JAMES GARNER’S DAUGHTER OPENS TRIBUTE SITE TO HER AWESOME FATHER

The Mighty James Garner’s daughter, Gigi Garner (a successful talent manager in her own right), has opened a tribute website to her father. She seems to be updating it fairly regularly with a number of terrific family photos and excerpts from Garners’ new memoir “The Garner Files,” which I loved and reviewed here.

Please check the site out.

Anyone who’s been reading me for any amount of time (or who has seen my Twitter wallpaper), knows of my all-consuming affection for all things James Garner, most especially “The Rockford Files.” You can imagine how much this tweet meant to me.

Tell me how it gets any better than that. You can’t, because it doesn’t.

The only bad news is that if this photo on Ms. Garner’s site displays the actor’s real signature, that means I got robbed on Ebay.

Cue my well-rehearsed of-course-I-got-swindled-again Rockford face.

FINALLY: AN HONEST ASSESSMENT OF HOLLYWOOD’S BOX OFFICE BLUES

With all of Hollywood and most of their sycophant entertainment media blaming box office and DVD woes on everything but bad product, this is the rare break from that absurd narrative:

Basically, films aren’t the draw they once were. With streaming and cable and TV shows getting better and better, there’s a lot more competition now, and the longer studios ignore it and try to operate like they always have (releasing all their “smart” movies at the end of December, for instance), the more it’s going to continue to decline. Almost without exception, all the decent movies I saw this year were films that the distributors considered too niche for a broad audience and almost no one saw them, because they barely had a chance to. Meanwhile this week’s top three releases have a 2, 3, and 4 next to the titles, and all had concepts created in the 1960s or earlier. If films are going to compete long-term, they’re going to have to start giving the “niche” stuff that gets people excited about movies a chance to compete with the bland blockbusters that make money. There are only so many Dark Knights. The general public has a major ambivalence towards movies right now, and if it doesn’t get better soon it’s going to turn into a grandpa medium the way late-night TV has.

And let’s not forget Hollywood’s non-stop, 15-year assault against the 70% of their audience that isn’t liberal.

Goodwill is crucial to institutional brands and this industry has arrogantly worked overtime to squander almost all of it.

Chickens, meet the roost.

SIX MORE JAMES BOND FILMS FOR DANIEL CRAIG?

“Filming has gone very well so far and I’d love Daniel to surpass Roger’s record and do eight pictures,” Michael G. Wilson told the UK’s Sunday People. “Daniel’s been an absolute pleasure to be around because he takes the role so seriously. There’s really no one more passionate about making these films work than him – he’s a filmmaker’s dream.”

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY TRAILER ONLINE TUESDAY AT 7PM PST

Gentlemen, start your nerdgasms.

I kid because I love.

EVA GREEN EYES ‘300: BATTLE OF ARTEMISIA’

Ever since her memorable turn as Vesper in “Casino Royale,” I’ve been a fan. Unfortunately, Hollywood seems to be more interested in girls than women these days, and the ridiculously sexy and womanly Green hasn’t been in much.

Hopefully, everything will work out. Not that I’ll need another reason to see this.

NEW YORK TIMES BLAMES ‘LOST’ FOR EVERYTHING BAD ON TELEVISION

This is just silly:

A similar process is under way in the post- “Lost” television world. The first three seasons of “Lost” may have approached the imaginative charms of the original “Star Wars” trilogy, but the next three were nearly as awful as George Lucas’s catastrophic prequels. You could easily picture the stumped writers of “Lost,” helpless in the face of an ever-growing pile of unsolved mysteries, madly skimming Wikipedia entries on space-time geometries and black holes.

The show’s finale was the crowning disaster, the Scooby-Doo ending to end all Scooby-Doo endings. After hinting for years that their nonsensical mess would add up to something, not only did the producers Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof fail to address a tiny fraction of the trillions of mysteries they introduced, but they threw out the Lostpedia with the bath water, scrapping all of those riddles for the equivalent of Lucas’s teddy-bear victory dance: a celestial moment with the survivors, hugging and holding hands in the afterlife.

This is all ancient history — or would be, if not for the fact that the implosion of “Lost” was like a dirty bomb that made the world unsafe for serial dramas to this day.

The writer then goes on to blame “Lost” for what he sees as the sloppy execution of “Homeland” and “American Horror Story.”

First off, I caught “Lost” on DVD and while some individual episodes lacked (especially during the writers’ strike), as a whole I found the series and the finale very, very satisfying. This, I think, is the best way to watch programs that work like the old movie serials from yesteryear. Waiting a week and a full summer between chapters is a completely different experience than sitting down and devouring it like a good novel.

I haven’t seen “American Horror Story” or “Homeland” yet, but I have seen enough of Kelsey Grammer’s Starz series “Boss” and FX’s “Sons of Anarchy” (two series released after “Lost”) to argue that television’s current golden age is alive and well. The writing, acting and overall storytelling occurring on the small screen these days makes life worth living.

BROADCAST NETS DOWN, CABLE UP IN 2011

The major broadcast networks continued to see an erosion of their audiences in 2011, while cable networks saw theirs expand, according to TVbytheNumbers.com. The website said on Thursday that while ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC saw their total household audience decline 3 percent this year, the audience for ad-support cable as a whole was up 3 percent and the top ten cable networks recorded a 4-percent gain.

A+ ‘EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE’ MOVIE REVIEW

The largest issue I had with this film was figuring out how to describe the effect it had on me emotionally. It’s a crushing film that will leave many moviegoers in a heap, but I don’t look at it as an overly sad movie even though the level of sadness on display is undeniable.

‘SURVIVOR: SOUTH PACIFIC’ WINNER REVEALED

This show is still on the air?

MARSHALL FINE’S ‘DRAGON TATTOO’ REVIEW

Is Fincher’s film better than Niels Arden Oplev’s? Not really. It’s different; it’s probably as good as the Swedish version. But better? Nope, sorry – which brings us back to the issue of the movie as a commodity, rather than an artistic vision.

I’m not impugning Fincher’s intentions; I’m just saying that, as good as his film may be, it’s redundant and unnecessary.

Is it entertaining and well-made? Absolutely. For the audience that would never dream of seeing a foreign film, this movie will be the last word in “Dragon Tattoo” movie-making. And they’ll get a quality product.

‘THR’ REVIEWS JOLIE’S DIRECTORIAL DEBUT

Jolie deserves significant credit for creating such a powerfully oppressive atmosphere and staging the ghastly events so credibly, even if it is these very strengths that will make people not want to watch what’s onscreen. All the director’s decisions were taken in the interest of heightened verisimilitude, from working in the Bosnian language (an English-language version is available as well) to using as many authentic locations as possible (some in Bosnia, others in Hungary) and having cinematographer Dean Semler employ a combat-ready style.

SHERLOCK RETURNS TO THE BBC: ‘HE’S DEFINITELY DEVILISH’

Superb series. Season one is, I think, still on Netflix.

There’s so much good television these days, you can hardly keep up.

—–

—–

LAST NIGHT’S SCREENING

“A Christmas Carol” (1984) – Most people choose Alistair Sim’s 1951 version of “A Christmas Carol” as their favorite, and for good reason. But after watching the 1984 television adaptation again last night, I have to say that George C. Scott is my favorite Ebenezer Scrooge. The Academy Award-winner’s interpretation is the most human and down-to-earth, which gives an added impact to those classic lines of dialogue we all know by heart.

Scrooge’s redemption scene is especially poignant in this version, which was directed by Clive Donner, the editor of the 1951 film.

—–

—–

SCOTTDS’ EPIC LINKTACULAR

‘THE DINGO STOLE MY BABY! — PART DEUX’

BRAD BIRD GIVES AN UPDATE ON HIS EARTHQUAKE MOVIE, 1906

RIDLEY SCOTT TALKS ‘PROMETHEUS’

FIRST PHOTO OF SYLVESTER STALLONE IN ‘BULLET TO THE HEAD”

‘HOMELAND’ SEASON 1 FINALE REVIEW

WILLIAM SHATNER IS COMING TO BROADWAY

‘DEXTER’ SEASON 6 FINALE REVIEW

PROFILE: PAM GRIER

‘IT TAKES A THIEF’: THE DVD DEBRIEF REVIEW

MAX VON SYDOW LOOKS BACK AT HIS WORK ON ‘FLASH GORDON’ AND ‘STRANGE BREW‘

RIDLEY SCOTT SAYS THERE WILL BE NO ALIENS IN PROMETHEUS

REAL-LIFE RUDY ACCUSED OF SCREWING INVESTORS OUT OF $11 MILLION

8 GREAT TV CHRISTMAS SPECIALS

NEW FOOTAGE FROM ‘THE AVENGERS’ IN GERMAN TRAILER

WHY ‘PERSON OF INTEREST’ IS A SUPERHERO SHOW DONE RIGHT

REJECTED GREEN GOBLIN MAKE-UP TESTS FOR SAM RAIMI’S ‘SPIDER-MAN‘

100 GREATEST JEWISH FILMS

TOP 100 CULT FILMS

10 GREAT PERFORMANCES IN BAD 2011 MOVIES

MEET THE NEW POP CULTURE, SAM AS THE OLD POP CULTURE

JOHN WILLIAMS: THE LAST MOVIE MAESTRO

6 AWESOME MOVIE AMUSEMENT PARK RIDES AND THEIR REAL LIFE LOCATIONS

TOP 15 JAMES BOND DEATHS

REVISITING THE ‘LETTERMAN’ EPISODE FEATURING ANDY KAUFMAN AND JERRY LAWLER

A LOOK BACK AT JOHN FRANKENHEIMER’S ‘SECONDS‘

—–

—–

CLASSIC PICK FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20

TCM:

12:30 PM  EST: Age of Innocence, The (1934) –  A young attorney risks his career for love of a glamorous divorcee. Dir: Philip Moeller Cast:  Irene Dunne, John Boles, Lionel Atwill. BW-81 mins, TV-PG, CC.

This is a rare opportunity to see the first film adaptation of Edith Wharton’s 1920 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about an aristocratic New Yorker who meets the only woman he’ll ever love after it’s too late. However, I only recommend this as a rare curiosity.

While many films produced during the same Production Code-era (like 1936’s “Dodsworth”) were able to tell stories that covered similar themes of adultery and divorce in a mature and dramatic way, 1934’s “Age of Innocence” is pretty lacking. For starters, Dunne is miscast and the overall production is stagy and surprisingly slow moving for an 81-minute film.

This is in stark contrast to Martin Scorsese’s beautifully realized 1993 adaptation that captures the longing and loss of its source material as well as any film ever could.

—–

—–

Please send comments, suggestions and tips to jnolte@breitbart.com or Twitter @NolteNC.

NOTE: There will be no Call Sheet tomorrow. I am taking a vacation day.

Pop icon Madonna made a name for herself by exploiting her sexuality, celebrating the loss of cherished virginity, hitchhiking in the nude, and singing songs with explicit, blasphemous lyrics. She did so caring little about how impressionable children would be tainted by her morally corrupt influence.

Then, when Madonna became a mother herself, she banned television and magazines in her home. To shield her kids from the pornographic obscenity she promoted in the book Sex, and in an effort to preserve their purity, Madonna penned wholesome children’s books like Mr. Peabody’s Apples and The Adventures of Abdi.

Over the years, Madonna has transformed herself over and over again, first into a sadomasochistic sex slave, channeled Evita Perón to the point of naming her daughter Lourdes, married Guy Ritchie, adopted a British accent, and moved to the English countryside. She’s taken the Hebrew Kabala name Esther and joined the Angelina Jolie/Sandra Bullock/Mariska Hargitay adopt-a-black-baby club. Now, she’s settled into middle-aged doting mother mode.

Like any parent, with family safety and well-being the priority, Madonna was “alarmed and distressed” when earlier this year, a Polish national named Grzegorz Matlok broke into the star’s London townhouse.Thankfully, Matlok was arrested after he was “allegedly discovered in the singer’s home, nine months after breaking into the country house she shared with ex-husband Guy Ritchie.”

Recently, at England’s Southwark Crown Court, Madonna, a woman who has spent her entire career leaving parents around the world concerned for their daughters’ developing morality, read a victim impact statement, saying that the scary stalker incident was “extremely unsettling.” Madonna shared with the court that “I do not know the defendant, have never had any relationship with the defendant. I have never had any contact with the defendant, either by phone or by email, or any other way. I have never given him permission to enter the premises or any of my other premises.”

How ironic. For 30 years, by way of her music, videos, coffee table pornography, and obscene displays such as French-kissing Britney Spears at the Grammy awards, Madonna – without permission, “either by phone or email, or any other way” – felt comfortable entering uninvited into the hearts and minds of millions of gullible adolescents.

Understandably, the ex- Mrs. Ritchie felt “alarmed and distressed by the actions of the defendant.” Expressing vulnerability, Madonna said that “It’s extremely unsettling to know that despite the extensive security I have he [was] able to break in to two residential properties owned by me.”

Tell us about it, Madonna. That anxious feeling is quite familiar to parents unable to protect their preteen daughters who could be heard singing “Papa Don’t Preach” or devout parents whose children lost respect for the Catholic Church thanks to the blasphemy portrayed in “Like a Prayer.”

Madonna told the court that she felt “alarmed and distressed by the [perpetrator’s] actions” and was worried about the “safety of [her] children, all of [whom are] under 18.”

Well, talk about Madonna getting in touch with what it feels like for a parent struggling not to “Let Down [Their] Guard” only to have the emotional, physical and developmental integrity of their children exploited by a stranger with an unending drive to attain fame and fortune.

If placed on trial like Matlok, who “admitted burgling Madonna’s office in London … but denied two charges of burglary relating to her house,” Madonna would likely admit that her vulgar actions did have a harmful influence on young psyches, but would deny any accusation that she purposely robbed children of their innocence.

By attempting to shield her young family from violation, Madonna’s protectiveness proves she was well aware of the damage she thoughtlessly caused for almost three decades. Yet, to date, the music legend has never offered an apology to either parents or the children who, thanks to her, were “Burning Up” long before their time.

Thankfully, Matlok will no longer be a threat and was “locked up indefinitely under the Mental Health Act after doctors found he posed a ‘serious risk’ to Madonna.” Thus, the pop star can rest easy knowing that a person who entered uninvited into her home and threatened the safety of her children can no longer menace her or her family, a luxury parents all over the world were never afforded when it came to protecting their children from a dangerous intruder named Madonna.

The other day, I clicked the link at the top of Big Hollywood that led me to a commentary by Michael Lee at “The Wrap.” Mr. Lee takes aim at John Nolte’s commentary about the Ricky Gervais performance at the Golden Globes.  As I waded  through the piece I quickly realized that Mr. Lee didn’t understand the basic points that John made.

And this, unfortunately, is typical.

John Nolte made the astute observation that Gervais‘ performance was awesome because he took the witty, acidic, and mean spirited humor that is usually aimed by Hollywood at the American populace and turned it on the sanctimonious, self-righteous entertainment community.   Had Gervais been ten times more vulgar but aimed it all at Sarah Palin, George Bush, and people who believed in God, there would be no discussion.  There would be no outrage.  There would be absolutely zero press.  Gervais would probably be paid double to return next year.

Lee explains that many of Gervais‘ targets, like the Bush supporting Bruce Willis or the Libertarian minded Angelina Jolie, are far from typical Hollywood leftists.  Make no mistake, Lee informs us, Gervais is no friend to conservatives.  Just because he’s making fun of Hollywood, we anti-intellectual, anti-science types need to think about who he insulted during the show.  If we just “connected the dots” we probably wouldn’t be so excited.

But the point lost on Lee is that we already have.

There’s simply no need for Lee to explain to us that Gervais is no conservative; no one at Big Hollywood has ever claimed him to be one.  Nolte was merely making light of the fact that Gervais and we at Big Hollywood just so happen to share the pleasure of taking anointed Hollywood elites down a peg.  We’re talking what’s truly edgy humor in 2011, Lee’s talking political ideology.  We’re talking apples, he’s talking space ships.

Here’s another aspect to Gervaisgate that hasn’t been touched on.  It’s an aspect that I’m sure will fall far beyond the scope of understanding by our detractors.

Even though my resume doesn’t contain a bunch of projects with “A” list celebrities, I do know them.  Personally.  You see, Leigh Scott knows how to party.  I’ve never been the guy to use those relationships to further my career because I always figured I’d be better off approaching them from a more level playing field.  I’ve always felt awkward, sitting drunk at a table at the Sky Bar, brining up a screenplay or project.  I enjoy being “the fun guy” who doesn’t talk business but can drink everyone under the table.  I like it when an actor says to me, “I didn’t know you made films.  Why didn’t you call me?”

We will see how my plans works out.

But I was there when a certain A-list actress stripped nude in the hallway of the Chateau Marmont and decided it would be fun to do cartwheels.  I’ve sat with a notorious, leftist, movie star drinking Grey Goose and hitting on UCLA sorority girls while he texted his sick wife telling her he’d be home soon.  I’ve had drinks with a certain talk show host while he entertained his high priced call girl.  And, I’ve crammed into a nightclub restroom stall with an Oscar winner and an Emmy winner to consume illegal narcotics.

I’ve seen these people at their worst.  Going off on racist and misogynist rants.  Cheating on their wives and husbands.  Crying over failed relationships and cancelled pilots.  Getting sick and throwing up all over their Mercedes 500 SL.

If you’re reading this, “you know who,” you remember that night.  Awesome, right?

My intent is not to create a Big Hollywood version of Gawker’s “Blind Items.”  The point is, I know that the politically correct nonsense, the sanctimonious lectures and soap box speeches, and the displays of charity and compassion are all for show.  Most of the people who grace our movie and television screens are insecure degenerates.  Charlie Sheen, believe it or not, is by far not the worst.  He just doesn’t try and hide it.  He doesn’t care what people think.  I kinda respect that.

What Gervais did was let us, the humble masses, in on the joke.  That wasn’t just a routine.  It’s what he would say if you were doing shots with him at the China Club.  It wasn’t that he “brought down” the elites of Hollywood, he elevated the viewer into the inner circle.  Bringing down the top appeals to progressives.  The notion of elevating the bottom appeals to conservatives.   No wonder we liked it.

Now, if he had included hookers and blow, we could have had the full experience.

To recap: Leftists are often unwilling or incapable of engaging the cogent arguments conservatives make. Ricky Gervais gave us a glimpse into the inner workings of the Hollywood social scene.  Actors are degenerates.  I just admitted to committing a felony on a conservative website.  Yeah, that about sums it up.

Let’s hope Ricky Gervais hosts another awards show, or that other hosts follow in his footsteps.

Likewise, let’s hope Michael Lee rereads John Nolte’s post and writes a commentary that actually addresses the issue at hand.

—–

“The Tourist” begins with Elise Clifton-Ward (Jolie) under heavy surveillance. She sits at a European restaurant while agents watch her every move waiting for her daily routine to change. She’s a woman who stays on schedule so any deviation from it could bring the agents information on their real target: Elise’s former boyfriend and well-known thief, Alexander Pearce.

As the agents watch her, Elise receives a note from Alexander to board a train and find a stranger that resembles the missing thief. This person will help her divert attention away from the real Alexander when he arrives back in town. Frank Tupelo (Depp), an American schoolteacher, is the man that Elise chooses. Frank is amazed that such a beautiful woman wants to talk to him and he follows her every move. Soon enough, the police and the mobster that Alexander betrayed are keeping tabs on the couple and trying to figure out who Frank is and how he fits into the equation.

The police quickly determine that Frank isn’t Alexander but the mobster who wants revenge isn’t so sure. His henchmen are soon chasing Frank across rooftops. Frank knows that he’s in trouble but his attraction to Elise keeps him interested in staying close to her.

At one point in the story, Elise talks about the two sides of a piece of jewelry representing two opposing forces like good and bad. Unfortunately, “The Tourist” only represents one of those two forces: the bad one.

“The Tourist” is an adventure story with one well-known thief working with a complete stranger. The movie has a similar structure to “Knight and Day,” the disappointing Tom Cruise vehicle from this summer. “Knight and Day” suffered from an overabundance of action sequences and a lackluster female lead. “The Tourist” suffers from a complete lack of interesting action sequences and two dismal leads.

Throughout the story, the characters lack motivation. Even if you consider the twists and turns that the film offers, there are more questions at the end of the story than there are at the beginning. Many plot developments are ridiculous and utterly unbelievable. If the film had interesting characters or better action scenes, it would be more enjoyable to watch.

As it stands, “The Tourist” is an adventure story without adventure. It is a romantic story without a good romance. It is a character-driven story without strong characters. This movie is a lot of things, but during this holiday season, it is definitely not worth your time and it doesn’t deserve the recognition that the Golden Globes so generously gave it.

Today I have two members of the gut wrenchingly stupid Hollywood set to report upon. It might have been three but the terminal lunacy of Charlie Sheen just goes without saying.

—–

This week Americans stood ready to wish each other a Happy Thanksgiving, to be sure. Well, everyone was but the  Angelina Jolie, that is. If reports are true, to her this holiday isn’t a day to thank God for our fortunate bounty and to reflect upon the fortuitous founding of this nation, it’s little else but “happy murder the natives day” and she refuses to take part.

Angelina Jolie hates this holiday and wants no part in rewriting history like so many other Americans,” a friend of the actress tells me. “To celebrate what the white settlers did to the native Indians, the domination of one culture over another, just isn’t her style. She definitely doesn’t want to teach her multi-cultural family how to celebrate a story of murder.

I suppose we can be charitable and ignore these kitschy musings based on a woefully incoherent view of American history. Unfortunately, it is just the sort of vapidity that is de rigueur for the empty headed Hollyweird set. As they puff themselves up imagining they care more than you about “the little people,” they indulge a corresponding hatred of our country all too often.

But Jolie’s absurd notion pales in comparison to the outright lunacy of “comedienne” Whoopi Goldberg (real name: Caryn Elaine Johnson). Whoopi thinks that the world does not have a Muslim problem, thinks “white men” are terrorists, and thinks that Muslims in the USA are persecuted more than Jews. Oh, there’s more. Goldberg also thinks that the Japanese didn’t attack Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Those are truly gut wrenchingly stupid notions.

In a segment on the Bill O’Reilly show, Goldberg unleashed this risible steam of inanity on his poor viewers and proved that Jolie has nothing on the venerable, award-winning comedienne in the department of the absurd.

As she debated O’Reilly… well, the word “debated” is also bestowing a charitable air to the appearance… Goldberg burdened the viewers with the following deeply thought out truths:

O’Reilly: Do you have a problem in history when you were taught about World War II that Japanese attacked us? Do you have a problem with that?

Goldberg: I have a problem with that. The Japanese Army attacked us.

The foolishness of the assumption behind Goldberg’s “point” is laughable. In her view the Japanese didn’t attack us. Just their army did (and O’Reilly corrected her that it was the air force, not the army). So, I guess when any nation’s armed forces are engaged in battle, no one sent them into battle? No people stands behind its own military?

Idiotic.

Unfortunately for the viewers, she went on.

Goldberg: Right now, everybody can say the Muslims are the terrorists. Two years ago, it was the white people that were the terrorists.

O’Reilly: What white people?

Goldberg: Oh, wasn’t it white people that blew up Oklahoma City?

O’Reilly: Yes, two of them. Two of them.

Wow. So to Goldberg, two white guys that bombed the federal building in Oklahoma means that all white people are terrorists, yet that 19 Saudi Muslims perpetrated 9/11, that does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists? Her logic escapes me.

The truth is that neither all white people are terrorists because of the actions in Oklahoma of two of them nor are all Muslims terrorists because 19 of them perpetrated 9/11. But the fact is, in today’s reality most terrorists are Muslims so Goldberg’s whole underlying premise is idiotic all the way around.

One more.

O’Reilly: New study today, Jews in America are far more likely to be persecuted than Muslims, just came out today.

Goldberg: You know what? I’m sure that someone believes that, but I believe that in neighborhoods where they don’t want Muslims, they beat up kids.

You’re “sure that someone believes that,” Whoopi? Yeah, that someone would be the FBI whose latest hate crime statistics prove that in all of 2009 only 107 “hate crimes” against Muslims were reported all across the country. On the other hand, that same FBI release noted that 931 hate crimes against Jews were reported.

If hatred against Muslims was so wide spread in the U.S. as Goldberg imagines, why is there no corresponding rise in hate crimes against Muslims? And the 2009 report isn’t an outlier year, either. In 2008 (see table 1) we find an equally whopping 105 anti-Muslim hate crimes reported.

There is no way to escape the conclusion that there really isn’t much anti-Islamic hate crime in the U.S. even after 9/11. Despite the fevered imagination of one Whoopi Goldberg, there is many times more anti-Jewish hate crime happening in the U.S. than anti-Muslim hate crime.

Once again she proves herself uninformed, full of wild-eyed notions, and wholly devoted to devaluing America in favor of every other nation/ideology. (See a full transcript of Goldberg’s appearance at Newsbusters)

Sadly, these two geniuses are representative of the skewed, half informed, nonsense that passes for deep thought in Hollywood these days. It’s hard to excuse such foolishness even on a holiday.

I felt a collective shudder from parents everywhere when they heard about this.

When did woman start reaching so low to find their heroes, giving up what the feminists fought so hard for in the 60s and 70s? Wouldn’t it be nice to go back just 10 years or so, before reality TV and the Internet, before any Josephine was celebrated for displaying slut behavior? It seems like the norm for women in Hollywoodland and pop culture is to use their sexuality, savvy and gifts to seek celebrity with an abandon of self-respect, integrity and class. Whether Lindsey Lohan’s endless partying, drinking, drugs, and prison; to Ashley Judd’s belligerent, political tirades.

Whatever happened to women showing character and integrity when making choices and exhibiting decorum in debate? Wouldn’t it be nice to see them exercise the brain God gave them and work at the top of their intelligence? Granted Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Montana Fishbourne wouldn’t have careers if they had character, but TMZ would be much more palatable.

Rather than feeding these lower life forms with any more of the publicity that provides their sustenance, I thought I would celebrate a few exceptions to the rule.

Sandra Bullock has always been beyond reproach. She has used her savvy, intelligence, charisma, and contagious, self deprecating sense of humor as an actress, producer, daughter and wife, while keeping her private life as private as possible. Being a HUGE movie star while maintaining that air of mystery is a quality that is so missed in the industry. She has shown tremendous intelligence in choosing her roles and crafting her career. (Well, except for “What About Steve”…and oh, wait…”The Lake House.” But everyone has a career blunder here and there). When her then-husband’s affair made all the headlines and TV news lead ins, she held her head high while maintaining a low profile; and demonstrated gracious stoicism when her mother was ill and died.

Reese Witherspoon made her break-out role in Hollywood at 14. She has become an accomplished actress, producer, children’s and women’s advocate, wife and mother, all in the public’s eye. From growing up and marrying in Hollywood, to her highly publicized divorce; Reese has displayed Southern charm, wit, poise and inner strength.

Cynthia Nixon, one incredibly talented and versatile actress was quite the role model when she came out as a lesbian. She didn’t get on her pedestal in an angry rant to make everyone accept her lifestyle, or shove it in our faces. She went about her life and shared her story in interviews with radiant joy and happiness, warmth and charm.

Then there’s Angelina Jolie. An actress who’s lived both worlds. Her early days were fraught with odd and dangerous behavior and poor personal choices. She now uses her savvy and intelligence, beauty and glamour to promote humanitarian causes; to inform and inspire.

I can’t leave out Helen Mirren, who at 65 is still one sexy, intelligent class act! She’s used her sexuality, talents, sophistication and intelligence to work for her, without compromise and with class. She’s been playful in interviews regarding her nudity in film and does not apologize. Reminding us that on the big screen she is playing a scripted character; directed and professionally and artistically lit which shows it’s more about art than nudity and is anything but pornographic.

You may not agree with their political views, religious affiliations or sexual preference, but you can’t refute that these woman need to be celebrated for their intelligence, beauty-inside and out, self-confidence, savvy and character. So let’s turn off the rag mag shows and reality TV and leave the gossip in the supermarket check out aisle. We can only hope that slut behavior in Hollywood is nearing the end of its 15 minutes.

Still, what I have to say about feminism and popular culture will probably shock conservative, right-wingish folks. (I can literally see the angry comments now — heck I could practically write them myself). But in the name of tolerance, keep in mind that I was born and raised in Europe, Germany for the most part. We don’t have the same relationship with sex and sexual content Americans have. I grew up seeing boobies and penises on television shows (even commercials) and in magazines; none of them X-rated and none of them were ever attacked by what we call “clean content organizations.” 

As a result, I don’t instantly associate nudity with sex the way many Americans do. When Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction became this country’s most talked about crisis, I thought we were being punked…until I realized that people were seriously offended. And that’s their right… but really? 

Furthermore, when I came of age and my mother realized I liked boys and they liked me back, I got “the talk.” But I am very certain that the talk I got was nothing like the talk most American kids get. I’ll spare you the details, but let’s just say my mother was less concerned about me having sex than explaining all options of birth control to me in detail, before she gave me a long speech about the difference between a kind and considerate lover and a wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am kind of guy. 

I will be forever grateful for her wisdom, and her courage to accept the fact that a teenager’s hormones will almost always win against the voice of reason, no matter how hard you try to hammer it into your kid.

Now, having said all that, despite my “progressive” European upbringing, I have a huge problem with the society girls, reality stars and partying starlets mentioned in the MacLean’s article that inspired this series. Obviously, no matter what your politics or beliefs are, these women don’t inspire pride in your gender, quite the contrary.

But I’m less offended by their sluttiness and blatant sexuality; I’m offended because they are just straight out dumb. My first thought always goes to their parents. Where are they? What are they saying to these girls? Didn’t they teach their daughters that life is about leaving a legacy? Because right now their legacy is an embarrassment, a joke, a shame. In medieval days they would have been referred to as court buffoons. 

My next thought goes to the people who watch this trash. Because isn’t that what it’s really about? None of these networks would green-light shows about humane train wrecks and none of the gossip magazines would put them on the cover, if there wasn’t an AUDIENCE! 

I was once introduced to a reality show producer and being one never to miss an opportunity, right after he revealed that he was a fan of my work I casually mentioned my reality show idea. Having no other choice, he asked me what it was: 

Me: “The show is called NOT THE HILLS and it’s about five strong, intelligent and independent girls who share a house as they compete for an all-financed spot in an Ivy League college. While they are all amazing girls, they would come from totally different backgrounds and beliefs, which results in a lot of tension as they decide when to stand their ground and when to admit that another opinion might have trumped their own. Picture a young Ellen DeGeneres, joined by a young Sarah Palin, a young Oprah, etc.” 

Producer: “People want to see teens in relationships–“ 

Me: “They can date. As a matter of fact they do date, just like any normal girls that age, they just do it with integrity.“ 

Producer: “There are no numbers in integrity.” 

And that was that. I never mentioned the show again. Sure he was a scumbag, but the scumbag was right, wasn’t he? How many of you watch The Bachelorette rather than an intelligent episode of Masterpiece Theater on PBS? Be honest.

The few American ladies I know who were around during the golden age of feminism have shared with me that it was also a time of sexual revolution and evolution. Women realized they didn’t need to marry and have sex as if it was one of their housewife chores.  Instead, they started to enjoy sex and many opted for lovers over husbands. So, I’m confused on how  today’s sexuality interferes with feminism. 

I think ignorance and stupidity does affect feminism … badly, but I think a hot woman should be able to wear a mini skirt without having her professionalism or accomplishments questioned. If I had the legs, I’d wear one every day. 

One woman who has positively contributed to feminism and equality is Angelina Jolie. Think of her what you want, but the fact that she accepted the lead role in a film (“Salt”) that was written for a male star (Tom Cruise was attached at one time), was — trust me —  a major, major milestone in this business. Not only did she flawlessly deliver the same amount of action a man would, resting on her shoulders alone, the film was a box-office success. 

The bottom line is: sexuality is not the force destroying feminism — stupidity and ignorance is.  Let’s raise smart and sophisticated girls who, when given a choice, pick up a book rather than watch trashy television. 

So to all those mothers who blame Paris, Snooki, Lindsay and co., I suggest you stop whining and take responsibility. Firstly, it’s the right thing to do and secondly, it would set a great example for your daughter.

That’s pretty impressive for a non-sequel, non-franchise action film, especially one with the added weight of being R-rated. You’ll never catch me trying to publicly predict the how and why of the box office, but a look at “Salt” and “Eat Pray Love” did bring to mind certain elements of “The Expendables” that helped me to respect it as something more than just a thick-necked gun and run (not that that’s a bad thing) and maybe help somewhat to explain its unexpected shelf-life.

There’s a lot to like about Angelina Jolie’s PG-13 “Salt,” and even though the Oscar-winner looks a little frail to be dispatching nameless henchmen, there’s no doubt she’s one of the few movie stars, male or female, still able to artistically and commercially carry a picture all on her own. Better yet, after a ten-year absence from the action genre, director Philip Noyce returns in fine form with his old-school skill of putting together the kind of exciting action sequences that made Harrison Ford’s two Jack Ryan pictures so memorable. In this awful era of The Paul Greengrass, what a treat it is to comprehend what’s happening during a car chase, what a rarity to enjoy gunfights structured in a way that allow you to understand the geography of who’s killing whom.

Well-paced, with an excellent supporting performance from Liev Schreiber (who, if Hollywood had a lick of sense, would be cast as the next Jack Ryan), and even patriotic in spots, “Salt” delivers a fine old time at the movies. But it does feel like a relic, like something you watched on HBO a zillion times during the summer of ’83. That’s not necessarily a negative. But it does take something away from what could’ve felt like a more vital, urgent and relevant story.

We currently live in a world packed with very real dangers courtesy of Islamic terrorism, North Korea, Iran and Marxists who with the help of Oliver Stone are sowing seeds of anti-Americanism South of the Border. And still, though set in the present, “Salt” chooses Russians for its villains. Stranger still, they aren’t even present-day Russians but rather Soviet-era villains who want the current Russian president assassinated because of a lingering, two decade-old grudge regarding détente and the loss of the Cold War.

As a film fan willing to suspend as much disbelief as humanly possible, choosing Soviet-era Communists is a bridge too far. The decision to avoid portraying America’s smorgasbord of real antagonists as the film’s fictional ones is such a self-conscious choice that it hangs over the entire movie, especially after a brief opening sequence set in a North Korean prison that ends up feeling like an anachronism. This creative decision probably has something to do with race. After all, Soviets still piqued over glasnost perfectly fit the mold of Hollywood’s favorite villains: old white guys.

Ironically, we’ve had all kinds of Hollywood films involving our present-day enemies but a majority of them portray us as the enemy. And while Jolie’s character is driven by vengeance and not selflessness, by the need to clear her name and not duty to country, it is nice to see “Salt” portray America as being on the side of good. But when will Hollywood portray us as the good guys against our very real enemies?

On this front, “The Expendables” resonates – at least more than most action films these days.  While the oppressive government Stallone’s group of mercenaries sets out to overthrow might be set in a fictional country, it is still a recognizable and relevant one. Set in South America, you’re at least allowed to enjoy the vicarious thrill of seeing a Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro stand-in — an anti-American despot, get what he has coming in a righteous and selfless fight to free the people he enslaves.

For all the grief Stallone’s receiving in reviews – even positive ones – that use words like “mindless” and “throwback,” give the man credit for at least seeing the world as it exists today.

Still, I do recommend “Salt” and even look forward to the promised sequel. Under penalty of a “Thirtysomething” marathon, however, I couldn’t say the same about “Eat Pray Love.”

Sitting through the latest from Oscar-winner Julia Roberts is like listening to a three year-old screech Me! Me! Me! for 133 minutes. The movie’s ridiculous theme — as spoken by one of those tired Hollywood tropes:  a “simple” European man who interjects GREAT WISDOM after overhearing a conversation, is that Americans don’t understand pleasure.

And so our heroine sets out on a personal journey to pleasure herself. 

Based on a wildly popular novel memoir I’d never heard of, Julia Roberts plays Julia Roberts; an elite, somewhat cold but attractive career woman living the kind of life most people can only dream of. But her Liz Gilbert, a successful New York writer with a beautiful home and faithful husband (Billy Crudup) who might need a little focus but remains devoted to her, is … unhappy. Can’t have that. So before you can say “second act,” an overdose of self-involvement has driven her to divorce her broken-hearted spouse and after an affair with a younger man (James Franco) that also doesn’t fulfill her, she sets off for Italy and India and Bali where she will learn to eat and pray and love, in that order.

There are episodes of “Seinfeld” more meaningful, and what a waste of a fine actor, Richard Jenkins. Though not Jenkins’ fault, the melodramatic scene where his character confesses his back-story might take home the award for 2010’s Most Excruciatingly Obvious Plea for An Oscar. The whole movie’s an embarrassment, which is always the case when Hollywood tries to convince us that their fanatical belief in narcissism is some sort of human value.  

“The Expendables” is at least about something. As was the case with his recent Rambo reboot, Stallone plays a character emotionally withdrawn from the world inspired by a Christian woman to get over himself and to risk his own life for the sake of others – for something bigger than self.

What his team of Expendables are actually doing during that insane action extravaganza of a climax is more than just blow things up and kill people. For no personal gain, they’re risking their own lives to liberate a population of oppressed people from a ruthless, selfish thug (and the ex-CIA agent using him).

For all the chuckling going on over Stallone’s “silly” little genre picture, in-between explosions and badass tough guy talk, the director’s painting with some large and universal themes. “The Expendables” is about redemption and self-sacrifice, about that old-fashioned idea of heroism, about American men doing what American men gotta do.

And I think this renewed appreciation might mean seeing it one more time.

Those secrets and the movie’s twists make “Salt” a solid thriller that is peppered with exciting action sequences. 

When Salt returns to the United States, she is returning to her loving husband, who enjoys studying insects on the dining room table, much to Salt’s disapproval. Salt returns to the CIA where she works with Ted Winter (played by Liev Schreiber). The two of them are preparing to leave the office one day when a man walks into their CIA office and says that he has Russian intelligence that he wants to share with the United States.

Salt is called in and interrogates the mysterious man trying to determine whether or not he is telling the truth. After a few minutes in the interrogation room, Salt prepares to leave when the Russian man tells her about a plan to assassinate the Russian president during his visit to the United States. He names the Russian spy who is preparing to carry out this secret plan: Evelyn Salt. Salt then quickly falls under the suspicion of some of her coworkers.

Some people believe that Salt is telling the truth but others question her motives for running away from the CIA after the revelation. Through a series of twists and turns, the audience is left wondering if Salt really is the traitor that she is accused of being.

“Salt” is undoubtedly an action movie. Most of the movie focuses on CIA officers chasing after the main character to find out her true identity. These action scenes are fast-paced and enjoyable and Angelina Jolie does a good job in the lead role. We’ve seen Jolie as an action star before (in movies like “Tomb Raider”) and she seems very comfortable jumping off of bridges, running away from the police and attacking an army of Secret Service agents.

Unfortunately, one of the problems with the film is its overuse of action. The movie starts out with some exposition and then jumps to action mode and stays in that mode for a long time. I wish some of the action sequences were separated by more scenes focused on the plot and characters. We know some things about the characters but the relationships are not explored as well as they could have been if the movie focused less on car chases and more on dramatic scenes that would have made the action scenes more interesting.

“Salt” is one of those movies that thrives on surprises. The movie is built around the concept of an audience trying to figure out who Salt really is. The movie veers in different directions to make the audience question their original judgments about her. Is she truly a Russian spy or is she being set up? Is she trying to find out who was setting her up or is she just trying to fulfill a plot set in motion by the interrogation sequence at the beginning of the film? Did something change in Salt when she was being held hostage? The movie has a lot of twists and turns. Some twists are predictable but others come from out of nowhere but are nevertheless believable.

Evelyn Salt is able to survive a lot of crashes, bruises and attacks. She does this without receiving many injuries. “Salt” is the kind of action movie where the hero (or maybe villain) at the center can survive a lot of things, including a lack of character development.

There’s no law that an action movie has to make sense — it can just be all action. “Salt” is a demonstration of this. However, the best action movies consist of more than nonstop frenzy, and they can sell their wildest implausibilities — James Bond with his jet packs and underwater tuxedos, Jason Bourne still alive in the sea after taking two bullets in the back — with a spirited blend of style, pace and personality. In its indifference to such elements, “Salt” is a demonstration of how important they are.

The story does kick off with a clever hook. Top CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is in the middle of grilling a Russian intelligence operator named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski) when he tells her that the Agency has been infiltrated by a Russian mole, whose ambitious mission it is to destroy the United States. Salt asks Orlov the mole’s name. “Salt,” he says.

Two of Salt’s fellow agents have been watching this interrogation, and they’re naturally startled. One of them, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber), says he’s certain that Evelyn can’t be a mole. The other, however, a hardass named Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor), isn’t so sure. Salt herself doesn’t stick around to explain — she takes off. All kinds of pursuers leap into action, and as the chase proceeds, we marvel at her ability to dispatch hordes of heavily armed soldiers (all terrible shots) and her easy access to guns, chemicals and high-end designer clothing. (At one point in her flight, attired in a flowing fur-trimmed cape and matching hat, she looks like a fugitive from a fashion shoot.) She has also brought along a venomous pet spider. Well, her husband’s pet spider.

Her husband’s name is Mike (August Diehl), and he’s an arachnologist so esteemed, we’re told, that he has “unlimited access to the border areas of North Korea.” This would explain why he was on hand when Salt was freed from the North Korean prison where we’d seen her being beaten to a pulp in her underwear at the beginning of the movie. Unfortunately, it doesn’t explain what the Norks have to do with the story, which seems to be nothing.

Read the full review here.