BOX OFFICE ANALYSIS

IMDB:

Blame the unseasonably snowy weather in the East. Blame the World Series. Blame Halloween parties. Blame the economy. Box office analysts were doing a little of each to explain the lousy weekend that saw blah openings for three new movies and mostly insipid performances from everything else. The No. 1 film, as expected, turned out to be Paramount/DreamWorks Animation’s Puss in Boots, but its $34-million take fell below most pundits’ predictions of $35-40 million. Twentieth Century Fox’s In Time, starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Siegfried, debuted with $12 million — at the low end of predictions. But FilmDistrict’s The Rum Diary, starring Johnny Depp, tanked with just $5 million — about half what it was expected to earn.

It’s striking that Johnny Depp couldn’t open “Rum Diary” to anything above $5 million.

FOR HOME ENTERTAINMENT RELEASES, A RARE BRIGHT SPOT

LAT:

“Hollywood’s troubled home entertainment business is moving in an unaccustomed direction: Up.

[…]

“In part, the increase reflects a surge in Blu-ray sales, which are expected to reach $1.23 billion for the first three quarters, up from about $1 billion for the same period a year earlier. That puts them on a par with video store rentals, which have been falling, and on-demand revenue, which has grown more slowly.”

CW LEADS WAY INTO AGE OF STREAMING

DHD:

“Within the last couple of weeks, the network was part of two major online distribution deals that take major steps towards resolving both issues. First came the 4-year pact CW’s co-parent companies CBS and Warner Bros. signed with Netflix for streaming previous seasons of the network’s current series. The deal, which analysts estimate could bring CBS and Warner Bros. as much as $1 billion, would help make up for lost syndication revenue because of the serialized nature of the shows. Additionally, the pact doesn’t prevent the studios from pursuing cable syndication deals in the future (not that such deals appear likely.) Then came the Friday’s deal with Hulu, this time made by the CW itself. It will have the episodes of network’s current seasons stream on the Fox-NBC-ABC-owned online hub — right away for subscribers with limited commercials and free for everyone 8 days after the episode’s original airing on the CW with full commercial load.”

Right now, at least with Netflix, it’s extremely difficult to fast-forward through anything, so this would be true if they were to add commercials. If you watch Crackle Streaming, you cannot zip through the commercials. Moreover, if you look at online videos, you are FORCED to suffer through a commercial if it loads prior to the video you want to view.

This could end up being one of the major reasons streaming becomes the future. Advertisers must despise the DVR, and streaming could ensure them a captive audience.

DISNEY-ABC STRIKE DEAL WITH NETFLIX

DHD:

“Disney’s announcement with Netflix this morning extends and expands a current deal, giving the streaming service rights to several shows 30 days after the last episode of the season airs.”

30 days!

‘MARILYN’ POSTER REVEALED

JoBlo is pretty excited and thinks Michelle Williams looks ‘unbelievable.’ I don’t. Monroe had a womanly quality Williams is missing, and that was the second-most important quality the ’50s bombshell possessed. The first was vulnerability. She made you want to swoop in and save her from the big, bad world.  This is something else missing from Williams — at least in the film’s poster. Her performance, however, could be everything people are saying it is.

‘IN LIVING COLOR’ RETURNS FOR TWO HALF-HOUR SPECIALS

The original ‘In Living Color,’ which aired in the early 1990s, could never air today because there were no sacred cows. Everyone received a merciless skewering, including gays and blacks. Will these upcoming specials have the nerve to go where television fears to tread today? Do they dare satirize Muslims in a way that would offend CAIR or Jon Stewart?

Do they dare do anything that would offend Jon Stewart?

I doubt it.

‘TITANIC’ IS COMING BACK, HOPING FOR ‘LION KING’ RESULTS

This 3D re-release will tell all of Hollywood whether the re-release success of the ‘Lion King’ can be attributed to it being a family film a new generation of parents wanted to share with their kids or whether this 3D re-release craze is for real. If the answer is the latter, prepare for the onslaught.

—–

—–

SCOTTDS’ EPIC LINK-TACULAR

‘RIDDICK 3′ SHUT DOWN OVER MONEY PROBLEMS

ROBERT DE NIRO AND JOHN TRAVOLTA TEAM UP FOR ‘THE KILLING SEASON‘

GALLERY: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES FILMING IN NEW YORK

DORIS DAY TO RECEIVE CAREER ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FROM LA FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION

PRODUCERS OFFER ‘300: BATTLE OF ARTEMISIA’ UPDATE

JAMES CAMERON DEVELOPING A REMAKE OF ‘FANTASTIC VOYAGE‘

MICKEY ROURKE FURIOUS WITH MARVEL OVER ‘IRON MAN 2‘

UNIVERSAL AND SYFY CHANNEL TEAM UP FOR FILM VENTURE…

…THEIR FIRST PURCHASE: GEORGE R.R. MARTIN’S ‘WILD CARDS’ ANTHOLOGY

TOP 10 KEVIN COSTNER MOVIES

GERARD BUTLER, SAM WORTHINGTON, AND MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY TEAM UP FOR MOTION CAPTURE IRAQ WAR FILM ‘THUNDER RUN‘

A SPECIAL NIGHT WITH TOM PETTY

10 THINGS WE HATE ABOUT THE NEW FILM ‘ANONYMOUS‘

MOVIETRACKER: HAS VIACOM CRACKED THE SOCIAL MEDIA CODE?

FUNNY VIDEO: EVERY TIME KURT RUSSELL ACTS CONFUSED IN ‘BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA‘

NEW STEVE MCQUEEN BIO RELEASED

VISITING THE HOUSE BEHIND THE STORY OF ‘ARSENIC AND OLD LACE‘

CELEBRATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF HOLLYWOOD’S FIRST FILM STUDIO

EXCERPT FROM  JUST-RELEASED A MARTY FELDMAN BIOGRAPHY

8 PEOPLE WHO SHOULD’VE BECOME DIRECTORS

—–

—–

CLASSIC PICK FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1

TCM:

1:15AM EST: LOST IN AMERICA (1985) — A successful, yuppie couple decide to leave the rat race and take off on a soul searching journey across America. Dir. Albert Brooks. Starring Albert Brooks, Julie Hagerty.

A very funny and original story written and directed by Albert Brooks. You will never think of Las Vegas the same, and the scene where Brooks quits his job is a thing of beauty.

This one gets better every year and competes with “Modern Romance” as Brooks’ most insightful.   A true classic.

—–

—–

--Please send tips/suggestions/requests/complaints to jnolte@breitbart.com

The Nominees:

“Titanic” – This may mark the only time that I’ve ever completely agreed with that hopeless douche Peter Travers. If memory serves, he called it the best and worst movie of the year. I thought I would hate it and was only half right. Despite the cringe inducing dialogue and laughable, supposedly subtle social commentary, the movie mostly works.

“The Full Monty” – Cute movie, total fluff. Of course, if it hadn’t been nominated, I would probably think more of it. That’s what the Oscars do, they change our perceptions in often crazy ways. On a side note, the phrase “This year’s ‘Pulp Fiction’” was last-used in 1997, only to be replaced in 1998 with “This year’s ‘The Full Monty.’”

“Good Will Hunting” – Man, did this movie experience a backlash! But then its initial groundswell of support was partially generated by the Weinstein hype machine, which put forth the Horatio Alger-esqe lie that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck had come out of nowhere to write and star in this little movie — Weinstein practically begged people to go see it — if you don’t see it, Damon and Affleck will starve! Okay, Harvey never said that. And on the eve of the Oscars, another swirling lie: pssst! Did you hear? William Goldman really wrote it. I still like the movie, if for no other reason than it ushered in a new genre of Boston-set movies with white trash characters. It’s still refreshing to this very day to see white trash characters that aren’t from the South.

“L.A. Confidential” – During Oscar season, the pundits pitched this one as one of those too smart for the room movies. Which couldn’t have been the reason it struggled. After all, I loved it, and I’m not to bright. I mean, too bright.

“As Good As It Gets” – When I saw this, at a sneak preview, I thought, “wow.” James L. Brooks has finally lost it. The Academy, ahem, disagreed. But all the flaws that have plagued his last couple of movies are here in “As Good As It Gets.”

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED

“Jackie Brown” – It tripled its budget at the box office, but after the enormous success of “Pulp Fiction,” it was viewed as, at best, a disappointment. At worst, a flop. I’ve loved it from the moment it unspooled before my eyes. Great performances from Robert Forster, Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, and Robert De Niro. Funny side note: I saw Tiny Lister not too long ago, and I begged him to bellow, “Yo, I give you his beeper!” I’m pretty sure he wanted to punch me in the throat.

“Boogie Nights” – There are several moments that always get me. Like when Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly) insists people tell him he looks like Han Solo. Or when Todd Parker (Thomas Jane) makes his first appearance, punctuated by the sound of screeching tires. And — oh, yeah! — when Reed and Dirk argue with the guy at the recording studio, so firm in their belief that they are destined for musical stardom.

“The Apostle” - Predictably, studios rejected Robert Duvall’s screenplay about a flawed but dedicated preacher wrestling with his calling and his own redemption. It’s a triumph of capitalism that the independently financed movie stirred a bidding at the Toronto Film Festival. I love how the movie is subtly about one character’s own accepting of Christ, but we don’t even know it until it happens at the end.

“Donnie Brasco” – Al Pacino put his schtick on hold — you KNOW THE ONE, don’t PRETEND. That you DON’T — for Mike Newell’s gangster drama, and the result was his best performance in years. The movie was largely ignored at the Oscars, which was a shame, as the movie holds up better than most of the nominees.

“L.A. Confidential” – Curtis Hanson juggles a lot of characters and a fairly intricate murder mystery in this amazingly photographed story of Los Angeles police corruption in the 1950s. Great performances from a huge cast. Marred by a falsely upbeat ending, it is nevertheless a great movie.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE WON

Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Boogie Nights” combines the scope of Altman with the “look-at-me” show-offiness (pretty sure I just made up a word) of Scorsese. He directs this movie like it was the last movie he would ever get to direct, and that energy comes through in every line, every scene, every frame. The actors don’t so much play characters as embody them, from Mark Wahlberg’s sincere, naive, and, um…talented porn star, to Burt Reynolds as the porn auteur who longs to make porn art, but has neither the budget or artistic vision to make it happen.

“Boogie Nights” charts the rise and fall of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg), who rides the bus every day from Torrence to the porn capital of the world, waiting for his chance to be discovered. Burt Reynolds is Jack Horner (yes, Jack Horner), the director who does indeed discover Eddie, but suggests a new name. Thus, Dirk Diggler is born.

We follow Dirk and his friends —  awkward stereo salesman Buck Swope (Don Cheadle), sound man Scotty J. (Philip Seymour Hoffman at his most actor-y), tragic mother figure Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), and the aforementioned, loyal to the end, Reed Rothchild — through a tumultuous decade of sex, drugs, and bad rock and roll.

The structure is pure “Goodfellas” with pornographers instead of gangsters.

First half = Debauchery is fun. And harmless! I’m jealous.

Mid-Point = Oh, wait. This could go too far. The Line Producer just killed himself. I hate Debauchery! Down with pornographers!

Second half = See? I told you that debauchery and porn and drugs were a bad idea!

Anderson somehow injects a sense of morality into the movie. When the business model shifts from film to videotape, Jack is crestfallen. The new, more accessible format inexorably leads to dirtier dirty movies. And Jack plays along…but he doesn’t seem particularly proud of it. Not that pornography was ever clean, or righteous. But with film it had some level of dignity, which was stripped away the minute the medium became mass produced. That the medium got uglier and more immoral once it hit the internet, sort of proves the movie’s point.

The movie achieves greatness, though, when Dirk, Todd, and Reed visit the home of a whack job dealer named Rahad Jackson (seriously, the names alone in this movie should have qualified it for an Oscar), played by Alfred Molina. As bizarre as the scene is — and it is, most definitely, bizarre — it somehow makes perfect sense that Dirk and his friends would end up in the some dude named Rahad’s living room, while he walks around in a robe and little else, singing along to Night Ranger (on a tape labled “My Awesome Awesome Mix Tape #6.” I mean c’mon), while a little dude we can only assume is his boy-toy wanders around, sullenly lighting firecrackers, and a big, strapped dude weighs the coke Dirk and his friends hope to sell Rahad. Only it’s not coke, it’s baking soda. It’s a long scene, that grows more uncomfortable by the minute.

Rahan puts on “Jesse’s Girl.” And jams to it. And Dirk…just…stares at him. For what feels like five minutes. Twitching, sweating, flinching, itching…he just. Stares. While Reed tries to convince him to leave. In that moment, Dirk realizes what a shambles his life has become, and tries to leave. As dim and shallow as Dirk is, we want him to end up okay. We want him to patch things up with Jack, with whom he’s become estranged.

In the end, it’s a movie about a big, huge, dysfunctional family, and Dirk returns home to his surrogate dad, Jack.

Not from the Onion:

“Top kill” didn’t stop the Gulf oil spill. How about something “titanic”?

Federal officials are hoping film director James Cameron can help them come up with ideas on how to stop the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The “Avatar” and “Titanic” director was among a group of scientists and other experts who met Tuesday with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for a brainstorming session on stopping the massive oil leak.

Full story here.

James Cameron’s next project may well be a film about Hiroshima.  Sure, after the powerful show of solidarity he gave to our troops in the largely Oscar-free Avatar, you are probably thinking, “Hey, this will be a fair-minded project that shows that dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was a tough but necessary decision which ended up saving hundreds of thousands of American lives – and probably millions of Japanese.”

Pellegrino and Cameron

Surprise!  Instead, it promises to not only be another round of America-bashing but, moreover, one based on the work of a gentleman with a demonstrated track record of fraud and distortion.  Cameron’s long-time pal, Dr. Charles Pellegrino, wrote The Last Train from Hiroshima, the book that Cameron wants to turn into a movie.  It’s a shattering tale of horror told in part from the point of view of an American flyer who deeply regrets his participation.  There’s just one little problem with this important new addition to the historical canon – it seems to have been largely made up by the good doctor.  But, of course, Cameron would not be the King of the World if he let a little thing like rampant fraud get in the way of some gratuitous America-bashing.

So who is Charles Pellegrino - and I use the title “Doctor” here loosely, since this clown’s academic credentials are on par with Dr. Dre’s?   Well, for one thing he does not appear to be a PhD holder from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, as he has claimed.  At least, that was the finding of a reporter from The Telegraph.  Those wacky Brit newspapers and their reporters – going out and actually investigating and reporting instead of acting as unofficial stenographers for their favorite leftist subjects can turn up the darndest things!  

Now, to be fair, The Telegraph reports that he has an explanation.  “Pellegrino countered that his degree was revoked years ago in a dispute over evolutionary theory but later reinstated.”  Sure, as we all know, New Zealand is a hotbed of sheepherding and creationism.  Pellegrino is clearly just another martyr to pure science victimized by the insatiable evangelical frenzy of the anti-evolutionary kiwi mobs rampaging across those idyllic islands. 

Of course, Pellegrino’s reinstatement – in fact, the degree itself – appear to be news to the very institution that supposedly granted the doctorate in the first place.  It seems that the only evolution going on here involves Pellegrino’s ever-morphing excuses.

And Pellegrino has plenty to seek to excuse – as well as a powerful benefactor willing to do so.  Pellegrino and Cameron have been buddies for quite a while, and this is hardly their first controversy.  The award-winning (well, not lately) director even scribed the introduction to Pellegrino’s book Ghosts of the Titanic (2000).  As Michael Parit points out in his devastating New York Times review, it appears that pretty much the only parts of that book not spun from whole cloth are that there was once a ship called the Titanic and there is an ocean called the Atlantic.

Naturally, Cameron worked with Pellegrino again.  He even contributed yet another forward to Pellegrino’s next book, 2007’s The Jesus Family Tomb.  This time, the multi-talented Renaissance man was busy finding the remains of Jesus Christ and his relatives. Cameron then took it a step farther and executive produced a Discovery Channel special based upon Peelgrino’s theories.  Except, as the Israeli Antiquities Authority charitably described it, Pellegrino’s theory and his alleged “evidence” were utter “nonsense.”

Now, as one might expect, the discovery of the mortal remains of Jesus might have just a few minor implications for the world’s billion or so Christians, if you count completely undermining the notion of the Resurrection and therefore entire basis of their faith.  The effect of undeniable proof that Jesus was mortal would be profound – and not just to those ultra-evangelical creationist New Zealanders.

So one might think that Cameron would pause for a moment to ensure, before taking such a leap, that his “expert” was, you know, not a complete fraud.  But sometimes, stories are just too good to check, and given the opportunity to slam Christians, Cameron eagerly allied himself with a guy who shouldn’t be trusted to accurately recap an episode of Gossip Girl.

And now Cameron is doing it again by embracing a demonstrably fraudulent “history” of how America ended the war that Japan began.  The only reasonable explanation is that it is because Pellegrino’s tall tale supports his preferred narrative of America as the villain.

Cameron responded to the AP’s inquiry about Pellegrino’s Hiroshima book by saying, “All I know is that Charlie would not fabricate, so there must be a reason for the misunderstanding.”

That does not fly.  A “misundertanding” involves a good faith but incorrect analysis of the facts and evidence.  Manufacturing those facts and that evidence is something completely different – and much more sinister. 

Cameron has no excuse, and his eagerness to embrace Pellegrino’s fantasies indicates something more than just gross recklesslessness.  The claims of fraud regarding of Pellegrino’s Titanic book were no secret.  The charges that Pellegrino’s Jesus Family Tomb claims were bogus were no secret.  And Pellegrino’s inability to answer specific allegations about The Last Train from Hiroshima – about historical figures no one (especially Pellegrino) has records of, his reliance on imposters and his claims of statements allegedly made by actual participants that contradict every other statement the participants ever made – is damning.

This isn’t a mistake.  This isn’t an alternative point of view.  The only reasonable conclusion is that it represents a conscious decision by Cameron to again embrace falsehood to further his own nihilistic agenda.  And that’s just plain evil.

Cameron doesn’t hide where he stands – except to soft pedal his anti-troop leanings whenever he’s called on it.  He detests the society and culture that made him wealthy and he embraces the most patronizing kind of native fetishism.  He buys into the global warming scam from the comfort of his mansions.  He lends moral support to eco-terrorists from behind his phalanx of security guards. 

In short, he’s nothing unusual in Hollywood.  So one big question remains:  Is Cameron in on it, or is he just a fool?

In that race, many people see the competition coming down to “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker,” the two movies with nine nominations each. According to the LA Times, “Over the last 20 years, the movie with the most Academy Award nominations has won best picture 15 times.” Now that “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker” have received the same number of nominations, the award could go to either without much surprise. Although “The Hurt Locker” seems to be the front-runner for critics based off high-profile previous award shows, ”Avatar” still has a lot going for it.

Firstly, the special effects in the movie are fantastic. Few can deny that the visual aspects of the film are great and stand out as one, if not the, best thing about the movie. Secondly, many film critics have enjoyed the film and many in the industry have noted their support of this film giving this movie critical backing, both inside and outside of Hollywood. The film also has a liberal message about preserving the environment at all costs that some voting members could show appreciation for by voting for it. 

Lastly, the film has been a box office success. A huge box office success. Its enormous gross could help bring more viewers to the Oscar telecast.  A lot of people watched the “Titanic” Academy Awards, so one could assume that due to the comparable popularity of “Avatar,” more viewers will tune in this year to see if it wins. Far fewer people will have seen “The Hurt Locker” by the time the Oscars air.  Although many critics believe that “The Hurt Locker” was a stronger film than “Avatar” (and I agree with that analysis), what would be the political consequences if “The Hurt Locker” beat “Avatar” in the final showdown?

If the Academy Awards broadened their scope to include ten movies this year allowing more commercial successes to be nominated, what would it say if on Oscar night if the popular movies still lost out and a small, low-grossing Iraq war movie won? It is definitely possible that the ratings for this year will spike because of “Avatar” and the interest in the best picture race. It is also very possible that all of the bigger movies will lose and “The Hurt Locker” will win the biggest race of the night.

If that happens and the Academy repeats the same experiment of having ten best picture nominees and commercial successes get nominated alongside smaller movies, will the fans of the commercial successes nominated still watch the show next year? Will they still watch even if they think that the popular movies will still lose and the smaller less-seen movies will win? Is the Academy willing to accept lower ratings in the future if “Avatar” loses?

Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Kerger compiled a list of Oscar trivia that is helpful in analyzing the box office difference between “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker”.  “If Avatar wins Best Picture, it’ll be the highest-grossing winner ever (obviously),” Kerger writes, whereas if its main competition “The Hurt Locker” wins, “it’ll be the lowest-grossing winner ever.”

 As an MSNBC piece pointed out, in 1998, a similar battle took place between a critically-acclaimed film and a blockbuster epic. That article noted that  ”Critical consensus that year strongly backed ‘L.A. Confidential,’ a movie about Hollywood itself. ‘Titanic’ still sailed off with an extraordinary 11 awards, including best picture.” So it seems like Cameron has been in this battle before and he has emerged victorious from it. Could he pull off such a victory again, partly because of “Avatar”’s commercial success?

Entertainment Weekly’s  Owen Gleiberman recently explored the idea of “The Hurt Locker” beating “Avatar” this year in a fascinating article. He wrote the following about the role of commercial success in the Oscar battle: 

The vulgar way to put it would be: Hollywood, in the end, is all about the bottom line, and so a movie that doesn’t ‘perform’ isn’t eligible, according to the industry’s core values, for the most coveted of honors…A Hurt Locker victory would open the door to a new definition of Oscar glory, a defiant celebration of artistry over commerce. A win for Avatar would be, in its way, a definitive assertion of the same old same old.

Although I liked movies like “Up” and “Up in the Air” far better than I liked “Avatar” or “The Hurt Locker,” I agree with Mr. Gleiberman. “Avatar” may have earned enough money to be the box office leader in the world but that and the other attributes of the film should not be enough to win it the best picture Oscar.

We’ll have to wait until the envelope is opened to find out if “Avatar” does win. Until then, let’s hope that the Oscar ballots are not being filled out by inhabitants of the planet Pandora.

—–

Part two is here.

Now, it’s possible that his comment to Entertainment Weekly was just some off-the-cuff nonsense that just sort of slipped out.  That’s understandable.  Everyone says something mind-numbingly stupid once in a while.  Just ask Senator Coakley (D-MA).

You want to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who, despite the freakin’ stupid  Avatar, made great movies like The Terminator, Aliens, True Lies, Titanic and, of course, the moving Piranha 2: The Spawning.  The guy has what the hep kids today call “mad skillz.”  We really want his unbelievably dumb statement to be just an unbelievably dumb statement.

But more likely its part and parcel of the Hollywood culture of disconnected privilege and provincialism that allows its members to stay utterly detached from the human consequences of their ideology.  Just ask those union grips and teamsters hanging around the set who’ll be paying the Democrats’ 40% tax on their health-care insurance just for the privilege of having negotiated good benefits.  The big guys like Cameron rake in so much dough that they won’t notice it; only their business managers care because the tax will leave that much less in the pot to embezzle.

It’s the same culture that allows A-list stars to jump onto the crummy commie dictator circuit, swooping into Havana, Bogota, Tehran or wherever for a quick bite with the resident thug-in-chief.  Somehow they forget not only that they are eating a lot better than the locals, but that in many cases they have another advantage too – they get to leave.   Of course, before they hop back into an enviro-friendly Gulfstream for their lift back to the Santa Monica airport, they have to pose with Fidel, or Hugo or whatever other dictator du-jour for some photos and some declarations about how their host’s deep thoughts rocked them to the depths of their eighth-grade educated minds.  Lenin apocryphally called them useful idiots; well, he was half right.

Of course, radical chic morphs into self-preservation when things get dicey.  If you were around for the L.A. riots back in 1992, you might recall how everything seemed to be on fire except for the areas like Beverly Hills and Bel-Air.  That was not because the rioters particularly appreciated the noblesse oblige of the liberal Hollywoodiods living there.  It’s because the liberal Hollywoodiods living there called out their cops and brought out their guns, both in large numbers.  But, of course when the fires died down after the Army took control again, they went right back to trashing the police, privately owned firearms, and for that matter, soldiers.

The fact is that Cameron doesn’t believe in eco-terrorism – can you imagine his tantrum should some ELF twerp dynamite his high-tech Avatar soundstage for being located on the paved-over Playa Vista wetland or torch his Central California ranch?  He believes in posing.  And saying stupid things like “I believe in eco-terrorism” is just a pose. 

Come to think of it, with his track record, what Cameron should be hoping is that eco-terrorism doesn’t believe in him.   But if it does, he’s fortunate that someone he probably has nothing but contempt for will protect him.

I do.  

For all his foibles – utter inability to explain his policies to the American public, bending over backwards for bipartisanship with Democrats, foolish bailouts – Bush was a president who understood the battle between good and evil in our current war on Islamofascism, even if he wouldn’t call the war by its proper name. 

And Bush’s clarity had a measurable impact on our film culture.  Leaving aside the obvious mirror images (the success of 24 or Taken, e.g.), the Bush Administration saw a rash of huge blockbusters dealing with the dichotomy between good and evil, and the necessity of fighting evil with every resource at our disposal.  

The single top earner of the Bush Administration was The Dark Knight, a very thinly veiled defense of Bush tactics in the war on terror.  No better speech on the motivation for terror can be found in movies than Michael Caine’s assertion as Alfred that “some people just want to watch the world burn.”  

Leaving aside sequels (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and Shrek 2), the next biggest earner was Spider-Man, which saw our hero being told that “with great power comes great responsibility.”  Then there were the Lord of the Rings films, which clearly dealt with the conflict between good and evil.  Bush could have spoken Aragorn’s line in his climactic battle speech at the end of Return of the King:

“A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.  An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down!  But it is not this day!  This day we fight!  By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!” 

And I haven’t even mentioned The Passion of the Christ. 

Think that Bush had no impact on the box office?  For contrast, let’s take a look at the biggest films of the Clinton years.  

The top earner, of course, was the childish Titanic, which was as feeble-minded and beautiful a spectacle as has ever been depicted on screen.  The Clinton years were a soft time of large illusions – and no film better depicted those illusions of grandeur than Titanic.  Puerile romance topped by delusions of depth.  Sums up Clinton pretty well.  It’s no wonder that as Clinton left office, the country hit an iceberg brought on by years of bad steering. 

Next, after skipping Star Wars Episode I (it’s tough to argue that it wouldn’t have been a hit in any era with that build-up), we get to Jurassic Park.  In that film, perverted nature is the enemy.  It’s as though you can feel the confusion of the American public in the aftermath of the Cold War – who do we fight now? 

What can we expect from Obama?  Bloated monstrosities (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) and liberal claptrap (Avatar).  

Do I miss Bush?  Absolutely.  Do I miss the movies of the Bush era?  You bet. 

EW: “Avatar” is the perfect eco-terrorism recruiting tool.”

JC: Good, good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in ecoterrorism.”

Apparently, he said this in all seriousness.

For those of you who do not know what eco terrorism is, meet the people of ELF. No, not the blue creatures in “Avatar,” but the people of the Earth Liberation Front.  According to Wikipedia, ELF is the collective name for anonymous, autonomous individuals who use “economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation and destruction of the environment.” In other words, they burn down buildings and engage in other destructive activities under the cover of darkness because they believe we should all still be living in caves and subsisting on roots and berries.

ELF engages in family-friendly activities like toppling radio towers because “AM radio waves cause adverse health effects;” burning luxury home developments; and firebombing research facilities in order to stop research on genetically-engineered trees and modified potatoes.

ELF has declared war on “greedy capitalist pigs” and “rich scum.” People like … James Cameron.

According to two online sources, our buddy James lives in an 8,272 square foot “cottage” in Malibu with 6 bedrooms and 7 baths,  complete with the requisite pool, tennis court and inner courtyard fit for Hollywood royalty.

A mansion with a pool in the desert? As someone who grew up in the arid climes of the American West and having lived in severe drought conditions, I can attest to how delicate the ecological balance is. Still, I don’t believe firebombing is the answer, although I will lecture anyone who dares let the water run while brushing his teeth.

For further reference, let’s go back to October of 2007, when fires raged through Southern California:

The raging Southern California wildfires that intensified over the weekend are threatening the homes of a number of stars who reside in Malibu. Mel Gibson, Jennifer Aniston, Tom Hanks, Courteney Cox and David Arquette, James Cameron, Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn, Rob Reiner, David Geffen, David Duchovny, Mark Hamill, Olivia Newton-John and Bill Murray are among the stars who have been evacuated or whose homes are potentially in jeopardy. …

It turns out the devastating fires were started accidentally because a 10-year-old boy was playing with matches. But perhaps if ELF or a similar organization had started it to destroy the luxury homes of the Hollywoodite set, James might have felt better had his home been among the 655 destroyed. Or forget accidental fires; perhaps he’d actually be fine with ELF targeting his ritzy neighborhood. It’s all in a good cause, you know … the environment. And I’m sure he’s generously insured.

And what about the complaints that chlorinated water from the specially-built tank for Cameron’s blockbuster “Titanic” ruined the livelihoods of nearby fishermen in Baja, California? Fox denied their allegations, so who knows for sure if the fishermen were just looking for a payout? But what if it were true? Would ELF have been justified in destroying the “Titanic” set in order to save the little fishies? Would James have been a big fan of eco terrorism then?

Better yet: According to research done by the University of California, the film and television industry is the largest polluters in the Los Angeles region. Mari-Jo Winkler, executive producer of Away We Go, admitted, “We are probably one of the most wasteful businesses.” Yet so many “stars” lecture the little people on how to live a “greener” lifestyle. What would the likes of James Cameron think if ELF opened up its unique can of whoop ass on Hollywood?

But never mind. Cameron doesn’t see himself as being part of the kind of corporate entity that ELF and its imitators target. He’s an “artiste” who, rather than denouncing dangerous people who blow things up to get their point across, prefers to tell a story about how former Marines who, rather than take advantage of the GI bill and study something genteel like acting or film making, become bloodthirsty savages who can’t wait to gun down the innocent Na’vi while in the employ of an evil, greedy corporation. But Cameron? The first director to have two films earn $1 billion? He’s not greedy.

He’s just a tool. And that’s being kind.

Not to go an analogy too far, but Sarah Palin seems to be taking a page from the Hollywood playbook of George Lucas.  She has just completed her own introductory trilogy, and it was an astonishing success.  

First, she was a fantastically successful conservative governor lurking beneath the mainstream media’s radar.  Next, she was a vice-presidential candidate who, even though she lost, still did more to electrify the base than the headliner.  Third, she has now drawn the curtain on her post-election career as a sitting governor, a period that saw her deftly turn the tables on mainstream haters like David Letterman.   Like “Star Wars,” she’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but her fans are rabid and chomping at the bit for the next installments.  And as to these future installments, the question is whether the next step is going to be “The Phantom Menace” or something that doesn’t suck.

I’m betting on “A New Hope.”  Sarah Palin has taken every hit the left and its smug media lackies can dish out – from bogus ethics claims designed to bankrupt her to attacks on her kids.  Some of the haters seem to think they drove her from office, and are congratulating themselves that they have somehow driven her off the stage forever.  Not quite. 

Again, a “Star Wars” analogy:  Remember when Darth Vader faced off with Obi-Wan Kenobi?  “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine?”  She’s now immune from bogus legal claims and her book will not only raise her profile but set up her family financially for life.  Now Sarah is unbound, freed from the need to be up in Juneau and able to network, fundraise and even (maybe) campaign without limitation.  And the modern media environment will let her do these things without even a nod to the mainstream media (Do you think Katie Couric will ever get to ask Sarah another question?  Ha!) 

–

Lefties, if you were responsible for her doing this, you just unleashed your strongest opponent and made her immune from your strongest attacks all at once. Ouch. It must hurt to know a woman you pride yourself on seeing as a drooling Neanderthal nitwit so thoroughly out-maneuvered you. You do see it, right?

There’s plenty of talk out there about her somehow being a “quitter” for only serving as governor for three years, as if resigning as the Chief Executive of Alaska was like cutting to the head of the women and children’s lifeboat line on the Titanic.  Personally, I was unaware of the urgent moral imperative of serving out one’s full term as governor but, if it makes the lefties feel better, when she’s elected president I’m pretty confident she’ll serve a full term.   Maybe even two.