Damon plays David Norris, a “bad-boy Congressman” who is running for the United States Senate. He’s an up-and-coming political rock star who spends time with real-life political figures like Terry McAuliffe, Wesley Clark, and Madeleine Albright, who all have brief cameos in the film alongside commentators like Jon Stewart, Mary Matalin, and James Carville.

Norris’ campaign eventually derails when a secret from his past is revealed and he ends up losing the Senate race. However, on the night of his concession speech, he meets a young woman named Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) hiding out in the men’s bathroom.  Although the politician and the young woman have little in common, they are soon making out with each other like overeager teenagers on a Friday night. Afterward, Norris uses his concession speech to talk about how fake and poll-driven his campaign was.

In a development that usually only happens in the movies, audiences love Norris’s speech and after a while, he’s ready for a political comeback. However, when he runs into Sellas again, he messes up his life’s “plan” and a group of “adjusters,” who could be compared to guardian angels, must work to keep the couple separated. According to the “big plan,” the couple aren’t meant to be together, so the “adjusters” (led by John Slattery) must prevent their relationship from developing further.

The story’s concept is interesting and many critics have focused on the questions that it raises about free will. Although such questions would be the worthy subject of a strong film, “The Adjustment Bureau” isn’t able to make good on its premise. For starters, the relationship at the core of the story never feels real. For the premise to work, audiences must want to see the couple together by the story’s conclusion. However, the relationship isn’t developed well from its inception so it’s difficult to care whether Norris ends up with Sellas. After the couple starts making out moments after meeting, the relationship feels forced and it never stops feeling that way.

As the story continues and Norris challenges the “adjusters” so that he can remain with his true love, the story unsuccessfully tries to create an exciting conflict, but even a chase sequence at the end of the film lacks thrills. For the most part, Norris’s plan goes off without much disruption while the “adjusters” can barely keep up. On numerous occasions, the camera shows the “adjusters” looking shocked that Norris has outsmarted them. Eventually, there is a bit of dramatic tension during a confrontation but the sequence as a whole doesn’t work.

I understand why “The Adjustment Bureau” would be an interesting starting point for a conversation about free will and faith, but the story isn’t smart enough to focus on these topics in an intelligent way. Instead, audiences will be left with a weak romantic storyline and a couple of agents looking shocked that the film that they are starring in needs some adjustment itself.

“The Adjustment Bureau” is all things to all people. For sci-fi fans it’s based on (though largely changed from) a short story by Philip K. Dick,who wrote “Blade Runner.” For thriller fans, it’s written and directed by one of the writers of “Ocean’s 12” and “The Bourne Ultimatum.” For comedy fans, the dialogue is witty and fresh, and for romantics, it’s a love story. 

The Adjustment Bureau is the story of David Norris (Matt Damon), a young politician on the verge of becoming one of New York’s senators. A chance meeting with a ballerina named Elise (Emily Blunt) threatens to ruin his dreams however, when the agents of Fate itself step in and try to steer him back onto the political course outlined for him, and away from the woman he loves. Ultimately, they give him a choice: a chance to change the world, or the freedom to be with the woman he loves. 

I’m typically not a fan of films that are written and directed by the same person. Having a director who can reign in a writer, or who knows how to edit out needless dialogue or scenes is essential. Unless you’ve got the talent of George Nolfi, who has kept the dialogue real throughout the film. 

The acting is solid. Damon and Blunt play off each other expertly, and the agents of fate are neither friendly or villainous. They are doing their job. 

The agents of Fate, an individual who is never shown and only referred to as the Chairman, do their job almost as government employees – in a clinical, methodical manner. They slip up and make mistakes like everyone else. These “angels” as they say some have called them, are neither good nor bad. They are the force that keeps the world from coming unhinged, and they can be interpreted easily as a super-secret government organization of Orwellian proportions or as the servants of the Almighty. This neutrality leaves questions of whether their actions are right or wrong to the audience. 

Aside from the philosophical question of fate and free will as the foundation of the film, which I enjoyed, the film was refreshingly non-political. While Damon’s character is a Democrat, political viewpoints are ignored. In addition, while the film can be viewed as a commentary on the ultimate in big government, it can just as easily be compared to God and religion. Ultimately, it’s a film that viewers can walk away from with either a happy contentment, or enough thought food to digest for a week. 

And that’s how Nolfi wanted it. In an interview with reporters recently in Washington, D.C., Nolfi, who has a background in philosophy and political science, said, “I didn’t set out to write anything religious.” But added, “Any version of fate has some sense of a higher power if you want to take it literally.” 

Nolfi said that he was careful to ensure that the Bureau could be easily interpreted as a metaphor for overbearing institutions like governments. And in advanced screenings in Europe, that’s how audiences viewed it. 

“I probably talked to 150 people in London, Dublin, Berlin,” he said. “Not a single person said ‘is this religious?’ Here everybody asks me. There, nobody.” 

Europe’s take aside, Nolfi said that in the U.S., among religious viewers, the film has received a strong response. 

Whatever your views on religion, or taste in film, The Adjustment Bureau has something for everyone. And as a story free from the nuisance of political preaching and filled with good acting, writing and story, it’s one I highly recommend.

The story focuses on the garden gnomes found in two neighboring yards, who are distinguished respectively by their red and blue outfits. Each side has been at war with the other for as long as they remember, largely due to the fact that their human owners hate each other.

—–

Amid the intricate worlds of each garden – which are laid out in snappy musical montages – are the two title characters, who each wonder why their side has to hate the other. They meet in cute fashion and start a secret romance, and just like in the original “Romeo & Juliet” things go awry when they are caught together, leading to a series of seemingly tragic events.

The key word here, in this G-rated rendition of the tale, is “seemingly.” For in keeping with the need to protect young minds while ultimately using the storyline to teach a message of tolerance in an entertaining rather than heavy-handed fashion, Elton John and his talented team reinvent the play’s third act to create a much happier outcome than the original. While this might upset particularly uptight purists, for most this will mean that the storyline has not only been rendered with more innocence, but with a sense of the unexpected as well.

The film is packed with amusing references to John’s musical career, including a hilarious moment in which a gnome named Benny dances on a computer keyboard while it inadvertently blasts out the opening keyboard riff from “Bennie and the Jets” and another gnome’s twisted take on “Your Song” to describe his nasty cold.  Director Kelly Asbury  (“Shrek 2”) also handles the frequent action scenes with just the right blend of mischief and danger, while also subtly wringing tears with a sad montage that details the way a lawn flamingo lost his greatest love in a gripping new John ballad called “Love Builds a Garden“ that ranks with his finest tunes.
 
As the lead voices, James McAvoy (“Wanted”) and Emily Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada”) do a fine job, but it’s the rest of the film’s voice actors who add a surprisingly clever aspect to the film. The vocal cast ranges from Oscar-quality actors like Michael Caine and Maggie Smith to Ozzy Osbourne, Hulk Hogan and Dolly Parton, with Parton‘s quick part especially delightful.

Beyond that, the film will also interest adults through the seemingly political symbolism of the war between red and blue-colored forces. While the frequent references to their colors might seem to be a metaphor for the red state-blue state political divide in America, it is in fact an incredibly prescient coincidence, as Elton John conceived of the film’s concept more than a decade ago – but it still adds a fun extra level to consider in the story.

But in hearing a song like “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting” as the rocking soundtrack to a drag race between gnomes riding lawnmowers, or “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” used in a zippy romantic montage, the film becomes so purely enjoyable that one can only wonder why it took so long for rock songs to perfectly fit an animated film and whether there are other stars whose catalogs can do the honors for other cartoons.   One can only hope that Billy Joel or The Beatles won’t be far behind.

They say exposing Hollywood’s liberal sucker punches is like a drug, and Big Hollywood’s secret script source had just handed one over that was practically ticking:  The Adjustment Bureau, coming out in March.  John Nolte ran down the situation for me:  Zinn-loving Hollywood half-wit Matt Damon is the star.  He plays a liberal politician.  And since it’s a fantasy, the liberal politician is the hero.

—–

This could have been the H-Bomb of sucker punch movies.  I knew that if I didn’t handle it just right it could detonate and splatter me with razor sharp shards of progressive clichés and jagged fragments of left-wing memes.  “Suit me up,” I said, “I’m going in.”

Sweat collected on my furrowed brow.  I cut the red wire.  Nothing.  I cut the blue wire.  Nothing.   I had defused a sucker punch dud.   

I was actually let down.  Where was the thrill?  I felt like trotting over to Safeway and acting bewildered by all the choices in the cereal aisle.

Sure, I’m disappointed – you don’t need me if a movie doesn’t treat half its audience like borderline morons.  But The Adjustment Bureau still has some important lessons – like how to be a liberal, make movies according to your vision, and still not gratuitously alienate potential moviegoers.

First, a quick look at the plot.  We’re not here to blow the lid off of the script’s surprises, so if you want more detail it’s probably lurking out there on the web.  In short, the story involves the aforementioned Matt Damon as a liberal congressman with a fateful destiny that an unexpected infatuation threatens to derail.  The infatuee is a quirky ballet dancer – she’s wacky in a kind of “Look at me! I’m wearing Doc Martens with this vintage prom dress!” kind of way that is only slightly less tiresome on-screen than it is in real life. 

I just assumed Zooey Deschanel would be playing her, since by law she gets first crack at any of these roles that get stamped out of the Hollywood cookie cutter.  But it appears Zooey had other commitments – maybe The (501st) Day of Summer – so Emily Blunt will play the aforementioned free spirit.  You might remember her as the heavy-lidded starlet in The Devil Wears Prada who was not as quite hot as Anne Hathaway, but was somewhat hotter than Meryl Streep.

Anyway, their love must be denied for reasons that remain obscure to me even after reading the script.  The deniers are members of – surprise – the titular Adjustment Bureau, a secret cabal that ensures that some unspecified universal master plan is fulfilled. Antics ensue as Matt Damon’s character decides that hooking up with a too-chatty, mediocre chick is more important than saving the world.

The script by George Nolfi (who will also direct) is competently written and reads well.  That’s actually high praise.  I peruse a fair number of scripts, and they tend to confirm my worst fears about the state of public education.  But this one is coherent, uses some big words –correctly – and generally kept my interest at a mild simmer throughout.  Look, I’m not this romantic movie’s target demographic, my body being flooded with roiling torrents of testosterone and all, but I’ve read worse.  Much, much worse.

Sure, in some of the publicity photos I’ve seen Damon looks like he’s playing dress-up as a congressman– Presenting Matty, the Boy Politician!  In others, it looks like he’s just seen Barry Bonds’s ex-doctor as he drags a skeletal Emily Blunt along the wet-down street.  With that ironic retro hat he looks like a bulky hipster. 

Note that the hat plays a role in the plot; I think it’s magical.  Yeah, you read that right.

Now, Damon’s liberal congressman is supposed to be a great guy, but none of this revolves around his liberalism.  People tell him he’s awesome because he “tells the truth,” but no one discusses what those unspoken truths are.  He also gets in occasional fistfights, making me wistful for the long-passed days when Democrats were as pugnacious toward America’s enemies as they are toward other Americans.

In fact, except for some off-hand references to him being a Democrat, the only way you could tell he is a liberal is by the fawning suck-upery which he experiences from members of the media. Diane Sawyer appears in the script, which goes for gritty realism by depicting the kind of hardball interview questions left-wing pols face from the MSM every day (“Your awesome popularity is overwhelming, with many voters unable to decide whether you are the savior or the messiah.  What are your thoughts on why your racist Rethuglican opponent is so jealous of you?”)

Who knows what kind of sucker punches might appear via some on-set improv by the talented Mr. Damon, but on paper it’s all fairly innocuous.  Yeah, everyone he meets seems to love him for no apparent reason other than the script demands it, and there are references to his hero, JFK.  At one point (*pseudo-spoiler*) the Adjustment Bureau functionaries imply that the fate of the world depends on this Democrat becoming president, but they quickly start chasing each other again and the moment passes.  That’s about it.

Look, I’m not going to see The Adjustment Bureau.  There’s not a gunshot, explosion or shower scene in the script.  It’s got nothing for me.  But if you like movies about love conquering all and people sharing feelings and magical hats, hey, give it a shot.

But you don’t need to skip it because of a sucker punch because there just isn’t one.  A sucker punch comes out of nowhere, a secret first strike designed to disrespect conservatives and to give liberals chance for a smug laugh at our expense.  Here, the character is who he is, but it’s not played at our expense.  Tiresome?  Yeah, a little – the assumption of the character’s awesomeness is a bit much.  But it’s not Avatar-level tiresome.

George Nolfi has written a script that stays true to his vision (well, his adapted vision – it’s based on a story by Phillip K. Dick, which probably means something to sci-fi loving shut-ins) yet does not insult those he probably disagrees with.  That should be encouraged – our point is not to make everyone conform to our vision.  Our point is that if you treat us like dirt we won’t watch your stupid movies.

Sure, there’s the Damon Factor.  A lot of folks won’t go see a movie with Matt Damon in it because he is such a leftist tool.  I don’t go that far– in LA so many of the people we know work in the industry that we don’t boycott lightly.  Damon’s annoying, but he doesn’t offend me to the core of my being.  On the other hand, you best have a taser and cuffs if you want to get me into a movie with Hanoi Jane.

Will it be a good movie?  I don’t know.  It isn’t my kind of movie.  But it does what we ask movies to do – it’s original, it’s at least mildly interesting and it doesn’t treat us conservatives like something you’d want to scrape off of your shoe before you walk into your house.  If The Adjustment Bureau does bomb, it won’t be because of a sucker punch.

The Wolfman is far darker than the original. Where once random chance turned Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) into a werewolf, fate turns his modern remake, Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro), into the stuff nightmares are made of. 

In The Wolf Man, Larry Talbot returns home to visit his father after spending years away from home. While there, he meets a town beauty, Gwen (Evelyn Ankers). When he tries to defend one of Gwen’s friends from a werewolf, he is bitten. In turn he becomes a werewolf himself. Not long after, it becomes apparent that both his human, and animal side, are after Gwen. 

In its 2010 reboot, Lawrence Talbot, a Shakespearian actor and the second son of Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), is returning from a long absence in America to Talbot Castle in Blackmoor, England. But from the start the film’s focus is much darker. Lawrence is returning because his elder brother’s body was found mutilated by a terrible beast—the third finding of its kind. He returns to a castle laid waste by time, adorned with the heads of African beasts, trophies of Sir John’s. Upon arrival he meets his late brother’s fiancée, Gwen (Emily Blunt), who he slowly falls for. But his investigation into his brother’s death, and a bite he sustains when trying to find the raging creature haunting the forests nearby, reveal a darker side to himself and his past—from which he can’t escape. 

Remakes are wonderful case studies of changing culture. In early decades of film, black and white reels depicted for the first time the strange tales of werewolves, vampires, mummies and Frankenstein’s monster. And while a viewing today fails to shock, the creative vision and, in The Wolf Man’s case for example, the story originality are still apparent. 

Today’s Wolfman takes everything to the next level. Horror has ceased to be horror in the classic sense, when audiences were terrified by the look of the beast they saw. Today’s culture is desensitized to such images, and horror now focuses on excessive blood and gore to convey its horrific messages. Filmmakers also use quick movements to scare audiences now. Wolf Man and Wolfman are a perfect example. In the remake, werewolves tear the insides out of their victims, rip limbs off of bodies and maul their victims in bloody displays that are never suggested, always shown. 

The storyline also takes a darker route. Where a detective in Wolf Man only suggests that Larry should be examined psychiatrically, Lawrence is admitted to a psychiatric hospital—the same hospital he was placed in after seeing his mother’s dead body as a child. In the hospital, doctors “treat” him through various torture methods. 

But Universal remained true to certain aspects of its first vision. English fog abounds in both films, and Wolfman is so drained of bright colors (blood red is the most vibrant, as the grass is a pale green and the sky is ever filled with clouds darkening the sun and hiding the full moon’s light) that the film retains an almost black and white feel. In addition, with all the digital effects used to create convincing werewolves, the faces remained surprisingly similar to the original Wolf Man werewolf face. 

Wolfman boasts a strong acting talent. Hopkins plays the estranged father well, though Del Toro would have done better to focus less on his American accent and more on his acting. Both let a darker side flow through them very convincingly. 

The film was strong, with good dialogue and well-constructed imagery. One of the most intriguing changes from the original was the addition of Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving). Abberline seems more fascinated with the wolf man idea than intent on killing the creature, at least at first. This fascination comes from another case that Abberline worked on, the Jack the Ripper case—the violence of which paralleled that of the wolf man. In the end, the investigation brings Abberline closer to the wolf man than he ever thought he’d be, and his final expressions let audience members form their own opinions on his thoughts about it. 

Of note is a comment that Blunt’s character makes in the film: “It is said there is no sin in killing beasts, only in killing a man. But where does one begin and the other end?” Stories of terrible murders abound. So at what point does a person cross over into something monstrous, capable of committing such crimes? And what drives them to that point? It comes after being fueled by something other than the autumn moon, to be sure. 

One such criminal, the late serial killer Ted Bundy, gave a final interview to psychologist Dr. James Dobson the day before his execution in 1989. He talked about a key factor that led him down his violent path: pornography, which some call a harder addiction to break from than cocaine. In that interview, Bundy warned about the dangers of hard-core pornography. While he took full responsibility for his actions, his addiction pushed him down the terrible path. In his interview, he claimed he felt like possessed when he murdered his victims. Further, Bundy said, “I’ve lived in prison for a long time now, and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography—deeply consumed by the addiction.” 

While views on pornography abound, in Hollywood there is really only one view openly portrayed: it’s not a big deal. Even the protagonists of films such as the American Pie movies enjoy pornography, and the women in the films could care less. But a recent study by the Family Research Council shows that pornography damages families in non-violent ways as well. 

Whether you believe the last words of a serial killer is up to you. But while Hollywood is inspecting a plethora of social issues, it might do well to examine pornography too.

Determined to find, capture and kill whatever beast offed his brother, Lawrence has not only traveled back to his birthplace and its haunting memories, but now has to confront his father head-on for murdering his mother and ward off area townspeople who fear he’s become a beastly ‘wolf man’ himself after surviving a a vicious bite from the monster. Through it all, his primary battle is to maintain his strong sense of decency and underlying humanity from slipping away forever.

Sounds like a heady mix of action and emotions, doesn’t it? Thankfully, “The Wolfman” largely delivers on its promises – particularly through the moving performance and powerfully expressive eyes of Oscar-winning actor Benicio del Toro (“Traffic”), who rebounds from a mostly hitless past decade to sink his teeth (ok, pun intended) into the role of Lawrence Talbot and add genuine gravitas to a tragic character. It also features a strong, yet slightly oddball, performance from Anthony Hopkins, who has also suffered more than his share of box-office setbacks in the last few years but digs into the role of Lawrence’s father Sir John Talbot with the menacing glee of his famed Dr. Hannibal Lecter enjoying a dinner of Chianti and fava beans.

While rising star Emily Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada,” “Young Victoria”) is on hand as the deceased brother’s girlfriend who starts to fall for Lawrence as well, it is Hugo Weaving as Scotland Yard Inspector Abberline who nearly steals the show from everyone with his cocky cool, able athleticism and dryly sarcastic line readings.

The real stars of the show, however, are the technical armies behind the camera lens, who establish a fully realized world in which the film’s rich and nearly incessant moonlight reveals stunning details of an expansive city in 1890, Victorian-era, England. Special effects master Rick Baker, who won a Best Makeup Oscar for his work on the cult classic “An American Werewolf in London” back in 1981, puts del Toro through his gruesome transformations – including some foot and toe shots that will make you wish you hadn’t ordered the jumbo size popcorn. In an interesting touch, the clergy in the film are a bit hysterical in preparing their worried followers for each full moon, but are overall shown respectably, while del Toro is seen in prayer – complete with sign of the Cross – as he agonizes over his fate. Perhaps these brief Christian-friendly moments can be chalked up to the historic era of the film, but they are nice gestures to see nonetheless.

Add in a great, perfectly evocative offbeat-orchestra score by Danny Elfman, and some spectacular and gruesomely funny showdown scenes between the wolfman and his oppressors, and you’ll find an entertaining film akin to 1999’s Tim Burton-Johnny Depp collaboration “Sleepy Hollow”: a film that may not terrify often, but is consistently tantalizing and fun to watch. Just be forewarned that the ample body counts include decapitations and the loss of many, many limbs among the townspeople; however, much of that bloody action is shot in enough shadow and with enough speed that it doesn’t become too gross for enjoyment and ensures the film remains tasteful (this time, no pun intended).

“The Wolfman’ marks not only a comeback and second chance for del Toro and Hopkins, but a great artistic leap forward for effects-whiz director Joe Johnston (“Jumanji,” “October Sky,” “Jurassic Park III”). Here’s hoping they use that second chance wisely.

Why a news weekly would decide, in a very difficult market, to parrot nearly every other magazine’s liberal bent is a head scratcher. But Newsweek can’t even get its celebrity interviews right.

The latest assault on basic journalism comes courtesy of Ramin Setoodeh who chatted up actress Emily Blunt for the issue on newsstands now. If you’re squeamish, please read no further. Here’s how it starts:

Hi, Emily.
Hi. And I now have my mouth full of a bar I’m eating.

A bar of what?
It’s like a protein bar. Omigod. I sound so wanky, so healthy.

Should I give you a few minutes to chew?
It’s gone. It’s an unattractive thing to listen to someone chewing and swallowing, amplified over the phone.

How long are you going to be in L.A.?
Until the end of April. I’m going to take up learning the cello again …

Bet you can’t wait to read more.

It gets worse. We learn nothing about the delightful Ms. Blunt, while the reporter strains so very hard to be casual and clever.

If a serious news magazine can’t be trusted to deliver smart, informative celebrity news, it certainly should give readers pause when they flip to more serious reportage.

Buck Howard the man is an old-fashioned show-business type: He is a mentalist—a magician who does mind-reading tricks. But he is preternaturally good at what he does (in contrast to his complete lack of self-awareness), and he was once a pop-culture fixture, a regular on The Tonight Show. (“The real one—with Johnny Carson,” he constantly reminds—this will have its intended melancholy effect only on those over 40 or so.) Now he plays half-empty halls in third-tier markets. Not that this tempers his enthusiasm, or that of his fans. Which is exactly the point.

In service to this show-biz valentine, the movie deploys a raft of actors and personalities in situations similar to that of Buck: George Takei, Tom Arnold, Gary Coleman, Jack Carter, and Michael Winslow appear as themselves (and in an especially sweet touch, Happy Days’ Donnie Most plays not himself but a minor character in the story—how appropriate!). Each of these cameos fits the grain of the picture: these, well, faded celebrities appear without introduction or frame. They just show up to be in a piece of entertainment because they are entertainers and that is what entertainers do.

Ricky Jay is cast as Buck’s manager-agent. It’s a wink to the audience, because Jay has devoted much of his own career to rescuing guys like Buck from obscurity. Besides being an astounding magician and performer (and an occasional actor with a fascinating resume), Jay is a historian of magic, magicians, and performers like Buck. He is a walking encyclopedia and archivist for the kinds of shows that used to define show business: largely unknown entertainers traveling from town to town, putting on shows because that’s how they make a living. Jay’s presence here fairly writes in neon the affection that producer Tom Hanks and writer/director Sean McGinly must feel for the Buck Howards of the world.

What’s more, the picture features a Who’s Who of A-List actors who often take quirky roles in so-called “small” projects, and by doing so show us the pleasure they take in practicing their craft, just like Buck. John Malkovich plays Buck, plus we get Steve Zahn, Emily Blunt, Griffin Dunne, Adam Scott—and Tom Hanks playing the father to his real-life son, Colin Hanks.

The last great wave of anonymous-and-getting-by performers washed over America in the late 1980s and early 1990s as stand-up comedians. Some of them are still around. You haven’t heard of them—not because they’re not funny, but because the Big Time is not what they do. They’re working comedy clubs, grabbing the occasional corporate gig, swapping stories in the green room with other performers, finding ways to make a little extra by selling t-shirts or a self-published book. It’s an honorable and noble profession that’s largely unknown outside of its participants: the traveling, professional entertainer. The Great Buck Howard is a document of that kind of life, and a gentle, personal tribute to those who live it.

I liked this picture when I came out of it and, in the days since, I have come to love it. Does it show much? Here’s a sweet, smart picture without a bit of post-modern cynicism. Wow.

Note: Director Sean McGinly lost a brother in the World Trade Center attack. He made a documentary, Brothers Lost, about 31 men who also lost brothers that day. I have not seen it, but I will. The Great Buck Howard is a respectful and affectionate picture about a character easy to ridicule. I can’t put my finger on it just yet, but what does it say about a man who can suffer great sorrow and injustice and still find nobility in those most ripe for parody? That’s an artist I intend to keep watching.

Then in July of 2007, New Line grabbed an almost identical $27.47M with the opening weekend of the female-skewing Hairspray, translating to $118.87M domestic. Also Enchanted, starring Amy Adams, was a hit for Disney over the holidays reaching $127.8M domestic.

In 2008 the game changed forever as women began flexing their box office muscle in a big way. 27 Dresses (Fox), starring Katherine Heigl from Grey’s Anatomy, debuted to $23M in January on its way to a domestic cume of $76.8M. Then came the Digital 3D phenomenon Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds (Disney), which enjoyed a meteoric $31.1M opening 3-day, finishing with a tween-fueled $65.2M. The all-girl comedy Baby Mama (Universal), starring Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, came along in the spring with a nifty $17.4M opening, finishing at $60M.

Then the all female Fantastic Four”  landed – Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon, Kim Cattrall and Kristin Davis – in mega-hit Sex & The City. After a mind-boggling $57M opening weekend, the HBO-to-big screen adaptation kept selling tickets to the tune of $152.2M in the US, becoming 2008’s eleventh-best grossing movie.

In fact, you can make a strong argument that 2008 releases Twilight ($187.9M cume), Mamma Mia ($144.1M cume), Beverly Hills Chihuahua ($94.5M cume) and High School Musical 3 ($90.5M cume) were also chick flick hits. Here’s a complete list of last year’s biggest female-skewing movies.

The cast of TWILIGHT

TOP GROSSING CHICK FLICKS OF 2008
Twilight – $187.9M cume
Sex & the City – $152.6M cume
Mamma Mia! – $144.1M cume
Beverly Hills Chihuahua – $95.5M cume
High School Musical 3: Senior Year – $90.5M cume
27 Dresses – $76.8M cume
Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds – $65.2M cume
Baby Mama – $60.5M cume
The House Bunny – $48,2M cume
Made of Honor – $46M cume
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 – $44M cume
The Secret Life of Bees – $37.7M cume
Definitely Maybe – $32.2M cume
The Other Boleyn Girl – $26.8M cume
TOTAL 2009 GROSS – $1.14 billion cume

Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Anniston and Jennifer Connolly in HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU

The first chick flick out of the gates in 2009 was the Kate Hudson-produced Bride Wars (Fox), which should finish its US theatrical engagements with about $60M. He’s Just Not That Into You (Warner Bros), based on the bestseller co-written by Sex & the City writers Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo, is holding up extraordinarily well in its second weekend. I am projecting a #2 finish for the 4-day with a possible $23.9M and a new cume just shy of $60M. Meanwhile, Confessions of a Shopaholic, one of this week’s wide openings, seems destined for $20M or so by Tuesday morning.

When all is said and done, 2009 could be an even bigger year for female-geared releases. Here’s how the remainder of the year lays out.

February 20 – Fired Up (Sony)
Two popular high school guys quit football to join the cheerleading team.

February 27 – Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert (Disney)
The title says it all. Every tween girl in America will see it at least once.

March 20 – Sunshine Cleaning (Overture)
Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada) star in this Grand Jury Prize nominee from last year’s Sundance Film Festival.

March 27 – The Accidental Husband (Yari Film Group)
Uma Thurman stars as a radio talk show host who dishes out relationship advice.

April 8 – Hannah Montana: The Movie (Disney)
The world’s biggest teen star is back on the big screen.

May 1 – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros)
Matthew McConaughey stars as a bachelor who contends with past girlfriends at his brothers wedding. Also starring Jennifer Garner (Catch & Release), Lacey Chabert (Party of Five), Emma Stone (The House Bunny) and pop star Christina Milian.

May 8 – My Life in Ruins (Fox)
Nia Vardallos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) stars in a romantic yarn set in Greece.

May 8 – Wild Child (Universal)
Emma Watson from Nancy Drew and Hotel for Dogs plays a Malibu princess who must adjust when she is sent to boarding school.

June 12 – The Proposal (Disney)
Rom-com starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds.

July 10 - I Love You Beth Cooper (Fox)
Hayden Panettiere (Heroes) shows the nerdy valedictorian of her high school class the night of his life.

Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl on the set of THE UGLY TRUTH

July 31 – The Ugly Truth (Sony) – Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler star as television morning show workers who test their relationship theories (and, just a hunch, fall in love).

August 7 – Julie & Julia (Sony)
Nora Ephron is writer/director of this movie based on a Julia Child memoir and starring Meryl Streep as the famed TV chef.

September 25 – Fame (MGM)
A remake of the 1980 film about a New York High School for the Performing Arts.

November 20 – New Moon (Summit)
The sequel to 2008’s mega-hit Twilight.

2-time Oscar winner Daniel Day Lewis and Penelope Cruz in a scene from NINE

November 25 – Nine (Weinstein)
Chicago director Rob Marshall adapts the Tony Award winning Broadway musical starring Oscar winners Daniel Day-Lewis, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard and Sophia Loren and Academy Award nominees Penelope Cruz and Kate Hudson.

Untitled Nancy Myers Project – December 25
The writer/director behind such chick flicks as Baby Boom and Something’s Gotta Give is set to star Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin.

Steve Mason is on Facebook and now also on Twitter.