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.

What do celebrities like Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Benecio Del Toro, Danny Glover, Naomi Campbell and Oliver Stone all have in common?

Was it sex with Punxsutawney Phil?

No, but you’re close.

All of these stars have had their pictures taken and/or partied with Hugo Chavez: their happy faces cheek to mottled cheek with the latest trend in socialist splendor.

He is after all, proof that it can happen! The third way! A new Castro! An anti-capitalist David, taking down that Yankee Goliath!

Being around him, means you’re more than just an overpaid movie star, you’re an overpaid movie star who matters.

So I gotta wonder. Where are these jackasses now?

Well, in the past few weeks we’ve seen Chavez blame America for the Haitian earthquake – furious, I imagine, over having to watch Marines save lives, while he farts into a hemorrhoid pillow.

And then of course, he’s nationalized a grocery chain, devalued currency, and beaten the crap out of his own citizens. As police fire tear gas and rubber bullets at innocent protestors (who always knew that Chavez’s anti-Americanism was just a cloak to hide his authoritarian rule, economic incompetence and profound halitosis), I ask again: where is Hollywood?

Why hasn’t Penn come out and condemned Chavez for insulting our compassionate military?

And what of Glover – surely an earthquake machine is even too far-fetched for his goofy mind?

And how about Naomi Campbell – surely she could take a moment from beating her assistants, to tell Hugo to lighten up.

But I expect too much. After all, these are celebrities – they treat political issues like Fendi handbags – a stylish flourish to hide their shallowness and the insecurity it breeds.

And, really: coming out against a tyrant won’t earn you points with James Cameron – so why bother. Hell, those protestors deserve it anyway. They don’t even shop at Fred Segal!

Tonight, the lovely Juliet Huddy, the charming John Gibson, the hilarius Jesse Joyce, and Dr. Michael Baden (yeah, he’s on tonight, not last night!)

An obsession among all involved with this monstrosity (271 minutes), we learn, was “historical accuracy.” As a professional duty, last year I sat through this thing. For the sake of this review  let’s forget the films’ “omissions,” namely the only success in Che’s life: the mass murder of defenseless men and boys. This being a shoot-em up war movie, we’ll instead focus on the battle scenes and the attendant dialogue. 

For starters, the only “guerrilla war” fought in Cuba during the 20th Century was fought, not by Fidel and Che, but against Fidel and Che (more on this shortly.) 

After the glorious victory over Batista some of the Castroite “guerrillas” explained the harrowing battlefield exploits (so “expertly” dramatized by Soderbergh) to Paul Bethel who served as U.S. press attaché in Cuba’s U.S. Embassy in 1959. “We had a helluva time, Paul!” laughed one guerrilla’s named William Morgan. “We used a short-wave radio to broadcast the so-called battle. We yelled fake battle commands into the mic while a few of the muchachos shot BARs and pistols into the air for the sound effects. We really whooped it up!”

Another U.S. citizen described to Bethel how he managed to duck the hail of bombs and bullets:

“Che Guevara’s column shuffled right into the U.S. agricultural experimental station in Camaguey where I worked. Guevara asked manager Joe McGuire to have a man take a package to Batista’s military commander in the city. The package contained $100,000 with a note. Guevara’s men moved through the province almost within sight of uninterested Batista troops.”

According to Paul Bethel, the U.S. embassy had been highly skeptical about all the battlefield bloodshed and heroics reported in the New York Times and investigated. They ran down every reliable lead and eyewitness account of what the New York Times called a “bloody civil war with thousands dead in single battles!”

They found that in the Cuban countryside, in those two years of “ferocious” battles, the total casualties on BOTH sides actually ran to 182. New Orleans has an annual murder rate DOUBLE that. The famous “Battle of Santa Clara,” that Soderbergh depicts as a Caribbean Stalingrad, claimed five casualties total–on BOTH sides.

In one scene, amidst the thunder of bombs and hail of bullets, Che laments how the U.S. is intervening on Batista’s side. In fact: at the very time of Che’s lament as depicted in this obsessionally historically ‘accurate” movie, the Batista regime was under a U.S. arms embargo! Batista was subsequently denied exile in the U.S. and banned from even setting foot in the country that “backed” him.

On a visit to Cuba in 2001 for a “scholarly summit” with Fidel and Raul Castro, Robert Reynolds — who served as the CIA’s Caribbean desk’s specialist on the Cuban revolution from 1957-60 — clarified the U.S. diplomatic stance of the time: “Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” he boasted to his beaming hosts.

Reynolds’ colleague Robert Weicha, who served as CIA chief in Santiago, Cuba, (the city nearest the Iwo-Jima-esque exploits depicted in this movie) in the late 1950s, concurred. “Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State were pro-Castro, except ambassador Earl T. Smith.”

U.S. diplomat Weicha’s was a hands-on type of Fidelismo. In the fall of ‘57, Weicha and his subaltern, U.S. Consul Park Wollam, smuggled into Cuba the state-of-the-art transmitters that became Castro and Che’s “Radio Rebelde” From these mics (shown in the movie, right before Che’s “U.S. intervention for Batista” lament!) the Castroites broadcast their “guerrilla victories” island-wide, along with their plans to uplift Cuba into a Caribbean Shangri-La inspired by the principles of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Jefferson.

Now, on to Cuba’s genuine guerrilla war, fought from 1960-66 and–this cannot be repeated often enough– AGAINST the Fidel/Che regime. Farm collectivization was no more voluntary in Cuba than in the Ukraine. And Cuba’s Kulaks had guns, a few at first anyway. Had these rebels gotten a fraction of the aid the Afghan Mujahedeen got, the Viet Cong got – indeed that George Washington’s rebels got from the French – had these Cuban rebels gotten any help, my kids would speak Spanish and Miami’s jukeboxes today would carry Tanya Tucker rather than Gloria Estefan.

Be it known: Che Guevara had a very bloody (and typically cowardly) hand in one of the major anti-insurgency wars on this continent. Eighty percent of these anti-communist guerrillas were executed on the spot upon capture, a Che specialty. For my book I interviewed several of the lucky former rebels who managed to escape the slaughter. “We fought with the fury of cornered beasts,” I titled the chapter, using the phrase one used to describe their desperate freedom fight against the Soviet occupation of Cuba through their proxies Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.

In 1956 when Che linked up with Fidel, Raul, and their Cuban chums in Mexico city, one of them (now in exile) recalls Che dutifully reciting the Stalinist script word for word, railing against the Hungarian freedom-fighters as “Fascists!” and cheering their extermination by Soviet tanks.

In 1962 Che got a chance to do more than cheer from the sidelines. He had a hand in the following: “Cuban militia units commanded by Russian officers employed flame-throwers to burn the palm-thatched cottages in the Escambray countryside. The peasant occupants were accused of feeding the counterrevolutionaries and bandits.” At one point in 1962, one of every 17 Cubans was a political prisoner. Fidel himself admits that they faced 179 bands of “counter-revolutionaries” and “bandits.”

Mass murder was the order in Cuba’s countryside. It was the only way to decimate so many rebels. These country folk went after the Reds with a ferocity that saw Fidel and Che running to their Soviet sugar daddies and tugging their pants in panic. That commie bit about how “a guerrilla swims in the sea which is the people, etc.” fit Cuba’s anti-Fidel and Che rebellion to a T. So in a relocation and concentration campaign that shamed anything the Brits did to the Boers, the gallant Communists ripped hundreds of thousands of Cubans from their ancestral homes and herded them into concentration camps on the opposite side of Cuba. I interview several of these “relocated” families too.

One of these Cuban redneck wives refused to be relocated. After her husband, sons, and a few nephews were murdered by the Gallant Che and his minions, she grabbed a tommy gun herself, rammed in a clip and took to the hills. She became a rebel herself. Cubans know her as La Niña Del Escambray.

For a year she ran rings around the Communist armies sweeping the hills in her pursuit. Finally she ran out of ammo and supplies and the reds rounded her up. Amazingly, she wasn’t executed (Che must have taken that day off.) For years La Niña suffered horribly in Castro’s dungeons, but she lives in Miami today. Seems to me her tragic story makes ideal fodder for Oprah, for all those women’s magazines, for all those butch professorettes of “Women’s Studies,” for a Susan Sarandon or Sandra Bullock role..

Think about it: here’s that favored theme for Hollywood producers – “the feisty woman.” Well, they don’t come much feistier than Zoila Aguila, her real name. Had she been fighting, say, Somoza or Pinochet, you can bet your last penny Hollywood and New York would be ALL OVER her story. Instead she fought the Left’s most picturesque poster boys. So, naturally, nobody’s heard of her.

Director Steven Soderbergh blames piracy for the box office failure of ”Che,” which made less than half of its budget back:

“We got crushed in South America. We came out in Spain in September of last year and it was everywhere within a matter of days. It killed it.”

More here.

For instance, it used to irk me that Carl Bernstein, a rather minor footnote in America’s history, who only came to prominence because an anonymous snitch chose to pass along secrets to him and Bob Woodward, was depicted in two major motion pictures, “All the President’s Men” (Dustin Hoffman) and “Heartburn” (Jack Nicholson), when so many more deserving people haven’t been featured in any.  But that pales when compared to the number of movies that have glorified Che Guevara, a blood-thirsty villain.  In addition to numerous TV productions, he has shown up in “Che!” (Omar Sharif), “Evita” (Antonio Banderas), “Motorcycle Diaries” (Eduardo Noriega Gael Garcia Bernal) and “Che: Parts One and Two” (Benecio Del Toro).

Because I listen to a lot of talk radio, I keep coming across Christopher Hitchens.  I should first confess to being envious.  The fact that he has managed to become a best-selling author by promoting himself as the fellow who thinks religion is a terrible thing truly boggles my mind.  Why, I keep asking myself, are people buying his book?  I’m not suggesting he’s not entitled to his opinion, but why on earth does anybody care what Hitchens thinks about religion?  I mean, are there some religious people who are going to become atheists because of anything he says?  Frankly, I have this feeling that he protests a little too much, and that on his death bed, he’ll hedge his bet by calling for a minister, a priest, a rabbi, an imam and a witch doctor.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve come across a few surveys that got my attention.  In one, it was found that 41% of women in their 20s would marry for money, 74% of women in their 30s and over 60% of women who were 40 or older.  The man’s looks were of little or no concern, but he had to have at least $2.5 million.  It wasn’t that love didn’t matter to the ladies, but it was love of money.

That reminded me that several years ago, there was a survey conducted by a woman’s magazine — perhaps the Ladies Home Journal — that asked mothers of all ages if, having it all to do over again, they would still opt to have children.  By a whopping margin, they said not a chance.

The ladies, it seems, aren’t the great romantic nest-builders their publicists would have us think they are.  I choose, however, to believe that most of these money-grubbing,  embittered females are liberals.  After all, in spite of all the whining about sexual harassment in the work place, you never heard liberal women complaining about serial womanizers such as Sen. Robert Packwood, Sen. Ted Kennedy or President Bill Clinton.  In fact, they delighted in nailing the hides of such female whistle-blowers as Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers to the barn door.  And when it came to Sarah Palin, they happily provided the lynch rope.

Another thing about liberals that points out their hypocritical double-standard is how they rejoice in canonizing whistle-blowers, but only when the whistle is blown on someone whose politics they oppose.  When they thought they could use Valerie Plame to bring down Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, the New York Times covered the story as if it was the crime of the century.  When it came out that the minor culprit was Richard Armitage, the story vanished along with the morning dew.

It is ever thus with liberals.  Years ago, actor Cliff Robertson blew the whistle on studio executive David Begelman, who had forged Robertson’s name on a check.  It later turned out that Begelman had victimized several other people along the way.  So, naturally, Hollywood, a town with a pimp’s sense of decency, rallied to Begelman’s defense and turned on Robertson with a vengeance, blacklisting him as a warning to others.

Even if you gave liberals the answers on an ethics exam, they’d fail.  Take the United Nations for example.  Fifty-seven percent of those on the left regard the U.N. as an ally of America, while only 15% of conservatives share that delusion.

Overall, a mere 53% of Americans think capitalism is a better system than socialism.  One out of five actually favors socialism, while 27% can’t make up what passes for their minds.  I think it’s a pretty safe guess that the overwhelming majority of the 53% are conservatives who were wise enough to recognize Barack Obama for what he has proven to be.

One of the scariest numbers I came across the other day was that 9% of Americans believe that Congress has the constitutional right to raise taxes retroactively.  I realize that means 91% disagree, but 9% translates to nearly 30 million people and, I’m willing to wager, includes just about everyone in academia and the mainstream media!

When you see numbers like that, it’s no wonder that there wasn’t greater outrage when President Obama, after declaring how arrogant America is, said nice things to Mahmud Ahmadinejad, reached out to “moderates” in the Taliban, and curtsied to King Abdullah.

BurtPrelutsky@aol.com

—

GREG GUTFELD PRESENTS, IN ASSOCIATION WITH BIG HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTIONS…

THE TRAVELERS BACK IN TIME FROM THE FUTURE

Starring

Benicio del Toro as himself,
Steven Soderbergh as himself,
and introducing Greg Gutfeld as Che Guevera

—-
EXT. JUNGLE. In a clearing, SODERBERGH is drinking from a bottle of water. BENICIO is checking his I-phone.

STEVEN:
Where are we?

BENICIO:
Scarlett sent me another shot of her tits.

CHE GUEVERA enters clearing with small group of armed men.

CHE:
Who are you?

STEVEN:
Holy sh*t! it’s Che!

BENICIO:
We’re making a movie about you! I’m playing you!

CHE starts unbuckling his pants. BENICIO and STEVEN look confused.

CHE:
“I’m getting uncomfortable.”

—-
EXT. CLEARING. Closeup on hands in dirt, Pan up to BENICIO’S clenched teeth. Pull back to BENICIO on all fours. Heaving rhythmic grunting overheard. In the background, glimpses of SODERBERGH draped over log, pants down, surrounded by soldiers. Grunting gets louder.

BENICIO:
NO….LUBE….SOCIALISM ….TRULY… IS… A.. STRUGGLE!

CHE:
To understand…suffering….you…must know….SUFFERING! ARRRHRHHHHHHGGG!

BENECIO:
No, not on my sweater…it’s Prada!

—-
EXT: CLEARING. Benicio is naked, curled up on the ground. Two soldiers are taking turns on SODERBERGH.

SODERBERGH:
But…you would…have….loved…Syriana!

BENICIO:
Steven…it’s no use! Lie back and think of Cannes!

—-
EXT: CLEARING. SODERBERGH and BENICIO are lying side by side, flat on their stomachs. SODERBERGH is straining to look up at CHE, who is staring off into the distance, contemplating.

SODERBERGH:
…the DVD will have fifteen hours of extra goodies – commentary, outtakes, even some hilarious bloopers.

BENECIO:
They say it’s my best work since Big Top Pee-Wee…

CHE:
“I’m getting uncomfortable…”

CHE PULLS OUT A GUN AND PLACES IT AGAINST BENICIO’S HEAD

BENICIO:
Hey – wait- we’re remaking history! We’re remaking you! And we just let you f*ck the crap out of us!

CHE:
Yeah, but we kill queers around here.

CAMERA PULLS BACK OUT OF THE JUNGLE. Two shots are heard.