Movies about ex-convicts and their difficulty assimilating back into society generally begin with the prison release, during which the protagonist typically looks downright miserable. At first thought, I recall the opening of Vincent Gallo's Buffalo '66, which ironically exaggerates the hopelessness of post-incarceration by adding a lack of a public restroom to the list of things the former jailbird is without. But at the beginning of John Crowley's new film, Boy A, the titular young man being turned back into the world is high-browed and smiling from ear to ear. And this change from the expected norm really drew me into the film immediately.

Perhaps the difference is that for most films about ex-cons, the hero doesn't have a very good chance at starting over. For "Boy A," however, there's a literal reinvention taking place. In the first scene, the young man (Andrew Garfield) sits with his caseworker, Terry (Peter Mullan), and discusses the details of his release, which include his receiving a new home, a new job and, most importantly, a new identity -- he chooses the name "Jack." Also, rather symbolically, Terry hands Jack a gift, a pair of sneakers that unintentionally represents the young man's ability to comfortably run away from his former life.

No, no, there's not going to be a remake of A Clockwork Orange starring Mick Jagger. At least I don't think so. This is just a fun bit of what-could-have-been. We like to play around with alternate-universe casting here once in a while, and this one's a doozy. Someone found a letter from producer Si Litvinoff to legendary director John Schlesinger, urging him to consider directing an adaptation of Anthony Burgess's novel. And part of the pitch was that Mick Jagger wanted the role of the psychopathic Alex, and that the Beatles "love[d] the project" and wanted to provide the musical score. Fortunately (?) Schlesinger wasn't interested and the project eventually wound up falling to good old Stanley Kubrick.

The Clockwork Orange we got was -- like all of Kubrick's work -- too singular a film to even try to imagine how someone else's version would have been different. But I admit I'm amused (and intrigued) by the notion of Jagger taking on the Malcolm McDowell role. Hell, after watching the manic two-hour stage show he put on in Shine a Light at age 63, I'm kind of convinced that he's actually omnipotent. As for the Beatles? That's just creepy. I'll stick with Kubrick's classical selections.

[hat tip: Movie City News]

Last week in my Indies on DVD post, I mentioned a new Stanley Kubrick box set (from Warner Home Video) and Criterion's release of Terence Malick's Days of Heaven. Both releases had raised pre-release questions. Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere sounded the alarm back in August that Criterion's upcoming re-issue of the Days of Heaven on DVD would look "really different" than the previous version from Paramount Home Video. He based his concerns on comments by Criterion's Lee Kline. Now that Wells has seen the new DVD, he writes: "I saw Days of Heaven in 70 mm on the day it opened -- 9.13.78 -- at the Cinema 1 on Third Avenue, and the Criterion DVD took me right back to that transporting experience. This is how it looked back then, and should have always looked. " Good to hear.

The Kubrick set raised eyebrows when it was announced that three of the films (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut) would be presented in a different home video format than Kubrick had insisted upon when he was alive. Film critic Dave Kehr noted: "Kubrick apparently had his reasons, as mysterious as they may be, for releasing them to video the way he did." The new, reformatted aspect ratio, Kehr says, "would be closer to the way the films were originally seen in theaters." Kehr then quotes a statement from Jan Harlan (the present keeper of the Kubrick estate) and questions the historical sense of Harlan's statement before concluding: "I'm really not well informed enough to have a solid opinion. And without Kubrick around to consult, I don't see how we'll ever know for sure." He recommends hanging onto the older DVD versions as reference points, if nothing else. So if you've been waiting for the definitive edition of these films (others in the set are 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange, in addition to the doc A Life in Pictures), you'll need to weigh out the positive and not so positive.

Nikki Finke put a piece up yesterday that I'm just now getting around to writing up, about how she doesn't at all miss the oId "Clockwork" Harvey Weinstein**, aka the Harvey who ran Miramax with all the subtlety of Tony Soprano (oh, come on, like you never noticed the resemblance there). Ms. Finke, who, to give her credit, certainly never fears writing exactly what's on her mind, recalls a meeting with Weinstein at the Peninsula Hotel that reads like a scene pitch for a Quentin Taratino movie (just picture Uma Thurman as Finke, and James Gandolfini as Harvey).

Weinstein, sayeth Finke, demanded asked for the meeting with her after she wrote a piece for New York Magazine (supposedly toned down by the mag in response to threats from Weinstein's legal team) that slammed Weinstein, accusing him of using heavy-handed tactics to secure the Oscar for Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Weinstein, Finke alleges, ordered her into a windowless room, where he proceeded, in what she likens to a "Clockwork Orange" experience, to yell at her for 90 minutes while she sat there wearing sunglasses indoors until he broke her into laughter by swearing on the lives of his children that he hadn't done any of the things she'd alleged.

It's hard to know without hearing a tape of what transpired exactly how accurate Finke's account of the interaction is, but it sure doesn't sound like a cozy lunch date. Personally, I don't think that, were I in Finke's position, I would have gone into a windowless room with Harvey Weinstein just so he could yell at me, even if there was someone else there to make sure I came out in one piece. Unless I had my handy-dandy little tape recorder in my purse, and intended to record the whole thing for a podcast. That would be something to hear, wouldn't it?

**I put this link in when I posted, but it didn't take. Thanks to the reader who pointed out the link was missing from the body of the story. It can also be found in the "read" link below.

Last week, I gave you a nice list of DVDs for younger kids. This week it's time to give a little love to the older kids in the family. Sure, they'll sneak a peek at the younger sibs' kiddie flicks when they think you aren't looking, but they really want to know that you know they're getting older, and they have their own taste in movies. Some of these recommendations are more current films that older kids might enjoy; others are well-loved classics you might remember from your own teen-hood. In any case, adding a couple of these selections to your shopping list for that tween or teen in your life is sure to make you tops on their list.

A software-based company in San Francisco has released a new program that can censor DVDs on the fly. It uses an online movie database of existing "safe cuts," or you can upload your own. Their player then uses these cuts to generate a "cutlist," which plays the movie according to that list in real-time, effectively censoring it. This process does not create or leave behind a hard copy of the altered film, it edits everything in the background, splicing together a new version of the film as you watch it, leaving you with the original movie intact after viewing.

This differs from an earlier lawsuit against a company called CleanFlicks which was upheld in court because it was decided that they caused "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," by actually taking your DVD, and creating a "clean" copy of it with all the sex and profanity edited out. Basically, they sent you a duplicate that they created, with none of the bad stuff in it, meaning they physically alter the original movie content on the actual media.

Another company, ClearPlay, provides a similar service through a standalone DVD player that has filters built in to screen out portions of the movie the viewer finds objectionable. Since they don't change the movie itself, they have been safe from lawsuits, so far.

One of the greatest things about a controversial film is that it sparks debate. It shocks us. Scares us. Changes us. And helps us to look at the world differently. Be it about war, religion, politics or pop-culture, a good controversy will often lead to a colorful discussion. However, Hollywood doesn't really care about discussion or debate -- to them, controversy equals big box office numbers ... some of the time.

Take, for example, recent films like The Da Vinci Code and United 93. One was controversial for its belief that Jesus Christ was married and fathered a child -- an idea that goes against what many feel is a proven truth. The other was about a horrific event that took place only five years ago, and raised questions over whether or not it was too soon to come out with a commercial film about what actually took place. While The Da Vinci Code took in millions at the box office, United 93 didn't do as well. However, both were engulfed in controversy. What does this tell us? Well, for starters, Jesus will always be Hollywood's number one superstar.

This week's Entertainment Weekly ranks the 25 most controversial films of all time. Not surprisingly, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ came in at number one. Also on the list are JFK, A Clockwork Orange, Natural Born Killers, Basic Instinct and Fahrenheit 9/11, among others. Some of these films are controversial because of only one or two scenes. I mean, Clockwork is number 2 on the list, mainly because of its one violent scene. Does it belong there? On a list that spans the entire history of film?

So, I ask you: How should we rate controversial films on a list like this? Also, what makes one stand out from the next. Oh, and for fun, what are some of your favorite controversial films of all time?

The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is absolutely horrifying. Loaded with easy cynicism and even easier sadism, it's a beautifully orchestrated, ideological disaster that shoots for social commentary but settles for lowest-blow shock. From what I can tell, the film premiered at Cannes in 2005 and has been making the rounds of European film festivals ever since – making its inclusion in the Narrative Competition here somewhat curious. 25-year-old first-time writer-director Thomas Clay was scheduled to make an appearance at last night's Austin premiere, but failed to show – a bizarre move for a filmmaker seemingly so desperate to confront is audience.