Comments on: Give Me a Warren Oates or Jack Palance Any Day

By: Автогород

Автогород — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:07:51 +0000

Unquestionably consider that which you said. Your favourite justification seemed to be on the web the simplest thing to consider of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while other folks consider worries that they just don’t recognize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest as well as outlined out the whole thing without having side effect , folks can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you

By: купон авто ру

купон авто ру — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:52:36 +0000

I?ve learn some good stuff here. Definitely worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much effort you set to make this type of fantastic informative site.

By: amr

amr — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:35:46 +0000

Some pundits and bloggers have reversed the situation confronting Mr. Obama and asked how the media would treat a Republican candidate for president in similar circumstances. If it was revealed that he had sat in a church for 20 years having a racist preacher ranting lies about America. That he had associated with Robert Rudolph the unrepentant individual who was convicted of the 1996 Olympics bombing, the bombings of a “gay” nightclub and two women’s abortion clinics among other ill advised associations. The Left and the media would be screaming that he was unfit to serve and I would agree.

I was forced as a child to pay for a window some friends broke because I was with them at the time. Why is it now fashionable to not be judged by the company you keep? Well, I still do judge on that basis and Mr. Obama would fail my mother’s test of character.

I remember the outcry in the media when Mr. H.W. Bush picked Mr. Quayle for his vice presidential running mate in 1988. He had served in state government management positions, two terms as US representative and was on his second term as senator. Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton has the experience that Mr. Quayle had and Mr. Quayle was considered too young and inexperienced for vice president. Oh my how opinions have changed in regard to experience and youth today.

As for Hollywood, I could care less. Apparently for some reason ideology wins over profit. Sort of like party over country. Isn’t that just old fashioned un-American?

By: Frank Miller

Frank Miller — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:07:31 +0000

I go back to my central point. The talent is there, in plenty.

It’s Hollywood who lacks the vision to create for us a new hero. Not one defined by “powers”, but my manliness itself.

By: JFarr

JFarr — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:57:34 +0000

Dear Dr. Davis,

Forgive me for being off topic but I do not know where else to write to you.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the “global food crisis.”

Thank you.

By: John the Dennis Miller Libertarian

John the Dennis Miller Libertarian — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:01:38 +0000

And how could I have forgotten:

Denzel Washington!
Daniel Craig as 007!
Wesley Snipes (busted!) as Blade!

By: John the Libertarian

John the Libertarian — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:49:47 +0000

Brad Pitt as Achilles in Troy.
Vin Diesel.
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The Rock (Dwayne Johnson).
Russel Crowe in Gladiator.
Christian Bale as Batman.
Mel Gibson as Braveheart.
James Caviezel as Jesus in the Passion.
Jason Statham.
Jackie Chan and Jet Li.
Will Smith in ID4 and I, Robot.
Robert Duvall.
Robert DeNiro.
Mark Wahlberg in Four Brothers.
Bruce Willis.
Ice Cube.
Jean Reno.
Viggo Mortenson.

It goes on and on and on. This is a specious argument. Hollywood is a business. Yes, it has its liberal elitists who want to make more ill-conceived save-the-world movies, but honestly, that spate of Redacted and other anti-war crappers that tanked? They all came out around the same time because they went into production roughly the same time, when Iraq was going poorly (pre-surge) and polls showed Americans didn’t approve of the war. So the producers were all betting that the time of their release would put butts in the seats. It’s a highly speculative industry.

There are PLENTY of conservatives in this business. Don’t kid yourself that the mathematics of bell-curve distribution and standard deviations doesn’t apply to this industry as well.

No one ever seems to mention the quality products Disney animation puts out. Or when The Nativity debuted. Or the Lord of the Rings, one of the most pro-conservative-values good vs. evil tales ever told.

True, the awards shows have taken a decidedly leftward slant. But don’t think Hollywood is not painfully aware of how dismal the audience is for those shows, and why. The liberals in this town truly believe as other liberals (in the media, on the View) that everyone thinks exactly the way they do. What can you say, it’s a narcissism disorder. But try to keep in mind that the classic hero’s arc storytelling is not only philosophically conservative to its very root, but also that it will remain the most enduring and safest-bet money maker in the movie business.

By: Laika's Last Woof

Laika's Last Woof — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:41:31 +0000

Commenter “Frank Miller” (the real Frank Miller?) had a point about 300. The gayest men on screen since “Brokeback Mountain” were also the most manly.
There’s not a real man alive who doesn’t identify with the 300.
How many guys identify with the constant hand-wringing and second-guessing of the “sensitive new male” star of “Munich”, who was hunting TERRORISTS for crying out loud?
So you can’t even fight terrorists any more without being overcome by angst and emo melodrama? (And paranoia against his own government, too, mustn’t forget that …)
Dude should’ve dyed his hair and joined a band instead of taking on terrorists. Leave that for the Spartans.
And Golda Meier — she came off as the only sensible person in the whole movie. I bet she could’ve killed terrorists without having a nervous breakdown. Too bad she and her contemporary leading ladies can’t find any good men who could do the same.
It’s not that killing terrorists makes you a man, but not doing your job when you see it needs doing makes you less than one.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:45:02 +0000

Oh come now, masculine roles are what you get Australian actors for, that should have been obvious by now!

By: George Best

George Best — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:53:17 +0000

As time passes our expectations for everything increases. We demand way more of our actors today then we did 40-60 years ago. The scripts are more complicated, and the scenery in the movie itself requires so much more effort. It is easier to be considered brilliant when your audiences expectations are simple and plain. People evolve so the comparision of who the actors are today versus years ago is not proper. The only reason we put down these actors is they have become so arrogant that they think their political views matter when they dont. They are much better at their craft today when compared to actors of previous generations, yet movies are made with reckless abandon producing a lot of crap but crap that people still watch.

I just wish they wouldnt talk about politics.

A better discussion would be the music made today versus 40-60 years ago. The opposite is true when it comes to music. Kids today have no good music and nothing since the 80s has any redeeming value and nothing matches the music of the 60-70s.