With Kit Kittredge: An American Girl finally opening in limited release on Wednesday, it seemed like a good time to take a look at other films girls in the same age demographic might also enjoy. As a mother of three daughters, I like to seek out films that have strong female characters. So many of the roles for females in Hollywood either fall into blatant stereotypes or position young girls and women as existing on this planet primarily for the pleasures of the male half of the species, and I don't want my girls growing up believing the images of women they're exposed to through the media. Of course, everything in life doesn't have to have a political agenda -- what fun would that be? So some of these are just films my own daughters very much enjoy, that the girl in your life might like also.

Here are seven great films for fans of American Girl books and movies ... let me know what others I've missed that you like; with only seven slots to work with, I had to leave out a lot of films I otherwise would have included ...

He's not just a painfully loyal sidekick any more!

After helping Shia LaBeouf solve crimes while the dude was house-bound, Aaron Yoo got wacky, and then bet on some 21. And now, he has scored himself an even bigger gig -- Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend! The Hollywood Reporter posts that he has joined the cast of Labor Pains, which is currently in production. However, he's still not getting the nice end of the stick, because he gets to play fake dad.

As Erik told us earlier this month when La Lohan signed on, Labor Pains follows a young woman who fakes a pregnancy to keep her nasty, publishing house boss from canning her. So, poor Yoo gets to become a faux inseminator. I wonder what that entails. Will he have to run out to the store for fake cravings? IMDb's summary says that she gets special treatment from everyone, so I wonder just how everyone buys this, and how she pulls it off. It's not so easy to fake a sonogram, but even more -- wouldn't her man at least notice that her stomach wasn't growing? Unless she vows that pregnancy has made her supremely modest as she wears head-to-toe ensembles to cover her fake belly, I can't see how he wouldn't find out. Oh, but I'm sure the magic of movies will figure something out.

While I've neither seen Showgirls nor I Know Who Killed Me, I imagine the latter of the two stripper movies is not destined to be the same sort of camp classic as is the former. From what I gathered from the reviews and audience response, IKWKM is just plain bad -- not funny bad or entertaining bad or any other kind of bad that would be of interest to viewers of any kind. Nevertheless, the cable channel Starz is promoting its pay TV premiere of the Lindsay Lohan movie as something of a not-to-be-missed phenomenon of trash.

The ad, viewable in full over at Defamer, celebrates the movie's eight Razzie Award wins, particularly its esteem of being named Worst Picture and having Lohan named Worst Actress (Twice). Also included are quotes from negative reviews from Variety, eFilmCritic, Flick Filosopher, Quad City Times and the New York Daily News. Of course, the blurbs kind of say that IKWKM needs to be seen to be believed, which makes it sound like the movie is indeed entertaining bad. The eFilmCritic review (from Peter Sobczynski) even flat out claims the movie may be entertaining under the right circumstances.

Two things the ad misses, though, are the fact that the movie's eight Razzies was a record amount and the Rotten Tomatoes score of 8%. The former would aid in its cult-hopeful celebration, while the latter would put those reviews in more honest context. Also, as Stu at Defamer brilliantly points out, considering all of Starz Entertainment's many channels, the movie would be better suited for a new channel to be called "Flopz."

I Know Who Killed Me airs on Starz this Saturday, June 14, at 9pm.

... But will she remain onboard long enough to actually start shooting? Since the film begins production on June 9, La Lohan only has four days to fudge it up. (I think I know who's getting an extra prayer at meal time tonight!) Yes, according to Variety, Lindsay Lohan will star in Labor Pains, rescuing the film from "limbo," along with Nu Image/Millennium Films Overnight Productions. Capitol Films were originally set to finance the flick, but they've had money issues as of late (remember the whole "Nailed situation?").

Starring alongside Chris Parnell, Cheryl Hines (who's doing a TON of film work these days), Luke Kirby and Connie Britton, Lohan will play a publishing house assistant who fakes a pregnancy so that her "nasty" boss won't fire her. Seems like an odd premise for a film -- kinda Devil Wears Prada with a twist of ... fake pregnancy? Producer Rick Schwartz gave this nugget of a quote: "I didn't know Lindsay before this, but we looked each other in the eye three months ago, and she has done everything I could have asked."

Note to everyone else in the world: Look Lindsay in the eye and she'll fulfill your every wish and command.

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse for Lindsay Lohan, Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily reports that Lohan has been dropped from the true-life crime flick, Manson's Girls. According to DHD, "people associated with the movie told agents that Lohan quickly became more of a deficit than an asset when they discovered that they couldn't find any name actresses who wanted to co-star with her. (And even some name actors...) So now Lindsay is off the pic."

Ouch, that can't be good for her self-esteem, although the gossip gal in me would have liked to hear the names of some of those "name actors".

I just had to share this picture with you guys, which was nabbed from a collect of orange-tee pics up over at Just Jared. Doesn't it seem like we just went back in time? If Lindsay Lohan wasn't sporting the blonde locks in the picture above, it almost looks like this was taken during the good old days of Lohan, when she was a popular, upcoming actress, rather than a girl struggling with personal problems and tabloid frenzies.

As I told you the other day, Lindsay will have a short stint on the show, starting with the season finale this year. She's playing an old classmate of Betty's who was bitchy to Betty back in the day, but is now down on her luck.

I think this might just be the way for LiLo to work on her career -- not something that regresses her back to kid fare, but something that merges her pre-struggle past with the hopes of her present. I could be fooling myself, but it'd be nice to see the tide change for the troubled ex child stars we hear about so much these days.

Watch out, TV land -- there's another tabloid princess on the horizon. Britney Spears' stint on How I Met Your Mother brought in a ton of viewers, and now Lindsay Lohan is getting her shot. After rumors broke last fall, Variety reports that the actress will have a guest spot on ABC's Ugly Betty. Unlike Spears, who started off with brief role, and is now reprising it, Lohan has signed on to do an extended gig. LiLo will pop up in Betty's May 22 season finale, plus another 5 episodes next season, and she's already begun filming her first stint.

It seems that LiLo will play an old schoolmate of Betty Suarez (America Ferrera). "Lohan's character was not particularly nice to Betty back then, but when the two bump into each other in the finale, Lohan's character is down on her luck, in sharp contrast to Betty's glamorous and promising career at Gotham fashion mag, Mode." Hmm... That sounds a bit familiar!

I must say -- I prefer this to the strippage, and this could be good for the actress -- re-proving her acting chops in something simple, to an already established audience, rather than mis-guided movie choices. (Although Ye Olde Times is a good pick.) Now we'll have to see if she can bring in the same audiences that Britney scored.

It was almost a year ago that Lindsay Lohan claimed she wanted to be a serious actress, one who wins an Oscar. Soon after, she signed on to play a stripper in I Know Who Killed Me. To be more precise -- a stripper who gets tortured and her legs cut off. Somehow, Lohan didn't see how the hope and the action clashed. Now it seems that she's trying to make a better post-rehab go of things, but she's still completely set on this ridiculous notion that nudity equals respectability. First she redos classic Marilyn Monroe nude shots, and now some reports say that she's going to show more skin for an upcoming film called Florence.

Ace Showbiz says that the actress has signed on to play a sex-addicted waitress in the film, and that Star Magazine claims that she is going to get naked for the role. Why? "Further, it was said that the actress/singer took the opportunity to play the controversial role to show others she still has her acting skills. To the publication, a source revealed, 'She just wants to remind people she can act and she's worth hiring.'"

Lindsay, oh Lindsay... If this is true, I hope someone out there sits you down and at least tries to make you understand this: Showing skin does not equal respectability. It will not magically wipe away your past turmoil. It will not make people think more of you. What will prove you have the talent -- acting! You don't need to strip to do it. You need to pick a film with a good role and then reveal the acting talents you're determined to showcase. Please -- keep your clothes on.

Entertainment Tonight reports that Lindsay Lohan will star in the true life crime film Manson's Girls. Lohan will play Nancy Pitman, a pampered surfer girl who fell under the thrall of Charlie Manson's "charms". News of Lohan's casting hit when the film's producer, Brad Wyman, spilled the beans to ET. (I guess she has a thing for 'celebrity murderers'; I mean she's already in a film about John Lennon's murderer (Chapter 27), and now the granddaddy of all wackos?)

On August 8th, 1969, Charles Manson directed four members of his 'Family' to the home of an absent Roman Polanski and his pregnant girlfriend Sharon Tate. By the morning, Manson's followers had brutally murdered five people (including Tate). Pitman never took part in the brutal murders of Tate and four other people that night. But, she was eventually charged with being an accessory after the fact and served 18 months. There were even rumors that she returned to the Tate house with Manson after the murders to help plant false evidence.

So far, there isn't much info about the film, but since the title is Manson's Girls, I can only assume that they are going to need to hire a few more gals to fill out the cast. Likely, to take on the roles of Manson devotees Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian. Not to mention who is going to play the head loon himself, Charlie. So while Girls might have the potential to be a half decent movie, the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Especially if Manson's Girls turns into some horrible hybrid of Helter Skelter and I Know Who Killed Me.

Do you want to see a film about the Manson girls? And shouldn't it be called Manson Girls Gone Wild?

The most annoying thing about following movie news and patronizing film festivals is the pesky waiting. You hear about a film, you get excited, and then you wait. And then you wait more. Once you hit that 365-day mark, it's no longer just an exercise of patience, but trying to come to terms with the fact that you might never see the movie at all, or might never see the movie again. It seemed that this is what would happen with Chapter 27, which premiered back in January of 2007, but now, finally, the film is going into limited release this week.

To refresh your memory: this is the film about John Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, and details the days that lead up to the infamous day. It's got Lindsay Lohan pre-clean up, and Jared Leto all body-morphed. In an interview with New York Daily News, Leto talks about morphing into the pudgy killer, and his take on the role.