For some audiences it will always be too soon for a drama like “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.”

The new movie deals directly with the 9/11 attacks in the most emotional way possible, telling the tale of a young boy who lost his father in the World Trade Center.

Hollywood has danced around the subject for a full decade, but “Extremely Loud” stops the music cold. It’s manipulative in a manner that should feel offensive, and occasionally does, but director Stephen Daldry (“The Hours”) pulls the strings with a delicacy that makes one forgive the boldness of the enterprise.

But no amount of dexterity can save a final act filled with precious plot resolutions unworthy of even such a flawed presentation.

Young Oskar (Thomas Horn) is still mourning the loss of his father (Tom Hanks) in the 9/11 attacks, but a year after the “worst day” he finds himself starting to forget little things about him. So when Oskar finds a key tucked away in his father’s closet he decides it’s something his father wanted him to discover all along.

After all, father and son have been solving mental puzzles for years before 9/11, and Oskar thinks this is just one last riddle his father wanted him to crack.

(more…)

“Tree of Life” grossed a pretty pathetic $13 million, “Happy Feet Two” grossed an abysmal $60 million, and “Moneyball” grossed only an okay $75 million. But in this market, where the concept of the movie star is all but dead, Brad Pitt was named the “top money-making star of the year.”

Number two was George Clooney who released two films this year that probably won’t gross $90 million combined.

Bosses at Quigley Publishing Company have asked theatre owners and film buyers to vote for their top 10 box office generators and this year exhibitors credited Pitt with bringing in more traffic than any other celebrity due to his acting and/or vocal appearances in Moneyball, The Tree of Life, and Happy Feet Two.

Coming in at number two was Pitt’s pal George Clooney for both The Ides of March and The Descendants, and last year’s winner, Johnny Depp, fell to third with The Rum Diary, Rango and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

(more…)

When it comes to Lourdes, Rocco, David, and Mercy, their mother Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone has quite a different view on what they should be exposed to, which is ironic considering what the decadent diva of debauchery eagerly imposed on a generation of naïve children.

Pop icon Madonna made a name for herself by exploiting her sexuality, celebrating the loss of cherished virginity, hitchhiking in the nude, and singing songs with explicit, blasphemous lyrics. She did so caring little about how impressionable children would be tainted by her morally corrupt influence.

Then, when Madonna became a mother herself, she banned television and magazines in her home. To shield her kids from the pornographic obscenity she promoted in the book Sex, and in an effort to preserve their purity, Madonna penned wholesome children’s books like Mr. Peabody’s Apples and The Adventures of Abdi.

Over the years, Madonna has transformed herself over and over again, first into a sadomasochistic sex slave, channeled Evita Perón to the point of naming her daughter Lourdes, married Guy Ritchie, adopted a British accent, and moved to the English countryside. She’s taken the Hebrew Kabala name Esther and joined the Angelina Jolie/Sandra Bullock/Mariska Hargitay adopt-a-black-baby club. Now, she’s settled into middle-aged doting mother mode.

(more…)

“It is the eve of St. George’s Day. Do you not know that tonight, when the clock strikes midnight, all the evil things in the world will have full sway?”

Those are words spoken by a superstitious old woman to Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula (1897). Fearing for the outsider’s safety, she gives him a crucifix. “I did not know what to do,” Harker writes, “for, as an English Churchman, I have been taught to regard such things as in some measure idolatrous, and yet it seemed so ungracious to refuse an old lady meaning so well and in such a state of mind.”

But later, overcome with terror in the bowels of the Count’s Transylvanian castle, he has reason to be most grateful:

Bless that good, good woman who hung the crucifix round my neck! For it is a comfort and a strength to me whenever I touch it. It is odd that a thing which I have been taught to regard with disfavour and as idolatrous should in a time of loneliness and trouble be of help. Is it that there is something in the essence of the thing itself, or that it is a medium, a tangible help, in conveying memories of sympathy and comfort? Some time, if it may be, I must examine this matter and try to make up my mind about it. In the meantime I must find out all I can about Count Dracula. . . .

Over a century later, Stephenie Meyer managed to write four bestselling books concerning vampires (later translated into a quartet of popular movies) without the word crucifix appearing even a single time in her hundreds of thousands of words. The toothsome undead in HBO’s True Blood (based off of Charlaine Harris’ popular, sex-drenched “Southern Vampire” novels) are similarly unconcerned with the possibility of their nocturnal bacchanalia being interrupted by the appearance of a cross. In these movies, it’s not God but other bloodsuckers who provide supernatural support for the good guys. (more…)

Anyone who pays attention to the movies knows that Hollywood loves to mine the same ideas over and over again. Whether via sequels, remakes or reboots, the big-studio machinery will take hold of nearly any idea that clicks with viewers and immediately find a variation of it to throw into theatres as quickly as possible.

Even though it’s not a sequel, “Secretariat” enters the marketplace this weekend cut squarely from the mold of last year’s surprise smash hit “The Blind Side.” Take a true story about a sport that even women can love, spotlight the warmth and importance of family amid struggles, add a feisty female into the lead role and stir.

—–

You can’t blame Disney for making the effort here; after all, “Blind Side” grossed more than $250 million in the US alone and scored a Best Actress Oscar for its star, Sandra Bullock. But thankfully, Disney has improved on that film’s Lifetime-movie tendencies and delivered a film that is more impressively shot, compellingly written and richly performed than its predecessor – resulting in a film that should easily make a run for Oscar gold come winter.

Since “Secretariat” is named after the famed 1973 Triple Crown-winning horse, the film centers on the equine’s owner, Penny Chenery, and her quest to keep the steed after her father dies and the temptation exists to sell the horse off quickly to settle his estate’s massive tax problems. In time-honored Oscar-baiting tradition, Penny (perfectly played by Diane Lane in a career-best performance), Penny tells everyone that her daddy didn’t raise a quitter, and soon she’s teamed up with eccentric trainer Lucien Laurin (John Malkovich in a rare role that doesn’t rely on an insane amount of swearing). (more…)

Paris Hilton is celebrated for a sex tape. Kim Kardashian is thrown in our face for the same, almost daily. And recently it was reported that “Laurence Fishburne’s 19-year-old daughter Montana is making a serious push to break into Hollywood — and she’s doing it with a hardcore sex tape.” Gawker reports: “I’ve watched how successful Kim Kardashian became and I think a lot of it was due to the release of her sex tape.” I think

I felt a collective shudder from parents everywhere when they heard about this.

When did woman start reaching so low to find their heroes, giving up what the feminists fought so hard for in the 60s and 70s? Wouldn’t it be nice to go back just 10 years or so, before reality TV and the Internet, before any Josephine was celebrated for displaying slut behavior? It seems like the norm for women in Hollywoodland and pop culture is to use their sexuality, savvy and gifts to seek celebrity with an abandon of self-respect, integrity and class. Whether Lindsey Lohan’s endless partying, drinking, drugs, and prison; to Ashley Judd’s belligerent, political tirades.

Whatever happened to women showing character and integrity when making choices and exhibiting decorum in debate? Wouldn’t it be nice to see them exercise the brain God gave them and work at the top of their intelligence? Granted Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Montana Fishbourne wouldn’t have careers if they had character, but TMZ would be much more palatable.

Rather than feeding these lower life forms with any more of the publicity that provides their sustenance, I thought I would celebrate a few exceptions to the rule. (more…)

Because there weren’t already enough reasons to crush on America’s Sweetheart, Sandra Bullock - ….

People.com [emphasis added]:

There to accept the “Troops Choice” Award for Entertainer of the Year, from presenter Robert Downey, Jr. — the honor was bestowed by members of the military — the “Blind Side” Oscar winner, looking stunning in form-fitting black, leather mini-dress, received a standing ovation from the audience inside the Sony Pictures Studios in Los Angeles.

“Let’s be honest here, just for a moment. We’re all going to be honest, right?” Bullock, 45, told the crowd. “Did I win this for being entertainer of the year, or did I win this because of the spectacular I.E.D. [improvised explosive device] explosion that became my personal life?!”

Once the laughter subsided, she added, “No, it’s okay. Because I would do it over again if it was to entertain our troops , and our extraordinary troops deserve something much more than some actress in a tight dress talking about herself.” …

(more…)

When I first saw the trailer for Ben Stiller’s new film “Greenberg,” I hoped for the best. With the recent Oscar win for Sandra Bullock, an actress who clearly stepped out of her comfort zone to play the lead role in “The Blind Side,” I was hoping that Ben Stiller, an actor known for his successful comedies, could do the same. Unfortunately, his new film “Greenberg” is a solid disappointment that ultimately fails in a genre that it could have succeeded in with a better script and more interesting characters.

Stiller plays Roger Greenberg, a recent mental hospital patient. While his brother and family take a vacation to Vietnam, Greenberg lives in their California home to care for the dog. While there, Greenberg connects with an old band-mate who has since grown up and now has a wife and a child. As the story progresses, Greenberg also begins to form a relationship with the personal assistant who works for his brother’s family.

During his stay, the audience is introduced to Mr. Greenberg and all of his quirks and eccentricities. One of the first things we learn about him is his affinity for writing letters of complaints to companies. Greenberg also seems to be a desperate loner looking for direction in life. Years before, he had a chance for success in a band and now that missed opportunity is in his rear-view mirror as he continues to struggle with his own future. In one scene, he talks about going back to school for another degree but that would take too long due to his propensity for procrastination. (more…)

As the 82nd annual Academy Awards rolled into their third hour, I started joking on our live blog about how the winners and presenters were so well behaved they were leaving me nothing to write about. In fact, it’s just the opposite. How many Hollywood Behaved Badly pieces can one man write in a lifetime? Well, it’s probably my destiny to find out, but what a pleasant surprise not to have to write one this morning.

Last night, no one said anything insulting or divisive. Not a word. Not a sound. Not a peep. The whole of the Kodak Theatre offered a brief but completely unexpected respite in their ongoing Culture War against traditional America and chose instead to behave like, well, movie stars.

No idiocy directed our way in the form of poorly disguised jokes or irony, no hey-hey goodbye shots at Bush, no gushy shout-outs to Obama. With ObamaCare on the precipice there wasn’t even a lone moralizing salvo fired on its behalf or a cheap shot launched towards the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, or Fox News. It was like someone gave a magic wand to those of us who want to like Hollywood again, and it worked. Because this is how it’s supposed to be. (more…)

The real fun of the Oscars isn’t the cut-throat competition for the little gold naked man but guessing who will make the biggest idiot of himself. 

The Academy Awards show has a fine tradition of pampered celebrities popping off with something stupid when they hit the stage.  It must be something about TV cameras and the opportunity to make damn fools of themselves before tens of millions of people around the world that the Hollywoodoids find irresistible.  Notice how you never hear any fallout from the “technical awards” ceremony?  You know, the non televised ceremony recognizing the boring technological stuff that actually makes movies possible that is usually held at the Beverly Hills Elks Lodge with hosts Steve Guttenberg, Charo and/or one of the lesser Sweathogs.

Some of the past magic moments are legendary.  Remember back in 1993, when Tim Robbins and his then-gal pal, tranny vomit insanity enthusiast Susan Sarandon, harangued the crowd about the detention of Haitian refugees?  Of course, right after that these stars led the way by opening up the grounds of their mansion to these huddled Haitian masses.

Roberto Benigni engaged in memorably tiresome antics after winning “Best Foreign Language Film of 1997” for the Worst Film of All Time, the insanely appalling Life Is Beautiful.  Life has certainly aged well, and Benigni’s shtick has only gotten fresher, contributing to the runaway freight train of success that his career has become since then. (more…)

For the past few years I’ve avoided watching the Academy Awards having finally gotten the message that they’re just a big fat marketing tool that have nothing to do with quality filmmaking. My self-imposed boycott of the televised event was difficult in the beginning for this diehard movie buff but became easier after the dismal fare gave me no films to root for. This year I will be watching just to witness the outcome of what has truly been an amazing year in films. Forget the two billion dollar box office for “Avatar.” No-the big question is does Hollywood have the cojones to pick “The Blind Side” as Best Picture? Nah! 

C’est impossible for the far left industry to award a film that actually has a Republican lifetime NRA member as its heroine. I just recently managed to catch the film that was budgeted at $29 million and has earned over $240 million so far and was blown away by Sandra Bullock’s performance. This savvy actress supposedly took a pay cut and opted for a percentage. I hope it was for the gross as Hollywood accountants tend to bilk those who choose a percentage of the net. 

Bullock has been nominated for Best Actress but if she wins I’ll be pleasantly surprised-no- I’ll be shocked. Her competitors are more in line with the ideologues who vote for their peers. There’s uber-liberal Meryl Streep whom I loved as Julia Child in “Julia & Julia”; Helen Mirren a great actress who had no problem playing lewd in her earlier career. Then there’s Gabourey Sidibe for “Precious,” who represents the victimized black girl who ironically could have used a savior like Leigh Anne Tuohy, Bullock’s real life character in “The Blind Side.” (more…)

Listening to National Public Radio handicap the Academy Award Best Actress Nominees, it’s clear that media and Hollywood elites think the movie The Blind Side has too much mass appeal and not enough edginess to win any serious awards.  Within hours of the announcement of Oscar nominations, the Hollywood press had mostly condescending analysis of Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a real-life suburban woman who intervenes in a troubled teenager’s life.  ABC News went so far to ask on February 3, “Does Sandra Bullock Deserve an Oscar for Blind Side?”  For the super-cool Hollywood types, Leigh Anne is just too simple.  For them, straight forward and inspiring is boring.  They think church-attending Republicans from the South are not hip enough for an Academy Award.  However, despite the fact that Bullock’s performance continues to inspire millions of moviegoers around the world, few filmmakers in Hollywood seem impressed enough to reward her an Oscar. 

The divide between those who attend movies and those who make movies has never been wider.  While serious Hollywood types spend most of their time, energy and money on movies that trivialize the experiences of middle America, Middle America spends its time and money on movies that celebrate what it is to be an American.  Capitalism is good for Hollywood executives, but it’s under assault in the scripts being written.  American military men and women are celebrated as heroes on Main Street, but they are overwhelmingly portrayed as killers in the movies that Hollywood produces.  And while Hollywood is tremendously liberal, the rest of America is not.  (more…)

On Sunday, March 7th, 2010, the best picture winner at the Academy Awards will be announced. Although there are ten nominees in that category this year (up from the usual five), they will likely not include the following:  “Twilight,” “The Hangover,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” “The Proposal,” or “Star Trek.” Undoubtedly, none of the “Twilight” pictures will ever be recognized by the Academy, though one of them was named best movie of the year at the People’s Choice Awards (PCA) last week.  Looking at the list of acting nominees and winners from that award show,  it seems unlikely that many of those nominees will receive Oscar nods, but one person who might be able to get nominated for both is Sandra Bullock.

This year, Bullock won “Best Movie Actress” at the PCA. On the PCA website it does not clarify if she won for a specific movie or for her total work last year as a whole (where she appeared in movies like “The Proposal” and “The Blind Side”), but her performance in the latter has garnered her both commercial and critical success. In fact, “The Blind Side” may actually help to win Bullock an Oscar nomination.  (more…)

You have seen John Nolte’s countdown of the Top 25 Christmas Movies, but this list is something else – a list of movies worth watching that take place in or around Christmas but aren’t about Christmas itself.  They don’t necessarily embrace the spirit of the season – as to some of them, that’s putting it mildly – but each one is guaranteed to provide you at least a couple of hours blissfully sheltered from the mindless socialist rants of the health care demolition crew, from the lame excuses and transparent equivocations of the climate change scammers, and from Howard Zinn-scripted commie nonsense spouted by ignorant Hollywood nitwits.

Here they go, in no particular order:

10. Die Hard (1988): You’ve seen Die Hard probably a hundred times.  See it again, preferably uncut and not sanitized for TV.  Bruce Willis is a cop trapped alone while the incredible Alan Rickman and his band of fashion plate terrorists grab Nakatomi Plaza during the annual Christmas party.  The plot is simple, but the execution is simply awesome.  This movie is the archetype, the template  for a hundred subsequent movies that were pitched as “Die Hard in a (fill in the blank).”  For more fun, try my Die Hard-themed drinking game – take a pull on a Dos Equis every time something happens that creates or reaffirms a classic action film cliché.  Wisenheimer renegade cop who play by his own rules – gulp!  Lots of MP-5s and other (then) hi-tech armaments that fire a ton of rounds but rarely hit anything – gulp!  Villain who rises from the dead to be killed one last time – gulp!  You may want a designate a driver – cue Argyle, the streetwise sidekick in the limo (gulp)!   (more…)

By now I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of other reviews about “The Blind Side,” currently in theaters, including this one by BH’s own Cam Cannon. I hope you can stand to read one more.

I saw “The Blind Side” last Friday evening with my younger daughter. Arriving half an hour before showtime, I was surprised to see that the theater was already about three quarters full and we ended up sitting down near the front, where my daughter usually begs to sit and I reply, “No, let’s sit somewhere near the middle.” Sure it was a long holiday weekend and people were looking for something to do, but as it was the second weekend, I took this as a positive sign. Word of mouth has a way of killing films that deserve to die quickly, especially in the age of Facebook and Twitter.

Not having read the book, I could judge the movie on its own merits. As BH readers already know, “The Blind Side” tells the true story of football phenom Michael Oher, then a fatherless black teen from the projects of Memphis with a crack-addicted mother and who, despite being accepted into a tony Christian school, ends up homeless. He is seen wandering out in the cold by Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, a well-to-do couple from the other side of the tracks, who take him in and eventually make him a part of their family. (more…)

I finally had a chance to be one of “those people.” You know the ones, they read the book and see the movie so they can say, with more than a twinge of superiority, “The book was so much better.” They’re also the same people that added the Walter Matthau-Robert Shaw version of “Taking of Pelham 1-2-3” to the Netflix queue about a month before the Travolta-Washington version hit the screens. You know, so they could say, “The original was better.” It’s of course true that the original was better, but I worked at a Blockbuster in Hollywood for five years and not once did anyone request that movie until the trailer for the remake hit multiplexes.

Anyway, I digress. Here’s what I think about “The Blind Side.”

The book was better. But the movie’s pretty daggum good too. I only read the book because a friend told me it would never work as a movie, anyway, and there was no point in waiting. My friend was right, the book is dense and wordy, and roughly half of it is about the evolution of the left tackle position in professional football. The Michael Oher stuff takes up the other half, and that’s what John Lee Hancock focuses on here. He gets the vast majority of it exactly right.

Sandra Bullock is well-cast as Leigh Anne Tuohy, a well-to-do Memphis interior decorator who takes in a homeless kid who is also a very hot football commodity. His name’s Michael Oher, and he’s immense. Huge. Massive. Surprisingly, he’s also quick on his feet, agile, and has a pretty sweet jump shot. The movie finds a clever way to use his hoops skills to introduce Michael to his future high school football coach, Coach Cotton. (more…)

In another scene, set at one of those dreary government offices where bored civil servants provide occasional slow-motion service to frustrated citizens, Leigh Anne demands to know who is in charge. The clerk points, in a non-sequitur nonpareil, to a portrait of then-president George W. Bush. — John Boot in Pajamas Media

You need not work in Hollywood to understand that this is the single most intolerant industry in America today — just watch their product. I wasn’t surprised to learn from Christian Toto that ”The Blind Side” filmmakers couldn’t control themselves. Unless it’s outside the mainstream Hollywood system, a film marketed to traditional American conservatives — much less, Southern Christians! — has to hit us with a leftist sucker punch one way or another. It’s an unwritten rule… 

Hollywood is high school and if you want to sit at the cool kids’ table (i.e. work) you better fit in, and if you’ve been involved in the writing, directing or producing of a film sympathetic towards the most hated demographic (yes, even more hated than terrorists — again, watch the product) in the 9-0 zip code, you had better inoculate yourself.

And that’s what the gratuitous, unnecessary, jarring, take-you-out-of-the-movie shot at Bush is: an inoculation. The filmmakers want to work again; they want to be invited to all the right parties. But if you’re remembered as the person involved in bringing to life a movie only Glenn Beck could love, no matter how big of a hit, that’s not a good thing on the ole’ resume’. (more…)

–

Christian Toto:

“The new drama “The Blind Side” tells the story of a homeless black teen who is taken in by a Christian family led by Sandra Bullock.

“It’s a heartwarming story based on the life of NFL lineman Michael Oher.

“So why does the film feel the need to awkwardly squeeze in a slam at former president George W. Bush?” (more…)

I haven’t seen “The Blind Side” yet, so I won’t say anything about the quality of the film. But based on the trailer and the true story, my wife and I are as excited about this as any film in a long time. It tells the true story of the adoption of Michael Oher by the Tuohy family in Tennessee and how they helped him go from homeless teenager to professional football star. The book was incredible, the story miraculous. We’re especially excited because we’re big adoption advocates, currently in the middle of our first of many planned adoptions. Also, the Tuohys happen to be conservative Christians like we are, and we don’t normally get to see families like that on screen, at least in movies that are watchable.

Apparently, this makes me a racist.

You see, Michael Oher happens to be black, and the Tuohys happen to be white. I actually think that’s pretty cool, especially because they live in Tennessee, and what gets us farther from the evil days of segregation than an increased number of mixed-race families? One would assume that liberals especially would be excited about that, right?

Not so fast. The other day, after we saw the trailer again (we get choked up every single time), I casually mentioned that it wouldn’t shock me if some critics complained that the movie was a “typical white person saves a black person” story. Call it a hunch. I emailed a smart writer friend and mentioned that I’d like to write an article predicting the coming backlash, and he said I might want to reconsider because I could look “strident” if I was wrong. My immediate reaction was one of indignance as I thought angrily to myself, “What does ’strident’ mean?” (more…)

John Podhoretz in the Weekly Standard:

“[T]he system around which the motion-picture business has oriented itself almost since its creation in the early years of the last century–the star system, which it largely invented–has finally reached its end.”

“The eight most successful movies over the course of the year’s first eight months have collectively grossed $2.7 billion, up from $2.3 billion for the entirety of 2008. And what is most striking about these eight films is that not a single one of them, not a single one, features an unmistakable star. Three of them are cartoons (Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and Monsters vs. Aliens). Three are sequels whose top-line talents are incidental to their success (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the sixth Harry Potter, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Two feature relative nobodies (Star Trek and The Hangover). The first traditional star appears in the ninth-place film, which is itself a high-concept sequel in which the star mostly stands around (Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian with Ben Stiller). It’s not until tenth place that a classic vehicle hits the list, Sandra Bullock’s The Proposal. And after that you have to jump down to 15th place to find Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons. Will Ferrell’s movie tanked. Julia Roberts laid an egg. Adam Sandler couldn’t sell a ticket. Johnny Depp disappointed. Denzel Washington and John Travolta bombed together. Instead, the movies whose successes depended on their strong leading performances were the ones featuring the 57-year-old Irishman Liam Neeson (Taken, $145 million) and the out-of-work TV comedian Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, $146 million).
(more…)