 2011, so while there has been some softness for the past two years, this marked the first six-month stretch with no broadcast TV exposure at all. The magazine’s total circulation was also down by 5 percent, to 2,380,782.

Combine that with the dismal ratings for OWN, Winfrey’s upstart network, and you have a picture of a media titan in trouble.

Winfrey voluntarily left her talk show perch last year, and not having a daily broadcast platform clearly doesn’t help her brand. But she left her show near the peak of her ratings powers and hasn’t committed any obvious public gaffes since then. No embarrassing TMZ videos, wardrobe malfunctions or inconvenient canoodlings.

That leaves Winfrey’s unwavering support for President Barack Obama, something that may have permanently changed the way the American people view her.

Sure, Obama-files probably love Winfrey even more for her stand. But other Americans, particularly those caught in the maelstrom of the president’s sluggish economic recovery, might not wish to be reminded of the Winfrey-Obama connection via her network or magazine.

Or, perhaps it’s time for Winfrey to step down as her magazine’s cover girl on every issue and give some new faces a chance.

Matt Damon’s first two “Bourne” adventures were a breath of fresh air for a stale action genre, even if they helped bring the Shaky Cam Era into the 21st century. But that third installment, 2007’s “The Bourne Ultimatum,” made it clear the franchise needed to end.

Nuthin’ doing. Hollywood simply found a new actor to take over.

Jeremy Renner,  the steely presence in “The Town” and “The Hurt Locker,” officially becomes the face of the franchise in this summer’s “The Bourne Legacy.”

No Damon, no worries if this clip is any indication. But we’re still looking for a reason to keep the franchise alive.

The new film finds another amnesia patient (Renner) who gets involved in a government program that reeks of inappropriate behavior. That’s being kind, and we’ll have to wait and see if the film offers up some sucker punches to conservative crowds.

For now, let’s enjoy the sublime supporting cast – franchise newbies Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz plus returnees Albert Finney, Joan Walsh, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn.

“Bourne” screenwriter Tony Gilroy takes over behind the camera, and while the trailer seems too pleased with its black bar visuals we don’t see as much hand-held camera works as in past installments.

That’s a relief. If you’re going to reboot a franchise, it’s high time to bring a new visual approach to the material.

The film wasn’t a flop, but its $26 million haul hardly screamed “franchise.” Yet a sequel is on the way all the same, but this time it looks like we’ll see more of Machete the killing machine and less obtuse political content.

Deadline.com:

The new film finds Machete recruited by the U.S. Government for a mission which would be impossible for any mortal man. Machete must battle his way through Mexico to take down a madman cartel leader and an eccentric billionaire arms dealer who has hatched a plan to spread war across the planet with a weapon in space. Machete takes on an army in an effort to dismantle a plan for global anarchy.

“Machete” writer/producer Robert Rodriguez is one of the more pragmatic talents in Hollywood. His early claim to fame was making “El Mariachi” for a measly $7,000. Since then, he’s wisely concentrated on keeping his budgets relatively low and ensuring a decent return on investment for his projects. It’s clear he still has a grasp for the bottom line.

Genre fans love Danny Trejo’s Machete character, and who can blame them? But the first film’s ugly political content – painting politicians against illegal immigration to be nothing more than monsters – certainly turned away more than a few genre fans.

“Machete Kills,” the tentative title for the new film, could be both a reboot and a sign that Hollywood has the ability to listen when the audience speaks. It just doesn’t happen very often.

Stuart Katz, an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University’s Department of Strategic Communication, said all the finger pointing over the offending digit misses the target.

“It shouldn’t have happened, and it didn’t have to happen,” says Katz, who has been working on live broadcast sporting events like The Olympics since 1978.

“The reality is somebody has to operate the technology. No technology recognizes an obscene gesture,” Katz told Big Hollywood. “That halftime show was rehearsed repeatedly … that reinforces the concept that it didn’t have to happen that way.”

Katz says it was likely human error responsible for the gaffe, adding that it’s improbable the equipment tasked with blurring an offensive image suddenly malfunctioned during showtime.

“They were supposed to blur the picture or at least cut to the wide shot in time… they didn’t do it fast enough … or somebody wasn’t watching,” he says.

The imbroglio could impact future broadcasts and inspire another “layer of protection” to be added to live events, he says.

Not everyone watching the broadcast noticed M.I.A.’s defiant finger gesture. But Katz, a veteran sports broadcast professional, remembers the moment “vividly.”

“I said, ‘oh, there’s gonna be trouble after that,’” he says.

Rather than trying to spoof, mock or even gently tease President Barack Obama–the man who actually holds the highest office in the land–the paper is targeting the administration’s out-of-power critics.

The Onion’s latest Obama humor article taunts those who note how a leader who rails against the rich routinely enjoys the perks that come with his wealth, power and status:

Obama Criticized For Living In Lavish Mansion While Most Americans Struggle To Make Ends Meet

WASHINGTON—Over the past three years, as the sluggish economy has forced many Americans to tighten their belts, President Obama has reportedly enjoyed a lavish personal lifestyle, residing with his family in a 132-room house staffed by a 24-hour security detail, five full-time chefs, and a live-in maid service.

In recent weeks, many of the president’s critics have seized upon the issue, arguing that anyone who sleeps in a sprawling six-level neoclassical mansion covering 18 acres of Washington, D.C.’s most valuable real estate is clearly out of touch with the lives of ordinary citizens.

You see, those silly Obama critics will attack poor Barack on just about any charge. So we should simply ignore them, right?

It’s a classic case of misdirection, a comedic attempt to distract voters from Obama’s lifestyle, including lavish Halloween parties thrown by Hollywood elite and taking money-sucking vacations on our dime.

A comedy institution unafraid of attacking those who share its ideology would have a field day with Obama’s actions. Instead, the folks at The Onion can only see fit to mock the administration’s critics for daring to point out the awkward gap between the president’s rhetoric and his selfish reality.

Madonna, the 50-something shock singer, kept it mostly clean during her Super Bowl performance Sunday. She flashed a tiny amount of thigh and flirted harmlessly with some of her male dance squad, but that was about it. She left the skin-baring chores to the hulking gladiator types around the stage.

The only tension came from guest singer M.I.A. who appeared to flash the middle finger at the end of one of Madonna’s highly choreographed numbers.

The Material Girl meshed flawlessly with the typically over-produced halftime show segment, belting out a barrage of her greatest hits as well as her new single, “Give Me All Your Lovin.’” She kicked off the set singing “Vogue” while dressed as a quasi-Egyptian songstress. At times she appeared as stiff as one of those Egyptian paintings.

The popular “Music” followed, as Madonna left the more acrobatic moves to her agile backing dancers. The singer confessed she was nursing a leg injury in the days before the big show, and it clearly kept her theatrics to a minimum.

It’s hard to say conclusively that Madonna was singing to an existing track, but she didn’t miss a single note nor did she offer any tweaks to her familiar lyrics.

She broke out a pair of golden pom-poms for “Lovin,’” a cheerleader-heavy segment that seemed to cry out for at least a few “Glee” cast members.

“Like a Prayer” wrapped the show on a semi-high note, especially when guest star Cee Lo Green stole the stage and the song from the main attraction.

Madonna ended the show by disappearing in a flash of stage smoke, the words “world peace” left in her wake.

The film calls out politicians for routinely passing legislation, sometimes at a feverish clip, they haven’t so much as read. LeBaron thought it was foolish to bother asking them why they behaved in such a fashion.

“I judge an organization or a person by their actions and results, not by what they say,” LeBaron tells Big Hollywood. “The only reason to pass a law is to fix something, and they aren’t even looking at the problem … I could care less what they think.”

LeBaron serves as the Michael Moore-esque hero of “Hill,” an Everyman trying to drum up support for a bill that would require politicians to read new legislation before voting on it. We see LeBaron schlepping across North Dakota to convince people that his proposal will bring accountability to Congress. LeBaron’s mission would also allow for the public dissemination of future bills online so Americans can see what’s about to be considered.

It’s a truly nonpartisan affair. LeBaron doesn’t pick an ideological side in the film, and his roster of talking heads includes figures from the Left – Ed Begley, Jr. – as well as the Right – conservative talker Rick Amato.

In one of many political examples in the film, the documentary taunts efforts by the late Congressman John Murtha to funnel big money into a Pennsylvania airport which precious few people actually use.

LeBaron has been fuming over the issue in “Hill” for some time, dating back in part to the hurried approval of The Patriot Act during President George W. Bush’s first term.

“It’s becoming more and more common with bigger and bigger bills, faster and faster,” he says.

In making a truly bipartisan film LeBaron chose to leave out certain topics that might have made for a more tantalizing narrative. Conservatives would have appreciated a clip of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously saying, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

“Certain things trigger people … I don’t put the health care bill in there because it’s a trigger,” he says. We cut out a lot of sexy footage.”

The bulk of the film finds LeBaron traveling across North Dakota to drum up interest in his proposal. “Hill” is far from a comedy, but there’s something oddly funny about watching LeBaron visit one fast food joint after another while bunking in the most modest accommodations possible. His quest didn’t come with the kind of budget that would allow him to travel in style, but that only adds to the quietly humorous tone.

“One thing I admire about comedians is they make it funny and they still get their point across without depressing you,” he says. “I get depressed after watching a lot of documentaries.”

“Fools on the Hill” doesn’t have a distributor – yet – but LeBaron says roughly 5o companies have requested a screener of the film for consideration. That means it could be another year before the film is released to the public, or that it arrives just in time for the November elections.

LeBaron is confident potential voters will see the film before November, and in the meantime he’ll be pursuing film festival opportunities as well as private screenings.

“Fools on the Hill” doesn’t pick parties, there’s a good chance the Tea Party Nation will rally around its core message.

“Can you imagine if our Founding Fathers decided they were gonna do the Constitution … and they turned it around the very next day?” he asks. “It took them months, and the Constitution was only five or so pages long.”