Peter Travers can't review another chick flick alone, so he brings in RollingStone.com's Erica Futterman to explain why women want to see movies like He's Just Not That Into You (starring Jennifer Aniston, Big Love's Ginnifer Goodwin, Scarlett Johannson, Ben Affleck, Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Connelly and Entourage's Kevin Connolly), a new film based not on a novel, but a self-help book. Her explanation: it's the type of film groups of girls go to together, to laugh at the screen and cast their friends in the roles. Her biggest gripe with the film? Johannson's character is a caricature. His largest issue? The women are only defined by their relationships to slimy men. Want to hear the whole debate? Watch the video above and read Travers' one-and-a-half-star review here:

• Read Review: He's Just Not That Into You

(more...)

It's no secret why Sean Penn is the leading actor of his generation. His talent is right up there on screen, blazing so bright that you can’t miss it. That’s what makes him the frontrunner for this year’s Best Actor Oscar for Milk, in which his performance as the assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk is an act of total character immersion. In the Rolling Stone cover story, Penn talks about the importance of committing to a role, taking a shot at actors who put more energy into selling themselves as products than putting in the necessary work it takes to build a performance.

Has Penn ever sucked? You bet. Try Shanghai Surprise, the 1986 laugh-free farce he did with his ex-wife Madonna. Or All the King’s Men, the 2006 political drama that takes risks that just don’t pay off. It’s always been my theory that no actor can be truly great unless he or she risks falling on their ass. Look at Brando. Look at Streep. Penn belongs in that classy company.

Watch him take the screen as if by divine right in his first major screen role in 1981’s Taps, costarring with Tom Cruise (whatever happened to him?) as a cadet in a military school about to start his own revolution.

(more...)

Photo: Winter/Getty
Box-office reports this weekend show Slumdog Millionaire generating real heat, it's the only one of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture to crack the Top Ten. But that hasn't stopped a backlash from kicking in. What was once the little movie that could is now the favorite movie to take a swing at. Everything from accusing the filmmakers of exploiting the child actors in Mumbai by paying them chickenfeed on a film whose worldwide gross is $86 million so far—to claims that the movie, from British director Danny Boyle, is dying in India because real slumdwellers hate being called slumdogs. Then there are the critics who insist the film is far from all its cracked up to be. The arguments go like this (jump in if you agree or disagree):

--The movie isn't an upper, it's "poverty porn," exploiting misery for fun and profit.

--It's a "white man's imagined India," not the real thing.

--The movie shows the worst aspects of India and that is what the western world likes to see.

--The plot is impossible to believe. The questions that young Jamal (Dev Patel) is asked on India's version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire correspond chronologically with traumas in a young boy's life.

--The quiz show theme sends the wrong message— the answer is education and hard work, not a quick fix."

--The movie's joyfulness "feels more like a filmmaker’s calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit."

Do you buy into any of this? Do you think the backlashers have a point or are their criticisms just sour grapes?