On February 7th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the marriage protection amendment, commonly known as Prop 8, violates the U.S. Constitution. Although it passed with the support of 52% of California voters in 2008, the court said it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

From where I sit, this ruling was a travesty, not only because it discarded the wishes of 7 million Californians who voted for it, but because much of the money to overturn it came from Hollywood elites who are completely out of touch with the heart and soul of America.

Honestly, watching the decision come down from the 9th Circuit was like watching Brad Pitt and Elton John stomp all ever everything that flyover country holds near and dear to its heart. I cite Pitt and John because Pitt gave at least $100,000 to “fight the proposition,” and in Jan. 2011, John played a benefit concert in Beverly Hills that raised $3,000,000 for the same cause.

Of course, these two were not alone. Steven Bing, long time Democrat Party donor and Hillary Clinton supporter, donated $500,000 to the cause, and according to Advocate magazine, Mary J. Blige and Melissa Etheridge were right there in the mix as well. Oh, and we can’t overlook old “Meathead,” Rob Reiner, who opposed Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 and who’s been “one of the biggest fundraisers behind the legal effort” to overturn it since. (more…)

Madonna – love her or hate her. Some think she has no talent, while others have named their daughters after her.

Some think her career is pure marketing and her fans believe she’s a real trend setter. There has always been a wide range of opinions about this woman, an entertainer who has enough monikers to be in the witness protection program. As her personal life has evolved through marriages, children and boyfriends, her songs are what are more familiar to people.

For the first time since she became famous, she got to be the star attraction at the Super Bowl Halftime Show. What aspect of her performance did people focus on? Her voice? Nope. What she wore? Not really. Her new song? Sure, a little. Her age? Bingo, report her to AARP, stat!

How dare she try to pull off that type of show as a woman who has experienced more than three decades on the planet? Perish the thought! She has some nerve being on that stage and lifting her leg up at the age of 53. Where are her Mom jeans with the elastic waist? How could she be in high-heeled, thigh high boots when she knows she should be in Easy Spirits? This is even more of an abomination than her performance in “Swept Away.”

Doesn’t she know that woman over 35, let alone 40 in this country, are considered older than Methuselah? You mean she has no clue that she should be referring to herself as “long in the tooth” “an old bag” and a “has-been.” Doesn’t she realize that she has to grow into her date of birth by talking about things she can’t do anymore? Where is her rheumatoid arthritis? COPD? High cholesterol? She should be punished for doing a jumping jack.

Just check the reaction to her performance on social media outlets if you think I am exaggerating.

(more…)

The HomeVideodrome podcast returns with a meaty show this week, as Jim Dirkes and I discuss the movies we saw over our Christmas break, and of course, we catch up on the new releases.

Speaking of Jim, he was kind of enough to provide the review of “Moneyball” below. You can find more of Jim’s reviews, as well as his weekly podcast, over at The Film Thugs, as well as older episodes of HomeVideodrome. -Hunter

There are sports movies that aren’t really about sports. Some are pretty heavy-handed about it, like “Remember the Titans” (racism is bad), others are more subtle, like “Million Dollar Baby” (redemption), and others cast the sport in a very small supporting role, like “Brian’s Song” (the power of a friendship, and no, I’m not crying, the room is just dusty and I have allergies!).

“Moneyball” falls in the middle category. On the surface it is about the struggling Oakland A’s trying to compete against teams with much higher budgets. If taken just as that, it’s a solid underdog sports film. However, if that’s all you get from it, you are missing a fantastic and innovative movie.

Beyond the simple underdog angle, this is the story of a man who challenged the very foundations of one of the pillars of America itself. Baseball doesn’t cotton to change. The idea of doing something new or different in baseball is… well, it’s easier to change the U.S. Constitution. To give you an idea, the designated hitter (being able to substitute a person to hit in place of the pitcher without removing the pitcher from the game) was introduced in 1973, and there are still people who view it as cheating. Basically, you don’t mess with baseball. (more…)

“Tree of Life” grossed a pretty pathetic $13 million, “Happy Feet Two” grossed an abysmal $60 million, and “Moneyball” grossed only an okay $75 million. But in this market, where the concept of the movie star is all but dead, Brad Pitt was named the “top money-making star of the year.”

Number two was George Clooney who released two films this year that probably won’t gross $90 million combined.

Bosses at Quigley Publishing Company have asked theatre owners and film buyers to vote for their top 10 box office generators and this year exhibitors credited Pitt with bringing in more traffic than any other celebrity due to his acting and/or vocal appearances in Moneyball, The Tree of Life, and Happy Feet Two.

Coming in at number two was Pitt’s pal George Clooney for both The Ides of March and The Descendants, and last year’s winner, Johnny Depp, fell to third with The Rum Diary, Rango and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

(more…)

Director George Miller’s “Happy Feet Two” is neither happy nor as hip as his original Oscar-winning predecessor. Without the strong presence of a few add-on side characters, “Two” would have been one slippery mess.

—–

“Two” welcomes Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Pink, Hank Azaria and Sofia Vergara to the celebrated cast, while Elijah Wood and Robin Williams return (and Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman float on).

Tap-dancing penguin Mumble (Wood) is back and is now a group leader in his community. He is also a new father to cutie penguin Erik (Ava Acres), who is desperately trying to fit in by following his father’s footsteps but is stumbling along the way.

Once an outsider for his dancing, Mumble discovers quickly that coaching Erik to unleash his own talents isn’t easy, nor is being a parent a snap. Mumble’s mate Gloria (a singing showcase for Pink) encourages him to give their little guy some time before pressuring him to find himself.

(more…)

Be sure to head go listen to this week’s HomeVideodrome podcast!  This week Jim and I discuss Morgan Spurlock’s desperate need for attention, movies about eating, the turd that is Green Lantern, and how rad Jet Li movies are.  So head on over and give it a listen!

The week we have one of the best movies of the year coming to Blu-ray, Terrence Malick’s ‘The Tree of Life.’ I was hoping for a Criterion release of this, but I’ll take what I can get (rumor has it a longer cut is on the way). The only special feature to speak of is a making-of that features appreciations of Malick’s work from great filmmakers like David Fincher and Christopher Nolan, which should be worth checking out for that alone. Seeing ‘Tree of Life’ on the big screen was damn near a religious experience, I have a hard time imagining that it has the same effect at home, depending on the set-up you’re watching it on.

‘Tree of Life’ divided audiences; I went to see it twice in the theater, and both times I saw a handful of people walk out, usually during the bit with the dinosaurs. Friends who went to the theater to watch it reported seeing the same thing. Malick has become far less conventional as a filmmaker as his career has progressed, getting more and more abstract with each film. In ‘Life,’ it appears the man has almost abandoned narrative altogether, making for a film that is far less accessible than, say, ‘Badlands.’ Also, having names like Brad Pitt and Sean Penn on the poster may given some people the wrong idea as to what sort of a movie ‘Tree of Life’ is instead of having a cast simply made up of unknowns.

Regardless, it’s audacious filmmaking that hits on massive themes and deals with small, everyday events on the most enormous scale imaginable. The story of the movie has a small coming-of-age tale at its heart, but it places the theme of personal loss in the context of the very miracle of life itself. It’s a film that tugs out deep emotions in the most gentle manner possible, never resorting to cheaply manipulating the audience. If you connect with it, it’s a film that will haunt you long after you see it.

(more…)

Robots guided by Hugh Jackman take on George Clooney’s latest political offering this week. One will prevail while the other is left with yet another box office disappointment.

This weekend’s predictions and projected revenue results go as follows:

1. Real Steel ($26 million) – The sci-fi action is its big sell, but the film’s focus on its father and son relationship will help fuel word of mouth. The flick will easily venture past openings posted by Contagion and other recent original IPs.

2. The Ides Of March ($12 million) – The major film critics may support them, but overall audience disenchantment is a long-established fact with these political message films. These productions have become so clichéd anyway, most viewers feel they can predict their entire plots; where’s the excitement in that? Add to this the lackluster box office results the genre has consistently pulled over the past few years, and the film will definitely struggle to find an audience. Look for, at best, only sub-par results here. (more…)

In 2011, Aaron Sorkin won an Academy Award for writing “The Social Network,” in which a young rebel repudiated conventional wisdom and changed how we use the internet and social media. This year, Sorkin is back with “Moneyball”–adapted from the wildly popular book by Michael Lewis (2003)– a new movie he co-wrote with Steven Zaillian and Stan Chervin, about a middle-aged manager who also turned conventional wisdom on its head and changed the game of baseball.  Like “The Social Network,” “Moneyball” tells a great story about a passionate outsider. It is one of the best films of 2011 so far.

—–

The film tells the true story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), the general manager of the Oakland Athletics who faced a dilemma after the 2001 season. His underdog baseball team lost some of its best players and had only a small payroll with which to replace them. Beane had to start over and build a new team without the financial resources of the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox, for example.

Pitt plays Beane as an optimistic and underestimated GM who knows how to make the most of a tough situation. Beane also knows how to negotiate good deals with his rival teams. In one well-done scene, Beane manipulates, cajoles, and connives other general managers so he can get the players that he wants at a cost he can afford.

Throughout the story, Beane is assisted by Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a nerdy baseball analyst who looks at the game differently than recruiters and baseball experts. Instead of building a team through players, Brand advocates building a team through wins. That means evaluating undervalued players more carefully and determining whether or not those players have the ability to get on base.

Getting on base is important; being able to demand a multi-million dollar salary is not.

(more…)

In an interview, Penn said of his supporting role in “Terence Malick’s “Tree of Life”:

I didn’t at all find on the screen the emotion of the script, which is the most magnificent one that I’ve ever read. A clearer and more conventional narrative would have helped the film without, in my opinion, lessening its beauty and its impact. Frankly, I’m still trying to figure out what I’m doing there and what I was supposed to add in that context! What’s more, Terry himself never managed to explain it to me clearly.

The quote can be found in the New Yorker, where writer Richard Brody attempts to defend Malick with what can only be described as nonsense: “Penn brings an acid yellow to the glass-and-metal grays of his scenes”.

Whatever.

As a fan of Malick’s “Badlands” and “The New World,” I was eager to see “Tree,” and did so in Hollywood at the ArcLight Theatre, which might be THE premiere place on the planet for upscale movie-lovers to ply their trade. After 139 confusing, frustrating minutes the credits finally rolled, the tension in the audience broke, and more than a few people broke out laughing — and not in a good way.

“Tree of Life” has its moments, but for the most part is a pretentious mess. For what seems like a half-hour, you witness Creation — from the Big Bang to dinosaurs to Brad Pitt — and then the narrative settles down into the story of a boy’s complicated relationships with his father (Pitt) in the idyllic rural ‘burbs of 1950’s America. The only problem is that this part of the movie is told in a way that’s obviously supposed to represent the jumbled way in which we all remember our childhoods. It’s all flashes and snips and bits and pieces, and after a while you just stop caring.

(more…)

As if the capitulation of the Republicans in Washington was not depressing enough, it too often seems like we can’t even find a decent movie to look forward to seeing.  Of course, most of us are not in Hollywood’s target demographic – we’re older, have jobs, and aren’t dead-eyed, drooling morons who yearn to clap our flippers like trained seals at the hackneyed antics of third rate “stars” splashed across out-of-focus screens while seated in moist, sticky chairs that we paid close to $15 each to occupy.  

But I still love movies, and I still have hope that Hollywood is going to accidentally let slip though its paws at least a couple films this year that don’t insult my intelligence, that don’t hector me with pinko propaganda, and that don’t derive from some obscure comic book beloved by a cult of social misfit fanboys whose idea of a romantic evening is a hi-speed Internet connection, a two-liter bottle of Pepsi, and an old tube sock.  

And I love trailers too.  I hate commercials in front of movies, but there can never be too many trailers.  Each new trailer is like a bright new dawn or a just-poured pint of draft Dos Equis lager – full of hope and promise.  Sure, most of the time that hope and promise fades when Kevin James waddles on-screen to make a fart joke, but still….there are moments where something awesome blows your mind.  

Those rare, fleeting moments where a trailer teases you with the promise of a great story, an exciting adventure, a hilarious romp…where you think “Wow, that looks cool!”…where you just know that as funny as the jokes the trailer reveals are, the ones that await in the movie itself will be even funnier…they make sitting through the crap worth it.  That’s what makes me love trailers – trailers have the power to remind us that movies don’t have to suck.  

(more…)

Terence Malick’s latest—arriving a relatively snappy six years after his last picture—is a movie about first things: the meaning of existence, the ways of God, the bewildering sorrows of the human condition. The Tree of Life is spectacularly beautiful in its contemplation of eternal wonders—from the roiling creation of the universe to the gentle settling of a butterfly on the up-reaching hand of a suburban housewife (one of the director’s most remarkable found moments). While the film is centrally concerned with a Texas family in the 1950s, the movie it most strongly recalls is Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Running well over two hours, Malick’s exquisitely speculative picture might not seem to offer a lively night out at the multiplex (where few are likely to find it playing anyway); but it’s a hypnotic and—rarest of feats—spiritually enthralling experience.

—–

It begins (appropriately, as we soon realize) with a quotation from the harrowing Book of Job. Then we see a nebulous aurora glowing in the primordial void of space, the beginning of all beginnings. Untold billions of years later, we meet the Hendersons: father (Brad Pitt), mother (Jessica Chastain), and their three young sons, Jack, R.L., and Steve (played strikingly well by first-time actors Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, and Tye Sheridan). Their story is presented out of sequence, as pieces of an existential mosaic. First we see Mrs. Henderson (she and her spouse have no given names) receiving a distressing telegram. She phones her husband at work with the news it contains, and he, too, is distraught. One of their sons has died. “Lord, why?” the mother wonders, crushed by grief. “Where were you?” A grandmother (Fiona Shaw) tries to console her. “The Lord gives and takes away,” she says. “That’s the way He is.”

(more…)

On July 27th and 28th, the New York Times published the following headline: “The oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.” In the story that followed the headline, readers were informed: “The immense patches of surface oil that [once] covered thousands of square miles of the gulf after the…oil rig explosion are largely gone.”

Ironically, the man who predicted this would be case was the much-maligned Tony Hayward, former Chief Executive of British Petroleum (BP). While being grilled on Capital Hill about the oil spill earlier this year, Hayward described it as a “relatively tiny” one in comparison to the “very big ocean” in which it had occurred.  Although the backlash Hayward faced by Democrats was nasty, Rush Limbaugh concurred with the BP boss, and stories like the one I cited from the New York Times seem to demonstrate that Hayward and Limbaugh were both correct.

Yet, not only does BP continue to be the target of heavy criticism by Democrats and environmental groups, it has even found itself in the crosshairs of Brad Pitt, who recently “said he would consider the death penalty for those to blame for the Gulf oil spill crisis.” According to the UK’s Daily Mail, Pitt’s exact words were: “I was never for the death penalty before – I am willing to look at it again.” (more…)

In the kick-off to BH’s “Death of the Movie Star” series, Steven Crowder posited that new media has rendered the Hollywood machine irrelevant. If you have the talent and the drive, you don’t need them. And writing for the UK Telegraph earlier this year, David Gritten has a similar theory in that Hollywood can no longer afford A-list stars (who are also aging and may not appeal to younger audiences) and is relying more heavily on lesser-known names and reality-based entertainment. They both make valid points. However, I think there’s something more to this rapidly spreading phenomenon.

Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire – class and glamour during Hollywood’s heyday

The term “movie star” used to mean a lot to the American public – glitz, glamour, excitement. It embodied an “other worldliness,” if you will, that took hard-working people away from the daily grind and gave them something thrilling and new to take their minds off of their troubles. An afternoon or evening at the movies really meant something then, and the stars who populated the silver screen lived up to the hype – publicly, anyway. This was due to the studio system. During the 1930s and ‘40s:

…the major studios groomed their stable for stardom by picking suitable vehicles that developed their personae—sophisticated comedy for Grant, intense melodrama for Davis, and so on. They also controlled the stars’ publicity, doling out digestible, often-erroneous tidbits on their personal lives for the fan magazines and gossip columns.

Once the studio system was broken, however, we began to see Tinseltown’s residents through a very different lens. Stars began to develop their own careers, making their own decisions and living with the consequences, both good and bad. And the press, which was once held at bay by the studio bigs, had much more access to celebrities. Television talk shows like The Tonight Show and Merv Griffin brought us even closer to our idols. They became…well, more like us, except with oodles more money, fancy cars, designer duds and entrée into exclusive clubs and resorts. (more…)

In “Sput Car – Part 2″  (part 1 is here), Flora and Fawna hit Melrose to test drive the latest eco trend in the hopes of being noticed by A-list celebrities.  Will their attention-getting plans succeed…or will they backfire with ghastly results?

—–

Click above image to play video.

Two more webisodes to come!   Stay tuned for Gasbags Part 1 and Part 2. (more…)

In their debut webisode, BFFs Flora and Fawna meet at the crack of noon at their fave hangout, the Fatuity Cafe, to concoct their latest scheme to one-up the biggest publicity whores in town. After their weekly colon cleanse, they happen upon a dealership that sells Sput Cars, the hottest new eco craze. Rushing to be the first in town to own one, the girls neglect to read the fine print in the test-drive contract and may just end up being the kinda “green” that pushes up daisies.

**CAUTION FOR SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES:  ‘FLORA & FAWNA’ IS RAUNCHY

Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion, next week.  More webisodes to come! (more…)

I have been watching a lot of 40s movies lately. Being radically anti-celebrity, I was taken aback by how easily mesmerized I was by the movie stars of that period. 

After all, why wouldn’t any man (straight or gay) imitate Cary Grant’s walk up the stairs to save Ingrid Bergman at the end of Hitchcock’s “Notorious?”

– 

And why wouldn’t any honest woman try to talk and look like Barbara Stanwyck? 

I was at a pool party in the Hollywood Hills once where agressive supermodels were trying to seduce fake producers. That entire pack of semi-nude nymphs had less seductive power than the play of the anklet on Barbara Stanwyck left leg in Wilders’ “Double Indemnity.”  (more…)

Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” has all the trappings of a Tarantino film – from the rich cinematography and soundtrack to the unpredictable action and character development. Tarantino has directed and written another effort that, as usual, is in a class of its own. 

“Basterds,” misspelled the way Brad Pitt’s moonshining Lt. Aldo Raine character carved it into his rifle, takes place in German-occupied France from 1941 to 1944.  Tarantino makes a point of specifying “Nazi-occupied France,” justifying to the film watcher the extreme measures needed to deal with this particular type of human evil.  That National Socialist German Workers’ Party membership never numbered more than about 20 percent of the adult German population is beside the point; the Nazi Party in the guise of Hitler (played by Martin Wuttke) controlled the Wehrmacht from the top.  

“Basterds” follows three characters.  ”Chapter 1″ introduces Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) a young Frenchwoman whose dairy farmer family is wiped out in 1941 by the Germans and Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who directs the killing.  Landa is a member of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the intelligence service of the SS and the Nazi Party, who considers himself a detective asked by his government to find every last Jewish person in France.  In “Chapter 2″ we meet U.S. Army Lt. Aldo Raine. Raine’s crossed arrows insignia on his collar identifies him as a member of the First Special Service Force, a U.S.-Canadian commando force called the Devil’s Brigade.  Lt. Raine leads a small band of soldiers, all of whom happen to be Jewish, on a mission of retribution, mayhem and terror behind enemy lines, the goal: take 100 “Nazi scalps” each.  (more…)

Remember the children’s magazine, Highlights? Its motto is “fun with a purpose.” The motto for Quentin Tarantino’s latest flick, “Inglourious Basterds,” should be “violent with a purpose.”

It’s 1944 in Nazi-occupied France. Joseph Goebbels’ (Sylvester Groth) latest film triumph starring Germany’s latest hero, Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), is set to premiere for the top brass of the Third Reich – including the big cheese himself, Adolf Hitler – and their guests. Funnily enough, the premiere is to be held in a cinema owned by Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a Jewish refugee with her own obvious reasons for hating the Nazis. Naturally, she plans her revenge for the fateful night.

Meanwhile the Basterds, a crack group of Jewish-American soldiers under the leadership of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), is undercover in France and “in the business of killing Nazis, and business is booming.” Those Nazis who manage to escape death are given meaningful souvenirs of their time with the Basterds. The paths of these two groups cross in a way that only Tarantino, master of gory coincidence, could imagine.

A good ol’ boy and Jews brutally mowing down Nazis. What’s not to like? It’s probably one of the few times you’ll see a redneck positively portrayed in Hollywood. (more…)

I should say right off the bat that I can’t just blame Brad Pitt. The plague of closed-mindedness permeates every corner of Hollywood… Brad Pitt just happens to be the one who’s most recently crystallized it so perfectly. Much like the time Megan Fox tipped Tinseltown’s hand when she said that if given the chance, she’d urge Megatron to only murder the “white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America,” Brad Pitt had a tongue-slip with his anti-Christian comment this weekend. However, I must give credit where credit’s due folks: he made the comment on the Bill Maher show. It takes guts to take such a stance on that program. Doesn’t at least a part of you admire his moral fortitude?

To start with, Brad Pitt said that he was thinking of running for mayor of New Orleans, on an “Anti-religion, pro-legalization of marijuana and pro-gay marriage” platform. I know, I know… What a risky position to take in Tinseltown, right?

After Brads continued “anti-religion” commentary, Bill Maher decided to step up the game with his uniquely hateful brand of bigotry that’s made him oh so popular with 13-year-old atheists everywhere. In a display of “compassion,” Pitt went on to say, “Well I don’t think any Christians watch this show anyway.” (more…)

Take a ruthless Nazi leader who can order the deaths of a Jewish family with the same dispassion with which he requests a glass of milk. Mix his story with that of a Jewish woman who flees the slaughter of her family only to grow up and discover an opportunity to kill Hitler himself. Add in a cocky American Lieutenant named Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) who leads a secret mission in which each of his men are ordered to scalp 100 Nazi, and you’ve got the combustible mix of lead characters who cross paths with explosive results in Oscar-winning writer-director Quentin Tarantino’s latest film, “Inglourious Basterds.” 

Bringing together his usual strengths as a director of intense performances from sterling casts, an amazing score pasted together from classic scores of past films, incredibly sharp and catchy dialogue and a warped time frame that that will throw viewers through a satisfying series of loops, Tarantino has easily made his best film since “Pulp Fiction.” Coming off a humiliating misfire with 2007’s “Death Proof,” which was half of the box-office disaster known as “Grindhouse,” Tarantino has admitted that he felt the need to double down on his strengths and prove that he was just as relevant and inventive as ever.  (more…)