The Golden Globes Awards “are just like the Oscars but without all that esteem,” host Ricky Gervais said during last night’s Golden Globes telecast, his third stint hosting the annual show. The ceremony—featuring awards handed out by the Hollywood Foreign Press—includes some nice surprises as well as great disappointments.

Here’s a look at the big winners and losers of the evening.

Oscar Contenders

Winners: “The Artist” and The Descendants”
Both films are likely to be major Oscar contenders, and both left the Globes with renewed momentum. “The Artist” collected awards for best comedy or musical, best actor (Jean Dujardin) and best score. Meanwhile, “The Descendants” collected two awards: best actor in a drama (George Clooney) and best drama. Their wins likely foreshadow their future success at the Academy Awards and could lead to more moviegoers checking out these two smaller films.

Losers: “Moneyball” and “The Ides of March”
Despite the fact that it was nominated for four awards, “Moneyball” walked home with zero awards. Even Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network”), Steve Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”) and Stan Chervin didn’t win for their brilliant screenplay. Woody Allen took home the award for best screenplay for his wonderful comedy, “Midnight in Paris.” “Ides of March,” the political thriller directed and co-written by George Clooney, also went 0-4 during the evening but Clooney didn’t leave the show empty-handed (see winners).

Acceptance Speeches:

(more…)

It’s the most wonderful time of the year! Award show season is here, and it’s the time when I get all excited and giddy for the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild Awards, and the Academy Awards.

The 69th Annual Golden Globes starts at 8 p.m. EST tonight and will be hosted again by British comedian Ricky Gervais. I can’t wait to see who he offends this time.

Let’s take a look at who’s nominated this year for Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s Golden Globes. Favorites of the HFPA this year are “The Artist” and George Clooney. I’ve gone through the nominations and picked who I would like to see win and who will most likely win.

FILM

Best Motion Picture – Drama

The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
The Ides of March
Moneyball
War Horse

“The Help” was one of the most incredibly moving films of the year and featured a stellar, talented cast. It was also one of the best book adaptations I have ever seen. But I think the HFPA is in favor of Clooney this year. My Pick: The Help Who Will Win: The Descendants

(more…)

Ricky Gervais will not apologize for the jokes he’s planning to tell during this weekend’s Golden Globes telecast.

At least, that’s what he’s been explaining in one media interview after another to drum up interest for the show. Usually, the avowed athiest just does his shtick and gets out of the way.

Heck, if the folks behind the annual Globes telecast don’t want him back for another hosting assignment, so be it, he often says.

Lately, Gervais has been downright chatty in defending himself against charges that he’s far more cruel than funny. So, will this year’s event, to be broadcast 8 p.m. Sunday night on NBC, bring more of Gervais’s politically correct firepower – hitting addict celebrities, aging starlets and people of faith?

Can Gervais resist a Tebow crack?

(more…)

Today:

Gervais, who has hosted the Globes for the past two years and will do so again on Sunday night, continued his chat from last week with TODAY’s Matt Lauer on Wednesday, refusing to apologize for being offensive from time to time.

“What am I doing? I’m coming up with jokes and annoying people,” he said. “I think offense is taken, not given. If you don’t let yourself be offended, you’re not offended. Some people are offended by quality; some people are offended by mixed marriage; some people are offended by homosexuality. What are we meant to do, stop all those things because someone’s offended? No.”

(more…)

The only thing more painful than hearing someone explain a joke is listening to the teller defend said joke.

The newest Entertainment Weekly lets frequent Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais do just, and it was as awkward and self-serving as you might fear.

Gervais, the star of “The Office” and a loud and proud athiest, used a guest column in EW [link not available] to defend himself against charges he’s a cruel, vindictive joke slinger. You’d think an edgy comic would revel in such a reputation, especially since all those mean jokes didn’t prevent him from securing yet another Globes hosting gig this Sunday.

No, Gervais wants to show us he’s a kinder, gentler comic, and in doing so he pens a self-serving rant that’s neither funny nor illuminating.

Gervais says he “tends to explore contentious and taboo subjects,” one reason why so many people are offended by his act. “I like to take the audience to places they haven’t been before,” he boasts. But will his Sunday shtick really be so cutting edge? Will he dare poke fun at the current occupant in the White House? Will he mock those who wish to strike words out of the English language?

Doubtful.

It’s far more likely he’ll taunt people of faith – but not Muslims – and other soft targets.

(more…)

Comedians defending other comedians when they’re under attack for being insensitive…

What a novel idea.

First, some background:

Did Ricky Gervais cross the line by being his usual, I-could-care-less-what-people-think-about-me self?

The British comedian evoked online ire after posting a series of tweets referencing “mongs,” once a slur directed at people with Down’s Syndrome, and sometimes accompanying them with photos of him making silly faces. “Two mongs don’t make a right,” read one tweet. “Night night monglets,” he told his followers on Oct. 14.

Criticism came quick. Comedians and Down’s Syndrome advocacy groups have called out Gervais for reviving the word, but he claims “mong” now means something else.

“Well done everyone who pointed out that Mong USED to be a derogatory term for DS,” he wrote, referring to Down’s Syndrome. “Gay USED to mean happy. Words change. Get over it.”

Here’s the latest:

(more…)

So Ricky Gervais did a photo shoot and asked a bunch of questions over at HuffPo.  Here’s my take on one particular image and then, since he asks a few questions that are somewhat provocative, I’ll take a stab at answering them.

The photo of him posing as a Christ-figure is worth addressing because it is most likely to generate controversy for obvious reasons.  My first reaction was, frankly, disappointment.  That’s the best he can do?  I happen to think Mr. Gervais is hilarious, and his funniest material is usually the most provocative, but this one just fell flat.

After all, how many times are we going to be subjected to some knock-off of the Christ pose, which is obviously intended to inflame Christians?  In short, it’s been done to death.  Christians are an easy target and it doesn’t take much imagination, or cajones, to take pot shots at them.  In America, it’s perfectly fine to hate on the Christians.

If Mr. Gervais had real cajones, he would have created an image that is offensive to Jews.  Even though anti-Semitism runs deep and wide in this country, and often goes unrecognized and unreported, it’s still not so easy to openly hate on the Jews.   There are enough organizations and individuals that will defend us against anything remotely offensive, but the social price is high enough that Mr. Gervais is too smart to risk his career.

Nor is he likely to provide an image offensive to militant Muslims.  As John Nolte pointed out, they will literally take your head off if they don’t get the joke.  Not only is Mr. Gervais likely fond of his head, Muslims are presently in the company of the P.C. Police.  He’d likely to go P.C. jail for taking a swipe in that territory.

(more…)

Why Christian symbols? We’re awfully easy pickings. If you’re a rich Hollywood star, offending us takes about as much courage as bringing a case of beer to a frat party.

Why not Islamic images? Where’s that comedic edge and ballsy envelope pushing we’re always being told about when it comes to our Artistic Class? Christians are tired of this self-important posing. Islamists will take your head off. I would think that Islamist intolerance (and racism and sexism and homophobia and fundamentalism) would be a bigger target than than Christian eye rolls.

Well, if nohing else, at least Gervais was good enough to bring the pretension:

 I thought the caption … could be “Stand up for what you believe”.

Doesn’t he mean for “what you don’t believe”?

Actually, he doesn’t. That’s why I call him Gervais an “evangelical atheist.” He’s one of those obnoxious non-believers always pushing his non-belief on you. He’s like a Mooonie without the charm, flowers or airport.

Back to the pretension:

(more…)

One of the most frustrating things about writing blogs or trying to win over hearts and minds is the slow realization that the opposition actually possesses a different thought process.  It’s not just about laying out the facts, pointing out data, and drawing reasonable conclusions, it really comes down to the way the left looks at the world and parses data.

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

And this, unfortunately, is typical.

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

Though the media ceased to amaze me some time ago, that doesn’t mean my head doesn’t shake at times in complete dismay over the way things get spun. Criticism or an honest response from another point of view is one thing. When they completely get it wrong, that’s another. Twice now I’ve gone back and re-read both articles I wrote about Ricky Gervais and twice now I have to wonder what the Atlantic and Wrap read.

The point of both my pieces seems crystal clear, narrow in their scope, and even a little repetitive. But let me repeat it again…

 Hollywood has spent the last two decades hammering and insulting Middle America, Christians, and conservatives. Worse, they do it with sucker punches that insultingly come out of nowhere in what’s advertised as apolitical entertainment. Furthermore, this is an industry that prides itself on pushing the “edgy” envelope at every opportunity right in our face and when we least expect it. Sunday night, Hollywood got a taste of their own medicine and proved they couldn’t take it. It was revealing and it was deserved. Bravo, Ricky.

That’s not a political or partisan statement. It’s more of what you might call a Ms. Manners type of approach. I never said I thought Gervais was funny and I never said anything close to what many others have about all these “puffed up, self-important stars getting what they had coming.” Undoubtedly there are many stars who are puffed up and self-important but I truthfully don’t think that alone is reason enough to spoil their evening. And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Gervais is a little puffed up and self-important in his own right. (more…)

The Daily Mail is positively gushing over Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais and his willingness to pretty much hit every star in the room directly in their soft spot. Meanwhile, back in America, the Hollywood Reporter has a host of quotes, including from some top Golden Globes execs, stating Gervais “definitely crossed a line”. That pretty much sums up how this unimportant but revealing scandal is playing out across the world: Reality v. Hollywood, and Hollywood stupidly allowing their heightened complaints and indignation to feed this fire is the dumbest of all dumb public relations moves.

—–

In the bubbled, hypocritical mind of some in Hollywood, the only reason Gervais crossed a line is because he went after them. Had he been as relentless in ripping apart Sarah Palin, her young children, Jesus Christ, or George W. Bush, today the comedian would be celebrated as “edgy” and “courageous” — because only in Hollywood is throwing red meat to a hard-left crowd considered “edgy” and “courageous.” But Gervais didn’t do that. Instead, he trained his satirical fire on Hollywood Power and today there’s serious talk about whether or not the comedian will be brought back to the Golden Globes next year as host.

Hrm…? Someone not being allowed to work at the Golden Globes because they ridiculed Hollywood? 

Goldlisting?

The bubbled stupidity we’re seeing here is in Hollywood’s willingness to keep this story alive for a second day. It’s one thing for this community to have a thin skin, it’s completely another for them to announce it to the whole wide world. Regardless of what some stars and Golden Globes execs might think personally, if they understood how this event is playing out, publicly they would stop baring their asses. The smart  gameplan would’ve been titled Common Sense: Paste on a smile, praise Gervais to show you can take a joke, and then privately make sure he never eats lunch in this town again. (more…)

Dare I say, God bless Ricky Gervais?

How many times have those of us in Middle America gotten all settled in for an expected evening of relaxing entertainment, be it at the movies, in front of the television, or in bed with a good book, only to get sucker punched by some cheap, out-of-nowhere sucker punch aimed at our identity, faith or country? You former “Law and Order” fans know especially of what I speak. And so last night Gervais gave the entertainment industry a little taste of what that sucker punch feels like. First, there’s the surprise; then there’s the disappointment and anger; finally, there comes the worst part: the waiting on edge for it to happen again.

—–

The Washington Post claims Gervais “crashed” last night and had a “meltdown.” The Guardian suggests Gervais toned down his act later in the show after being disciplined backstage. The New York Times declared Gervais “merciless” and suggests he will not be asked to return for a third time as host. The Hollywood Reporter is almost positive Gervais won’t be asked back after “bruising all those egos.”

No, Hollywood is not happy with Mr. Gervais for ruining their evening with cheap shots, ridicule and insults.

Well, how does it feel, Hollywood? How does it feel to be “blindsided” and trapped for a few hours not knowing when it might come again?

Kind of sucks all the fun out of the evening, doesn’t it? (more…)

Watch monologue below…

Reuters:

Gervais’s jokes were so incendiary that when he went missing during the second half of the show, the Twitterverse lit up with suggestions that he’d been fired backstage. Clearly, Gervais had done so much damage entertaining the viewers at home (or appalling them, depending on their belief in decorum), that he became the story of the night. …

—–

Returning Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais did indeed let it be known that he wasn’t going to hold back in skewering Hollywood’s most famous celebrities. And, in what will undoubtedly be his last hosting gig for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (and, who knows, maybe any Stateside awards) he didn’t disappoint.

But in the process of making searingly funny jokes at more than just the obvious targets (Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, the HFPA itself), the heat he put into the punch lines might have made him more of the story than the actual winners.

And yet, it made for compelling — if sometimes wince-inducing — television. Given the staid lameness of most awards shows — hello, Emmys — at least he kept those who are not in the industry laughing uproariously. (His “I warned them” line came after a particularly funny joke about Hugh Hefner’s new fiancee, complete with physical comedy and facial expressions). (more…)

I think Ricky Gervais’s television shows are hilarious, but he really should leave theology to other people.  He said in a recent article, A Holiday Message From Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist:

The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

This statement, and several other things about his article, dismayed me.  However, his article was also instructive for those who want to look beyond its text.  I’ll get to that in a moment.

But first, why did Mr. Gervais and the media choose to release this article right before Christmas?  Nice timing.  Very respectful.  Why is it that Joy Behar storms off her own show because Bill O’Reilly makes a statement about Muslims and everyone cheers her, yet nobody has a problem with Mr. Gervais insulting Christians?  Mind you, it doesn’t bother me that his statement bothers people.  In fact, those who believe in God (regardless of religious affiliation) should welcome such a challenge. It’s the timing that is disrespectful.

Second, there’s an arrogance that oozes throughout the piece.  Mr. Gervais is so insistent that he is right – a trait often exuded by those on the Left — that he subsequently relies on faulty logic and a few bad childhood experiences to bolster his case. (more…)

So what we have here are two worlds. One, without God and controlled by thoughts of evolution, is a spectacularly dreary, unhappy place without love or meaning. On the other hand, even a fictional God brings the world meaning, joy, liberty, and wonder.

The Invention of Lying tells a fantasy story about a world in which people do not know how to lie. The conceit is that lying is the product of a gene no human had before it suddenly popped up in Gervais’s character, forty-something failure Mark Bellison. But instead of simply being a cute comedy based on a silly concept, The Invention of Lying is an ambitious, largely unfunny comedy based on a silly concept. It’s not nearly as cute, innocent, or funny as Gervais’s fans might expect.

In fact, it’s really rather dreary. Yet it does have some good points. Although the early scenes in the film, in which we see Mark’s sad, unsuccessful life, are pretty depressing, there as some funny moments after he invents lying. In addition, the philosophy behind the film is sufficiently confused and inconsistent to be more interesting than one might expect.

Before Mark invents lying, no one in the society is truly happy. They speak with brutal honesty toward one another, in particular calling attention to one another’s faults and their own very base desires, and no one seems to mind the situation too much. (more…)

Tough times for leftie Hollywood. Nothing’s gone right this week. None of this is their fault, of course. In order to understand that it might not be a good idea to rally around a child rapist, bash religion in a religious country or trash capitalism in a capitalist country you have to live in the real world…

Steve Mason:

Michael Moore’s CAPITALISM tanks!

Ricky Gervais has launched his second consecutive box office bomb as The Invention of Lying (Warner Bros) only mustered $2.2M or so to start the 3-day. The comedy should finish #5 with approximately $6.5M for the weekend. … (more…)

After a couple of weeks of unsubstantiated rumors, it has been confirmed that the forthcoming film The Invention of Lying is indeed intended to satirize religion and religious believers.

New York Post critic Kyle Smith has seen the film and describes it as “a full-on attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. It might be the most blatantly, one-sidedly atheist movie ever released by a major studio, in this case Warner Bros.”

Although the commercials and theatrical trailers have presented the film as a cute comedy and made no allusion at all to any religious angle, much less a concerted case for atheism, Smith reports that the basis of the film is its attack on religion:

Gervais delights in what a faith-based society would call blasphemy, setting up an imaginary world in which no one ever lies. Except his character, who spreads what Gervais obviously sees as the biggest lie of all: Belief in God.

(more…)

The Hollywood adult drama is dead. Any talk of resurrecting it is futile. Nihilism and leftism killed it. It’s gone. If you miss it, get Turner Classic Movies.

A genre still salvageable, though in need of CPR stat, is the smart Hollywood comedy. These days, it seems were stuck with only an increasingly desperate Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell, the Judd Apatow gross-out collection, and overheated romantic comedies based on lame concepts like “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past,” or lamer still, catchphrases: “He’s Just Not That Into You” and “What Happens in Vegas.”  

–

And while the Hollywood comedy may not be dead, every time I think it deserves to be killed there’s a spark of life, and most recently that spark came from “Ghost Town,” a delightful, heartfelt little sleeper from last year starring The Mighty Ricky Gervais and two actors I normally don’t care for: Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni (both have a television-level presence and project less warmth than ice). (more…)

If the first “Night at the Museum” was weighed down with a cookie-cutter plot involving the stale idea of a single dad desperate to redeem himself in his son’s eyes, “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” has no weight whatsoever thanks to a flat story loaded with monstrous plot holes and a cast of dull, one-dimensional characters.

There’s also only one laugh — one — and all the special effects in the world simply can’t make up for a single chuckle over 105 very long minutes. The only good news is that Ben Stiller appeared to be even more bored than I was.

If you remember, Larry Daley (Stiller) was once a night guard at the Museum of Natural History in New York City where after the sun went down, thanks to ancient artifact, the exhibits all came to life. Mayhem ensued, adventure was had and lifelong friendships were formed.

A few years have passed (between films and for our characters) and today Larry has managed to tinker his way into fortune and some fame as a highly successful entrepreneur hawking inventions, like his glow-in-the-dark flashlight (so you can find it when the power goes out, duh), on infomercials.   (more…)

The Academy Awards for 2008 have been handed out, and the “popular kids” have Oscars on their mantles, but the dirty little secret about winning awards is that you’ve gotta campaign for them. Thousands of dollars were spent by the distributors and filmmakers behind Slumdog Millionaire (Fox Searchlight), Milk (Focus Features), The Reader (Weinstein) and other assorted winners and nominees, but not all performances received that sort of big money backing.

I am an unabashed lover of the acting craft. I see virtually every movie, large and small, that passes through the US marketplace, and, taking nothing away from Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Penelope Cruz and Heath Ledger, not all of 2008’s best performances have been recognized. I’m not going to be obvious here. Clint Eastwood was snubbed for Gran Torino, but he received lots of acclaim for the role including being named Best Actor by the National Board of Review. My goal is to highlight 10 performances from last year that have received virtually no acclaim in the US. Many of these roles can be found in hardly-seen, under-appreciated movies that came and went without much notice. Each and every one of these movies deserve a spot in your Netflix (or Blockbuster) cue. (more…)