There are a few classic films that I simply refused to rent while growing up, specifically for the reason that I knew I should see them for the first time on a big screen. Of these, I managed to see both 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner in a theater, while others, such as Lawrence of Arabia and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, were on television too often to ignore them on the small screen first. One film that I'm still dying to see in a theater is Terrence Malick's Badlands. A few years ago I actually went to a special screening of the film in Connecticut, but it was disappointingly (understatement) projected from a DVD copy. Then two months ago it played one show at NYC's IFC Center, but I had to miss it for another engagement.

Last week Entertainment Weekly presented an article/photo gallery titled "23 Movies You'd Like to See on the Big Screen," which lists these kinds of films (there's actually many more than 23 cited), most of which should ONLY be seen on the big screen, as they were originally meant to be. The list includes obvious epic choices like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, The Greatest Show on Earth and The Ten Commandments, as well as other classics, like Malick's Days of Heaven, Casablanca, Once Upon a Time in the West, Star Wars, High Society, Halloween, Singin' in the Rain, To Kill a Mockingbird, Psycho, Oklahoma!, The Music Man, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Searchers, Stagecoach and The French Connection.

If you thought leading a revolution was easy, try filming one. In The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere discusses Steven Soderbergh's two-part Che Guevara biopic, comprised of The Argentine and Guerilla. Despite earlier rumors to the contrary, it appears that both movies will definitely screen next month at the Cannes Film Festival, where Soderbergh was warmly welcomed last year for the premiere of Ocean's Thirteen. The reception of his latest project could be even more positive, but its distribution prospects are another story: As Wells explains, Soderbergh's project guarantees to offend some people for its apparent exclusion of Che's stint as the overlord at La Cabana fortress, where he ordered the execution of over 600 political prisoners. Add to that the heavy amount of Spanish dialog and the director's insistence that the two movies should be enjoyed as a four hour-plus package, and you've got enough red flags to send even the bravest U.S. distributors packing.

Wells, who read both scripts, analogizes the project to Lawrence of Arabia. "Hey, how about presenting the two films as a single, gargantuan Lawrence of Arabia-styled deal with an intermission, running between four or four and a half hours?" he suggests, perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Jon Stewart had it right during the Oscars this year when he ironically geeked out over Lawrence of Arabia on an iPod. If most audiences can't appreciate that movie on the big screen now, why would they turn up for something like this?

Getting tired of all this Clinton/Obama stuff yet? Look, regardless of who I'm voting for, I think it's pretty disgusting how some people compare Obama to a terrorist because of his name. A pimp? Totally. A terrorist. No. When asked what his three favorite movies of all time were, Obama recently named The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and Lawrence of Arabia. Not for nothing, but if you're running for President, do you think naming two Godfather films as your favorites might scare off a few people? Great films, no doubt, but in such a tight race why bring up your love for fictional mafia families?

Anyway, Obama also admitted that if a film based on his life were ever made, he'd want Will Smith to play him. Of course! Who wouldn't want Smith to play them in a film? Heck, I'd want Smith to play me too ... and I'm not even black! On why he'd want Smith and not, say, 50 Cent, Obama notes, "Will and I have talked about this because he has the ears!" Surprisingly, however, Smith is not one of Obama's favorite actors. They include Jimmy Stewart, Spencer Tracy, Humphrey Bogart, John Q. Obvious, Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon and Angela Bassett. Looks like someone's definitely got their groove back.

Firstshowing.net has Part One of a two-part guest post by Jason Kaleko on whether we are living in the Age of the Sequel, and if originality in Hollywood is dead as a doornail. Jason cites the AFI 100 and notes that only one film in the entire list is a sequel. True enough, but true also that a lot of them were based on existing source material -- they were not completely original ideas. Just looking at the Top Ten of that list: Casablanca was based off a play, Everybody Comes to Rick's; The Godfather was an adaptation of Mario Puzo's novel; Lawrence of Arabia was based off the writings of T.E. Lawrence, a British officer who spent time in Arabia from 1915-1918; and Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, The Graduate, Schindler's List were all book adaptations. The only truly original works in the Top Ten are Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront, and Singin' in the Rain -- which is not to say that the other films aren't good. It's certainly as much of an art form to adapt an exisiting work as it is to write from scratch.

I don't think there was really any more originality in Hollywood back in the "good old days" than there is now. Studios bought the rights to books, they hired screenwriters (or used underpaid screenwriting staff) to pen adaptations, they made the film. Perhaps it just seems more glaringly bad at the moment because of Hollywood's current love affair with comic-book adaptations and sequels of comic-book adaptations; that trend too, as all Hollywood trends must, will eventually have its end. In the meantime, there's still plenty of original film being made, even it most of it comes out of the indie world. We'll have to check back with First Showing next weeked to see what Jason has to say in Part Two; it feels like he's segueing into talking about indies.

In the meantime, though, what do you film fans and fanatics out there think? Is originality really dead in Hollywood? Or has the death of originality been greatly over-exaggerated?

Rumors have been swirling for ages about Baz Luhrmann's next film, codenamed "Project Oklahoma." Though the director hadn't previously said a damn thing about the movie, it's understood that Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe will star, and the word "epic" has been thrown around a lot. Now, thanks to a series of interviews Luhrmann recently gave the Australian press, we finally have some answers (and no, it's not a musical).

The untitled film will be set in Australia, and will take place between the mid-1930s and the Japanese bombing of Darwin during World War II. It will focus on native Australian locations rather than relying on effects and, though Luhrmann gave no details about the characters that Kidman and Crowe will play, he compared his film - which he's been discussing with the actors for nearly a decade - to Gone with the Wind (it's just that romantic) and Lawrence of Arabia (it's just that sprawling and gorgeous). Additionally, the director put out a casting call for "an indigenous boy, aged 7-10," who will reportedly play a major part in the movie.

The film's rumored budget is about $40 million Australian (almost $30 million US), and both of its stars are expected to take major pay cuts in order to appear. In order to beat the rainy season in northern Australia, shooting must being by this August; rehearsals will start as early as March.