If all goes as planned, as you read this the wife and I will be loading a moving van full of everything we own in advance of a cross-country move back to our home in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Eight years ago we did the reverse. Left our beloved home for what was supposed to be a three-year adventure in Hollywood. Much happened over those years — most of it wonderful. But we’ve been terribly homesick every minute we’ve been away and simply can’t wait to pick up our small town lives where they left off.

Crying out in anguished pretension

To say we’ve enjoyed our time in Los Angeles would be an understatement. Adventure we sought and adventure we received. Though I eventually failed out, I loved the few years I (barely) scraped out a living in the independent film world and that it led to eventually being a part of Andrew Breitbart’s BIG empire feels something like providence. There is very little, however, my wife and I will miss about the city itself. We learned pretty quickly that all the cliches are true about the crime, traffic, smog, tremors, and artificiality of it all. Simply put, this city is a dump with a 10% sales tax where light bulbs are contraband the seasons change from hot to scalding and throwing your garbage in the wrong bin ranks as something close to a capital crime. No offense, but I see Los Angeles as nothing more than a big, fascist, one-story ghetto and those of you who love it are welcome to it.  

One cliche that is a total lie, though, is the unbelievably phony narrative created by the Leftist media and Hollywood about the people who live here. Throughout my misspent life, I’ve lived in Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and now California — and I have never met nicer people than the people of Los Angeles. That’s not hyperbole or rose-colored glasses or sentiment. It’s a fact. Over the years, I’ve been all over this city and have met and worked with folks from every possible background and income group; from movie stars, producers, journalists and politicians to cops, public school teachers, and factory workers. The people who live and work and make this city run are almost without exception uncommonly decent and kind.

Which brings me to the Paul Haggis film “Crash.”

(more…)

Let’s be clear – the upper echelons of Hollywood are dominated by weirdos, losers and mutations.  I’m not judging – I live in LA, so naturally some of my best friends are weirdos, losers and mutations.  I’m simply pointing out a fact.  Most of the normal, hardworking, all-American folks in Hollywood are crew – and they showed it with their heartfelt booing of Michael Moore when he removed the muffin from his pie-hole just long enough to run down our country during the 2003 Oscar ceremony. 

But these great Americans are generally not members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and they don’t get to vote for who takes home the Oscar.  People like Sean Penn do.  And Tim Robbins.   And tranny vomit recipient Susan Sarandon.  

—–

These are the kind of folks who make up the majority of Oscar voters, so it’s no wonder that the Academy Awards show is so often a festival of nitwittery that leaves normal Americans scratching their heads wondering, “Um, what the hell was that?” 

Oscar has more than its share of astonishing failures, of crazy-uncle-locked-in-the-attic nods that the Academy sorely regretted about the time the after-party coke bowls ran dry.  The terrible Oscar choices listed here are only from the last few decades since the sting of choosing How Green Is My Valley over Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon has presumably faded since 1941– well, for some of us.  Oh, and you won’t find Marisa Tomei on this list – she rocks.  Deal with that, haters. 

So, in no particular order of insanity, here are Oscar’s 10 biggest recent screw-ups: ]

(more…)

No more than three weeks ago, 17 days to be exact, Hollywood’s favorite overrated, race-obsessed, ex-scientologist Oscar-winner, Paul Haggis, raised the bloody shirt of the dreaded Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and ’50s … again. For those of you might have missed one of the annual offerings from Hollywood’s self-referential masturbatory genre of films covering the blacklist, essentially what happened is that for a time entertainment professionals were denied employment based on real and perceived communist sympathies. A terrible thing to be sure, but not so terrible for today’s communist sympathizers who, for seven decades now, have lovingly fed, pruned and cared for this unfortunate era of Hollywood history in order to grow it into a Mighty Oak of Indignation. After all, how else would today’s Hollywood — the wealthiest, freest community of artists in the history of the world – feel the moral superiority that comes with being oppressed were it not for a scandal old enough to collect Social Security?

The irony of this, of course, is that the situation is now reversed. The only thing today’s Hollywood Left learned from the original blacklist was how to blacklist better. They leave no fingerprints today. There’s nothing official, there’s no list, so there’s no way for anyone to get caught. At the very least, The Hollywood Ten understood what had happened to them. There was a list, they were on it, and so they could work around it with the use of pseudonyms until the storm passed. Today’s Hollywood Blacklisters are shrewder and much more insidious. Their blacklist is an unspoken social one. There’s nothing official to tell you why the phone stops ringing.

The worst part is that those on this awful list aren’t even looked at as victims (not that they want to be). As we’ve documented ad nauseum, the entertainment media is a willing participant in the blacklisting of those who don’t conform to their political beliefs. Anyone who dares mention that it might not be the best career move to take the other side of a Global Warming debate in a production meeting or by the craft services table, is immediately pounced upon as a talentless, hasbeen, paranoid whiner by no less than Patrick Goldstein at the L.A. Times, among others. (more…)

Most film critics start off each year with a list of their top 10 movies for the year before, an act of timing that often masks the fact that the first week of a new year is used to dump on an unsuspecting public the absolute worst garbage produced. This year is no exception, with the godawful-looking “Season of the Witch” coming out on Friday.

And so it is that I’ve taken a look back over the more than 100 movies I’ve seen in 2010, picking my 10 personal favorites. I won’t presume to say that they’re objectively the 10 best — I would have had to see more than 250 films last year to give an honest assessment of that. And while I know “The Social Network” is great filmmaking and appears to be the unanimous favorite for this year’s Best Picture Oscar, I think it’s too easy to simply agree with the pack. So, instead, I’m offering up 10 flicks that moved me, made me laugh, or thrilled me the most. Many of them were underrated and little-seen, but they are well worth renting now.

1. “Cyrus.” This indie film came out in July and served up what appeared to be the most unusual love triangle ever: Marisa Tomei as a lonely single mother, John C. Reilly as the even lonelier guy who is saved by her love, and Jonah Hill as her grown-up son, Cyrus, who seems way too close to his mom. Thankfully, nothing is as it first appears, and this crazily funny and surprisingly touching film winds up being my favorite gem of the year. (more…)

At the upcoming Academy Awards, “Crash” director Paul Haggis wants Hollywood to wear white ribbons in solidarity with Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof, two filmmakers sentenced to six-years in prison in Iran for conspiring to make an anti-government film critical of that country’s regime. Well, that’s certainly a righteous cause and we were actually going to applaud Haggis for it until we read further and found the leftist, anti-American filmmaker whipping out the ole’ moral equivalence argument against the very country that’s made him wealthy while making films critical of it and the troops who defend his right to do so…

Today’s Incredible Shrinking Los Angeles Times:

Haggis, the director of “Crash,” and others are urging Hollywood stars to pin on white lapel ribbons to register their opposition to the Iranian government’s treatment of acclaimed director Jafar Panahi (“Offside”) and fellow filmmaker Mohammad Rasoulof, who were sentenced last month to six years in prison and banned from making movies for 20 years. …

Though Haggis does not know Panahi and Rasoulof personally, and the Iranian government is notoriously resistant to outside pressure, he said he felt compelled do to something when he heard the news.

“When I see something like this, it hits pretty close to home,” said Haggis, who with Sean Penn, Martin Scorsese and producer Harvey Weinstein joined with Amnesty International to condemn the sentence and sign Amnesty’s petition calling for international pressure on Iran to lift it.  

(more…)

“Is that why you’re here, Colonel? Some kind of post-Vietnam experience like you need a rerun or something? You pour a hundred twenty million bucks into this place, you turn it into a military zone, so what, so you can have chopper parades in the sky?” 

Why it’s a left-wing film

Although he had directed the middling horror film “The Hand” in 1981 and a couple of short films, “Salvador” was Oliver Stone’s first Oliver Stone Film, a political-themed drama based on a true story and yet still skewed in unmentionable ways to condemn what would become the two-time Oscar-winning director’s usual targets: America, Reagan, the military, the CIA, and conservatives in general.

The film’s narrative covers the tumultuous 1980-81 Civil War period in El Salvador with a story that starts just prior to Ronald Reagan taking office in January of ‘81, but through a lot of exposition (masterfully delivered by star James Woods) Stone still manages to blame much of the country’s chaos on Reagan, the “right wing” and, of course, the CIA for supposedly supporting and training and enabling the military death squads that roamed the country murdering supporters of the leftist uprising.

Stone also uses a sleight of hand to make you think it was Reagan who was in office and who continued military and financial assistance after the brutal assassination of archbishop Oscar Romero (during a Catholic mass and just after a blistering anti-government speech) and the horrific rape and murder of four Catholic nuns. Both of these tragedies occurred in late 1980 while Carter was still in office, but Stone seems incapable of dealing with the fact that running the American government and continuing all that aid — though it was briefly suspended after the bodies of the nuns were found — in the face of the worst kind of human rights abuses was a Democrat president and Congress.

When Reagan did take office, he merely took over a policy his liberal predecessor had long supported.   (more…)

About a decade ago, Russell Crowe was on a career roll that was almost unprecedented in Hollywood history, scoring Best Actor Oscar nominations three years in a row for 1999’s “The Insider,” 2000’s “Gladiator” and 2001’s “A Beautiful Mind,” while taking home back-to-back trophies for the latter two films. He may be Australian, but he had built a persona beloved worldwide as both a cinematic chameleon as well as an Everyman extraordinaire, able to slip into seemingly any kind of role – from a doughy corporate whistleblower to a Roman warrior to a schizophrenic yet sensitive genius – with sympathetic aplomb.

—–

But aside from the vastly underrated “Cinderella Man” five years ago, Crowe has slipped off the rails a bit. He made several missteps that proved largely unappealing to the masses of moviegoers, only starting to rebound this year with the $100 million-grossing yet still disappointing “Robin Hood” (full disclosure: looking back, this is the one positive review this year that I regret givin, as the film has not held up well in memory due to its overly ponderous tone). But in his new film “The Next Three Days,” Crowe digs deep and pulls off his most appealing performance in years. Working under the always-masterful Paul Haggis (“Crash,” “Million Dollar Baby”), who fills the shoes of writer and director in this one, Crowe plays John Brennan, an English professor at a Pittsburgh community college who has a young son and an incredibly sexy and supportive wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks).

He’s content with his lot in life, but Laura hates her boss so much that when the boss winds up murdered, she gets pegged as the prime suspect and is railroaded into a 20-plus year prison sentence. As months and then years tick by and John sees their son growing up ever more distant and alone, he is frustrated by the fact that all types of appeals have been exhausted and nothing legal will ever appear to get her out. (more…)

***clarification update below.

Last week, film writer extraordinaire Christian Toto fell under the delusion that yours truly was interesting enough to interview, and if you’re under the same delusion you can read the two-parter here and here. Among other things, Toto asked me about the clout critics wield and the most common mistakes they make. Here’s a combination of my answers:

Critics aren’t dumb, they know the public doesn’t much care which way their thumbs point. But critics do know that based on their opinions and reviews they can enjoy an influence over what kind of films get made. And that’s not a small amount of power. Culture is upstream from politics, after all.

If you have 95 percent of critics savaging a faithful retelling of the Gospels as anti-Semitic, no matter how successful “The Passion” is, no one’s going to go near that subject matter again. And that’s the goal. Same with anything that comes close to patriotism or conservatism. Such cinematic rarities are frequently labeled “jingoistic, fascist or simple minded.” This is all done consciously and for a desired effect.

You have to understand that when I look at the critical community I only see it for what it really is: a journolista cabal of left wingers deeply engaged in a cultural and ideological war, deeply committed to shaping the powerful messaging of sound and fury that emanate from our pop culture masters.

(more…)

—–

Is this from the same Paul Haggis known for the soulful Hispanic slow-motion scream and leading the way in 2007 with the trashing of America’s troops? Just very hard to believe because “The Next Tree Days” looks like a fairly straight-forward action thriller. Seems rather shallow to produce such a thing with America still in Iraq … and racist.

Oh, that’s right, now that Obama’s in office no one screams in slow motion anymore and Tommy Lee Jones can now feel comfortable flying the American flag right-side up.  (more…)

Twelve years ago in his breakout performance as an arrogant young genius in Good Will Hunting, struggling fresh-faced actor Matt Damon sneered at his Boston psychiatrist for “surrounding yourself with all the wrong f__kin’ books. You wanna read a real history book, read Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States. That book’ll f__kin’ knock you on your ass.”

The political left loves shout-outs, and this was a direct one to Zinn himself, whom Damon actually lived next-door to as a child, and whose book apparently knocked the actor on his own behind. “Ben (co-screenwriter Affleck) and I were laughing our asses off writing that,” he recalls. (What is it with Damon and the word “ass”?) ”We liked it that the smartest guy in Boston was reading Howard Zinn.”

Self-proclaimed radical historian Howard Zinn, 87, is arguably the most popular proponent of the “history from below” school of historiography, which explores past events from the perspective of everyday people as opposed to the so-called “Great Men” theory, which actor Josh Brolin, another Zinn devotee, calls mere “propaganda.” The Boston University professor wasn’t the first academic to pioneer this approach, but he is no doubt the first to dispense with tedious scholarly ballast like footnotes and citations, and to have pop culture powerhouses like Damon, Brolin and Pearl Jam running interference for his openly politicized agenda. His 1980 book A People’s History of the United States, one of the best-selling history books of all time thanks partly to Damon’s shout-out, is a litany of oppression and exploitation on the part of America’s white ruling class, a “raggedly conceived Marxist caricature” of American history, as David Horowitz calls it in Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. (more…)

Almost before the echo of gunfire from the massacre at Ft. Hood had faded, the news media launched a pre-emptive rationalization for the slaughter committed by Muslim traitor Nidal Malik Hasan. To divert attention from the shooter’s inconvenient name (“I cringe that he’s Muslim,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas), the talking heads began speculating sympathetically about the fragile mental state of poor frazzled Hasan, who had never seen combat but nonetheless must have “snapped.” After all, surely there could be no rational, ideological motive for the mass murder, which President Obama labeled “incomprehensible.”  And “it’s certainly not about his religion, Islam,” denied Senator Lindsey Graham. Indeed, from listening to such “experts” as irrelevant diet book author Dr. Phil (“this is not a well act”), you’d think that Hasan was the victim, not the fourteen dead* and the nearly thirty seriously wounded that he left in his heartless wake. Even as a mountain of accumulating evidence irrefutably exposed Hasan’s act as premeditated violent jihad against the U.S. military, stubborn left-leaning commentators clung to their theory of mental derangement.

George Clooney in 2005’s  Syriana

Meanwhile the national discussion has segued to our own collective insanity, political correctness, which we are now discovering paved the very way for the massacre. It is this cultural and mental straightjacket that forced a U.S. Army general to say diversity is more important than losing American lives; that compelled our Homeland Security Secretary to reassure the Arab world that we’re doing everything we can to protect against a mythical Muslim backlash; that prevented people from speaking out about red flags that could have saved the lives of everyone murdered at Ft. Hood; and that prevents our officials from even naming the enemy. No such ailment afflicts the jihadists, however, who are celebrating Hasan as a hero, who have no problem acknowledging his ideological intent, and who recognize our political correctness as a self-inflicted fatal wound. Unlike our leaders and media elites, they don’t sap their wartime focus with hand-wringing and navel-gazing. (more…)

Internet hoaxes that look too good to be true usually are. Over the weekend, a leaked resignation letter written by director Paul Haggis spilling all kinds of dirt about the Church of Scientology hit the web and looked way too good to be true. But now that New York Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter have picked it up….

After 35 years as a member of the Church of Scientology, Paul Haggis is calling it quits. In a badass letter to Scientology’s national spokesman Tommy Davis (who hates Martin Bashir), the filmmaker lays out the reasons why.

It all started when a San Diego church publicly supported Prop 8. Haggis asked Davis to denounce its actions but Davis never went through with it. Then the already-pissed Haggis read an interview in which Davis denied Scientology’s practice of “disconnection” (forcing members to cut off communication with loved ones who oppose Scientology). But Haggis knew disconnection first-hand. His wife was forced to cut ties with her parents.

Choice snips from the Haggis letter: (more…)