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.

Other prominent Hollywood leftists who are against Prop 8 (and who attended Elton John’s concert as well) were David Geffen, who gave at least $200,000 to defeat Prop 8, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, Norman Lear, Matthew Morrison, Jane Lynch, Adam Lambert, Marisa Tomei, Jason Mraz, J.J. Abrams, and “Milk” screenwriter Dustin Lance Black.

Moreover, through a website founded by Will Ferrell, another group of Hollywood personalities did their part to oppose Prop 8 via a video mocking Christians, who are staunch defenders of marriage, and Christ Himself. The Hollywood personalities in the video included Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph and Margaret Cho.

And of course, what Hollywood v. the Heartland battle would be complete without Keith Olbermann inserting himself into the drama? Back when he still had a job at MSNBC, Olbermann did a PSA to tell everyone in flyover country that gays in California—whom he thoughtfully described as “these people”—just “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option.”

The bottom line: Hollywood trumped the will of salt-of-the-earth Americans once more, and in so doing, reminded everyone of the great divide that exists between celebrities on the far left coast and those whom they count on to watch their movies, listen to their music, etc. Through their efforts, the will of a clear majority of California voters was overturned and marriage redefined in what, sadly, is not a Hollywood production but real life.

The story is set in wintry Ohio, during the final week of a Democratic presidential primary. Pennsylvania governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is in the lead, but one of his opponents is catching up. Morris’ campaign is being run by veteran political operative Paul Zara (Hoffman), capably assisted by hotshot up-and-comer Stephen Myers (Gosling).

The opposition mastermind is wily Tom Duffy (Giamatti). Both Duffy and Zara realize that their candidates will need the endorsement of a powerful senator named Thompson (Jeffrey Wright) in order to prevail. But in exchange for the hundreds of delegates he controls, Thompson wants major payback: a promise to be appointed secretary of state in the administration of whichever candidate will meet his demand.

Read the full review at Reason.com

The story begins a few days before the important Ohio Democratic primary, which pits Morris against the more moderate Senator Pullman (Michael Mantell). Morris is leading in the polls but Pullman, backed by support from Republicans and independents who are allowed to vote in the primary, is gaining strength. Early on in the film, Myers accepts a meeting with one of Pullman’s main strategists (played by a cunning Paul Giamatti), which sets the stage for the rest of the film. Without going into details, the story eventually finds Myers questioning his loyalties to the Morris campaign and learning his candidate isn’t the political savior that Myers hoped he was.

The film, directed by Clooney, is based on the play ‘Farragut North’ by Beau Willimon. Clooney co-wrote the screenplay with frequent collaborator Grant Heslov as well as Willimon.

Because the story predominantly takes place before a Democratic primary, nearly all of the main characters are liberals and support Democratic ideals. When Morris notes that his religious faith comes from the Constitution and that terrorism and wars would disappear if we stopped needing to drill for gas, the film’s liberal ideology is loud and clear especially in the early scenes.

However, what is surprising is how Clooney shows the flaws of the Democratic politician he plays.  This political story is cynical about politics and political candidates and is willing to show that the fantasy that political supporters buy into is sometimes just that: a fantasy. Myers starts out not believing in dirty tricks and not wanting his candidate to make underhanded deals to get elected. That changes as his political education gets underway. For those of us who have watched the idealism of the Obama campaign transform into the political coldheartedness of the Obama administration,  the ideas showcased in ‘The Ides of March’ are clearly relevant today.

‘The Ides of March’ succeeds based on more than just a well-told story and Clooney’s visual style, which ranges from showing backroom deals being cut in dark rooms to the bright lights of a political debate. It succeeds because it’s smart about the political game. The film highlights the naïve campaign employee who feels like he’s met the one candidate who can change the world and the bitter campaign strategists who know that they are selling a fantasy to reporters like the one played by Marisa Tomei who realizes politicians are always flawed.

‘March’ understands how the all the political chess pieces move across the board.

It should be noted that this film is a pure and simple fantasy. Some of the events in it feel a little forced, as if some of the plot developments were only added to move the story from one place to another. It’s obvious that some of the deals cut during the film would never be made in the real world. It’s also easy to criticize some of the film’s rhetoric, especially when Norris notes that the public will forgive unnecessary wars and bankrupting a nation but would have a hard time getting over a sex scandal.

Despite such flaws, I fell in love with this film. ‘The Ides of March’ is a brilliant political thriller about strategy, loyalty and idealism that is willing to unmask candidates who build their campaigns on slogans, not policies.

—–

Steve Carell is Cal, a California suburbanite long and happily married to his high-school sweetheart, Emily (Julianna Moore). Driving in their car one night, out of nowhere, Emily tells Steve that she has slept with an amorous coworker (Kevin Bacon), and that she wants a divorce. Cal is devastated, but he dutifully moves out of the house they share with their two kids and into a soulless bachelor apartment. Beset by loneliness, he makes a few feeble attempts to pick up women at an upscale singles bar. His hilarious lack of success at this draws the attention of an observant pickup artist named Jacob (Ryan Gosling). Jacob is strictly into one-night stands—actual romance is never on his menu—and he volunteers to give Cal a studly makeover, starting with his clothes (“Be better than the Gap”) and especially his footwear. (“Are you in a fraternity?” he asks, checking out his new protégé’s puffed-up Nikes.)

Soon Cal is scoring—most uproariously with a love-starved high-school teacher named Kate (Marisa Tomei). Meanwhile, back at Cal’s former home, his 13-year-old son (Jonah Bobo) is lusting after the family babysitter, an endearingly gangly 17-year-old named Jessica (Analeigh Tipton). But Jessica is in turn crushing on Cal, who’s still making occasional household visits. At the same time, a young law student named Hannah (Emma Stone, sharp as always) is slowly submitting to the come-ons of the chick-magnet Jacob, who for the first time is feeling the stirrings of something other than lust, in a place other than his pants.

Read full review here.

—–

What’s to Like

Firstly, “Crazy Stupid Love” has a great cast including Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell, Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon and Emma Stone. If that isn’t enough, it also stars Julianne Moore as Carell’s husband in a story that seems to focus on their marital difficulties. The movie looks fresh and funny and judging from the short clips we see of Moore and Carell together, it also looks like it has a strong heart.    

What’s to Dislike

Sometimes a few strong actors being cast together can mean that the story suffers (see “Red Riding Hood“). Also, if the movie relies too much on crass or sex jokes, it could fall into ”No Strings Attached” territory.  

The Verdict

The positives for this new comedy far outweigh the possible negatives. A warm heart. A few laughs. Julianne Moore. I’m looking forward to this one.

Release Date: July 29,2011

—–

McConaughey plays Mick Haller, known for his skills as a defense attorney and for the Lincoln he rides around town. The film’s title refers to Haller’s mode of transportation. Haller has a driver but he’s still the one usually in control. Inside and outside of the courtroom, Haller knows how to manipulate people (including his own clients) to do what he wants despite their own wishes. Most of his clients aren’t solid citizens; they range from accused killers to members of a motorcycle gang. At one point, Haller is asked how he sleeps at night considering his clientele. The question rolls off of his shoulders. He sleeps just fine.

Haller’s newest client is Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), an entitled child of privilege accused of beating up a prostitute. Like Haller, Roulet’s cockiness is apparent immediately. He treats the accusations against him like a fly that needs to be swatted. Although he was found in the prostitute’s apartment after the beating, he doesn’t even consider accepting a deal. He’s not guilty, he tells Haller. All deals are off the table.

At first, Haller thinks that he can take advantage of the pretentious playboy and walk away a rich man. His plans are short-sighted.

What starts out as a typical case turns into something different as the story continues. Revealing more of the plot could ruin some of the story’s many twists and ”The Lincoln Lawyer” is a ride you want to take not knowing where it’s headed. Early on, one fact is clear though. This script, adapted from the novel by Michael Connelly, is sharp and smart. The dialogue crackles along from beginning to end as characters are introduced and new revelations come to light.  

With his Southern charm and a swagger that intimidates even his toughest clients, McConaughey seems born to play Haller. He can charm everyone he wants whenever he needs something from them. McConaughey is surrounded by a strong supporting cast. Phillippe, who wasted his acting abilities in last year’s atrocious “MacGruber,” is great as the self-important son of privilege. Marisa Tomei and William H. Macy are also solid as Haller’s ex-wife and his private investigator, respectively.

“The Lincoln Lawyer” is another fine entry in the field of legal thrillers. It joins 2007’s “Fracture” as recent thrillers that are actually exciting to watch. Like “Fracture,” some of the twists in “The Lincoln Lawyer” disappoint but the ride needs to be taken.

At the end, some of its flaws become more apparent as the unbelievable coincidences pile up. However, when you start questioning them, the credits have already started to roll. “The Lincoln Lawyer” has gotten away without a scratch and it looks like the movie wouldn’t have it any other way.

Mind you, they’re still charismatic and entertaining to watch, but in an almost clownish way. We now go to see them not to be wowed by their acting, but to be entertained by their chewing the scenery and hamming it up. Whereas in the past they lost themselves in a part, now their well-known, theatrically overblown personalities overwhelm everything else on screen.

Who are the worst offenders? My own Top 5 list was compiled with two ground rules: each candidate had to be alive (so James Dean and Marlon Brando each get a reprieve), and they have to have won at least one Academy Award for acting (which spares modern, less-laurelled hams such as Robert Downey Jr., Johnny Depp, Woody Allen, Jeff Goldblum and Mel Gibson.) Again, the following actors are not necessarily unpleasant to watch — raw charisma goes a long way — but they have become predictably one-note parodies of themselves.

______

5. Tie: Christopher Walken/Robert De Niro

Best Supporting Actor: The Deer Hunter (1979 — Walken), The Godfather, Part II (1974 — De Niro)

Best Actor: Raging Bull (1981 — De Niro)

Insufferable Affectations: unblinking eyes (i.e., The Innsmouth Look), mouth hanging agape and licking lips like a parched salamander, creepy monotone dialogue delivery (Walken); incessant squinting, head cocking, aimless glancing around between lines (De Niro).

When every comedian is doing impressions of you and when Saturday Night Live builds entire skits out of mocking your instantly recognizable mannerisms and vocal intonations, you’ve perhaps become a bit too ossified in your acting range and delivery.

______

4. Philip Seymour Hoffman

Best Actor: Capote (2005)

Insufferable Affectations: eternally constipated facial smile/grimace, slothful dialogue delivery, labored mouth-breathing.

Easily my least-favorite actor of the modern age, a sort of monstrous antithesis of everything that once made Hollywood classy, glamorous, and great. Whether mouth-kissing Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights (1997), rutting naked with poor Marisa Tomei in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007), or channeling stomach-churning depression and illness in the incomprehensible and excruciatingly pretentious Synecdoche, New York (2008), he always seems to be hammering us in the solar plexus with premeditated attempts at disgust, ennui, and despair, levied against us for our own good in the name of Art. His winning an Oscar for Capote seemed a fitting capstone to arguably the single worst-ever year for the Academy Awards.

______

3. Jack Nicholson

Best Actor: As Good As It Gets (1997), One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1976)

Best Supporting Actor: Terms of Endearment (1984)

Insufferable Affectations: Cheshire cat crap-eating grin, arched eyebrows, overblown temper tantrums.

When a young Christian Slater effortlessly channels you in a movie like Heathers, you know the shtick is worn out. And that was way back in 1989. Like most hams, his later career has been a steady stream of mostly forgettable movies, with few coming close to the fine pictures of his early days.

______

2. Al Pacino

Best Actor: Scent of a Woman (1992)

Insufferable Affectations: flamboyant yelling, whiskey-soaked drawl, throwing arms and hands wide open when making points in ego-driven monologues.

I still remember the promo trailer in the theater for Carlito’s Way, where the studio started with a greatest-actor-of-all-time type audio medley of Pacino’s past performances. “Aaaaaaaaticaaaa! Aaaaaaaaaaaticaaaaa! . . . .I’d take a flaaaaaaaamethrower to this plaaaaace!” et cetera. What happened to the actor who made Michael Corleone such a measured, quiet, emotionally believable person in the first two Godfathers?

______

1. Meryl Streep

Best Actress: Kramer vs. Kramer (1980), Sophie’s Choice (1983)

Insufferable Affectations: ostentatious accents, reading every line as I-M-P-O-R-T-A-N-T.

There isn’t a more soullessly mannered and technique-driven actor working today. Every syllable, every movement is so calculated and consciously performed and projected that it feels more like an impression of the character than the character itself. Far from losing herself in a role, she always glows as bright as possible, ever shooting for that next acting accolade. I can’t think of a single movie where her presence seems calibrated to the story, where she’s an organic part of the movie’s tapestry. Like a diva on stage or a star basketball player hogging the ball, she always demands the spotlight. As a result, she has many individual awards but few if any enduring and beloved classics to her name.

______

The following movies, each containing not one but two Top 5 hams in them, should be packaged in DVD cases made out of rye bread:

Doubt (2008 — Streep and Hoffman), Angels in America (2003 — Streep and Pacino), Ironweed (1987 — Streep and Nicholson), Heartburn (1986 — Streep and Nicholson), Heat (1995 — Pacino and De Niro), The Godfather Part II (1974 — Pacino and De Niro, mitigated by the fact that they don’t appear together on screen and both are still in their pre-ham prime), Righteous Kill (2008 — Pacino and De Niro), Scent of a Woman (1992 — Pacino and Hoffman), Gigli (2003 — Pacino and Walken).

And there’s one movie sporting the unholy intersection of an astonishing three members from this list, which must make it the cataclysmic thermonuclear ham movie of all time: The Deer Hunter (Streep, De Niro, Walken).

—–

In an age when movies seem to lack the confidence to tell such basic yet profound human stories, when it seems nearly every film is a cartoon or action picture and even worse is in 3D (I’m looking at you, “Cats and Dogs 2,” not “Toy Story 3”), one picture has come along that is a breath of fresh air. Its name is “Cyrus,” and it’s rolling out slowly across the country until it goes everywhere July 16.

Starring John C. Reilly (Oscar nominee for “Chicago,” costar of “Step Brothers”) as a sad-sack loser named John who hasn’t had a date since his divorce seven years ago, “Cyrus” follows his attempt to love again after meeting an offbeat lady named Molly (Marisa Tomei) at a party. They quickly fall for each other, but each time she sleeps with him, she slips out and leaves him wondering if she’s married.

She says no, but he still wonders what’s going on, and follows her one night to her home. Once she heads off to work, he approaches her home to snoop around, and is caught by a heavyset young man named Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who turns out to be her 21 year old son. There’s something a little bit off socially with the lad, and that fact is made even more squeamishly clear when Molly returns home to find John talking with him.

John quickly comes to realize that Molly and Cyrus are awfully close – seemingly too close to be appropriate for a mother and son. But his ex-wife (Catherine Keener) agrees to meet them and says they’re just a bit odd but perfectly fine and sweet people. So far so good, except Molly won’t shut the door even when John’s sleeping over and soon he’s being outright threatened by Cyrus – even ordered not to sleep with his mom.

Right about now, one might fear that this movie is going to be yet another example of Hollywood’s alleged cultural depravity and a boundary-pushing endorsement of incest. But “Cyrus” isn’t your typical film, and its writer-director team of brothers Jay and Mark Duplass imbue their first studio film (after micro-budget Sundance faves “The Puffy Chair” and “Baghead”) with all the unpredictability and rich spectrum of emotions that are found in real life but all too rarely on screen.

The one spoiler I’ll give you is the obvious one: this isn’t about incest (otherwise, I’d hardly be raving about it on Big Hollywood). But Molly and Cyrus are sad and emotionally hurt people in their own ways, just like John, and what this very thoughtful and touching yet also often hilarious film shows is that even odd and lonely people can find true love and greater happiness if they can just find the strength to reach out of their shells and trust another person.

Despite all the powerful emotions “Cyrus” raises, the film is hardly sappy or maudlin; in fact, the battle royale that ensues between Cyrus and John for Molly’s attention (a battle she’s largely unaware of) marks some of the smartest and occasionally darkest – though not unpleasant or ugly – humor to come out of Hollywood in ages.

Reilly digs deep into his furrowed-brow Everyman persona to pull off perhaps his best performance yet in a career that’s been richly varied between character drama (“Magnolia”), broad comedy (his films with Will Ferrell and “Walk Hard”) and music (“Chicago”). Besides Michael Douglas in the summer’s other superb live-action film so far, “Solitary Man,” Reilly’s provided the performance of the year.

Tomei finds new twists to her sweet-yet-damaged persona in films like “The Wrestler” and “In the Bedroom,” but Hill (“Superbad”, “Get Him to the Greek”) is perhaps the film’s biggest surprise. He greatly tones down the brash surliness and frequent profanity of his other starring roles to deliver a performance that gets laughs through unpredictability and is also occasionally heartbreaking. He has the capability to be a true and lasting talent.

“Cyrus” is rated R, but it’s mostly for the unsettling comedic nature of where the film seems to be going. Its use of profanity is pretty sparing for an R-rated comedy and its depictions of John and Molly’s trysts is tastefully shot to evoke the emotional connection they’re sharing rather than being gratuitous. For adults looking for a smart and honest film that will make them bust a gut while tugging their heartstrings, there’s no better film out there. It’s my favorite film of the year thus far.

There are some very important people in our country who have aligned themselves with Zinn. With his philosophy. With his view of history. With his view of the United States. And, with his strategy for getting his message into the public schools outside of the legal construct of School Boards and State Departments of Education.

They made a film of his book.  They walked the red carpet and they posed with the man they admired.  He was the inspiration for their film and they spoke of him glowingly, almost like he was a hero.  They began their film with him striding out alone onto a stage in a theatre full of admirers.  It was his way of taking a curtain call (a standing ovation, by the way) before the show even began.

“They” are the elite Hollywood stars who believed they gave themselves intellectual and cultural relevance by aligning themselves with the man who made it his life work to tear down the traditional American narrative.

And now, after his death, his legacy is to move that effort, subversively into the public school room despite the curricula established by democratic process. In other words, he wants teachers to teach his lesson plans and go against the wishes of “the people” whom he claims to admire so much.

Matt Damon and Josh Brolin gave this man a very glitzy and high profile platform on the History Channel.  And they celebrated his words as a wise, breath of fresh air:

“We didn’t want to hear the words of the people in the White House, we wanted to hear the words of the people picketing the White House.  The agitators, the anti-war protestors, the socialists and anarchists, in other words:  The people who gave us whatever liberty and democracy we have in this country.”

Forget, for a moment, about Mr. Zinn.  Forget that these are the tired and boring words of a bygone era. When shower-deprived protestors outside the Nixon White House were receiving whimsical admiration. When Leonard Bernstein feted the Black Panthers and John Phillips made people feel like everything was OK as long as it felt good.  This is not about Mr. Zinn.  He is old news.

This is about Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and all of the beautiful, well-paid actors who went out of their way to ensure that “The People Speak” was made, and distributed and now is available for your child to see in the school room you are paying for.  And, the lesson plans that are being brought into that class room, hidden in a teacher’s satchel so as not to get the attention of a school administrator.

As Big Hollywood has previously revealed, the Zinn Education Project has been designed for the sole purpose of providing teachers a means to bring Zinn’s biased and subversive version of American history into the public schools using subterfuge and (in Zinn’s words) “Guerrilla warfare.”

And now, it is time for the stars who reaped the benefits of appearing on behalf of the celebrated historian to own these ideas too.

Mr. Damon, you enjoy a level of prestige by making a “serious” film like “The People Speak”.  It gives you credibility in certain circles so that some people don’t regard you as just a dumb actor.  So, now let’s put that to the test.  Are you prepared to embrace your hero’s words?  We hold you accountable for the actions of the Zinn Education Project.  You must speak out and either denounce this subversion of the democratic process or you must embrace it.

Josh Brolin, you can’t just sit quietly under the guise of pseudo-intellectualism and reap the benefits of appearing so studied and so well read and so… concerned for the education of our children (as you expressed in so many interviews promoting this film) and not take a stand on Mr. Zinn’s advice to a future history teacher: 

“Don’t obey the rules.  Don’t be intimidated by what they tell you you must teach.”

Morgan Freeman, Viggo Mortensen, Marisa Tomei, Sean Penn, Rosario Dawson, Casey Affleck, Don Cheadle, David Straithern, Danny Glover, Kerry Washington, Benjamin Bratt, Sandra Oh, Jasmine Guy…  you are all part of this.  You went out of your way to be in this film.  We know because Director Chris Moore told us:

“ He went on to explain that as word spread about the project, the buzz grew and it became a cool thing to be associated with.  He would field calls from actors who wanted to get in and he would respond to them:  Go out and DO something.  Get involved, be an activist for a cause.”

So, you got your wish and you were in this film… this film that was the “cool thing to do.” Now that you are “cool” you get to own all the baggage that comes with being “cool” in the world of Howard Zinn.

His words are now your words.  Own them.  Unless, you’d like to tell us otherwise?

The actor Viggo Mortensen has apologized to Canada after inadvertently accusing the country of policy misdeeds for which he meant to chastise political leaders of the United States. The go-round occurred Sunday night at a Toronto International Film Festival panel discussion introducing ”The People Speak,” a documentary about dissent and resistance to power based on the book ”A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn. Mr. Mortensen wore a T-shirt that read: ”Impeach Remove Jail.” By way of explanation Mr. Mortensen, in Toronto to promote the movie ”Appaloosa,” began a plaint about things ”that have been happening in the last eight years in this country.” He was checked by the moderator, Tom Powers, the festival’s documentary programmer, who asked if Mr. Mortensen was referring to Canada. ”Ladies and gentlemen, the angry left,” said a laughing Matt Damon, who was joined on the panel by Josh Brolin and Marisa Tomei, among others. Mr. Mortensen allowed that Canada may have committed misdeeds of its own, without leveling a specific charge against either country. ”My apologies,” he concluded.Read the full article here.