GRADE: C | "Next" surprises in some ways, but not many.

Who'd have thought someone with the same wig worn by Tom Hanks in "The Da Vinci Code" could hook up with Jessica Biel?

Since 9/11, how many movies portray a French terrorist organization as being the one to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the U.S.?

In most other ways, "Next" is the same old shtick: the government needs help from a Las Vegas clairvoyant (Nicolas Cage) to prevent a nuclear disaster.

The movie is entertaining but hollow, with plot holes and a serious lack of personality.

To attract the few talented actors and disappointing box office numbers, the movie uses a now-patented questioning of reality and twist ending.

There is always a twist ending in this genre of movies, this genre being Phillip K. Dick novel adaptations.

Dick is responsible for the original works that spawned "Total Recall," "Blade Runner," "Minority Report," "A Scanner Darkly" and others. This film is arguably the worst of the lot.

"Next" is crafted from the 1954 short story, "The Golden Man." As I suspected in the theater, Cage's character, Cris Johnson, was originally an inhuman mutant. Even though the movie takes great liberties in reinterpreting the story, it leaves Johnson just as inhuman and just as creepy.

The closest I got to liking Cage's character was when he threw a nightstick into the middle of an empty hallway and hit an unsuspecting military recruit as he barges around a corner.

His scenes with Biel are disturbing because they lack chemistry. How should we react to Cage seducing Biel? She obviously has no chance when he can play every scenario in his head beforehand. Is there any way to make a character that sees into the future, albeit for only two minutes, likeable or capable of normal romance?

With his power, Johnson has no weakness, which is extremely disengaging, but it's not like the bad guys (introduced chewing tooth picks and muttering in French accents) have a chance anyway.

It's not surprising this is not the film to usher in the summer blockbusters; you don't have to see into the future to know that.

While surfing through Google news, I found, under the entertainment section, an article which turned my stomach ever so slightly.

Courtney Love has decided to auction off the possessions of her late husband, father of grunge rock, Kurt Cobain. This is one of those situations I read about and wonder: What is the reason behind this?

In an article published on BostonHerald.com, Love explains that money from the sales will go to charity, but some are wondering if she is simply using the opportunity to gain publicity.

I am reminded of recent past, when Love protested the release of the "With the Lights Out" Nirvana box set, which included the track "You know You're Right (supposedly an anthem to Cobain's hate for Love).

I can't say that Cobain's clothes are vastly important, but remember that grunge rock is a piece of Americana. Cobain still remains the staple of grunge and the rebellious attitude of the early ‘90s; selling his things seems to dampen the image.

Then again, what's an image to a grunge rocker?

The bottom line in this matter is that Love will do what she wants with what is legally hers, and the Nirvana fans will still continue to throw odes back to the time when torn flannel ruled the world.

If a person defines a music scene, remember the person and the ideas that came with the music, and don't let a scene dictate opinion.