Two things I enjoyed about Definitely, Maybe, which came out on DVD today: the cheesy jokes about New York City in the early '90s and the fact that it is a chick flick for guys. What I mean by the latter is that the movie seems targeted to females yet it caters more to the male viewer. It's basically a male fantasy: Ryan Reynolds tells the story of how he dated three beautiful women (played by Isla Fisher, Rachel Weisz and Elizabeth Banks), one of whom he married and later divorced -- meaning he's now single again. And he also got a cute, precocious daughter (Abigail Breslin) out of the deal who becomes beneficial to him in his return to bachelorhood.

But then is it really a chick flick? I guess it is if you count romantic comedies in that grouping, though the genre has never necessarily been aligned with the term, nor vice versa. And in the age of Judd Apatow, it's more likely that any new romantic comedy is actually a guy movie. Do many men realize it's a movie for them, though? Probably not. Though chick flicks are typically movies primarily populated by women characters and/or a female protagonist (think Steel Magnolias), romance films not made by either Apatow or the Farrelly brothers may be thought of as being for the ladies, even if they feature a male lead, like Reynolds in Definitely, Maybe.

I'll admit I've always been confused about chick flicks as a term. I apparently enjoy many so-called chick flicks, including even (especially) Beaches. So, I may not be using the term correctly in this list. However, I am a guy and I know what guys want. So, I'm going to do this my way, and answer the following question: What other films may have been initially perceived by males as being made for chicks but which turned out to be more for them (us)?

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.

He's portrayed a few iconic characters, including Shakespeare's Romeo and Howard Hughes, but could Leonardo DiCaprio be taken seriously as an iconic superhero? Specifically the Sentinel of Liberty -- Captain America? According to Latino Review (a site well-known and typically respected for its accuracy with rumors of this sort), Marvel Studios has placed Leo on the top of their list of candidates for the role. Of course, there's been no offer made yet, and this is simply the same sort of wish list we heard about for Thor (Brad Pitt is the top of that list), so there's no need to get crazy over the possibility ... yet.

Speaking of Pitt, Marvel apparently has placed him as second on their list for Cap. They either want him for The First Avenger: Captain America or Thor. Maybe they'll even offer him the roles of Ant-Man and everyone else in The Avengers (it would be like this, but with Pitt playing all the roles instead of Johnny Depp). There's no mention of who is #3. It could be Matthew McConaughey, who was rumored to be considered before. Or, it could be George Washington. Yes, the real G.W., first President of the United States. Not only is he perfectly relevant for the part, but I think Marvel has as good a chance of casting him as they do of casting Leo.

What makes a film romantic? Is it the setting, the dialogue, the actors, the sex? And when your snuggling up next to your significant other this Valentine's Day, which films will you prefer to slide into the DVD player? Moviefone has assembled the definitive list -- the top 25 romance films of all time -- and now it's up to you to decide what they got right, what they got wrong and what they didn't get at all. Of course, Casablanca tops off the list at number one (is there a list in which Casablanca is not featured in the numero uno spot?), but following closely behind are Titanic (#2), Wuthering Heights (#3), An Affair to Remember (#4) and Gone with the Wind (#5). Obviously, when we're talking romance flicks, they don't make them like they used to.

When it comes to films made within the past few years, we don't find one until Brokeback Mountain shows up at number 12, followed by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind at number 15, and last year's Atonement at 18. Personally, I have a few issues with placement -- not so much with the films themselves -- like why Sleepless in Seattle is at 25 when it should've been higher. Films that didn't make the cut? Surprisingly, not many romantic comedies made the list. Even though they rely more on humor, some of us enjoy a little laughter with our cheesy romance. That being said, why not throw When Harry Met Sally a bone? Or even last year's Knocked Up? Either way, let us know what you think about the list below -- which films belong in different spots, which don't belong on the list at all and which are your favorites?

An article over at Cinema Blend reminds me that today marks the tenth anniversary of the opening of the biggest film in history, Titanic. Movie studios are still scratching their heads over that one -- how did a downer, a period piece, a movie with unknowns and a runtime of over three hours smash the box-office records so profoundly that even today's globular, 'one-size fits all so bring the entire family' movies like Shrek and Harry Potter haven't even come close to touching its title? When you look at the all-time list, you see that the number two film, Star Wars, is way, way behind the champ, with only a paltry $460 million domestic compared to Titanic's $600 million. Shrek 2, massive, massive hit that it was, and bringing in every possible demographic no doubt, couldn't come anywhere close to touching Titanic. The best it could do was hit the number three slot. The Spider-Man and Harry Potter films aren't even contenders.

When it comes to international box-office, Titanic also still reigns supreme, although Lord of the Rings: Return of the King gave it a run for its money, raking in $1.1 billion to Titanic's $1.8 billion. Still, the champ remains untouched. Stop and think about that -- even globally, its numbers can't be touched. So, I'm seriously asking -- what was it about that movie that so profoundly moved audiences and demanded multiple viewings on an unprecedented scale. And that's what did it, by the way -- common sense dictates that Titanic's demographic base was statistically narrow, meaning the fans basically went time after time after time. Five times, ten times, or more. Were you one of those people?

According to a story in The New York Times (who, surprisingly enough, have appeared to scoop the scoopers, and their scoopers), The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will announce today that Jon Stewart will be invited back to host the Oscars this year. The event, which is scheduled to air on ABC this coming February 24, will mark Stewart's second time hosting; he last took the reigns reins back in 2006. Although this is The New York Times, I do have to throw out the requisite "rumor" warning since they claim their sources are "two people involved with the plan who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the news media." And I imagine those two people would suffer a major beatdown if someone were to find out who they were. It was you Colbert! Wasn't it! Damn you! Damn you I say!

So now we have to raise the obvious question: Should Stewart be back? Last time out the man was fairly well received, but not according to the numbers. Last year, Ellen DeGeneres helped score the show 39.9 million viewers, whereas Stewart took in only 38.9 million. Compared to Chris Rock's 42.1 million in 2005 and Billy Crystal's whopping 55 million in 1998 (when Titanic was pretty much guaranteed to win everything -- and it did!), Stewart doesn't seem like the obvious choice ... on paper. But he's a likable enough guy, his jokes and mannerisms are usually pretty funny, and he's tame. He'll most likely be asked, once again, to hold back on all the political humor -- everything will be fine and dandy -- and we'll live-blog the whole thing. Sweet. Now all Hollywood needs is a big fall, because nothing looks appetizing from a viewer's standpoint thus far. And Stewart had Brokeback Mountain (as well as all the jokes that went along with it) back in 2006; will anything even come close this year. I doubt it. What do you think?

Chemistry -- you can be the best filmmaker, writer or actor, but nothing makes up for a lack of that intangible connection between two people. This is probably why so many actors can't keep up long relationships -- they continually get paired up with people they have great chemistry with and are weakened by temptation over and over until they can't help but break the ties that bind and go libidinously nuts. Oh, the devilish temptation! But on the flip-side, there are pairings that are just plain crappy -- painfully free of that interest and attraction that comes from the eyes. The CBC has reported that British cinema advertisers Pearl and Dean recently conducted a survey asking 3,000 movie-goers which duos have the worst on-screen chemistry, and came up with a list of the 10 worst offenders.

The top spots are no big surprise, really -- the 5th went to Catherine Zeta Jones and Sean Connery in Entrapment, the 4th to Madonna and Adriano Giannini in Swept Away, Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom got the third spot with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, the runners up were the rockin' Bennifer pair for Gigli and the top spot went to Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen with Episode II: Attack of the Clones. I'd say they're pretty spot on, although my top offender are the two that hold that third spot, and I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks so. Granted, Johnny Depp can whip up some chemistry with almost anyone, which makes it hard to compete, but man, I hated Knightley and Bloom together. This also made many parts of the final film truly annoying, if you get my drift. Also, you've got to question your real-life couple choices when you can't cook up chemistry at work, with your significant other.

Finishing the list, there's Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell in the 6-spot with Four Weddings and a Funeral, Ben Affleck appeared again at 7 with Kate Beckinsale for Pearl Harbor, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman got 8 with Eyes Wide Shut, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal followed with Brokeback Mountain and Titanic got the final, 10th spot, with stars Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. Who would you pick?

After Jack succumbed to the icy waters of the Atlantic Ocean, did you ever think you'd get to see him reunited with Rose? (Aside from that weird ending, I mean). Well, ten years after Titanic, you can now at least see Leo reunited with Kate in this new still from the upcoming movie Revolutionary Road. We've already shown you some photos from the set of the movie, but this is the first in which the actor and actress are seen together. And isn't it wonderful? So, they don't really look anything like Jack and Rose anymore, and so, the time period is 40 years later -- just seeing those kids embracing brings tears to my eyes. Of course, there isn't much going on in the photograph other than Leo and Kate holding each other (are they dancing?). Someone could have just taken a pic of the actors in downtime sharing a hug and we'd have the same effect.

Directed by Kate's husband, Sam Mendes, Revolutionary Road tells of a bored, suburban married couple who move to France in order to find new fulfillment in life. Sounds kinda like Mendes' American Beauty mixed with Do Not Disturb. The script is by Justin Haythe, who penned the underrated Robert Redford movie The Clearing, and it is based on the novel from Richard Yates, co-writer of the 1969 war movie The Bridge at Remagen. In addition to reuniting Les o and Kate, the film also reunites the two with fellow Titanic star Kathy Bates. Kate also gets to work with her husband for the first time and she again gets to work with child actor Ty Simkins, who we last saw in Little Children as Patrick Wilson's son -- this time he plays Kate's (and Leo's) son. Revolutionary Road doesn't hit theaters for another 17 months, so hopefully the single photo satisfies you for awhile.

"This list...is an absolute good." Well, it's an absolute "pretty good." As I told you yesterday, the American Film Institute has refreshed its "100 Years ... 100 Movies" list. From a master list of 400 films, a panel that included directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers, critics, and historians, selected their top 100 choices. The original list came out in 1998, and last night's special taught us that apparently not many great films have been released since then! The new poll allowed voters to select movies released between 1996 and 2006 for the first time. Of the newly eligible films, only Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, The Sixth Sense, and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring were added. Steven Spielberg was the director with the most films on the list, with five. Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and Billy Wilder each had four. James Stewart and Robert DeNiro were the most represented actors, with five films apiece. You can check out the list for yourself here.

I can sit and watch these things for hours. I don't care how many times I hear about the shark not working, I still love it. But to be honest, last night's special was a bit dull. These lists tend to be painfully predictable, and this was no exception. Citizen Kane was ranked #1 yet again, and the only major additions to the Top 10 were Raging Bull (jumping from #24 to #4) and Vertigo (jumping from #61 to #9). New to the 2007 list are the following films: The General, Intolerance, Nashville, Sullivan's Travels, Cabaret, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Shawshank Redemption, In The Heat of the Night, All the President's Men, Spartacus, Sunrise, A Night at the Opera, 12 Angry Men, Swing Time, Sophie's Choice, The Last Picture Show, Blade Runner, Toy Story and -- a special cheers to this one -- Do the Right Thing, though it came in at a pretty weak #96.

Titles that were removed from the 1998 list are: Doctor Zhivago, Birth of a Nation, From Here to Eternity, Amadeus, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Third Man, Fantasia, Rebel Without a Cause, Stagecoach, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Manchurian Candidate, An American in Paris, Wuthering Heights, Dances With Wolves, Giant, Mutiny on the Bounty, Frankenstein (1931), Patton, The Jazz Singer, My Fair Lady, A Place in the Sun, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and Fargo. Make of those additions and subtractions what you will, but show me one person who'd rather watch Intolerance than Fargo, and I'll show you someone who is no friend of mine.

The 2007 summer movie season hasn't even begun yet, but we're already receiving news about release date competition for 2009. Yes, 2009. It wasn't enough that we saw such premature territorial battling over Memorial Day, 2008 (Indiana Jones and the Fourth Installment vs. Speed Racer); the studios had to go and start the claim for that kick-off holiday of a whole two years away. There is something more significantly different about this battle, though. Both of the movies scheduled for release on Memorial day in 2009 will only be exhibited in the new 3-D format. 20th Century Fox has James Cameron's Avatar duking it out against Dreamworks Animation's Monsters vs. Aliens, which is being planned as that studio's first release to play exclusively in 3-D.

The reason that this is such a noteworthy conflict is that in 2009 there may not be enough 3-D-equipped screens to handle simultaneous 3-D releases. The expected amount of screens that will be able to accommodate a 3-D movie at that time is 5,000 (currently there are only 700 screens able to do so), which doesn't even meet the demands of Dreamworks' Jeffrey Katzenberg, who claims he needs 6,000 screens for Monsters. And since Cameron's film is now being said to have a budget close to $200 million, it is assumed that Fox will have a similar demand for its own title. Obviously one of the films will need to move, and it will likely be Monsters. With Avatar being Cameron's first film since Titanic, it is certainly the more eagerly awaited picture and is therefore the most powerful. Expect an announcement sometime in the next year that states that Monsters will relocate to June.