|
Post by AustralianAnn on Mar 18, 2006 0:26:21 GMT -5
I have been ruminating over this and my vote goes to Tom Cruise.
Who do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Laslo Hollyfeld on Mar 18, 2006 12:28:38 GMT -5
Yes, Tom Cruise belongs (and fits nicely, I might add) into any toolbox, but I'd have to cast my vote for George "I'm proud to be a daring liberal filmmaker who makes hard-hitting films about social problems of fifty years ago to prove how topical I am" Clooney.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Mar 20, 2006 11:11:00 GMT -5
Tom Cruise is definitely right up there, but I think I have to agree with Laslo about Clooney. The Academy validated his toolishness by giving him the Oscar, so if you thought his overblown sense of self importance was bad before, whew, just you wait.
I think Cruise still understands that he's not taken all that seriously as an actor, but if he ever wins an Oscar (oh brother) then he could beat out the Cloon-ball.
|
|
|
Post by MsCali on Mar 20, 2006 16:38:51 GMT -5
Actually, I have to go with Cruise. From what I've heard (from the people who have worked with him), he takes himself way too seriously as an actor.
I saw Good Night and Good Luck last night, finally, and I have to completely disagree with you guys about Clooney. I'm not a big Clooney fan, but I do think he's a decent actor (not the best out there). I haven't seen Syriana, but I want to. I wasn't rooting for him to win the Oscar, but that's why it's a subjective award. You're not always going to agree with it.
I think Good Night and Good Luck is an important movie in light of certain events going on in our world today (there are those of us who think our government is moving in the same direction as Senator McCarthy) - whether the events of the movie happened fifty years ago, or fifty minutes ago, those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Certain events take time for us to be able to look back on and talk about with the perspective that comes with that time. In 10 years or so, we're going to see a bunch of politically historical (historically political?) films about the Vietnam War. Just because it happened decades ago, doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Mar 20, 2006 17:08:21 GMT -5
Good luck staying awake during Syriana if you decide to make the attempt.
The only thing Clooney and his friends are doing is reiterating topics that are mainstream ideas in Hollywood.
You're right - those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. But the same could be said about any number of topics that wouldn't fall in line with Hollywood's thinking.
If Clooney or anybody else wants to really be brave in Hollywood then he should try making a movie about how America truly is a great country where civil rights are better than any other country in the world and most businesses do their best to give us the products we want with a minimum of corruption and Wall Street, while not perfect, has done the best job in the history of mankind of democratizing wealth.
But you won't see those types of movies be made because they don't push the right agendas.
Hollywood has no problem accusing the government of not spending enough money to feed the poor or cure AIDs or achieve world peace, but they're never held accountable for budgeting $80 million to crap like A Sound of Thunder or Town and Country.
The real reason Hollywood's "historical" films can't be taken seriously is they all come with the bias of the director and screenwriter built in. Look no further than Spielberg's Munich for an example.
Having the anti-Israel Tony Kirshner write the screenplay is the equivalent of having an anti-American write a screenplay about 9/11 and putting a "morally equivalent" face on the suicide bombers.
Don't let Hollywood fool you - they're not interested in open discussion. They're speaking from a bully pulpit, their opinion is the right one, and anybody who disagrees just isn't "progressive" enough.
I have to agree with Ben Stein. It's impossible to see past the hypocrisy of "the men and women who came to the Oscars in gowns that cost more than an Army Sergeant makes in a year."
|
|
|
Post by MsCali on Mar 20, 2006 20:41:48 GMT -5
Just because those topics are mainstream ideas in Hollywood doesn't mean they are wrong.
And I would say that the majority of conservative people I know (ie: my entire family, and most of the people I grew up with) are not at all interested in open discussion either. They have their bully pulpits (I know, I grew up in the hometown of the American Family Association, was homeschooled, etc.) too, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is just contributing to the moral decay of America. Where I grew up, if you are liberal or a Democrat, you can't also be a Christian. That makes me sad, because I am both a Christian and a liberal.
Yes, people in Hollywood wear very expensive gowns to the Oscars - but you know what? Most of them don't keep the gowns, or the jewelry, etc. And a lot of them are starting to keep the gowns, in order to donate them to that charity where they auction them off (Clothes off Our Back, I believe it's called). George Clooney donated his Oscar gift box to be auctioned off for charity too. These people actually give a LOT to different charities. It's not hypocrisy on their part that they make a lot of money and spend it as they see fit.
I pretty much completely disagreed with Ben Stein's article. First, until he discloses how much he gives to charity each year, and until we have proof that he is personally giving his money to increase that Army Sergeant's salary, he really shouldn't be talking about hypocrisy in Hollywood.
Hollywood is held accountable for budgeting money for crappy films - their box office receipts this year attest to that fact. If they make bad movies, people won't go see them.
Our government is held accountable by the people who stand up and disagree with them - which is what George Clooney and other people in Hollywood are doing. It's what makes our system so great. And yes, while Americans have better civil rights than many other countries, there are still improvements that can be made. And don't get me started on the democratizing of wealth in our country - the rich class is getting richer, while the middle class is beginning to disappear. Yes, we're still better than many other countries in that regard (and we're worse than others too), but while there are millions who cannot afford even basic healthcare, while more and more companies are outsourcing and laying off people every year, while the costs of living are rising higher than wages, and while company policies make their workers come in while they are sick, because they don't offer much (or any) sick time, there are improvements that can be made.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Mar 21, 2006 1:23:32 GMT -5
Just because those topics are mainstream ideas in Hollywood doesn't mean they are wrong. It doesn't mean they're right either; it means it is a particular group's opinion. Where's Hollywood's film about the dangers of having communism run rampant in its industry? Or is championing a regime that murdered millions just a way of expressing opinions and ideas? These people actually give a LOT to different charities. It's not hypocrisy on their part that they make a lot of money and spend it as they see fit. I agree; that's the beauty of capitalism. But it is quite hypocritical to denounce capitalism in one breath, while taking million dollar offers in another. It's hypocritical of Michael Moore to state that he does not own stocks because they represent the corrupt capitalist system, yet a little research reveals that he actually owns quite a few stocks, including stock in Halliburton. How about the hypocrisy of the Barbra Streisands of the world who criticize the rest of us feeble-minded Americans and our contributions to the energy crisis yet have no problem riding around in custom-made SUVs and flying around in fuel-guzzling private jets? until we have proof that [Stein] is personally giving his money to increase that Army Sergeant's salary, he really shouldn't be talking about hypocrisy in Hollywood. Where is the disclosure and proof that everybody in Hollywood is giving "a lot" to charity? And by "charity" I don't mean "pet projects" and by "giving" I mean more than donating something that was given to them for free in the first place. Hollywood is held accountable for budgeting money for crappy films - their box office receipts this year attest to that fact. If they make bad movies, people won't go see them. Yet the same studios keep making the same crappy movies starring the same crappy actors. Throwing big money at people with track records of failure is not accountability. Our government is held accountable by the people who stand up and disagree with them - which is what George Clooney and other people in Hollywood are doing. It's what makes our system so great. If that is what makes our system great then where is my $50 million to make a movie to espouse my world viewpoints? Again, when Hollywood disagrees with our system they cry about the "injustice" of it all. "Our guy didn't win so the system is flawed!" The system only works when it works for them. Who cares what the average voter thinks? What makes our system great is the businessmen, the capitalists, the soldiers, the working men and women who are actually out their doing rather than always complaining. There are always improvements that can be made, but the problem is you're trying to make generalities into absolutes. You complain about the democratizing of our wealth and the gap between the rich and the poor, but where on earth are the opportunities greater? I have never ever in my life met anybody who has worked hard and put in a maximum effort in all he or she does who has not been able to eat, pay their bills, buy necessary clothing, and make a living. As for health care, the bottom line is America offers the highest quality health care in the world. Trust me, you do not want a government-controlled, national health care system. All you have to do is look at the models used by other countries to see how they're failing. Ask the 800,000 Canadians who are on waiting lists for surgical procedures how much they love their failing system. Ask them how fun those rising taxes are to pay. Ask the millions of Britons who are waiting to be admitted to National Health hospitals what they think about doctor and treatment shortages. Ask New Zealanders about the long waiting lines they have to endure. Ask about the ineffeciency of rationing health care (which often means certain types of treatment are denied). I could go on, but whew, I have a Gingerdead Man review to write!
|
|
|
Post by AustralianAnn on Mar 22, 2006 5:03:23 GMT -5
I'm a big time leftie (don't get me started on the Australian government) and I still dislike Clooney. It's not the politics, I just hate Hollywood actors and musicians telling people how the world is from their ivory towers. That's why I really enjoyed the "Team America: World Police" or whatever it was called.
But Cruise is still the biggest toolinator in my book. He's always 'conveniently' rescuing bystanders and backdating divorces and impregnating virgins and outlawing South Park (Scientology episode only). He is also overly serious and seems very insincere.
JB, how did you miss Independence Day?
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Mar 22, 2006 10:37:45 GMT -5
It's not the politics, I just hate Hollywood actors and musicians telling people how the world is from their ivory towers. That's why I really enjoyed the "Team America: World Police" or whatever it was called. Exactly. Some of these folks are barely literate but because of their fame we're forced to listen to their preaching on the dangers of lead pencils. "I was there during the civil rights march! Granted, I was riding behind the march in my limo, but I was there!" Team America was absolute genius when it was satirizing this aspect of Hollywood. Good point about Cruise and South Park, I was planning on mentioning that on the Movie Mark today (and still will). JB, how did you miss Independence Day? True, but that was 10 years ago. Don't worry, as soon as he feels the climate is right, Clooney will find a movie where he can star as the President who personally kicks the butt of a Bin Laden look-alike and single-handedly saves the world.
|
|
|
Post by AustralianAnn on Mar 24, 2006 4:17:22 GMT -5
Matt Damon!
Heee
The best is when Julia Roberts talks politics on Oprah.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Mar 27, 2006 12:52:57 GMT -5
You know what? We totally forgot to incorporate Corey Feldman into this discussion!
|
|
|
Post by Laslo Hollyfeld on Mar 27, 2006 14:45:36 GMT -5
You know what? We totally forgot to incorporate Corey Feldman into this discussion! Remember, though, that the word "tool" implies that something is at least partially useful...
|
|
|
Post by AustralianAnn on May 5, 2006 2:28:26 GMT -5
BWAH! That word document joke had me laughing innappropriately at work. All the widely known tools are there. I particular liked the arrow off the Sheen family.
|
|
|
Post by tigerjeb on May 15, 2006 21:02:31 GMT -5
so should i tell the story of how I almost ran over Tom Cruise?
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on May 15, 2006 21:40:06 GMT -5
so should i tell the story of how I almost ran over Tom Cruise? Magic Eight Ball says YES!
|
|