'King's Speech' sees its speech unnecessarily altered

You would think once a movie is released into theaters across the planet, it's safe from censorship and reediting.

You would also think the lucrativeness of a Best Picture-winning film would hit a peak in the week or two after the Oscar is distributed.

Apparently, however, neither is the case for The King's Speech, which received a hefty rerelease Friday that came with a head-scratching twist: The film was edited — censored, to be more specific — to fit the parameters of a PG-13 release.

Why would such an atrocity occur? The Weinstein Company hopes the younger rating will make the movie more appealing to audiences that otherwise may have skipped it because of its mature content.

In other words, Harvey Weinstein wants more money.

Speech, however, was never offensive to begin with. Originally rated R for "some language," according to the MPAA, the film contains no violence, no sex, no drugs, nothing. It's a British-royalty period piece. How much censorship can it possibly merit?

But the studio system couldn't help but milk its royal highness's profitability, despite director Tom Hooper's and stars Colin Firth's and Helena Bonham Carter's admonishments.

And with the seemingly never-ending ratings talk that occurred during this year's awards season — most notably via the gritty relationship drama Blue Valentine, which tinkered back and forth between R and NC-17 ratings — can't the studios learn just to let films be themselves? Despite its true R rating, Speech could be applauded for the positive message it sends forth. Whether it takes a few swear words to get there should not be of concern to studio heads looking to make a few extra bucks.

It seems like hypocrisy. The studio that applauded the filmmakers not too long ago for sweeping the industry's top awards is now taking the congratulations-worthy film and altering its dialogue to make some extra money. The ploy is transparent.

I'll be interested to see how much cash it accumulates this weekend. I have a feeing it won't be much. Even with a PG-13 rating, most teens simply won't be interested, and most adults who intend to see the film will have already done so.

For the sake of artistic censorship, I hope this deceptive plan blows up in Weinstein's face.

Five stars in desperate need of vacations

This week seemed to bustle with celebrity mishaps and pop-culture wrong turns.

I am not normally attracted to tabloidish news that finds the latest teenie boppers sleeping with their enemies, but I couldn't help but take notice that, at this juncture in time, quite a few stars and starlets appear to need a break from the glare of the public spotlight.

Let's talk about a few:

5. Natalie Portman

It was revealed Friday that Portman didn't do the majority of the dancing in her recent Oscar-winning role in Darren Aronofsky's psychological thriller Black Swan. In fact, apparently she only did about 5 percent of the full-body dancing shots, according to Entertainment Weekly. Her double, a dancer at the American Ballet Theatre, make the revelation, admitting the studios didn't want her to speak out in case it would damage Portman's shot at nabbing awards.

Portman's career certainly isn't ruined. Far from it, in fact. But she might want to take a few minutes of silence to focus on her pregnancy before critics and talk-show hosts can pulverize her for having talked up the intensive short-term ballet training she underwent before filming on the movie began.

4. Anyone and anything to do with The Kennedys

Never before has a mini-series seen such turmoil...or headline news.

The mini-series about the life and times of the Kennedy family (starring Katie Holes as Jackie Kennedy) was made for the History Channel. But after viewing the program, the History Channel nixed it, saying it wasn't proper fare for its lineup. (Or, in layman's terms, it ain't no good.)

It then went through a hoopla of potential deals, all denied until ReelzChannel — which no one watches — finally picked it up. Now it has been announced that The Kennedys will also stream via the iPad and iPad2. Despite the many moves to merge to modern forms of media streaming being made today, it seems the makers are downright desperate to attract viewers.

3. Lindsay Lohan

Lohan could easily be placed on a list like this on any given week. Controversy follows her out of bed in the morning. This week, however, the star was attracted to a new breed of outlandishness.

Her mother announced Friday that she will join the ranks of Madonna, Prince and Beyonce by shortening her name to Lindsay.

That's right. Just Lindsay.

As if she didn't have enough crazy in her life already, Lohan (or should I say "Lindsay"?) is once again overstating her celebrity status. As if a shortened name is the way back to a career victory. If she ever makes a decent movie, then she has killed her shot at good buzz.

Just imagine: "And now, announcing this year's nominees for Best Actress: Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Melissa Leo, Lindsay..."

2. Chris Brown

Chris Brown, you are CRAZY.

After a scandalous moment in which the R&B singer made breaking-news headlines for trashing his Good Morning America dressing room out of anger and breaking a window, Brown can't seem to stay out of the spotlight. He since issued an apology, but now he publicist has quit.

Brown should have taken a hint when he suffered insurmountable backlash for beating then-girlfriend Rihanna, but nope. We'll probably see most Brown-related escapades over the next couple weeks. Can't wait...

1. Rebecca Black

Need I say more?

The teen star's breakout song "Friday," easily one of the worst tracks in recent memory, has garnered nearly 54 million views since it went viral about two weeks ago. She appeared on Jay Leno and now has a spot on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.

Which all leads me to wonder: What is the world coming to? Clearly there is a sense of fun about it all because it's so horrendous, but now it's time for that fun to stop. If there is one Rebecca Black in the world, God knows more will come along. And I don't know how many times I can hear people talk about this monstrosity any more.

I would advise you not to watch it, but if you must, here it is.

Can LARRY CROWNE's star power catapult it to success, or will the rom-com fall flat on its face?

If any two names are synonymous with both critical and commercial success in Hollywood, it's Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.

Together the two of them have earned eight Academy Award nominations and grossed about $6.5 billion at the box office, according to tallies from Box Office Mojo.

They can sell a movie with their names alone (a la Roberts' dismally reviewed Eat Pray Love, which grossed $80.6 million), and they aren't often plastered across tabloid headlines, save Roberts' love-life escapades, which have become few and far between since her marriage in 2002.

Now the duo is pairing up again for the July release Larry Crowne, about a middle-aged man (Hanks) who returns to college after being laid off and forms an intimate bond with his professor (Roberts). Given their individual star power and respectability, the movie could be pegged as a surefire hit — even potential Oscar bait — if it weren't plagued with the unpredictability associated with the romantic-comedy genre.

The two received generally positive reviews, along with Golden Globe nominations, when they first joined forces in 2008's Charlie Wilson's War, but that was a political dramedy complemented with historical underpinnings. Now, the two will venture back into the genre that has provided each with massive hits and major flops. Let's see if Larry Crowne will serve either of their careers based on the trajectories we've seen so far.

Roberts

The leading lady of the '90s, Roberts was pegged as the rom-com queen with entry after entry (Pretty Woman, My Best Friend's Wedding, Runaway Bride, Notting Hill) receiving generally favorable reviews, some even earning her award noms (most notably Woman, which nabbed her a second Oscar shout-out and 1988's girl-power flick Steel Magnolias).

But Roberts took on more serious fare in the 2000s, and her first major foray into pure drama (2000's Erin Brockovitch) garnered her her first Academy Award. Roberts' rom-com chops have ostensibly dwindled since that victory, with America's Sweethearts and The Mexican, both of which boasted strong ensemble casts, being generally panned by critics. The movies racked in decent box-office figures, but Roberts must have noticed the reviews because she spent the rest of the decade making more serious films like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Mona Lisa Smile and Closer.

To further Roberts' questionable status as rom-com queen, her only two major ventures back into romance films came via Valentine's Day and Eat Pray Love, both released in 2010 to reviews that ranged from mixed to scathing. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers went so far as to call Valentine's Day "a date movie from hell."

So should she have left her crown in the doorway of the new millennium? Perhaps Oscar bait is the only way for Roberts to go nowadays?

Hanks

Generally regarded as one of the best working actors today, Hanks has had fewer critical bombs, and it seems as if a clause is written into his contract saying all his movies must gross at least $100 million.

Partnering with Meg Ryan for Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, his two most straightforward romantic comedies, has proven successful, and while he doesn't really have any significant bombs on his filmography, his more lighthearted entries of the 2000s (The Terminal, The Ladykillers, The Polar Express) received mixed reviews.

It's apparent — a no-brainer even — that Hanks can drive a strong drama to success. The list of critical and commercial victories seems endless, and he is on a small list of actors who can simultaneously drive the masses of the box office and wow the critics (Saving Private Ryan and Cast Away both took in more than $200 million and earned him Oscar noms).

But is a romantic comedy an irrefutable victory for Hanks? Is he guaranteed to receive glowing reviews for Larry Crowne, which he also wrote and directed?

The verdicts

Given the film's subject matter, it's hard to say.

Larry Crowne isn't particularly youthful, but the high-profile actors will lead enough devoted fans to the box office for the film to earn around $100 million.

As for the reviews? They'll be mixed. We already know Roberts and Hanks have chemistry, but the trailer makes the film look its a bit cliche-driven, and it often takes more than star power to overcome that burden. The film surely won't produce any Oscar attention, despite being among some shortlists of buzz-worthy films that will be released this year. Can Hanks serve as Roberts' Richard Gere and Roberts as Hanks' Meg Ryan?

Given their career histories and general likability factors, they'll probably be delightful in the film, but the magic of the 1990s romantic comedies the duo made individually will be lacking when this middle-aged film rolls around.

Despite Roberts' early stature amid lighthearted fare, she has proven lately — in large part thanks to her age — that she's now at the top of her game when she plays it a bit more straight than she will in Crowne. Plenty of critics will love her and Hanks because, well, they're them, and lots of diehard fans would flock to the theater to see them headline any film, but this entry will be lost among an overcrowded summer filled with high-end blockbusters that include new entries in series like Pirates of the Caribbean, The Hangover and Harry Potter. Larry Crowne will end up not being much more than a cute break from high-tech visual effects and a nice escape from the sweltering heat.

Check out the trailer below. Do you think it'll succeed for the duo?

Five ways Charlie Sheen can save his career...if he's lucky

Charlie Sheen has had a busy few weeks.

He was fired from Two and a Half Men (for which he made about $1.2 million per episode), filed a lawsuit against the show's head honcho Chuck Lorre for $100 million, recorded erratically melodramatic webcasts and had firearms confiscated from his home, to name a few amid the endless list of sensationalized headlines that have included Sheen's name.

After so much overstuffed publicity, you would think Sheen would take a breather and shut his mouth. But it seems like the rampage has no immediate end in sight, so let's explore five surefire ways for Sheen to provide a turnaround for his career. He needs all the help he can get.

1. What Charlie needs the most to save any shreds of his image is to act like a real person, which means he must stop these annoying rants he keeps posting on the Internet in which he attacks anyone who rubs him the wrong way. Instead, let's show a little sensitivity, Charlie. One way the blow-snorting, hooker-loving actor can express his softer side is to join forces with Sarah McLachlan to restore her girl-power festival Lillith Fair, which she announced this week is now defunct. After all the womanizing he has reportedly done, maybe Sheen can make his way back into the female population's good graces by funding the concert and reaching out to the presumable droves of women who detest him.

2. The best way to adopt a character's persona is to experience what he or she is going through, right? Let's book Sheen for a movie about a drug addict whose perception of the law is that it's all relative. Maybe the character can be a veteran actor who stars on the No. 1-rated comedy on television but just can't quit living life on the edge. Sound familiar? It would be Method acting at its purest. He wouldn't even need fake movie-prop cocaine. Just look for the vial he probably keeps in his back pocket.

3. Establish The Charlie Sheen Brigade. Alec Baldwin, Men costar Holland Taylor and the always commendable Roseanne Barr will surely be on board, but Jon Cryer and estranged wife Brooke Mueller won't. Together, Sheen and his compadres can create some sort of relief fund for the star's troubles. Where controversy goes, Baldwin and Barr are sure to follow.

4. Next time you're angry, Charlie, leave the machete at home.

5. Let Sheen's upcoming Twitter "intern" lead an image overhaul for him. Sheen should just stay away from the site. It's dangerous. Where free speech is key, he should remain far removed — even only 140 characters can get him into trouble.

Hathaway, Franco don't provide intended Oscar makeover

The Oscars have never delivered more mixed messages.

Co-hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco provided an awkward prelude to the ceremony, followed by mediocre interludes throughout it. It was nice to see young faces on the stage, but the duo proved it's a safer bet to recruit a real comedian to emcee the awards. (This was emphasized when former host Billy Crystal graced the stage to present an award with built-in poise and a certain Oscar finesse Hathaway and Fanco lacked. Were the show's producers perhaps trying to send a message regarding next year's selection?)

The hosts were part of the Academy Awards' campaign to make the three-hour ceremony — which ran 15 minutes overtime — seem more youthful. But the youngsters played it too safe. The ceremony took four giant steps backward from Ricky Gervais' questionable (but brilliant, if I do say so myself) Golden Globes humor that took stabs at what some consider a few too many indelible celebrity newsmakers. Instead, it replaced the risque satire with mostly aimless banter. Hathaway's solo song-and-dance number was cute but needless, and the segment featuring characters from nominated films autotuned Antoine Dodson-style was a stab at a pop-culture sendup that failed.

Yet, amid all the attempts at seeming young, the ceremony continuously inserted dedications to former Oscar-winning films, something that seems to pop up at the Academy Awards every few years. Audiences were reminded of categories' winners in previous years before this year's respective award was presented. It's always nice to revisit favorite films, and being reminded of the greatness of Gone with the Wind, The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars is never a bad thing, but ceremony wasn't consistent in when it chose to honor certain moves of lore, leaving the tributes — and the show — feeling incongruous.

To top it all off, the Academy had the chance to provide its ultimate youthful quality: that it could award a non-traditional Oscar-bait flick with the night's top honors. I can't say I'm particularly upset The Social Network didn't win — I was rooting for The King's Speech — but the once-favored Millenial manifesto could have been the icing on the pubescent cake. Instead, the Academy went with traditional fare, which is fine by me, but it doesn't bode well for a ceremony that's clearly working too hard to break away from its senile voting members.

Hathaway and Franco looked good — better than Crystal could have — but were too untrained for the Oscar stage, where they had to pretend to be comedians in a setting where no reshoots are allowed. We can all applaud the ceremony for striving to reinvent itself, however. Let's keep that up, but with a more fitting host (not hosts) next time.

Radiohead's surprise release shines

Radiohead dropped a much-appreciated bomb at the beginning of last week when the band announced it would release its new album Saturday. The move was nothing short of surprising considering no one knew the album was even finished.

Never satisfied with sticking to the rule book, Thom Yorke and company gave the world an added bonus Friday morning, announcing the album would be released then instead of the next day. Fans could instantly download The King of Limbs, Radiohead's eighth studio album, and they did, of course, leaving the Internet to spend the weekend buzzing about the band's continued boldness.

Not only is Radiohead my favorite band musically, but their audacity is a breath of fresh air amid the progressively dwindling mainstream music industry. As if the band — which has one of the most loyal fan bases in music today — needed to top its inventive pay-what-you-want deal in 2007 for In Rainbows, throwing an album out unprecedentedly in the course of five days is sure to revive the buzz that commonly surrounds the band's every move.

At only eight tracks and less than 40 minutes, Limbs is delightful, playing on the band's sleekest sounds. The majority of the album is fairly mellow, but "Little by Little" and the closing track "Separator" break into dance vibes that interact nicely with Yorke's melodic scanting. The entire album feels like a mature compilation of Radiohead's brightest moments.

To some, it may be easily forgotten. But to others, its soft, jazzy feel will make it all the more beautiful. The group plays more on the soulful sounds of Rainbows than the slightly harder tones of previous entries like OK Computer and The Bends, and it works to the band's advantage as the album glides from track to track effortlessly.

Radiohead has previously never been satisfied with playing their musical game by the numbers, and luckily for the mass of fans who follow the group's every move, their ambition is appreciated.

Do the Grammys have some sense after all? Nah.

I’ll be honest. I didn’t watch the Grammy Awards.

In fact, I basically detest the Grammys. Over the past decade, the annual music awards show has basically dwindled into a classless, overblown popularity contest. Unlike the Oscars and Emmys, which honor excellence, the Grammys recognize only what’s popular, and that’s exactly what reduces them to a shallow, growingly obsolete spectacle.

As if Lady Gaga arriving encased in a gigantic egg wasn’t enough, let’s take a look at the top four categories.

1. Country group Lady Antebellum robbed Cee-Lo Green of both Song and Record of the Year. Hailed by countless critics as the best song of 2010, Green’s “Fuck You” was undoubtedly the lone star in a category of mainstream duds, and even the Grammys’ one stab at decency couldn’t prevail.

2. Esperanza Spalding won Best New Artist. Um…who? Again, the Grammys could have gone for everyone’s favorite new eclectic diva Florence + the Machine or stellar breakthrough rock group Mumford & Sons here, but no. Maybe it’s an attempt to expose an emerging artist to the limelight, but it just seems like a phony attempt at obscurity. But, hey, if Spalding turns out to be an actually good artist, then maybe we’ll all be regretting the confused Facebook posts from last night.

3. Finally, however, we end on a positive note with Arcade Fire taking home Album of the Year for The Suburbs. It’s surprising to think the indie-rock gem managed to nab the award after Lady Antebellum’s dominance and Lady Gaga’s outlandishness, but Fire’s win provides a hint of sanity amid what appears to have been a night of predictable chaos. The band’s win is also partnered with The Black Keys deservingly collecting two notable awards in the rock categories, including Best Alternative Music Album.

At this point, the Grammys have become a showcase of mundane atrocities that’s best suited for mindlessly poor music taste. Perhaps Suburbs’s crowning was a symbol for what is to come, though. Maybe it’s the first of many smarter wins. At the least, I hope it will get people to download the album if they haven’t heard it — or the band — before. If not, at least we can clock another entry on the list of ways Gaga has outdone herself.