—–

Megan Fox adjusts her "talent" before their next scene.

1. Dear Hollywood: Stop The Age Discrimination

Age discrimination is a problem in Hollywood. Seriously, what is the fascination with jamming twenty-somethings into every role? It doesn’t work. These young girls simply don’t have the maturity or the depth to play the parts of women. It strains credibility beyond the breaking point when they cast some silicon enhanced girl to play the nuclear scientist or the head of a corporation or. . . well, any woman in a position of authority. I know powerful women, professional women, and women with a great deal of maturity, and none of them look or act anything like Hollywood seems to think.

And please stop casting girls as the wives of old, old, old male actors. It’s creepy. Teri Garr and Richard Dreyfuss worked in Close Encounters because they looked like a couple. Septuagenarian Harrison Ford married to Megan Fox doesn’t. Not only can we not see them getting together in the first place, but we can’t see them as a “normal, loving couple.” Instead, the words “gold digger” and “cradle robber” and even “grave robber” come to mind. And holy cow, stop casting “mothers” who are only a year or two older than their movie “daughters.” Was there a plague in Hollywood that wiped out all the women over 40?

2. Dear Hollywood: Stop Cloning Actresses

Hollywood also needs to end its cloning experiments. It needs to stop rejecting actresses if they have the slightest trace of individuality or if their bone structure is 1% off the model. Seriously, this makes it impossible to cast people who look the part. Forget the nuclear scientist mentioned above, what about the average waitress or the mother of three or the cop? Real women don’t look, act or dress like Malibu Strip Club Barbie™. This is the female equivalent of casting only musclemen as extras, and is again kinda creepy.

"We are the Borg. We are ready for our close up."

More importantly, by casting clones, Hollywood guarantees that few modern actresses will be memorable because it’s the distinct actors we remember. Indeed, few of the top male actors fall into the “pretty boy” category. Outside of a Redford, a DiCaprio, or a Cruise, few leading men look anything like male models. Bogart was a small man with a crooked face and a lisp. Stallone looks like he lost a fight with a blender. Bruce Willis beat the blender, but it took 12 rounds. Jack Nicholson is the blender. How about James Cagney, DeNiro, Bill Murray, Charles Bronson, Steven McQueen, Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Alan Rickman, Adrien Brody, Daniel Day-Lewis, Dustin Hoffman, Tommy Lee Jones, Richard Dreyfuss, etc. . . not a standard profile in the bunch. And when you get into character actors, the defects and distinctions multiply. . . Steve Buscemi anyone?

I’ll bet you could visualize each of these men as you read the names. Why? Because these men are memorable. They weren’t cast because they are pretty to look at, they were cast because they are distinct — they stand out both in looks and personality.

Believe it or not, the same thing has always been true with the great actresses as well. Look at the actresses we remember. Few of them can be called “classic beauties”: Lauren Bacall was rather butch, as was Katharine Hepburn, and is Sigourney Weaver. Lucille Ball was hardly a looker. Sophia Loren and Julie Andrews were beautiful, but not in a beauty queen sort of way. Loren was gorgeous and wild. Andrews had “girl next door” beauty. Betty Davis, Barbara Eden and Angela Lansbury all looked 60 the moment they were born. We remember these actresses because they stood out, i.e. because they were different. What’s more, we feel we know them because their personalities come across so strongly on the screen.

Now tell me how many of these you can visualize: Scarlet Johansson, Kate Hudson, Rosie Whitely, Cate Blanchett, Elisha Cuthbert, Rachel McAdams, Kristen Stewart, Jessica Biel, and Elizabeth Shue Banks. I doubt most people could pick them out of a line up and none of them have memorable personalities. In fact, most actresses today are so interchangeable that I wonder if anyone would notice if you swapped a couple out in the middle of the film. . . “hey, weren’t you blonder before?” And even when they do stand out, it’s usually for the wrong reasons: Megan Fox. . . idiot, Lindsay Lohan. . . train wreck, Anne Hathaway. . . bleached by aliens.

Unfortunately, because Hollywood is looking purely for beauty, they aren’t finding great actresses anymore. To me, the test of a great actor/actress is whether or not they could have taken on a great role. For example, could any of the actor/actresses listed above replace any of the guys in Glengarry Glen Ross? The male actors listed above could have done it. Hepburn, Bacall, Weaver, Davis, Eden and Lansbury could have done it. . . Julie Andrews, probably not. But what about the modern actresses just listed? Don’t make me laugh. Nor could any of them have taken over for Bacall in To Have and Have Not or Hepburn in The African Queen. Sure, they can all take over Megan Fox’s role in Transformers or whoever’s role in the next romantic comedy, but that’s about it.

3. Dear Hollywood: Stop Lying About Strong Roles

Finally, we come to the issue of strong roles. Hollywood actresses have complained for some time about a lack of strong roles for women in Hollywood. I think their complaints are valid. But Hollywood doesn’t know how to fix the problem. So instead, they try to redefine the problem. Now we’re told about an El Guapo-like plethora of strong roles involving action heroines. But this is nothing but el toro kaka public relations.

Imagine you are a director and you want your daughter to have a “strong role” in your film. Here you are describing the role: “Basically, you put on a tight leather cat suit and some S&M gear. Then you run around shooting at people and flashing your chest and your butt. I will collect money from men who will reeeally enjoy watching you jiggle and bounce across the screen. Sound good pumpkin?”

"For an extra $10, I'll do an empowerment table dance."

Hollywood apparently sees no problem with this, as that pretty much describes most roles given to female action stars. But how is this a strong role? These women are acting out an adolescent male sexual fantasy. They might as well be in Hustler.

A strong role is one you would be proud to let people watch. It involves playing a character that either brings out strong emotions in the audience or it involves being the kind of person people respect. That means using your wits and maintaining your moral code in the face of adversity and pressure to surrender. It means overcoming the obstacles you face through strength of character. The leather-clad dominatrixes and slinky spies are not demonstrating some strength of character within themselves, they’re selling sex.

Mommas don’t let your daughters grow up to be actresses. . .

Am I right? What actresses would you say are great? And don’t you find it a little bit strange that a place as liberal as Hollywood would be so openly sexist and ageist? Hmmm.

But when we look at the leading actresses of 2010, the dearth of great performances and great parts is stunning.  The Golden Globe nominees for best actress this year were Halle Berry in the anonymous flick Frankie and Alice, playing a crazy person in her usual over-the-top style; Nicole Kidman in the anonymous flick Rabbit Hole, playing a grieving mother in her usual cold and remote style; Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, playing a teenage girl looking for her meth-making dad; Natalie Portman in Black Swan, playing a crazy person with a constipated look plastered on her mug; and Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine, playing a spoiled girl who gets knocked up, married, and presumably divorced.  Has anyone seen any of these women in any of these films?  And if the disastrous Natalie Portman – Queen Amidala masturbating, anyone? – is the frontrunner for Best Actress at the Oscars, how far have female figures fallen?

Far.  Quick, think of the ten greatest living film actors.  It’s not that tough – we have iconic male film stars all the time.  Now think of the ten greatest living film actresses.  Now take away all women over 50.  Still thinking, aren’t you?

The simple truth is that actresses were far more iconic fifty years ago than they are now.  We may want to shtup most of the actresses we see on screen today, but we don’t show up to see them because of their standout screen personas.  That isn’t because today’s actresses are less talented than their predecessors – we have many talented actresses on the scene.  It’s because screen executives have decided that truly feminine women, with both brains and looks, are no longer in keeping with the times.  Instead, film execs have cut a sharp dichotomy between “sexy” women and “smart” women – it’s either Megan Fox or Kate Winslet.  Charlize Theron can’t play a strong, graceful, beautiful woman – she’s got to be either a lesbian serial killer or a piece of eye candy.

The feminism embraced by most of today’s execs is antiquated.  They still think that women must act like men in order to promote equality of the sexes.  Make Natalie Portman’s character a man in Black Swan and take away Darren Aronofsky’s idiotic and self-centered camera movements and you’ve got an oversexed Ronald Colman in A Double Life.  There’s nothing feminine about Ellen Page in Juno – she’s more of a dude than Michael Cera in the same film.  What ever happened to Bette Davis, to Vivien Leigh, to the old-school, unmannered Meryl Streep?  They’re gone, replaced with pale imitations starring in angst-filled nonsense glorifying aberrant behavior.

Ironically enough, the feminism of today’s Hollywood has killed the female movie star.  If Hollywood wants to restore that luster, they’ll need to embrace femininity, in all of its three-dimensional glory, once again.

…there’s a real possibility that for the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories at the February ceremony. In fact, there are virtually no minorities in any of the major categories among the early lists of awards hopefuls.

What the liberal media might call a “predominantly white” crowd…

I mean, we have the likes of Cher wondering why anyone who isn’t white, rich and Christian would want to be a Republican. Brilliant political mind John Cusack supports the idea of a “Satanic death cult center” outside of Fox News headquarters. Actor John Hamm agreed the Tea Party is a racist institution – on the show hosted by a guy who is upset that President Obama doesn’t act like a “real black president” with a “gun in his pants.” And white comedienne (?) Joy Behar says that only the majority (read: white people) can be racist. Well, I guess as a white chick, she should know. Plus, she studied sociology in college and everything!

Yes, these are the people who believe they set the social narrative in America. And yet…and yet…they don’t seem to live up to their own hype! I mean, here we have what might be the first Oscar night in 10 years with no ethnic minority actors/actresses nominated for an acting award. My goodness, what will George “Smug” Clooney have to say about it?

Actually, considering the high amount of tripe coming out of Hollywood lately, I should think that those excluded from the nominee list would be thrilled by their narrow escape.

Now there may be some of you out there who say that it’s the quality of the performance, not the color of the actor’s skin, that should count. In a rational world, this would be true. But leftists, many of them residents of LaLaLand, are constantly telling those of us who don’t agree with them politically that we are a bunch of bigoted, racist hacks who are destroying the social fabric of America. Just ask Megan Fox! Therefore, it’s quite satisfying to point out their particularly smarmy brand of hypocrisy whenever it pops up. 

John Cusack thinking: Don’t try this at home!

No matter where they live and work, leftists usually live by – and die by – the Balkanist sword. Rather than seeing us all as just plain old Americans, they like to sort us into different groups: black, white, brown, gay, straight, man, woman, handicapped, Christian, Jew, whatever. Divide and conquer is the game. Like the Greek goddess Eris, sow that golden apple of discord and resentment among different groups and then promise to cure all of their ills if they just vote for liberals and trust the powers that be in a centralist government to do right by them. After all, the people can’t be trusted to do right by themselves.

Unfortunately, when color and creed is all you think about, you often get caught in your own web of destruction. Take  Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez as recent examples. These so-called journalists both made public comments about Jews that were definitely offensive: Thomas said Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go back home” to Europe – where they had nearly been exterminated during World War II by Hitler and his minions. Sanchez, who has been mocked frequently on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, complained that the Comedy Central star  (a Jew) is a bigot and that those who run CNN are “a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.”

Thomas, a White House press room regular since the Cretaceous period, resigned under the onslaught. Sanchez, a CNN anchor with pathetic ratings, was outright fired. That’s what you get for biting the proverbial hand.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide and Western media may be complicit in demonizing Israel. However, to come out and say such things outright is still considered taboo in the world of media. (Thank goodness for small favors.) Both Thomas and Sanchez rightly paid for their diarrhea of the mouth. “Journalists” claim to be unbiased (which is a load of baloney, IMHO). But as long as they’re making that bogus claim, they should at least attempt to live up to it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Tea Party welcomes anyone who believes in smaller government and greater personal responsibility – no matter what color your skin may be.

But don’t tell Hollywood and the rest of the media. They’re still too busy promoting the myth of their own greatness and holier-than-thou stature to notice. Meanwhile, minorities in the entertainment world continue to bear the brunt of this self-serving lip service.

Who are the real bigots? You decide.

The day before Halloween? I’m sure it’ll be a solemn occasion, where people intend to reflect upon the real problems that face our nation, dressed up in costumes mocking conservative movers and shakers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. In fact, I can just imagine the oh-so-clever people who will be dressed up like Christine O’Donnell as a witch. (Funny, isn’t it, how when a conservative admits to “dabbling” in something like witchcraft as a teenager it’s a big scandal, but progressive, leftist PC dictates that we should be sensitive to the beliefs of those who declare themselves pagans and Wiccans.)

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert – your hosts

Oh, but I’m being cynical. The Comedy Central guys don’t really “mean” anything by the whole thing. It’s just a big joke, doncha know:

“We’re not provocateurs, we’re not activists; we are reacting for our own catharsis,” Stewart tells [New York magazine's Chris] Smith. “There is a line into demagoguery, and we try very hard to express ourselves but not move into, ‘So follow me! And I will lead you to the land of answers, my people!’ You can fall in love with your own idea of common sense. Maybe the nice thing about being a comedian is never having a full belief in yourself to know the answer. So you can say all this stuff, but underneath, you’re going, ‘But of course, I’m f*cking idiotic.’ It’s why we don’t lead a lot of marches.” (emphasis mine)

Perhaps that’s why the Comedy Central overlords have asked Craig Minassian, former Clinton administration press aide who is now a consultant to Comedy Central, and Chris Wayne, a former Clinton White House event organizer who works on large-scale media events and promotions, to help them file their permit for the October 30th event. But I’m sure they won’t be helping them actually run the event…

Still, we know that Stewart, Colbert and Comedy Central aren’t activists. How do we know? Jon Stewart told us so! Why would he lie?

Remember when comedians used to speak “truth to power” (I hate that phrase, but there it is) to the rich and powerful? Back in the ’70s, Chevy Chase enjoyed portraying Gerald Ford (an accomplished athlete in his youth) as a perpetual klutz. Even Johnny Carson wasn’t averse to making the occasional funny reference to politicians.

During the 2008 campaign, politicians running for president were the butt of many jokes (some more than others – guess who?, but we’ll put that aside for now). More recently, Will Ferrell loved to bash George W. Bush so much that he even expanded his SNL impressions of W to a one-man Broadway show. And Tina Fey milked her impression of Sarah Palin until the cow ran dry.

Tired schtick.

Then there are the really vulgar offerings of David Letterman and Kathy “I’ll say anything to get press” Griffin.

That’s to be expected, of course. Public figures are ripe for ridicule, deserved or not. It goes with the territory.

But now, Colbert and Stewart (real last name Leibowitz) are, to bastardize a quote from Emeril Lagasse, kicking it down a notch. Because instead of going after the rich and powerful – or those who would like to be rich and powerful – and those associated with them, they’re going after YOU.

That’s right. If you:

• Went to Glenn Beck’s recent (and massively attended) Restoring Honor rally in August or wished you could have;
• are an official Tea Partier or a Tea Party supporter;
• are one of the people whose values are closer to Sarah Palin than Barack “The Won” Obama’s;
• agree with 68% of Pennsylvanians that cutting taxes, not increasing spending, will lead to more jobs
• and read Big Hollywood…

…then the Wonder Twins at Comedy Central have a bone to pick with you.

You see, Colbert and Stewart and their ilk (the big cahunas in the entertainment industry) have risen above such petty concerns as which bills will have to go unpaid this month or what to do when you’ve been informed that your job will shortly be eliminated. Paid much, much more than the average schlub and surrounded by yes men and other adoring admirers, they live in a bubble world where unicorns and sugar-coated raindrops really do exist.

In other words, they are part of the self-anointed elite. As such, the people lovingly described by accomplished actress and American icon Megan Fox as “white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America” who are becoming more politically aware and not liking what they see, have become a threat who must be eliminated. Not literally, of course.

And it doesn’t matter if you watch their shows or not. Hollywoodites have proven again and again that they really don’t care if they insult their loyal fans as long as they can suck up to one another and to their liberal overlords in the government. How else would they get chances to schmooze with the prez? (Another reason why I think they despised W – he wasn’t as impressed with vapid celebrity as his predecessor and successor.)

This is not a rally to restore “sanity;” it’s a rally to show the Democrats that they still haven’t lost Hollywood – and to show middle America the finger.

Question: Am I the only one who thinks Stephen Colbert is a dead ringer for the nerdy, upper crust Cecil Vyse (played by Daniel Day-Lewis) in one of my favorite films, 1985’s A Room With a View?

Stephen Colbert and Cecil Vyse: Separated at birth?

Seriously, one more question: Will this event be reported as an in-kind donation to the DNC?

This dark, cliché quote reflects the film. Hex was a Confederate soldier, not because he believed in slavery but because he opposes government control. While serving, Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich) – the father of his best friend – orders him to burn a hospital filled with women and children to the ground. He refuses. This event disillusions him from the Confederate cause, and in his ensuing side-switch, he kills his friend. The vengeful Turnbull tracks Jonah down and forces him to watch as he murders his family, then brands his face so he won’t forget. Jonah swears vengeance. When Turnbull dies in a fire he thinks he has it – until he hears from President Ulysses S. Grant that Turnbull is still alive, and plans to terrorize the country during its bicentennial celebration. Grant begs Jonah to find Turnbull and stop him before it’s too late – a request Jonah is only too happy to oblige. 

As a comic book adaptation, the beginning of the film plays out episodically like the beginning of a TV show, with cartoon images showing the transition in Jonah’s life from a soldier to a man whose near-death experience gave him the power to talk to dead people. 

The other TV-type element is the film’s length. Running between 70 and 80 minutes, it feels like just another adventure in the life of a well-established protagonist. 

While short, at least there’s no needless dialogue. There’s not much character development either, but let’s face it, character development isn’t exactly the strong suit of “Jonah Hex” writers Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the minds behind the “Crank” movies. 

Brolin and Malkovich are both strong as hero and villain respectively. Brolin’s Jonah is a witty brute with a strong sense of justice regardless. When a sheriff and mayor try to swindle him out of reward money he earned for killing local outlaws, he cuts them down without regard for their status. Criminals are criminals. As he says, the man was a sheriff, but he wasn’t a law man. 

He is also a loner, who trusts no one but himself and Megan Fox’s Lilah. And though the Civil War is over, and in the end he fought for the Union, he still sports his Confederate hat – a symbol of his uncompromising views on personal liberty. 

Malkovich’s Turnbolt is a refined, but brutal, southerner. He and his men target hospitals and towns, not military outposts. The Mexicans call him “terrorista,” and his tactics are familiar. He strikes fear into people so they don’t trust the government’s ability to protect them – a strategy effectively used by terrorists in Baghdad before the Surge restored order and gave Iraqis safety once again. This documentary by the Institute for the Study of War clearly illustrates the tactic. 

Megan Fox as Lilah, is barely in the film. When she is, talks in a monotone. 

There was also a commentary on the atomic bomb. In the film’s back story, Eli Whitney, creator of the cotton gin, was hired by the U.S. Government to create a “nation killer” weapon, which, once the government realized its true power, never created because it “couldn’t forsee using such a devastating weapon.” After the designs fall into his hands, it’s Turnbolt’s weapon of choice. 

Though a dark film, it doesn’t restrict the use of color. Grass is vibrantly green, the sand a strong brick red. Some scenes have a “300” vibe to them. But there’s a lot of night-time action that is difficult to see because of quick cuts. 

In the end, “Jonah Hex” isn’t terrible, but the dark hellish undertones combined with its length don’t justify a theater viewing. If you’ve seen the preview, you’ve seen most of Megan Fox’s scenes, so just watch that and you should be good to go.

—–

But isn’t all celebrity masturbation lazy? No one’s trying to do anything more than feel good about themselves. So because that’s the real goal no serious thought goes into the sketch and of course no thought goes into the issue at hand.

Schools aren’t working? Throw money at them! Wow, I feel so much better about myself, so self-gratified, and look at how easy it was to show how much I care about kids.

Of course, anyone who really cared about kids would take the time to dig a little deeper; where they would find much bigger, systemic problems than a lack of cash. Money is the least of our public schools’ problems. Bloat, unions, lousy teachers who can’t be fired… Want to help kids achieve the American dream? Break the back of the unions.

But whatever. I’m a celebrity. School budget cuts must be bad because they sound bad. Anyway, I sound informed and compassionate saying I’m against them, and I’m really pretty, so my work here is done. 

It’s like this gay Jesus play. Ooh, offending Christians. So ballsy and original. Careful there, you’re risking someone praying for you.

Leftist celebrities have pushed leftist boundaries right into a tired cliche. It’s impossible for them to be interesting anymore.

Lefties can say what they want about our own Zo, Steven Crowder and Lee Doren, but at least they show their audience the respect of having studied up and thought through the issues they discuss. You might not agree with their conclusions, but you have to appreciate the effort they put into trying to convince you to see things their way.

The actress tells The New York Times that her movie “Jennifer’s Body” tanked because “the movie is about a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader, and that pretty much eliminates middle America.”

Actually, Megan, that pretty much eliminates anyone with an ounce of taste. Here’s more on the movie’s plot via IMDB:

Nerdy, reserved bookworm Needy and arrogant, conceited cheerleader Jennifer are best friends, though they share little in common. They share even less in common when Jennifer mysteriously gains an appetite for human blood after a disastrous fire at a local bar. As Needy’s male classmates are steadily killed off in gruesome attacks, the young girl must uncover the truth behind her friend’s transformation and find a way to stop the bloodthirsty rampage before it reaches her own boyfriend Chip.

Oh my stars! This has Oscar and Golden Globe written all over it, and Middle American schlubs who shop at Walmart and enjoy a night out at Applebee’s couldn’t appreciate the delicate nuances of a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader? Well, that’s the hoi polloi for you.

A decent movie must have meat. Unfortunately in this one, it looks like Megan Fox ate it all.

I guess it didn’t occur to Megan, though, that gratuitously badmouthing many of the people who make your career possible isn’t exactly the best way to win fans apart from hormonally-charged young men. Here’s what she said about those same losers back in June, whilst Americans were breathlessly awaiting the cinematic triumph that rivaled “Gone with the Wind” called “Transformers 2″:

When asked how she would stop the ruthless Megatron from demolishing the world, Fox first said that she would “barter with him.” She then, however, went on to say, “… and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”

Yep, there’s nothing like talking smack about a large portion of the movie-going audience, who work hard for the money that goes toward those $10 movie tickets. Remember, “artists” like Megan exist on a much higher plane than you and me, so they don’t have to worry about things like getting “value for your money” and can therefore spend a lot of time belittling the social mores of the very communities from whence most of them came. Burn those bridges, baby!

She must not brag too much about being born and raised in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Sounds a bit too “down home,” if you know what I mean. The poor dear attended a Christian high school and at the ripe old age of 15 was not yet a feminist! Thankfully she escaped that horrible place and went to Hollywood, where being a celebrity means you can do anything you want as long as the words “moral” or “tasteful” aren’t attached to it.

In her rant about “Jennifer’s Body,” Fox also takes a swipe at all the jealous females out there:

And other women hate her because “women tear each other apart. Girls think I’m a slut, and I’ve been in the same relationship since I was 18. The problem is, if they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. The instinct among girls is to attack the jugular.”

I agree that there is a tendency for women to “attack the jugular,” as Fox puts it, when they are feeling envious or threatened. (Sarah Palin might have a word or two to say about that.) However, an actress of Fox’s caliber can rest assured that most of the criticism leveled at her has less to do with her looks and more to do with her severe limitations as an actress. Meryl Streep she ain’t.

I wonder why she is worried about being labeled a slut, considering her own take on women in Hollywood:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: You’ve only done a couple of movies, so you’re still mostly known as a sex symbol rather than an actress.

MEGAN FOX: It doesn’t bother me. I don’t know why someone would complain about that. That just means that the bar has been set pretty low. People don’t expect me to do anything that’s worth watching. So I can only be an overachiever. I think all women in Hollywood are known as sex symbols. That’s what our purpose is in this business. You’re merchandised, you’re a product. You’re sold and it’s based on sex. But that’s okay. I think women should be empowered by that, not degraded.

So if other women think you’re a slut, Megan, remember: you should feel empowered, not degraded or insulted, by the label.

Reviews on “Jennifer’s Body” linked over at Rotten Tomatoes were mixed. Here’s part of one that caught my eye:

Jennifer is dead-eyed and impassive, but a good actress might yet have played her in a lively, knowing way. Fox’s dead-eyed impassiveness seems all too much her own.

Sorry, Megan, that wasn’t written by a Middle American or a woman, but a Brit named Edward Porter. Will the inhabitants of the UK be next on your list of people to insult?

But what do I know? As a female who isn’t a particular fan, it’s obviously because I’m jealous of her fabulous body and big-time Hollywood career. I must be one of those know-nothing Middle Americans.

See you at Applebee’s.

I was a groomsman at one of my best friend’s wedding this weekend. As I gazed across at the Bridesmaids all teary-eyed with an air of longing, I couldn’t help but think to myself, “Man, Johnny Depp’s a douche.” The truth is that behind every anti-marriage sermon given from a Hollywood hubby, there’s an incredibly disappointed lady. I don’t care how much of a “strong, independent woman” you are; all little girls dream of their perfect wedding day. Before the feminists get upset, let me tell you that none of this comes from a place of sexism. It comes from an endeared heart. It’s why little boys would rather play “Space Aliens” and little girls would rather play “House.” Your inherent ability for compassion and nurturing is what makes you the best among us.

It also happens to be exactly what makes the Johnny Depps, Tim Robbins, Kurt Russells and Brad Pitts of the world the most selfish dipsticks on the planet. Robbing the woman that you “love” of her wedding day is deplorable. The concept of love (we’re talking about actual love here, not the silly Hollywood version) involves esteeming her needs and desires before your own. I don’t care if you want to “play the field” or if you truly don’t feel the need for a piece of paper to confirm your affection, because I guarantee you that deep down… she does.

Now I’m sure some of you are wondering about the Megan Foxs of the world. You know, the girls who claim that they are “not the marrying type.” I’ll tell you what: show me one of these girls, and every single time, I will show you a pansy-man behind the charade who has either A) denied her marriage to the point of reluctant acceptance on the woman’s behalf, or B) actually conned the poor dame into believing his crap. The Megan Foxs of the world are the perfect target for germ-balls–they’re hot… and dumb as a bag of hammers.

Keep in mind, ladies, that men are always and will always be sexually predatorial by nature. We can’t change it; it’s who we are. We can however choose on how to act on said urges and what kind of moral filter we’ll be running them through. The type of guy who selfishly refuses to marry is probably not the kind of chap who’s concerned with fine-tuning his moral compass.

The first thing that goes through his mind when a cuter, younger babe approaches him will inevitably be, “Hey, I’m not married!” Keep that in mind, ladies.

To all the honest guys out there, back me up on this one. To the ladies, is this news to you? Do you actually think that the male mind is anything short of disgusting?

Finally, to all of the gutless yellow-bellied Hollywood leading men… Sack up, do the right thing, put a ring on her finger and give her the true commitment and respect that she deserves. Period.

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.”

See what happened there…?  Without even realizing it, Brad Pitt’s showed us that his use of the word “religion” is really inter-changeable with “Christianity,” as is the case with most of Hollywood. The entertainment industry is never anti-Religion; it’s simply anti-Christian. This goes both hand-in-hand with Hollywood’s obsession with immorality, as well as their compulsion to take shots at society’s whipping boy while praising themselves for their “risky performances.”

Brad then went on to say, “I never wanted to step on anyone’s religion” (don’t worry, that doesn’t stop him from doing so immediately afterward), “Until I started to see it define policy.”

Ooooh okay Brad, I get it. You don’t mind people having a strong worldview… Until it begins to manifest itself through their actions… Unless of course their world-view is “pro-marijuana” such as your own as displayed by your subsequent trip down memory lane where you fondly recalled your joint-rolling escapades.

Hollywood Bottom-line: If someone’s “religion” is nothing more than moral relativism, it should absolutely determine policy. If it actually adheres to an established code of conduct/ethics, you better keep it to yourself you, jerk!

*Note*: Keep in mind that none of this applies to Islam. You see, in Hollywood, the most anti-gay, anti-women, anti-peace religion gets a free pass in the name of political correctness. Just keep this in mind if you’re trying to make sense of everything.

“I was raised in a religious household… It just didn’t work for me in the long run,” Brad went on to say. Heck, I guess it wouldn’t work for me either if I wanted to live a life of hedonistic bliss similar to our Hollywood counterparts. If I were living a life of booze, sex and cocaine-off-of-the-ladies-hipbones, the last thing I’d want is to have held myself accountable to a power greater than myself.

Hollywood, we get it. The Christian faith just doesn’t work for you “in the long run.” However, for a large percentage of this country (the same country that makes your movies millions of dollars), it does. So please, for all of our sakes, keep your “beliefs to yourself” and just “stop the hate.”

Can I get an “Amen”?