The star of those “Focker” films as well as the “Night at the Museum” franchise is a pretty safe bet in box office circles. So why did he just sign a deal with HBO to direct, produce and star in a new Jewish family comedy alongside Alan Alda?

A cynic might say it’s a sign Stiller feels insecure over the weak box office receipts for his last film, “Tower Heist.” Even mega-stars can be as paranoid as screen newbies. Why else would Will Smith sign up for “Men in Black III” after his drama “Seven Pounds” gave him a rare flop?

For Stiller, the chance to oversee his own HBO comedy offers the kind of creative outlet he can’t get with movies. And that’s a sad thing to say about an industry obsessed with remakes, sequels and other too safe bets.

HBO programs don’t consume an actor’s life like a broadcast sitcom or drama. The episode count can be roughly half of a network show commitment, leaving actors free to tackle other projects along the way. The bigger picture is the support HBO – and its cable competitor, Showtime – give to their programs. A new show isn’t yanked after two episodes if the initial ratings are poor. And the cable “suits” apparently don’t inundate the show’s cast and crew with notes on how to make the content better.

Just ask Dustin Hoffman, who signed on for his first HBO series “Luck” which debuts this Sunday. Here’s Hoffman describing why he turned to HBO after a career making one iconic film (“The Graduate”) after another (“Tootsie”).

You cannot do your best work in the (movie) studio system. They buck heads with people they shouldn’t buck heads with. At HBO, once they give a go, there is no committee, no meetings.

The next time a movie studio executive is bemoaning a plunge in ticket sales, he or she should remember Hoffman’s words as well as why Stiller may not be free for their next project.

In other words, had Weinstein’s movie been snubbed altogether, I think people would remember it more fondly than they do. If I recall correctly, no one was complaining much that the movie was nominated, but the win immediately changed the perception of the movie.

I loved a lot of movies released in 1998, but only one of them was nominated for Best Picture. It’s a very tough year for me to pick a favorite. The nominees:

“Shakespeare in Love” – Only saw it once, and I liked it. Costume dramas really ain’t my thing, but costume comedies? Well, that’s…wait, I don’t like them much either. But I guess this one’s alright.

“Elizabeth” – See above. Never seen it.

“Life is Beautiful” – Roberto Benigni winning Best Actor for this remains one of the great whiffs in Academy history.

“Saving Private Ryan” - The invasion sequence alone remains worth the price of admission.

“The Thin Red Line” – For my money, this is a pretentious mess. I’ve got a buddy who says it’s his favorite movie. I say he’ s trying to seem smart. But what do I know? I’m the guy who would have nominated…

“There’s Something About Mary” - Stalker? Big time.

“The Big Lebowski” - Am I wrong? Am I wrong? No, you’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an assh*le.

“Out of Sight” - You don’t have an extra clip I can use, do you?

“Rushmore” - Never in my wildest imagination did I ever dream I would have sons like this.

“Saving Private Ryan” - The Statue of Liberty is kaput. That’s disconcerting.

This is really an absolute squeaker. Why? Partially, it’s because I love all of these movies so much. But mostly, it’s because I’m stupid.

Peter and Bobby Farrelly established themselves with “Dumb & Dumber,” then made the box office bust “Kingpin,” which deservedly found an audience on video. No one expected much from their third movie. Leading man Ben Stiller was not yet a star or a box office draw, but he had honed the nervous stammering act of his in pretty solid comedies like “Flirting With Disaster” and turned in hilarious supporting work in “Happy Gilmore.” In 1998, he had a breakout year, appearing in the underrated “Zero Effect” and the misanthropic “Your Friends & Neighbors.”

Released in the middle of July, less than a week after “Lethal Weapon 4″ and just before “The Mask of Zorro,” the Farrelly’s comedy was a genuine word-of-mouth sleeper hit. It hovered in the lower half of the top five until the end of August, when it finally crept up to number 2 at the box office. First week of September, it claimed the number one spot — a full seven weeks after it debuted at number 4.

Its performance is part of the reason I pick it over the more obvious choices on the Academy’s list and my own list. I worked in a theatre at the time, and I witnessed the slow build. By September, older couples were coming to see the movie — and were loving it. The Farrellys had done something amazing; they had made a vulgar comedy that crossed over to people who would never see a vulgar comedy, much less embrace it.

The key to their success is the unconventional screenplay, and the cast.

Ben Stiller and Cameron Diaz have been more than overexposed by now, but in 1998, they seemed like a breath of fresh air. I don’t think I’ve ever rooted for a dude to get the girl more than I did in “There’s Something About Mary.” No one has ever deserved a girl who was so out of his league in the history of movies.

This is set up from the very beginning and then pounded into our heads, sometimes with subtlety and sometimes with the force of a sledgehammer to the nuts. The Farrellys make Ted (Stiller) go through hell to land dreamgirl Mary (Diaz); it’s a journey during which no good deed goes unpunished for Ted, and our heart sinks with his about a dozen times over the course of the movie. Consider:

- He comes to the aid of her mentally challenged baseball loving brother Warren (W. Earl Brown – fantastic performance) and almost gets his ass kicked for his trouble. He later gives the gargantuan Warren a piggy back ride.

- He shows up to pick up Mary for the prom and is told by her father Charlie (Keith David? Genius casting.) that Mary already went to prom with Woogie — a Mr. Everybody’s All American type from a different high school. Ted slumps, frowns, but what makes it UNBEARABLE is that he not only pretends that he’s not hurt by the jilting, but that he seems to think he deserves to be jilted. Of course, Mary’s dad is “just f*cking with” Ted, and Mary is home the whole time ready to go to prom with Ted.

- Ted offers Warren a baseball but inadvertently touches the big man’s ear; Warren goes psycho, tears the room apart and delivers a belly to belly suplex on Ted atop a coffee table. I love the  tension in the aftermath of this moment. Ted’s freaked out, Mary goes upstairs with Sheila, her hot mom (Markie Post), to fix her dress, and Charlie consoles Warren and barks at Ted. Ted defends himself, Charlie responds: “Are you yelling at me? Are you yelling at me in my own damn house?” Ted insists he’s not. Awesome. But the capper is when Ted asks where the bathroom is and Charlie answers, “Grrrrrrrrrrr!”

- The bathroom scene. One of the two most talked about scenes in the movie. “Franks & Beans!” Once again, a misconstrued situation — this time only a look, a glance, a harmless peek! — leads Ted into an uncomfortable situation. Perhaps the most uncomfortable situation in movie history. Sheila sprays Bactene on his nuts, a cop shows up (“What? The f*ck?” he exclaims), a fireman — pretty soon the bathroom’s packed with people and Warren is in the hallway screaming, “Franks & Beans.” If you don’t exit this scene with pee-stained pants from laughing yourself wet, there’s something wrong with you. More importantly, if you don’t exit this scene hoping Ted gets Mary, there’s something wrong with your soul.

- On Ted’s day off, he helps his boss’s brother move. Not his boss. Not his brother. His boss’s brother, who happens to be a crusty, mean, profane man in a wheelchair. Genius line: when Ted complains that a gigantic armoire is heavy, the guy in the wheelchair seethes, “Heavy?! What I wouldn’t give to know what heavy feels like, you insensitive prick!”

- He also, out of the goodness of his heart, offers a serial killer a ride, takes a fish hook to the mouth, and is made to dress up in a superhero costume. Nothing in the movie would have been as funny without our empathy for Ted. In “Mary,” the Farrelly Brothers dodge a landmine. She likes golf. She likes to drink beer and watch football. She likes to talk about football. In essence, she’s too perfect, and women should have rooted against her. But, using subtlety and a sledgehammer, the Farrellys make her vulnerable… to stalkers. She’s got so many stalkers she had to change her name. The only reason that Ted ever got a chance to go to the prom with her is because her high school boyfriend Woogie “got weird.” Like a stalker.

Ultimately, it’s my pick because from a pure story standpoint, it’s the most difficult of any of nominees (actual and in Cam-Land) to pull off — a comedy about stalkers that’s actually really sweet despite relentless vulgarity. Its unconventional-but-still-mainstream-and-not-weird structure (the romantic leads are apart for a good chunk of the movie — ask Gore Verbinski how hard it is to pull that off) makes it an even more difficult movie to pull off. But ultimately, it’s the constant barrage of jokes both verbal and visual, great characters and strong performances that make it my favorite movie of 1998.

“We’re just taking it one game at a time.”

“It’s a team sport,”

“There’s no ‘I’ in team.”

A similar script kicks in when actors are asked their thoughts on President Barack Obama’s first two-plus years in office. Check out “Tower Heist” star Ben Stiller regurgitating the playbook to CNN’s Piers Morgan this week:

“We’re in a tough place … it’s a very complicated situation. I, as an actor and someone who’s not an expert and don’t pretend to know any answers, but I feel like we’ve inherited a bad situation over the last eight years and Obama’s in a very tough position.”

Translation: It’s not Obama’s fault that the economy is a disaster. But Stiller isn’t finished yet, since the second half of the Defend Obama game plan is to hit him from the Left.

“I’m disappointed that we haven’t seen more bold decisions from him and a willingness, I think, to maybe stick to more of what he had, in his campaign, had said in terms of what he was willing to do,” he said. “In ways it’s been frustrating to see that we haven’t gotten further than we would hoped over the last few years.

This weekend’s predictions and revenue results go as follows:

1. Tower Heist ($28 million) – No film has its future connected to positive word of mouth more than this one. Film will need to receive high ratings from weekend audiences, otherwise, “Puss In Boots” will win. Currently critical reviews are favorable but overall buzz on “Tower” feels right around where “Tropic Thunder” opened.

2. Puss In Boots ($25 million) - The film will benefit greatly from family audiences who didn’t see it Halloween weekend. Those audiences are now free of holiday obligations and will bring very healthy numbers to “Boots.” Look for a small drop and even another weekend win if “Tower Heist” falters.

3. A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas ($14.4 million) – The franchise’s audience was not very impressed with the second installment in the “Harold and Kumar” franchise back in 2008. As negative word of mouth spread, the film dropped quickly off its opening to finish way below studio expectations. Christmas’s biggest challenge will be in bringing that interest back. Look for sub-par results, one that could devolve into a “Your Highness”-like opening very quickly.

4. In Time ($7.8 million) – The Timberlake star vehicle did not pick up much positive buzz from its disappointing opening last weekend. It may pick up some action audiences due to lack of alternative choices. Will likely finish close to where “Source Code” ended up after its second weekend.

5. Paranormal Activity 3 (7.4 million) – The popular horror franchise sequel will put itself in striking range of a $100 million domestic mark. It is also already grossing more than “Paranormal Activity 2″ did at this point during its release.  For the film’s audience and studio brass, it seems a sequel couldn’t come fast enough.

Agree? Or what do you feel we missed?

No fat suits, kiddie co-stars or superfluous sequels. Just Murphy being Murphy – fast talking, lightning fast and utterly captivating.

But Murphy’s renaissance isn’t all that’s right with “Tower Heist.” Much maligned director Brett Ratner (the “Rush Hour” trilogy) squeezes everything out of his cast to make this a rare treat – a mainstream action comedy that doesn’t insult the audience.

—–

Ben Stiller stars as Josh Kovacs, a dedicated hotel manager who knows precisely how to make every guest happy. He’s especially clued into the building’s resident millionaire, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). The two play chess via their computers, and Josh makes it his business to see that all of Arthur’s material needs are met.

Arthur insists he’s still just a kid from Astoria, even if he swims in a rooftop pool every evening. It’s a nice pose, one that has the hotel workers fooled … for a while.

Josh’s image of Arthur is shattered when a team of FBI agents swarm the hotel and arrest the millionaire on embezzlement charges. What’s worse is that Josh entrusted Arthur with not only his personal pension but those belonging to his fellow hotel workers. Now, that money appears gone for good.

The affable Josh isn’t ready to kiss all that cash goodbye, at least not without a fight. He devises a plan to break into Arthur’s hotel suite and steal the man’s millions – assuming that he’s actually hid them so close to home.

The catch? Neither Josh not his fellow tower heisters – a broke family man (Matthew Broderick), a naive electrician (Michael Pena) and a father to be (Casey Affleck) know the first thing about breaking – or entering. So Josh bails out an old childhood acquaintance named Slide (Murphy) to teach them the fine art of thievery.

Ratner’s films almost always make serious coin, but he’s engendered very little respect from film critics. That’s an oversight that should be corrected starting with “Heist.” Ratner makes sure we get to know, and bond with, the characters swindled by Arthur. And while Hollywood loves to demonize the rich, Alda brings a texture to his character that defies lazy stereotypes.

Stiller radiates his stock Everyman appeal, but he gives Josh a hint of a New Yawk accent to lend the character some bite. It’s a tiny touch, but a welcome one since too many Manhattan-based films don’t even bother to try. Even better is how Stiller modulates his relationship with Arthur, segueing from genuine admiration to a sinking sense of distrust.

“Tower Heist” won’t go down as one of Murphy’s best comedies. Films like “Beverly Hills Cop,” “Coming to America” and “Bowfinger” still stand in the way. But Murphy’s turn here bodes well not only for his career but the biggest gig he’ll get in 2012 – hosting the Academy Awards telecast.

—–

Politico:

The video stars Kevin Spacey, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Kristen Wiig, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen as part of the foundation’s celebrity division, pumping out ideas like not breathing to save the environment. There’s even a cameo from Bubba at the end.

More here.

Throw us a bone – how about more than just one or two flicks a year not targeted to the demographic that thinks Lady Gaga is a boundary-pushing icon of limitless creative vision?  Maybe a couple that are not focused on shiny supernatural creatures who chat about their feelings and stare longingly into the eyes of dead-eyed starlets acting as the surrogate for the millions of lonely shut-ins who adore them?  Just a few films not aimed squarely at creepy man-children dwelling in their moms’ Kleenex-strewn basements wishing they too could winch their bloated tushes into tights and fight crime just like their cinematic heroes.

How about more than just a handful of movies for men and women who need more than five hands to count out their age, who breathe through their noses, who have lives?  I have some dough – well, at least until the President and his fellow travelers declare me rich too – and I’d like to take my hot wife out once in a while to see a movie.  I used to go a lot, a few times a month.  But it seemed that five years ago there were always at least a few movies that piqued my interest.  Perhaps it’s me – perhaps I’m too demanding, what with my stubborn insistence on interesting stories told in a coherent manner by competent actors.  Or perhaps it’s just that the recent crop of movies is exceptionally crappy.

Let’s address the curmudgeon question here and now – yes, I have occasionally turned my hose on those damn kids when they messed up my lawn, but hobbies aside, the fact is that Hollywood is both leaving money on the table and sacrificing what little artistic credibility it has left by ignoring the normal adult demographic.  It appears that Hollywood has simply thrown in the towel and decided to focus on feeding formulaic moron fodder to a waiting cohort of slack-jawed ninnies eager for the next story about a magical robot or a superhero with issues.

Let’s take a look at what’s in the theaters this Christmas to test this theory.  How about How Do You Know, with Reese Witherspoon.  It’s supposed to be a smart, mature romantic comedy.  Now take a look at the trailer:

—–

Oh my – yet another romantic comedy that appears to be neither romantic nor a comedy.  Tired, telegraphed jokes and Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd playing the same guys they play in every movie.  Plus Jack Nicholson in the same growly old guy mode he’s been in (except for the otherwise annoying The Departed) for the last couple decades.  Look, unless Jack is ripping the cover off a water department/incest conspiracy, I’m not interested.

The latest Harry Potter movie is still out.  But I’m a bit old for movies about teenage wizards, and I suspect a substantial number of the adult males watching it are going less to experience story than to see the now adult Emma Watson play with her wand.

The latest Narnia movie is out too, and I understand it’s C.S. Lewis and it has an important message and so on, but there’s a problem:  I’m not 12.  My kids will probably love it – when it comes out on DVD.

The Tourist with Johnny Depp and Angela Jolie is out.  But it’s rated PG-13, which kind of eliminates the whole point of having Angela Jolie in it.

There’s a sequel to 1982’s Tron coming out as well.  Finally.  I guess the 28 years of non-stop clamoring for more adventures of some guys who go into an Atari game and do stuff have finally paid off.  I suppose I’d be more interested in Tron: Legacy if I hadn’t discovered girls in the meantime.

Soul-crushingly, we have De Niro cashing yet another paycheck in Little Fockers, the third or fourth sequel to a mildly amusing movie I’ve pretty much forgotten by now.  Watch the trailer and die a little inside:

—–

It’s like they invented a whole series of new clichés just for this movie.  And Ben Stiller’s recycled antics are annoying enough, but Barbra Streisand too?  I wouldn’t force Julian Assange to watch this nightmare…okay, maybe I would.  As for De Niro, just keep saying to yourself, “He’ll always be Neal, he’ll always be Neal.”

Jack Black will be waddling back on screen too as America’s favorite funny fattie.  This time, he’s in a wacky new version of Gulliver’s Travels.

—–

Can you spot the fresh, original joke?  Trick question – there isn’t one!  It’s just more Jack Black yelling, mugging, and running about, which might be hilarious to Miley Cyrus and her pals after a couple rippers off her achy-breaky bong, but for the rest of us, this thing looks like a celluloid kidney stone that you have to pay eleven bucks to pass.

But there is hope.  The Coen Brothers have a remake of True Grit coming soon.  Let’s leave aside the sacrilege of trying to compete with the Duke – it looks badass:

—-

A movie about adults, doing adult things, speaking in phrases that aren’t designed so that even the average public school drop-out can understand them – who would have thought it possible?  I’m getting disoriented – how can this be?

So, maybe I will visit the multiplex this Christmas season after all.  Right after I finish running off those damn kids.

Stiller plays Roger Greenberg, a recent mental hospital patient. While his brother and family take a vacation to Vietnam, Greenberg lives in their California home to care for the dog. While there, Greenberg connects with an old band-mate who has since grown up and now has a wife and a child. As the story progresses, Greenberg also begins to form a relationship with the personal assistant who works for his brother’s family.

During his stay, the audience is introduced to Mr. Greenberg and all of his quirks and eccentricities. One of the first things we learn about him is his affinity for writing letters of complaints to companies. Greenberg also seems to be a desperate loner looking for direction in life. Years before, he had a chance for success in a band and now that missed opportunity is in his rear-view mirror as he continues to struggle with his own future. In one scene, he talks about going back to school for another degree but that would take too long due to his propensity for procrastination.

The overall premise sounds promising but its execution is extremely disappointing. Greenberg, who seems relatable on paper, is dislikable onscreen. He’s often self-centered and mean-spirited towards others, including the personal assistant he befriends. There are times I liked him and understood his predicament, but those times were often overwhelmed when his personality showed through and the other side of him filled the screen.

Additionally, the movie is often slow, meandering from scene to scene with no real purpose. There are certain scenes and developments I enjoyed but the characters are just too unlikable, making it hard to relate or empathize. And when the characters face difficult circumstances, it’s often difficult to understand their motivation. They make serious decisions without seriously considering them.

On the other hand, there are some enjoyable elements, some funny parts involving the backstory of Greenberg’s past experiences with his band. And there’s one confrontation near the end between Greenberg and his former band mate that stands out as a particularly well-done and honest scene about the possibilities the band and Greenberg once had. However, this isn’t enough to compensate for the rest. 

Ben Stiller does a good job playing against type. I only wish the script shared the same potential Stiller seems to have as a dramatic actor. “Greenberg” is the kind of movie some critics may love. However, viewers will likely be disappointed in a movie about an unhappy man who is often disappointed with the world around him.

You have to believe that out there somewhere is an action movie director who knows what a tripod is.  That there is a young lead actor who has never starred in a CW television series about beautiful but sensitive teenage male models with supernatural powers.  That there is a comedy screenwriter who can imagine a “funny” situation not involving a bodily fluid.  That Michael Cera will one day play a different character.

In that spirit, a spirit of Pollyannaish hope in the face of overwhelming evidence indicating that Hollywood’s product will almost certainly continue to demonstrate that evolution is a two-way street, I present ten movies that are coming within the next six months that might actually be good – or at least not make me throw things at the screen and slap around the ushers.

1.  The Wolfman (This Weekend):  I’m digging the idea of this remake of the classic Universal horror flick.  The super cool trailer got me, as did the presence of Anthony Hopkins.  Now, let’s talk about the baggy-eyed, mumbly elephant in the room.  Yeah, it’s got Benicio Del Toro, but on the bright side he’ll probably spend most of the movie howling.  Sure, I’m still steamed about his commie suck-up fests Che Part  I and Part II, but at least the second one has a deliriously happy ending. 

—–

2.  Shutter Island (February 29, 2010):  I’ve taken some grief lately about my view that Leonardo DiCaprio is to acting what herpes is to romance.  Not Ben Shapiro-level grief, but grief nonetheless.  In my own defense, DiCaprio is terrible.  And that brings us to this bizarre Scorsese flick that I had zero interest in until I watched the mind-blowing trailer.  Apparently DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo are government agents and they go to some mental hospital for the criminally insane and everything works out swimmingly.  Not.  It looks awesome, even with Leo.  Freaky.  Creepy.  I am so there.

—–

3.  The Crazies (February 26, 2010):  I love zombie movies.  I even wrote one once.  The producers who optioned it hired a script consultant who wanted me to build up the characters’ back stories.  I observed that perhaps they had forgotten that it was a zombie movie.  Hence my career in law.  But I digress.  This flick, a remake of George Romero’s little-seen original – little-seen because it stinks – at least seems to have the potential for some old-fashioned B-movie thrills.  It’s regular folks turning into homicidal maniacs – classic.  Sure, there seems a slight anti-military vibe to the trailer with the implication that our troops are a bit trigger-happy, but hey – when the zombie apocalypse starts, bro, it’s shoot first and ask questions later.

—–

4.  Cop Out (February 26, 2010):  Yes, it looks idiotic, but it’s Kevin Smith directing Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan in a cop movie.  Oh, and that Stifler guy is in it too.  How can that go wrong?  Actually, how will I know if it goes wrong, because I’m not seeing it without first having a Dos Equis or four to get my mind right.  This will be perfect for those nights when you don’t want to challenge yourself with more cerebral fare – like The Crazies.

—–

5.  Greenberg (March 26, 2010):  This new Ben Stiller film, directed by Noah Baumbach, looks like some kind of art house slacker-comedy.  Still, it seems amusing, and it also features the return of Jennifer Jason Leigh.  From the trailer, she’s gotten even cuter.  It’s worth a shot.

—–

6.  Hot Tub Time Machine (March 26, 2010):  Let me just say it again, because if you are wondering why this movie must not be missed then you obviously did not read and appreciate the title:  Hot Tub Time Machine.  Witness the magic.  John Cusak.  Rob Corddry.  Craig Robinson.  The chubby guy who turned Amish in Sex Drive.  With unharnessed star power like that, you’re guaranteed at least a mildly amusing time at the theater.

—–

7.  Robin Hood (May 14, 2010):  This is the reunion of Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott, and we can only hope it is a tenth as indisputably badass as Gladiator.  The trailer looks interesting, with lots of hacking and smiting.  Still, I’m worried.  I never liked the whole “steal from the rich and give to the poor thing” – I always thought maybe the poor should get off their collective butts and get to work instead of waiting for handouts.  Those barges and bales aren’t going to tote and lift themselves.  But again I digress.  Let’s just keep our fingers crossed on this one.

—–

8.  The Last Airbender (July 2, 2010):  Who knows – maybe director’s M. Night Shyamalan’s latest surprise twist will be to make a movie that doesn’t suck.  After watching the baffling trailer, I still have no idea in hell what this is about.  My wife says this is somehow related to a cartoon series, and the kids want to see it.  Whatever – I’m just happy about being able to take the kids to the movies and not ending up having to explain where babies come from.

—–

 9.  Cyrus (July 9, 2010):  I’m a sucker for comedies of acute discomfort, and this one seems appallingly uncomfortable.  John C. Reilly, who was incredibly moving as the loser cop in Magnolia, is the anti-hero.  He meets up with Marissa Tomei, who has a really creepy son in the form of the bulbous Jonah Hill.  Antics ensue.  I can’t wait.

—–

10.  The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (June 30, 2010):  I’m thoroughly excited about this latest entry in the emo-vampire sweepstakes.  Sorry there’s no trailer, but I’m sure the filmmakers will be branching off in surprising, challenging new directions.  It goes without saying that the first two films were awesome.  Kristen Stewart’s trademark lip-bite can convey an astonishing range of emotions, from anger to fear to joy to unrequited horniness.  That skinny pale boy is dreamy too.  I think that these films get a bad rap, what with most people mocking them instead of approaching the films as the powerful stand-alone artistic statements that they are.  Yes, I am truly looking forward to Twilight III – mostly because it will mean that for a while the kind of people who like these films will be sitting in movie theaters far the hell away from me. 

Looking back over this list, it’s pretty clear that the studios are not exactly front-loading the 2011 Oscar contenders.  But not every movie has to be great.  Sometimes you just want to have fun, and for the next six months that’s where the bar is going to be set – at “Fun,” right below “That Really Made Me Think,” but a notch above “I Shoulda Smuggled in Some More Beers.” 

Maybe next fall there’ll be a few more mature entries.  Until then, just remember that for every Casablanca, there are a thousand MacGrubers.

“[T]he system around which the motion-picture business has oriented itself almost since its creation in the early years of the last century–the star system, which it largely invented–has finally reached its end.”

“The eight most successful movies over the course of the year’s first eight months have collectively grossed $2.7 billion, up from $2.3 billion for the entirety of 2008. And what is most striking about these eight films is that not a single one of them, not a single one, features an unmistakable star. Three of them are cartoons (Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Monsters vs. Aliens). Three are sequels whose top-line talents are incidental to their success (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the sixth Harry Potter, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Two feature relative nobodies (Star Trek and The Hangover). The first traditional star appears in the ninth-place film, which is itself a high-concept sequel in which the star mostly stands around (Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian with Ben Stiller). It’s not until tenth place that a classic vehicle hits the list, Sandra Bullock’s The Proposal. And after that you have to jump down to 15th place to find Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons. Will Ferrell’s movie tanked. Julia Roberts laid an egg. Adam Sandler couldn’t sell a ticket. Johnny Depp disappointed. Denzel Washington and John Travolta bombed together. Instead, the movies whose successes depended on their strong leading performances were the ones featuring the 57-year-old Irishman Liam Neeson (Taken, $145 million) and the out-of-work TV comedian Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, $146 million).

“The 2009 box-office numbers offer the most dramatic evidence yet that the system around which the motion-picture business has oriented itself almost since its creation in the early years of the last century–the star system, which it largely invented–has finally reached its end.”

You can read the piece in full here.