Between the controversy surrounding the proposed local laws in California against circumcision. and the Weinergate scandal, so far the month of June can be called the month of the schmeckel (Yiddish for penis).  There has been more schmeckel talk in the main stream media over the past two weeks, than occurs in an eight grade lunch room in an all boys school during the course of an entire school year.

Thankfully there will probably be no more Weiner’s wiener pictures released (even though the nightmares remain), and after a leader of the anti-circumcision movement published a blatantly anti-Semitic comic book (called Foreskin Man), the ballot initiative to ban childhood circumcision Santa Monica was dropped. The San Francisco initiative still remains on the ballot.

Sadly the movement against circumcision is not over and Academy Award winning actor Russell Crow, has decided to join in on the “fun” with an anti-circumcision rant on twitter.

A Crowe follower told the Australian celebrity that he was expecting a son soon, and asked for his input on whether he should have his baby circumcised.

Crowe responded harshly, saying that “circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?”

The actor added that “babies are perfect” when they are born. Crowe later said that he “will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man’s interpretation of what God requires.”

(more…)

Something Hollywood does very well is in the using of their formidable talents to turn despicable human beings into something that resembles a lovable folk hero. I’m a fan of Milos Forman’s “The People vs. Larry Flynt.” Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love are both terrific in the lead roles and the well-paced, well-written story succeeds in taking you into the subculture of Flynt’s sordid but undeniably fascinating life. But the Academy Award-nominated picture (actor, director) is pure propaganda. We’re masterfully manipulated into seeing Flynt as an imperfect rogue – our protagonist —  fighting for high ideals like the First Amendment. Through the power of the script and Harrelson’s performance, we’re also forced to side with, sympathize, and even be charmed by someone who at his very essence is nothing more than a depraved pornographer.

Furthermore, by manipulating us to take Flynt’s side we then start to excuse his despicable behavior and look at the way in which he coarsens our culture and exploits, objectifies, and denigrates women (two goals Leftist Hollywood has been pushing for decades) as patriotic pursuits of liberty — as opposed to what they really are.

Below is a look at the demonic heart of the real Larry Flynt, an anti-human nihilist with a cruel streak that takes your breath away just as it did the person interviewing him:

Sarah Palin is the dumbest thing. But I made a fortune off of her. [He made a porn film called Nailin' Palin, based on her],” he said.

Then, he went after Trig, saying, “She did a disservice to every woman in America. She knew from the first month of pregnancy that kid was going to be Down’s Syndrome. It’s brain dead. A virtual vegetable.”

(more…)

A pretty good year with a few movies that I would classify as great. The most popular movies were “Home Alone” and “Ghost,” the first of which inspired three sequels and the latter of which inspired what I still contend is the funniest movie trailer of all time.  The Oscars were particularly competitive and geeks are still mad about the outcome.

The nominees:

Dances With Wolves: I love it, but then my Indian name is Struggles with White Guilt.

Ghost: I distinctly remember thinking, really? Ghost? Really?! I don’t dislike it, but it wasn’t exactly Oscar bait. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Awakenings: Mmmmmm, L Dopa. Yummy, delicious L Dopa.

Goodfellas: Scorsese’s career seemed to build to this and plateau with this. I love some early Scorsese, and I love some later Scorsese. But this is the centerpiece of his career, in my opinion.

The Godfather Part III: Okay. Really? Really?!!! There were about a hundred gangster movies released in 1990, so it was practically unavoidable that two of them would wind up Best Picture Nominees, but seriously?

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED

(more…)

***UPDATE: Gov. Huckabee’s released a statement:

“I was asked about Oscar-winner Natalie Portman’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar trophy and I am glad she will marry her baby’s father. However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not “slam” or “attack” Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country.”

I agree that the use of the terms “attack” and “slam” go too far — which is why I was careful to use “criticize” in the headline. I also agree he didn’t criticize her or anyone else for being a single mother. I didn’t criticize either the Governor or Medved for that. My issue was their contention that Portman was somehow promoting single motherhood. Furthermore, I also think singling the Governor out as most outlets have done is unfair, which is why I included Michael Medved in both the story and the headline. However, if you read the transcript, Huckabee does make it sound as though Portman “boasted” about her situation, which I found unfair and which lays the rest of his statement at her feet, at least in part. This was the focus of my criticism.

***END UPDATE

In the past and with great relish I’ve criticized Natalie Portman on this site for her political musings, and I couldn’t agree more that glamorizing single motherhood and downplaying the necessity of the father is as destructive to our society as anything. Dan Quayle was absolutely right in criticizing “Murphy Brown” and after all the snotty left-wing snarking quieted, I think we can all agree that history acquitted Quayle — even Murphy Brown herself admitted the former Vice President was correct. Natalie Portman, however, is not Murphy Brown. She never glamorized single motherhood. If anything, she glamorized motherhood, and that’s all the difference in the world.

And so, as much as I respect and personally admire Michael Medved and Governor Mike Huckabee, it’s impossible for me to defend either against the criticism they’re facing. Their misguided attack on Ms. Portman wasn’t only unfair, it played right into the hands of almost every negative stereotype of the social, religious conservative there is.

—–

For starters, unlike Murphy Brown, Portman is not a fictional character. She’s a living, breathing human being who has just been unfairly singled out and held up for a public shaming. Secondly, she’s been with the father of her child for two years now and the two of them are currently engaged and appear to be very much in love. Only in its narrowest meaning does the term “single mother” even apply here. In the real world, Portman is not on her own and the child does and will have a father in its life. 

(more…)

I can’t honestly say this was the worst Oscar telecast in history.  I was only born in 1984, and only started watching the Oscars in 1991.  But I can say with certainty that this was the worst Oscar telecast since then.  Let’s break it down piece by piece. 

The Hosts:  You had to feel for Anne Hathaway, who was obviously trying her best to get through this third-grade Olympics presentation with a modicum of class.  Her cutesy charm wore as the night went on, and no number of outfit switches could disguise her discomfort with her position onstage.  Hathaway, more than anyone else in the building, knew she didn’t belong up there.  Too bad she didn’t figure that out before accepting the host role. 

As the evening dragged itself on like a wounded baby seal clubbed repeatedly with Keira Knightley’s jaw, James Franco became more and more fascinating.  Was he high?  Was he drunk?  Was this another piece of odd performance art by an elitist “artiste” who bears a stronger resemblance to Ashton Kutcher than to a real actor?  

Leaning back on his heels, his beady eyes darting side to side with creepy glee, Franco bore a striking resemblance to Muammar Qaddafi.  To be fair, he wasn’t given decent material to work with, but he butchered the material he did have to work with.  Each time the camera trained on him, his oddly self-satisfied smirk plastered across his mug, I couldn’t help but laugh hysterically.  Eventually he had to break character, didn’t he?  

Or was he the character?  Is Franco that colorless, that arrogant, that weird?  The mystery continues. 

(more…)

Last night’s Oscar show was so stunningly awful that even though I had to be up and out of the house by 4 AM this morning, the stink of the whole program couldn’t be allowed to stand before I hit the hay. Washing it off took a double feature of “Annie Hall” and Manhattan” that lasted long after midnight but was well worth it after that embarrassing catastrophe.  To no one’s surprise, last night’s viewership was 7% below an already anemic 2010. Worst still, the youthful 18-49 year-old demographic Oscar hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway were specifically hired to lure, dropped even lower, a full 15%.

The problems with last night’s show were legion, and much of the media agrees that what we might’ve witnessed could well rate as the worst  Oscar telecast ever.  My memory isn’t good enough to say that for sure, but that the show was dreadful isn’t in dispute and while a post-mortem isn’t what this write-up is about, I will say that James Franco’s arrogant, sleepy, cooler-than-thou attitude that forced the usually delightful Anne Hathaway to over-compensate with the cute factor, was only half the problem. The other half was in the producing (and writing). This was a horribly produced three-plus hours. But rather than complain further, I’m going to offer constructive suggestions. No one cares what I think. I get that. But I’m going to offer them anyway.

1. The Host

The host is crucial, not only to the success of the overall show but also to the ratings. The cynical grab of Franco and Hathaway in an effort to attract younger voters was beyond stupid. Neither is a standalone box office draw, neither has captured America’s imagination, and both are inter-changeable as a dozen or so other actors in that same age range. I hate to tell Hollywood this, but (and the ratings back me up) young people aren’t stupid. They really don’t want to “watch people their own age” host the Oscars. Like the rest of us, they want to watch a good show. Upon hearing Franco and Hathaway were hosting this year, even the squealiest of teenagers was likely as confused  by that choice as the rest of us.

There’s two ways to go with a host.

(more…)

1. Best Picture: “The King’s Speech.”

2. Actor: Colin Firth, “The King’s Speech.”

3. Actress: Natalie Portman, “Black Swan.”

4. Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, “The Fighter.”

5. Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, “The Fighter.”

6. Directing: Tom Hooper, “The King’s Speech.”

7. Foreign Language Film: “In a Better World,” Denmark.

8. Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network.”

9. Original Screenplay: David Seidler, “The King’s Speech.”

(more…)

So, the Academy Award nominations have been announced, and you know what that means: another article about lack of diversity in Academy Award nominations.

CNN.com points out that even Javier Bardem, up for best actor, doesn’t count, because he’s “European.”

Making him white – and of course, a monster.

Anyway, CNN frets that the diversity among movie audiences isn’t reflected in the awards, something I’d like to agree with, since I hate Hollywood.

I mean, Tinseltown is a place where if you’re in the military, you’re a psycho; if you’re from a square state, you bully gays; and if you wear a suit, you’re racist. The only person who retains any nobility in a Hollywood film these days are animated and transgendered.

So it’s fun to see the film industry get a dose of their own medicine.

Except, it’s wrong.

To me, it’s racist to assume a diverse audience expects “diverse” movies. Meaning, blacks can’t enjoy The Social Network because everyone is white; and Greeks will hate Black Swan, because the ballerinas aren’t hairy.

Fact is, all people want the same thing – good movies that tell great stories – color be damned.

Here’s my solution: get a diversity expert to assign the roles. Why couldn’t Mark Zuckerberg be played by a Korean lesbian? Frankly, The Kings Speech would have been far more entertaining if said King was played by that big gal from Precious.

(more…)

Near the end of the new drama “Conviction,” Betty Anne Waters (Hillary Swank) says that “people don’t like to admit” to their own mistakes. The movie features a series of bad decisions made by law enforcement officials, jury members and a local politician that ultimately kept an innocent man in prison for over two decades. To confront the mistakes that landed her brother in prison, Betty Anne decides to earn her law degree so that she can defend her brother in court. Her story is told in “Conviction,” a well-made and well-acted film that is unafraid to make accusations against people who stood in the way of justice.   

Hilary Swank, winner of two Academy Awards, is no stranger to good scripts and “Conviction” has a great one. Betty Anne is a young mother with a reckless brother named Kenny (Sam Rockwell) who is constantly in trouble and getting arrested by the local police. After a while, he starts joking about all of his arrests, jokes that will come back to haunt him in the years to come.

The police eventually arrest Kenny on a murder charge for a crime that took place a few years earlier. This charge is no laughing matter and Kenny is soon sentenced to life in prison. Betty Anne, who knows that her brother is a fool but no murderer, believes that Kenny is innocent and decides to fight for his vindication as his attorney.

However, when she makes this decision, she isn’t a lawyer. Actually, she’s not even a high school graduate yet. (more…)

“Filmmaking is a trauma that is akin to combat,” says James Cameron. Anyone who has ever attempted to make a movie knows exactly what he is talking about. Loads of money is on the line with little guarantee of success. Dozens of personalities need to be managed, many of them with ideas and egos in conflict with the director’s vision for the picture. The hours are brutal, the conditions often cold, hot, dirty, or dangerous, and before long everyone is perpetually exhausted. On a film set, a particularly nasty strain of Murphy’s Law reigns: anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and at exactly the most inopportune moment.

The vast majority of people making movies soon find themselves happy to get any semblance of a decent shot in the can for editing later — never mind genius imagery, they’re just happy to have escaped with their lives. That genuine entertainment, never mind genuine art, is created in this environment is nothing short of a miracle. It takes a person of singular mind and indefatigable intensity, someone who refuses to accept defeat or take “no” or “impossible” for an answer, sometimes dozens of times every day for months on end.

In the documentary Superior Firepower: The Making of ‘Aliens’ (found on some DVD versions of the movie), one can see various members of the crew gingerly handling the subject of James Cameron’s reputation as a hard, unforgiving taskmaster on his sets.“He didn’t know any other way to work,” said Jenette Goldstein, who played Vasquez in Aliens. “He wasn’t going to waste anyone’s time or money. And he expected no one to waste his.” Prompted to explain the crew’s animosity towards Cameron, Sigourney Weaver deadpanned that, “They were big Ridley fans.” The late Stan Winston, special effects and creature creator extraordinaire, called Cameron’s Aliens set a “tough, demanding atmosphere,” before musing that the director was “cursed with a vision.” In the thick of war, little heed is paid to how genteelly orders are given — why would filmmaking be any different? (more…)

It’s safe to say that the contest for the Academy Award’s best picture Oscar was never any deeper than a three horse race: The Hurt Locker, Avatar and Up in the Air were the frontrunners all along. As the weeks and months have progressed, it has become more and more apparent that Jason Reitman’s touching drama about a layoff artist looking for love has dropped off the radar. Two horses have pulled ahead as we head into the straightaway.

And it’s Avatar by a nose! If history is any indication, James Cameron’s eco-action flick will be the big winner at the industry’s annual self-love fest. Three main factors point to the bloated opus taking home the best picture statue.

First off, it’s a box office smash. Now, that doesn’t always translate into gold at the Oscars – see last year’s unconscionable failure to even nominate The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s critically praised film that was, at the time, the second-highest grossing film of all time – but it’s a pretty solid indicator. (more…)

—–

James Cameron on why he might lose the Oscar for Best Director to Katherine Bigelow: “I would say that it’s an irresistible opportunity for the Academy to anoint a female director for the first time. I would say that that’s, you know, a very strong probability and I will be cheering when that happens.”

Cameron’s been running around practically begging the Academy to split the difference and award Bigelow with the director Oscar and “Avatar” with best picture. At first he sounded gracious but now I’m not so sure. You get the impression that he wants to position himself as the man who bestowed the award on Bigelow, or at least volunteered to get out of her way, as opposed to losing to her fair and square — and the above interview with MTV appears to back that up.

“[A]n irresistible opportunity to anoint a female director.”

What? Anoint? (more…)

Listening to National Public Radio handicap the Academy Award Best Actress Nominees, it’s clear that media and Hollywood elites think the movie The Blind Side has too much mass appeal and not enough edginess to win any serious awards.  Within hours of the announcement of Oscar nominations, the Hollywood press had mostly condescending analysis of Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a real-life suburban woman who intervenes in a troubled teenager’s life.  ABC News went so far to ask on February 3, “Does Sandra Bullock Deserve an Oscar for Blind Side?”  For the super-cool Hollywood types, Leigh Anne is just too simple.  For them, straight forward and inspiring is boring.  They think church-attending Republicans from the South are not hip enough for an Academy Award.  However, despite the fact that Bullock’s performance continues to inspire millions of moviegoers around the world, few filmmakers in Hollywood seem impressed enough to reward her an Oscar. 

The divide between those who attend movies and those who make movies has never been wider.  While serious Hollywood types spend most of their time, energy and money on movies that trivialize the experiences of middle America, Middle America spends its time and money on movies that celebrate what it is to be an American.  Capitalism is good for Hollywood executives, but it’s under assault in the scripts being written.  American military men and women are celebrated as heroes on Main Street, but they are overwhelmingly portrayed as killers in the movies that Hollywood produces.  And while Hollywood is tremendously liberal, the rest of America is not.  (more…)

Our newest film in this series, 1931’s The Champ, marks the first time we begin our study not with a director but with a writer. Not to say that the director didn’t have a great deal to do with the success of the film — he most certainly did, and (as the title of this post hints) we will review that contribution in good time. But in the case of The Champ, it was the writer who was primarily responsible for the rich familial tone and heart-rending melodrama for which this touching little film (only 86 minutes) is best known and remembered.

The Champ is that rare film that features a pair of strong male leads doing masculine things in a masculine universe, but with nuanced and delicate characterizations that delve far deeper than the usual sports movie, tearing at the raw edges of what it means to be a parent in an imperfect world, to live through the tragedy of a broken family, and to suffer the premature loss of childhood innocence. On the surface, these subjects would seem ill at home in one of the most famous boxing movies of all time. But The Champ is not based on a true story, or cribbed from a famous novel — it was wholly conceived in the mind of the screenwriter. And not just any screenwriter, but the most prolific (and arguably one of the greatest) in Hollywood history. Who was he, you ask?

Well, first of all, he was a she. (more…)

Could this be true?

Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie’s seal of approval.

“She hates him,” a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).

“She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise,” adds the source.

But don’t expect to see the Salt actress rally against Democrats on Fox News like her staunch Republican father, Jon Voight.

“Angie isn’t Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors,” the source says.

(more…)

This week, as the buildup to the upcoming movie “G.I. Joe” continues, the L.A. Times claimed that…

Yet overseas, where big action films often earn 60% or more of their ticket sales, rah-rah American sentiment doesn’t play well. So those references have vanished from the advertising.

Big Hollywood’s John Nolte gave that theory a thorough fisking, providing numbers showing that while “rah-rah America” movies aren’t guaranteed big foreign box-office returns, they aren’t automatically guaranteed to fail. He also points out that many “anti-rah rah” movies have even less appeal.

Oh, is it still okay to say “foreign?” Just checking, seeing as many schools are replacing “foreign language” departments with World Language departments. We’re all just one, big, happy World Family, right?

Okay, back to the topic at hand. John’s post got me to thinking. If anti-war movies such as “Rendition” and “A Mighty Heart,” despite the hype and the A-list star roster didn’t bring in the beaucoup bucks, how about anti-American movies made by one of the biggest anti-Americans on the planet, Michael Moore? (more…)

Only a tiresome poseur like Quentin Tarantino could think that the Hollywood pretty boys he cast in his soon-to-be released opus The Inglorious Basterds are convincing movie tough guys. Where is Lee Marvin when we need him?

You’ve probably experienced the Basterds publicity blitz.  Brad Pitt looks like he stepped out of a Calvin Klein underwear ad. Folks I know who have been around him say he really is a pleasant and laid-back guy, and these are hardly the characteristics of a beady-eyed killer.  Creepy Eli Roth, taking some time off from directing his degenerate torture movies, is just a leering clown – he looks like he should be squatting in the back of his Ford panel van offering Tootsie Rolls to passing tweens.  And B.J. Novak?  The guy is a hilarious writer and is really funny in The Office , but I’m not buying this cat as the scourge of the Third Reich.

In contrast, Lee Marvin’s tough guy legacy lives on despite the fact that his body rests with thousands of other heroes in Arlington National Cemetery. He earned that right when he was wounded fighting the Imperial Japanese Army in the Pacific as a Marine private. His Purple Heart is 100% USDA certified proof positive of his prime badassary. Who is the Hollywood tough guy of today who can dare step up to the Lee Marvin plate and take a swing?

Nobody. (more…)

“Accompanied by thousands of women” is what Shohreh Aghdashloo told her friends about how she felt attending the Academy Awards in 2004 as the first Iranian nominated for an acting award for her performance in “House of Sand and Fog”. Since that nomination, Aghdashloo has appeared in numerous television shows and in many movies, including her newest film, “The Stoning of Soraya M.” 

Several weeks ago, I wrote an article for “Big Hollywood” about the importance of that new film and Aghdashloo’s work as an actress who speaks up for voiceless women. As a follow-up to that article, I had the opportunity to conduct a phone interview with the Oscar nominee who, one day before I spoke to her, was nominated for an Emmy award for her role in the miniseries “House of Saddam.” During the interview, Ms. Aghdashloo spoke about the current situation in Iran, her work in the film “The Stoning of Soraya M.”, and what attracts her to certain projects. (more…)

I really thought my Republican platform piece here at BH would have been my last for awhile. Plenty for readers of all stripes to chew on. And I got too many other things to do. The reason for my reluctant return is yet another critical issue the Obamamedia and our LibDem government are completely flat-lining on: the officially sanctioned exterminations of LGBTs in Iraq, and on our dime. Not to mention State’s cold and lame response. More on that later. Too much more, actually.

First, the one of the main points of this fact-based opinion piece. And I know I’m going to catch hell from the Streisand and Brolin crowd on this one! Ronald Reagan was a hero to gays, and Obama has not been to date. I know, I know. The Evil Ronald Reagan, who practically invented AIDS? Reagan, the Adolf Eichmann of the Gay World? Not true. Not by a country mile!

In fact, Ronald Reagan was a better friend to gays and lesbians in his age than Barack Obama has been to gays in his. But don’t even go by what I say. I’m a right wing extremist, and very biased to what I believe. I admit it. Who isn’t these days? The press? LOL! But here are some irrefutable facts on The One and The Gipper I thought I’d throw out there. A gay buffet for thought, if you will. With swimming pools. And movie stars. (more…)

Over the weekend, I was pondering why the low budget, standard genre pic The Haunting in Connecticut (Lionsgate) has become a nifty little box office hit. The film added almost $9.5M over the weekend for a new 10-day cume of $37M, and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that it’s all about the poster.

Creepy, right? I have not seen Haunting and will probably wait for DVD or pay cable, but that is a weird, startling, attention-grabbing image. As a movie junkie, I love good movie art. The best movie posters are evocative. They capture what a movie is all about without giving away the mystery. There are certain movie posters that instantly put me back in that theatre experiencing the film for the very first time. The best movie posters are not just promotional tools. They stand as a work of art on their own. These are my favorites, buit it is by no means a definitive list. Feel free to add your favorites (and subtract any of mine).

(more…)