Between the controversy surrounding the proposed local laws in California against circumcision. and the Weinergate scandal, so far the month of June can be called the month of the schmeckel (Yiddish for penis).  There has been more schmeckel talk in the main stream media over the past two weeks, than occurs in an eight grade lunch room in an all boys school during the course of an entire school year.

Thankfully there will probably be no more Weiner’s wiener pictures released (even though the nightmares remain), and after a leader of the anti-circumcision movement published a blatantly anti-Semitic comic book (called Foreskin Man), the ballot initiative to ban childhood circumcision Santa Monica was dropped. The San Francisco initiative still remains on the ballot.

Sadly the movement against circumcision is not over and Academy Award winning actor Russell Crow, has decided to join in on the “fun” with an anti-circumcision rant on twitter.

A Crowe follower told the Australian celebrity that he was expecting a son soon, and asked for his input on whether he should have his baby circumcised.

Crowe responded harshly, saying that “circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?”

The actor added that “babies are perfect” when they are born. Crowe later said that he “will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man’s interpretation of what God requires.”

(more…)

Russell Crowe reportedly deleted some of the offending tweets and later apologized. Because  the Oscar-winner didn’t direct “The Passion of the Christ” we’ve likely heard the end of this. 

US Weekly:

Russell Crowe’s message is clear: circumcision is the enemy.

“Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature?” the Oscar winner tweeted Thursday. “Is it real that God requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect.”

After several of his followers tweeted messages of support, the 47-year-old actor reached out to his Jewish friends (including director Eli Roth, 39) to encourage them to reject their long tradition of ceremonial circumcision.

“I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats, but stop cutting your babies,” he wrote.

(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…)

The unlimited checkbook. That’s how Big Tobacco wins every time on everything, they spend you to death. Six hundred million a year in outside legal – Chadbourne-Park, uh, Ken Starr’s firm, Kirkland & Ellis? Listen: GM and Ford, they get nailed after eleven or twelve pickups blow up, right? These clowns have never, I mean EVER… 

Why it’s a left-wing film

Once again, like “A Civil Action,” we’re presented with a left-wing film using the cover of a true story to further an overall message. And once again I’m not going waste time and energy digging into the weeds of arguing for or against the facts of this particular “true story.” So let’s stipulate the story is true and get to the bigger issue: The True Stories Left-Wing Hollywood Chooses to Tell. But first, my own biases up front…

Believe it or not, I don’t hate Hollywood. People think I do and I take complete ownership of that misconception but my feelings towards today’s movie industry are something more along the lines of the parent of a bad seed. I love Hollywood, wish it would do better (both morally and creatively), forever hope it will, and for my troubles am constantly getting my heart broken. Also, to their credit, on the field of political battle, Hollywood is at least something of an honest broker. Like Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, and the Huffington Post, leftists in Hollywood make little to no attempt to disguise their agenda. Yes, it’s unfortunate that too often they stand against good, but they’re also fairly upfront in presenting themselves as who and what they really are. On the other hand, there’s the left-wing media…

As far as the Washington Post, New York Times, Politico, Jon Stewart, the broadcast networks, the wires, and sites like Mediaite, etc…  Well, let me put it this way, the only way I’d piss on any of them is if they weren’t on fire. Yes, on a human level there are no doubt some genuinely nice people who work within these completely corrupted institutions, but as a whole they are committed leftists willfully lying and manipulating the truth to further an agenda and most unforgivably, doing so under the guise of sanctimonious elites who puff themselves up as pillars of objectivity.

There just isn’t a corner of Hell hot enough to stack the legacy of the whole bunch.   (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…)

When many people think about “Robin Hood,” they probably conjure up images of a rebel causing trouble for the sake of his fellow man in the forest. They probably imagine a strong and charismatic leader standing up against a cold and overpowering government. The idea and the legend of “Robin Hood” are powerful and inspirational but unfortunately, the new movie about the famous outlaw is bleak and disappointing.

The new Ridley Scott film tells the story of Robin Hood in the period before he was known as an infamous outlaw. Oscar winner Russell Crowe plays Robin Hood, a brilliant archer and warrior. After a dying man asks Robin for a favor, Robin fulfills his duty to him and eventually becomes involved with the dead man’s wife, Marion Loxley (Oscar winner Cate Blanchett). After their romance grows, Robin Hood returns to battle to fight for the country he loves against forces that wish to undermine it.

Unfortunately, the movie has little sense of the adventure that Robin Hood is often known for and the characters in this film are not well-developed. For example, I was struck by the frantic pace of one of the early battle scenes and how little I cared about the characters battling in it. Many of the figures in this story are well-known but this movie fails to bring them to life. Although there were some strong supporting actors in this film (including William Hurt and Max von Sydow), the leading actors were disappointing. For one, Russell Crowe is far too serious in this film to have a good time with the role and he fails to create a memorable depiction of Robin Hood. (more…)

With a reported $225 million budget and a timeless tale at his disposal, for whatever reason director Ridley Scott chose to spend all that cash and legend on a hopelessly dreary prequel and origin story. On paper, the idea itself is an interesting one, and while the execution looks great – looks like $225 million — the telling fails where Robin Hood should most shine: The Department of Rousing. The point of the Robin Hood legend is not just to encourage us to fight for our God-given right to liberty, but also as a reminder that at every chance we have a duty to mock wrongful authority, ridicule pomposity, and give tyranny the high, hard middle finger; all while wooing a fetching Maid Marion, of course.

Robin Hood is about righteous defiance as practiced by a charming scoundrel. But unfortunately for those moviegoers expecting summer adventure and laughs, what you would think would be the obvious is completely lost on Scott and his screenwriter Brian Helgeland.  Instead, they allow the story to get bogged down with a protagonist exhausted by war, no villain for him (or us) to focus on, and a needlessly complicated narrative involving false identities, palace intrigue, double agents and two wars.

Things open on a promising note.  The date is 1199 and Robin (Crowe) is an archer for King Richard who is pillaging his way through France on his way back to England after the Crusades. Nothing happens you haven’t seen a hundred times before in one of these Medieval romps, but Scott knows how to structure, shoot and edit big action set-pieces like few others so the ole’ castle storm is exciting. 140 minutes later, however, you discover the hard way that this is where it all peaked. (more…)

Go ahead and file this in your “unlikely” drawer:

You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles. Don’t tread on him!

So is “Robin Hood” one big medieval tea party? Kind of…

As you probably know, the Breitbart team frequents these Tea Party rallies, and we’ve yet to come across the “disillusioned war veteran just back from a distant, violent campaign against Muslims” tea-partier that Russell Crowe allegedly portrays in this year’s “Robin Hood.”  Scott neglects to mention this inconvenient theme in his review.

We’ll report back and let you know if Robin Hood more closely resembles a libertarian rebel, as Scott suggests, a forward-thinking, spread-the-wealth around type of revolutionary, or somewhere in between.  We have our suspicions what he will be, but according to Scott, the films does pick on the French. (more…)

Yesterday Russell Crowe, star of Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood,” floats the absurd idea of what’s essentially a reverse-Robin Hood tax, where the government takes from the productive to give to the non-productive…

Today, we get yet another politically divisive statement, this time from the film’s screenwriter, who assures the L.A. Times that “Robin Hood” is not a Tea Party movie: [emphasis mine throughout]

Whatever you say about Russell Crowe’s up-with-people campaign against unresponsive, property-grabbing government in ” Robin Hood,” don’t suggest to its makers that the historical epic is the first Tea Party movie. “No, no,” says screenwriter Brian Helgeland. “That would not be good.”

If you read between the lines, you can tell that was a pretty big concern for the L.A. Times writer. “Please, please, please tell us ‘Robin Hood’ doesn’t inadvertently reassure the tea baggers.”

Whew.

But that’s the least of the story. Read on and then thank me for saving you ten bucks: (more…)

Nothing like a Big Star mouthing off about divisive politics before a Big Movie hits the Big Screen:

[Russell Crowe] is keen on the side of the [Robin Hood] story that deals with “the rights and privileges of the ruling class being redistributed” and says he was interested in a recent proposal by fellow actor Bill Nighy and director Richard Curtis to introduce a so-called Robin Hood tax.

They are campaigning to introduce a levy on international currency transactions and to give the money raised to those in greater need.

Russell says: “I think in essence it’s not a bad idea. I would probably be looking at aiming a bit higher than what they are aiming for at the moment.

(more…)

The payoff for sitting through a dozen craptacular releases is that one movie where you actually say, “Damn, that was worth the $11.50 and the kidney I spent to see it.”  As a modern moviegoer, you must be an eternal optimist.  You must hope against hope that the trailer you liked didn’t contain every single good scene and funny joke in the movie, and that the reviewer who raved isn’t covering up some pinko agenda that’ll make you choke out on your Goobers. 

You have to believe that out there somewhere is an action movie director who knows what a tripod is.  That there is a young lead actor who has never starred in a CW television series about beautiful but sensitive teenage male models with supernatural powers.  That there is a comedy screenwriter who can imagine a “funny” situation not involving a bodily fluid.  That Michael Cera will one day play a different character.

In that spirit, a spirit of Pollyannaish hope in the face of overwhelming evidence indicating that Hollywood’s product will almost certainly continue to demonstrate that evolution is a two-way street, I present ten movies that are coming within the next six months that might actually be good – or at least not make me throw things at the screen and slap around the ushers. (more…)

–

“Gladiator” meets “Braveheart” — Nothing wrong with that.

The Sun says “Lord of the Rings”: (more…)

Once upon a time Hollywood movies were often about American heroes vanquishing our enemies. Now they make movies attacking Americans while ignoring the real people who attack America.

Once upon a time Hollywood had no problem distinguishing our enemies from our allies. Now our allies are often shown to be feckless and evil while our enemies are either ignored or made out to be mere puppets of our evil leaders.

For example, last season of “24″ had an African dictator’s troops invading the country and trying to unleash a deadly virus, but of course, they were working for an evil Blackwater type military contractor run by a right-wing “patriot.” Patriot is Hollywoodese for crazy nut job. The same kind of villains were used in this year’s “State of Play” which had evil government contractors murdering people to cover up their evil conspiracy. Or last year’s “Body of Lies,” also starring Russell Crowe, which showed the CIA as a bunch of lying killers who have Arabs picked off with abandon for the aims of US policy. And let’s not forget 2007’s “Valley of Elah” in which American soldiers are portrayed as soulless killers made that way because they were exposed to combat. Or how about “Syriana”, in which a fat George Clooney wanders around the Arabian desert learning how evil the US is while boring the audience with an obscure plot. (more…)

One day … ONE day after gushing over how exciting the recession is now that those forced to work jobs they hate or who have lost them entirely can focus on their passions, Natalie Portman bought herself a $3 million castle-like estate.

Natalie, whoever’s advising you … fire them. If no one’s advising you, find someone who doesn’t carry a small dog in their purse or dates someone who does. Look to the real world for help. Look to someone who’s spent a few years in a land where the zip codes don’t start with “9-0.” Someone who cares enough about you and your career to say (without any “Honey, babys”):

“Nat, past the gates of your community and away from the hills of Hollywood losing your job doesn’t fuel passion, it fuels despair, and working a job you hate is almost as bad because of the big black  permanent ball of dread it plants in your gut. I know you dig Barack, I did too before he targeted my children and health care, but you can’t flak for his recession. That’s what the mainstream media is for. You have to empathize with your audience, build goodwill. Besides, you’re closing on that castle tomorrow, so today wouldn’t be a good time to get all gushy over how exciting Barack’s recession is. And if you do, I quit.” (more…)

In my Final Weekend Tracking column posted on Wednesday, I predicted that X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) would reach $92M on opening weekend, despite soft reviews (now only 38% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). My first fearless forecast of the 2009 summer blockbuster season appears to be close to dead-on (missed by only 5%).

Star-turned-producer Hugh Jackman has scored his second-biggest opening ever and, easily, his biggest as a solo star. Wolverine has mauled the competition with a massive $34.75M opening day (including $5M or so in Thursday midnight sales). That could translate to a 3-day of $86.8M, getting Hollywood’s most lucrative season off to a spectacular start.

(more…)

The great thing about a sequel is that it has a built-in audience. The problem with sequels is that, as the numbers after the title go up, so does the production budget. Very hard to know for sure, but sources have told me that the production budget for X-Men was in the $75M range. X-2: X-Men United may have had a budget of about $110M, while the cost of X-Men: The Last Stand was, in all likelihood, as much as $210M. Why doesn’t it make sense to just churn out X-Men 4?

Look at these numbers.

(more…)

Recording superstar Beyonce Knowles is building a bankable resume for herself as an actress with Sony Screen Gems’ Obsessed as the latest title burnishing her resume. Co-starring the excellent Idris Elba (The Wire), this low budget, PG-13 genre pic has scored a far-above-expectations $11M on Friday, and it will likely reach $27.5M for the weekend. That is the best opening yet for the former Destiny’s Child lead vocalist as an above-the-title star, topping 2003’s The Fighting Temptations and Cadillac Records from late 2008.

Beyonce does battle with the sexy Ali Larter (HEROES) in OBSESSED

OPENINGS FOR BEYONCE MOVIES
1. Austin Powers: Goldmember – $70.3M opening
2. Obsessed – $27.5M opening (projected)
3. Pink Panther (2006) – $20.2M opening
4. Dreamgirls – $14.1M wide break (after a platform start)
5. The Fighting Temptations – $11.7M opening
6. Cadillac Records – $3.4M opening

(more…)

The final weekend of April has never been Hollywood’s favorite release date. In fact, it is generally considered to be among the worst release dates on the calendar. Whatever opens on the final weekend of April gets absolutely crushed by the official start of the summer blockbuster season on the first weekend of May.

The 4 new wide releases and 1 major specialty release set to debut this weekend will face an onslaught of mega-hits over the next month. How can Obsessed (Sony), Earth (Disney), The Soloist, (Dreamworks/Paramount), Fighting (Rogue) and The Informers (Senator) possibly find an audience with X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Fox) and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (Warner Bros) arriving next weekend followed by, in successive weeks, Star Trek (Paramount), Angels & Demons (Sony), the combo of Night at the Museum 2 (Fox) and Terminator: Salvation (Fox) and Disney/Pixar’s Up?

(more…)

I caught a media screening of the new Russell Crowe flick, State of Play, in Chicago this week.  It did not disappoint.  The film’s trailers promise a taut, political thriller with a number of dramatic plot twists–and the movie delivers a pretty solid pay-off.  I’ll admit in advance that I was predisposed to enjoy this film, so take my analysis with a few grains of salt: 

1. I love this genre, and since many of these types of movies end up being terribly disappointing, a fairly well-executed thriller with a decent plot is more than enough to satisfy this customer. (more…)