« But How Does He Really Feel? | Main | I Gotta Say... »

July 22, 2005

Too Much Shit At The Movies?

Read. React.

Posted by poland at July 22, 2005 07:01 PM

Comments

some shit is entertaining.

I still think the lead penguin (MOTP) should cop a Oscar nom. Or at least a People's Choice. But like Bubba Ho Tep, the flightless birds will get passed over.

The documenaries have eclipsed the reg movies this year in quality.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 07:08 PM

Shit at the theatre? Nah. The shit is right here in this blog. Poland apparently LOVES having a team of conservative bigot siccophants overrunning his blog. Good going Dave! Good going!

Posted by: DaFog at July 22, 2005 07:21 PM

It's all shit these days.

I feel like I see a worse version of a movie that came out in 1974. Every freaking week.

Posted by: Josh at July 22, 2005 07:38 PM

The Devil's Rejects is so bad, you could call this summer's movies shitty and use only it as your example as to why.

Posted by: Stella's Boy [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 07:38 PM

Call me an old fuddy duddy but movies get worse every yr in terms of quality. Even bad films today are unwatchable. Where is the 2005 version of Tog Gun? Roadhouse? They don't make em even like they used to twenty yrs ago.

Posted by: LesterFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 07:42 PM

i'm starting to really hate remakes. especially of originals that i loved. longest yard. bad news. wonka. 3 classics. only one will equal the first and maybe surpass it.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 07:51 PM

Great article. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. It has been the Summer of Sh*T!

Hopefully it will at least be the Fall of Average.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 07:59 PM

Another point. From all I have read on The Island, Michael Bay had to talk Scarlet Johanson(sp?) out of doing nudity for the film. She was gung ho for doing it. And we all know that Ewan McGregor isn't shy on camera.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:04 PM

I don't think every year is as bad, and I think if I had to make a top 20 list of great movies, I can do it for every year, easily. The problem is, since 1999 it is harder to fill those top 20s with American movies. I don't know why. The visual/technical aspects improve and the stories stink.

But everyone's tastes are different. I am sure most people would think my favorite movies suck.

Like Top Gun. I really hated it Lester, sorry, but then most people would think my favorites from ~1986 suck [like Mona Lisa,Hoosiers,Where the River Runs Black,At Close Range,Gonza the Spearman,The Mosquito Coast, Manhunter, Salvador, Platoon and i could go on but wont...]

by the way, a remake is in the works for Roadhouse (the 1989 one) as far as I heard, don't know if it's true.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:05 PM

I'd see it more than once if Scarlett started taking her clothes off. I need to be producing movies like this. Earn that R rating folks. We want to see it and our hard earned money paying for it.


I like degrading humor a lot. But whats so funny about a kid in a wheel chair on a baseball team? I don't really get that one. Help me.

Posted by: Josh at July 22, 2005 08:16 PM

Lota my darling, any person who has anything bad to say about Hoosiers please send them to my office. Where I can give them a sanity test. Because thats the greatest sports movie of all time in the greatest sport ever. Gene Hackman not getting the Oscar award for Coach Norman Dale should have caused a riot. Roadhouse without Swayze? NO!!

Posted by: LesterFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:19 PM

Um, am I the only one who bothered to read and digest Dave's article? I ask because it's really about the status of MPAA taboos, particularly the apparently record-breaking use of the word "shit" in the movies this year, and not really about how shitty the movies have been qualitywise. Yet no one here has addressed the (ab)uses discussed in the article.

I've never really understood why "shit" is such a vulgar word to begin with. After all, you can say "poop," "dung," "feces," "turd" and even "crap" without offending a film or TV ratings board. Why "shit" should be considered a much more violative word loaded with so much dynamite has always seemed pretty arbitrary and pointless, if you ask me.

As for the sexual stuff, that's just old news. The MPAA has always found explicit physical violence to be more suitable for children than explicit physical intimacy. The battle against that ridiculous standard has been going on for years - and has lost a lot of ground as of late. You can thank or blame the religious right for that.

Posted by: Chester at July 22, 2005 08:21 PM

If Scarlett takes her clothes off in a movie she won't be an A-lister or stay there long, just like a Leading Man can't be an out gay man in this country--hence Spacey, Tom and a few others. I'm sure she already took her clothes off before the movie for MB so I doubt it would have added anything to her career to remove them In the movie.

What is it about Road House?! My youngest brother told my Pop he liked Road House as much as the Godfather, and I thought i was going to have to call 911.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:26 PM

You're worried about the word shit? Then watch last seasons South Park episode where they said it 1,000 times. It is now allowed on tv. It has joined bitch and asshole (sorry for the language people) as words allowed. Next thing we know the F bomb will be on Spongebob.

Posted by: LesterFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:32 PM

Who's worried, Lester?

Posted by: Chester at July 22, 2005 08:34 PM

roadhouse is one of those classics that might not win any awards except for razzies but is impossible to turn off. its a guys movie. the worlds top cooler comes to a crappy town and faces off against the town bully/millionaire. has the ridiculously hot doctor fall for him. and he avenges the towns honor. all the while keeping the double duece safe for drinking. does a plot get better? i doubt it.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:36 PM

Yes Chester I see what you mean...SHIT in the movies or at the movies or SHIT for movies?

Well from living most my adult life in Europe, I frankly don't understand the violence that is allowed in movies versus cursing/certain words and bare skin re. ratings. Also--many movies unsuitable for kids are aired during weekend daytime which I think is a mistake--put them on at night. Universal Soldier doesn't have to be on a 1pm when a cartoon or kids movie could be run which is more entertainimg an family friendly. During the SUperBowl Nipple Gate fiasco, which i saw at a friends house, her kids didn't even notice Janet's quasi bare breasticle (but we kept laughing hysterically so they knew sompin' was Up--DUMB MOVE JANET...geez). However the kids were flipping the channels around during the superbowl commercials, on one of the local TV stations Universal Soldier was airing and the 6 year old burst into tears (people getting hacked up/bloody). so we changed it right away.

How is it that a naked tit w/nipple decoration is perceived to be more dangerous than murderous carnage? My friend wrote a complaint about Universal soldier instead of Janet of course. "nudity isn't murder, less violence please"

Indeed.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:41 PM

Roadhouse is one of the movies that I will watch it all, no matter what point its on, whenever I flip onto it. Since you can find it on everyday, blame TNT, it takes up a lot of my time.

Posted by: Bruce at July 22, 2005 08:42 PM

Weekend movies look dreadful but bright spot is advanced sreening of the Constant Gardner with a Q&A with Fernando Meirelles Monday....wonder what I should ask him?

Posted by: patrick at July 22, 2005 08:43 PM

Lota,

That's not true. Nicole Kidman, Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Halle Berry. All have done nude scenes in more than one film, all have won Oscars, all are either on the A-List or flirting with it. There is no stigma anymore to doing nudity.

Posted by: Jackrabbit Slim at July 22, 2005 08:43 PM

You can have a movie that chops off heads, kills children with sub machine guns and shows enormous amounts of blood. And that gets a PG 13. But you show one boob and you get an R.


Keep in mind. The MPAA is the definition of "Shit".

Posted by: Bruce at July 22, 2005 08:43 PM

by the way I'm talking about free TV where people have no choice if they can't afford pay stuff--cable TV is different

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:43 PM

nude scenes have made careers. look at halle berry. she was nothing until she showed them in swordfish. then all of it in monsters ball. paris hilton was nothing until her sex tape came out. jolie is all about sex and will always be about selling it. its sometimes the right move for an actress.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:45 PM

It depends on what stage of their career they did the nudity JackRS doesn't it, and if those particular movies would be known to the public.

Maybe Dave can comment on that.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:50 PM

Paris Hilton Bob? She will not be an A list actress ever.

Fame/celebrity is different than being an actress like Julia Roberts (like her or not) who can command big money and open a movie and call the shots--she may not be able to do it now, but she did it for a number of years.

Jolie is in her own category, I'll give you that.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 08:54 PM

the case can be made that the hilton sex tape did make her a star. before that she was a dumb hot rich party girl who no career. after tape. she had a hit tv show. now starring roles in a bunch of movies. she owes it all to the tape.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:00 PM

Can I say thank you God to the person who finally told Halle to get naked? One of the happiest moments in my life.

Posted by: LesterFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:01 PM

Actresses getting nude for increased visibility and more roles is nothing new. I think you will see even more follow the Halle Berry model of nudity.

She did win an Oscar for it. Solid career choice. One thing she has is the body for it. Jealous, me.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:05 PM

By the way--becasue the gray list starts younger for women, Halle Berry, Kidman, Julianne Moore, and a couple others don't have a whole lotta time to be getting 12M/movie on up even though they still look good. If Berry and Kidman don't get some better flicks where they are getting butts on seats...well they won't be getting paid 14M much longer.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:06 PM

It is a sad state for women out there. You got a short shelf life to make money and grab the great roles. If you hit a cold streak you're out doing Charlies Angels 3 or Legally Blonde 3. Or you're playing the divorcee or District Attorney. You better strike while that iron is hot.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:08 PM

The MPAA is subjective in the way the hand out ratings. Most PG films from the 70's would get an R today and a lot of R films would be NC17. I don't dispute that we need a rating system but it's got to be consistant.

The MPAA were the ones that decided that the South Park movie could have the name All Hell Breaks Loose because films couldn't have the word hell in their title. Forgetting several hundred films in the past with Hell in the title such as the classic To Hell and back.

As for RoadHouse simply one of the best worst movies ever. How can you not love a film with such dialog as. "Pain don't hurt", "It's my way or the highway".

Posted by: teambanzai [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:10 PM

Two words: Kathy Bates.

Posted by: Chester at July 22, 2005 09:11 PM

Where was the MPAA when Kathy Bates got nude? That I want to know. I am scarred to this day from that.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:13 PM

Yes Blustealer, but it actually happens more to men just in a less visible way. Men can be in sidekick roles forever, but there are very few who are leading men who make money. They end up being Dad's, uncles, best friends, and gramps if they can't be Leading Men after a few years of trying and failed openings that cost a producer/s shirt.

Some of the older men & women (old meaning over 40) end up doing Indie SAG rate wage just so they can get a role that would get them acclaim. Holly Hunter did Thirteen for Indie SAG rate. It is actually a smart move--at least you'll get indie pictures. Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses, and she's always working. SOme of her movies suck but she's always working.

Not ever guy is going to have HArrison Ford or Sean COnnery's action career (they made some crapo but they still got offered).

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:16 PM

There are many, many more men who are stars than women who are stars. Or paid like them. A man can take off for a decade and come back and be a star. Look at Pacino in the 80's. They can 4 decades of stardom and get paid like it. Women get paid for 4 years. Look at Cameron Diaz. Who would give her anything close to 10 million$ now?

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:18 PM

Pacino is an exception to the 50 or so dudes who have tried to be leading men in the last decade and failed. Big exception. He got around 10.5-11.5M for his last picture--and he doesn't have much on the horizon that screams big money. His next picture is only budgeted ~30M so he likely is not getting 15M for it (maybe but doubt it)

I think pacino and H Ford and S COnnery are the most famous leading men of the last 45 years and they are major exceptions.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:23 PM

Is this chat only for people who live in LA? Just wondering.

Posted by: patrick at July 22, 2005 09:24 PM

DeNiro is a paid star. Duston Hoffman. Paid. Redford paid. Beatty paid when he works. Ford paid. (When was his last money maker?) These were all guys who peaked in 1978. Look at females of the era. Does Streep get paid? Jane Fonda? Jessica Lange? Men have it better but we are better.

Posted by: Josh at July 22, 2005 09:25 PM

Hollywood is as unfair as they come but men are not better than us girls. Men screw everything up and we're the ones who take care of business. Theres no justice in the game.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:27 PM

I'm not from sunny Cali. Thankfully so.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:29 PM

DeNiro too.

And will those 4 guys be in any big movies in the next five years where they'll be paid A list...if they are alive?

Only DeNiro becasue of the success of Fockers.

Warren Beatty? He's lucky anybody even talks to him after how difficult he was on Town & country. He hasn't been in a film in almost 5 years has he?

he is wisely living off his pretty and talented wife's acting income these last few years.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:29 PM

The thing is those guys are stars. They may not make a lot of movies but they can still get any project made and get paid like it too. Merryl Streep can't do that. She can't get movies made by studios. It is a different world at the top. Men have longevity. Women have a short time to cash in before they're doing sitcoms.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:32 PM

RED ALERT

Titanic is not the TOP US GROSS!

Check out IMDB--someone made a mistake with a decimal point and they have posted up that Bewitched has grossed 582M US box office!

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:33 PM

Bewitched didn't make 582mill??? Now you're talking crazy.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:46 PM

If you make two lists of all the actresses who have won an oscar in the past 50 years (both lead and supporting); 1) those who have done nudity, and 2) those who have not done nudity; the nudity list is much longer!

Posted by: oldman at July 22, 2005 09:48 PM

its the way the game is played. u gotta bare all to get the roles that matter.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:50 PM

AW they just corrected it!

Damn you min wage IMDB nerds.

Iwas just about to congradulate those mad bitchin' phat marketing dudes/dudettes at COlumbia. You rawk. Whoever would have thought that two bit ill-thought out pic would, like, earn 530M more dollars in ONE WEEK.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:50 PM

so lota ur not down with actresses taking it off to further their careers?

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 09:52 PM

I can't wait til Reese Witherspoon hits that rough patch and resorts to taking it off to keep her place in line. You know its going to happen. It happens to every actress. Better when you're 30 and not 55.

Posted by: Bruce at July 22, 2005 09:57 PM

Take the career of Julia Roberts for example. With her long layoff now she'll never be a top box office draw again. Just won't happen. Her quote will have to come down to the reasonable levels. She'll never make the money she was making again. In 15 years she'll be a throw away role in a movie. Some young actresses mother. But a guy like George Clooney will always work and will always make relatively the same amount. It is unfair but thats economics.

Posted by: Mark at July 22, 2005 10:23 PM

Jennifer Aniston is doing it right. Make your money on a hit sitcom then be free to take whatever movie role you want and build your career.

Posted by: Angelus21 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 10:31 PM

"It is unfair but thats economics."

Yep, the economics of sexism.

Not to put words (or anything else) in anybody's mouth, but I wonder if all of the slobbering guys endorsing female nudity on this page would feel the same about viewing close-ups of male nudity as often. If not, then imagine how women feel when they are so constantly and casually bombarded with explicit female sexual imagery. And how they feel when they watch the careers of actresses dry up prematurely because of the casually accepted wisdom that female characters over 35 are not interesting or physically attractive. Guys, imagine how you would feel if they told you that you were through and your best days were behind you at age 35. Then imagine what all of that can do to the female psyche.

Posted by: Chester at July 22, 2005 10:36 PM

I don't think you take the time to read the context of the discussion. No one advocated anyones nudity. Male or female. It is just how the industry works. Females take their clothes off on film. Men don't. Unfair? Sure. But that is the business. I wonder what would happen if some people actually read and thought about things before shooting from the hip.
Wonders will never cease.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 22, 2005 10:45 PM

Who wants to see male genitilia on screen? Thats what you want Chester? More men nude? Even females don't want to see that.

Posted by: joefitz84 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 10:54 PM

"I don't think you take the time to read the context of the discussion. No one advocated anyones nudity ... I wonder what would happen if some people actually read and thought about things before shooting from the hip." - Posted by: Panda Bear at July 22, 2005 10:45 PM

"Can I say thank you God to the person who finally told Halle to get naked? One of the happiest moments in my life." - Posted by: LesterFreed at July 22, 2005 09:01 PM

"I can't wait til Reese Witherspoon hits that rough patch and resorts to taking it off to keep her place in line." - Posted by: Bruce at July 22, 2005 09:57 PM

Posted by: Chester at July 22, 2005 11:02 PM

Yeah, I'm sure those are all in context. What parent dropped you on your head? And who cares? I'd rather see Reese W instead of Ewan Mc naked. You can quote me on that one too. You have my permission.

Posted by: Mark at July 22, 2005 11:07 PM

I'm honored that I have been quoted by this troublemaker. But maybe he should read my whole post before he tries and lump into his argument. That wouldn't be too much to ask now would it?

Posted by: Bruce at July 22, 2005 11:10 PM

Catching glimpses of the penis isn't good enough for me. Show me male upon male upon male. Nude. And throw in some boobs for equal balance. I'd be happy. Knowing the only male stuff I'm going to see is in pornos I won't be waiting around for it. Maybe theres another reason besides the fact the times we live in. Maybe most guys are, how do they say it?

Scared? LOL!

Posted by: Angelus21 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 11:16 PM

Damn right I'm scared. I don't want someone you know it staring at me on the big screen. Actors should be scared to. You want to be Cillian Murphy in 28 Days Later and have everyone see what you're packing? I feel your pain, Cillian. When its cold out. It's not fun. You have no idea Angelus. No idea.

Posted by: joefitz84 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 11:19 PM

If the nudity fits the story then it is good for the movie. If it is gratutious then forget it. I'll pass. If I want a porno movie I'll watch a porno film.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 22, 2005 11:29 PM

I'll say it again. The day Halle made the choice to take it off not only helped her career but helped me. Thank you, Sweet Halle. Thank you.

Posted by: LesterFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 12:14 AM

From all the actors I know and have been friendly with not many would want their package on screen. Females realize it might be the only way to further their careers. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Posted by: Bruce at July 23, 2005 12:19 AM

Nudity in films?
Been a big supporter since I was 8.

Posted by: Dewey Decimal at July 23, 2005 12:35 AM

THere's always been a double standard as far as the MPAA...that's why The Aritsocrats is going out without and having trouble getting into some theatres, but a movie like 40-Year Old Virgin which in one scene has just as foul language and descriptsions of sex acts is getting an R thanks to Universal. It's also going to be interesting to see if "A History of VIolence" (which I know David knows about ) will get an R-rating thanks to New Line whereas Cronenberg's past films always got him into trouble with the MPAA.

Posted by: EDouglas [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 01:27 AM

To Josh & Lota: How could you guys leave it two of the most elder statesmen of tinsletown? Nicholson & Eastwood. Jack can do anything, and I guess, anyone, he wants in Hollywood. At his age he's still the quintessential ladies man who exudes dangerous excitement.

If he was english, he could still play Bond, tone the action, raise the suspense. Get Mann, Ridley Scott, or interestingly James Cameron to direct, and Bond with Nicholson could be interesting prospect. It may seem far fetched, but the old fucker could pull it off.

Eastwood has everyone in a queue to work with and for him. Anyone who wants an oscar before they die is looking to be in the next eastwood pic. He's the Woody Allen of our generation, just a couple of hundred pounds more in weight and millions at the box office. His entire movies have less dialogue than one Woody Allen scene, he does'nt like retakes, he's described as an actors director, and the academy loves him. That's power baby. The best second act since the resurrection. (Sorry Mel)

Posted by: bulldog at July 23, 2005 02:22 AM

Old men never go out of style. I bet even Paul Newman can get any movie made he wants. He's like 100.

Posted by: Angelus21 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 02:51 AM

yes Bulldog...that brings up an important distinction between high paid actors, and actors who also are directors or producers, the latter of which if they have any modicum of success will be around for a long time like Clint.

If Clint were 'just' an actor, no way would he have the say that he does now, he's fantastically successful as a producer and director and if he lives as long as his Ma, he may BE Hollywood in the future. Everyone else will have gone bankrupt.

By the way, that old broad Julia Roberts got 25M for her last salary and that old coot Harrison Ford 25M. [sandler got 25M too recently & Crusie w/back end gets more]

I don't think Hollywood can sustain more than 10 people like that at a time, if even that (Russell Crow and Angelina Jolie may get that on next movies...if Russell doesn't end up in the clink).

The only thing smart studio people can do is keep encouraging young talented actors & directors to keep the price from continuing out of control.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 02:52 AM

Waiting to see Reese Witherspoon get naked? What, you never saw Robert Benton's horrifically bad "Twilight?"

Posted by: Charlie Barks at July 23, 2005 03:10 AM

I'm sick of the old argument that "I wonder if all of the slobbering guys endorsing female nudity on this page would feel the same about viewing close-ups of male nudity as often." Comparing a pair of jiggling breasts to an on-screen cock just doesn't cut it. Female breasts have no overtly sexualized counterpoint on the male anatomy.

I guarantee you that you see far more cock on screen then you do vulva. Aside from Sharon Stone's famous example, has a mainstream actress ever spread her legs in a mainstream film?

Posted by: Wrecktum at July 23, 2005 05:24 AM

Angelina Jolie will never have the earning power that a Crowe has. It's just life. She's been in one hit movie and probably owes that to Pitt. And her action movies have never taken off. Tomb Raider should have been more of a hit. She hasn't had one romantic comedy make any money.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 23, 2005 05:39 AM

Tomb Raider was more than plenty of a hit, considering that it was a horrible, boring movie.

Posted by: jeffmcm at July 23, 2005 05:44 AM

Having seen BAD NEWS BEARS...I can say Dave's partially right. (I realize I'm skipping what you guys are on about....it bored me, sorry). The MPAA *may* have cost them some points...but I dunno. If anything, the movie made the MPAA look stupid by almost intentionally trotting out EVERY minority and a handicap to kind of.....appease them. I took it, at first as stupid year 2000 PCness but then realized it may have been tongue in cheek.

I love how if Buttermaker dumps a PINT of whiskey into his non alkie beer, that's O.K....but he can't drink beer around the kids.

Bottom line is...the BAD NEWS BEARS is a poor imitation of the original and aspires to be nothing more. It's a shitty movie and a bad remake. There's no depth to the characters and no chemistry and they spell out every single plot point to the 9 thousandth degree.

I hate to compare the remake to the original, but it's trying so hard to act like the original, I have no choice. Bad movie. Bad news.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2005 06:05 AM

I think Chester has a good point. And I think the idea that there is no male equivalent to the female breast is also true.

Even Sharon Stone didn't really show her labia, so much as the design of her pubic hair.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 06:41 AM

never say never Panda.

Angelina got paid the same as Pitt, 20M for Mr & mrs smith. Russell Crowe got 20M for master & commander in 2003 but not sure how much of Cinderella's 88M budget Russell Crowe finally got.

And if Russell Crowe ends up in the big house for any length of time there will be many others earning more than he. They may make an example of him (max 7 years)...depends on his 'priors' if any.

disappointed to hear about the Bears.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 06:57 AM

When Angelina is 55 she won't be paid half of what she is now. When Brad is 55 he will.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 23, 2005 08:16 AM

Bruce, Reese Witherspoon has already appeared nude on screen. See "Twilight" starring her, Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon and Liev Shreiber. It's a crap movie, but if that's what you want...

I started to watch Road House a while ago, not knowing anything other than it starred Patrick Swayze and turned it off cause I couldn't be bothered watching it.

I don't really know if this means anything to the conversation but if you notice, a lot of actresses lately are starting much later that actresses of decades past. Naomi Watts and Maria Bello come to mind. Only now are they name people yet they're in their high 30s. Didn't people like Lauren Bacall start when she was 16 or something?

That and the studio system of old supported certain actresses. Nowadays they much fend for themselves to coin a phrase. They aren't guaranteed more work.

Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 23, 2005 08:49 AM

never say never Panda.

My old Uncles used to say the Dodgers will never leave Brooklyn. DIng! And it happened.

Jeanne Moreau, an old broad of 77 is/was getting paid more than just about every male counterpart from her very cinematically-oriented country (FRance) & Catherine Deneuve the same.

we'll see.

The bimbos and himbos defintely crowd the field for the 18-30 y old actors, it seems like the really good actors male and female are between 38-45 right now, DiCaprio excepted, but he seems like he's older since he's been in good movies since he was a kid.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2005 02:51 PM

Just because you're just seeing Watts and Bello now doesn't mean they weren't toiling when they were 16. Just taking longer to break through. It happens. But if yo really think that Maria Bello will be a star when she is 50 I have to think what kind of meds you're on.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 23, 2005 05:11 PM

I always enjoyed how Kevin Kline says shit - in Grand Canyon, he's singing along to Warren Zevon, and the way he sings "the shit has hit the fan" is quite delightful.

Then there's Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness where (I'm paraphrasing) he says "You've got two things going for you, Jack and Shit. And Jack just left town." Nice use of shit.

And, of course, Private Gomer Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. He IS in a world of shit.

Posted by: Other Sister at July 23, 2005 06:03 PM

Saying shit in any war movie is classic. Just resonates so well. In the shit, out of shit, shits gonna happen, oh shit, we're getting shit on, the shits coming, etc etc. That just off the top of my large brain.

Posted by: Doctor Annes at July 23, 2005 06:27 PM

Oy, Panda Bear, I know Watts and Bello have been toiling away (I remember seeing Watts on an Australian soap opera many moons ago) but I was just saying that they're just coming into prominence now.

Also, when watching Parkinson today they had the hysterical Stephen Fry on and he was talking about nude scenes in films. He basically said that nobody should ever do them because if you're watching a movie and suddenly you an actor pops their dicks out or an actress flashes herself across the screen the viewer immediately takes themselves out of the movie and goes "Oh, that's they're nobbly bits" (to quote Fry) and so forth. Sorta true.

Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 24, 2005 08:43 AM

Do you really post on every single thread? It's impressive.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 24, 2005 08:55 AM

Panda... why are you trying to provoke people now?

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2005 09:23 AM

Whoa, David's coming to the defence.

Cause seriously Panda, whats your deal? In fact, don't bother.

(Why can't Maria Bello be a star in 10 years? If she keeps making films like The Cooler and History of Violence...)

Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 24, 2005 02:48 PM

I just wish there was more breastfeeding in movies. It's the only way I'll learn.

Posted by: Other Sister at July 24, 2005 04:25 PM

I do tend to find male nudity in film somewhat distracting, but that's partly, I suspect, because so few directors seem to guess how to film it organically (yeah, I know, but I can't at this hour think of any other word that'll work). The co-ed shower scene in "Starship Troopers" was done really well, perhaps because Paul Verhoeven somehow knew how to direct it for complete tonal unremarkability.

Long aware of, if puzzled by, the cult surrounding "Roadhouse," which I merely found boring and idiotic, and it's not as if I'm immune to the charms of dopey action movies (one of my favorites from the same era is the indefensible, yet to me irresistible, "Stone Cold," starring Brian Bosworth as the world's most improbable undercover agent , infiltrating a biker gang run by, in the film's luckiest additions, the terrific Lance Henriksen and William Forsythe ... it's funny that Forsythe had this long run of being cast as Southern-fried reptiles, considering that grew up only a few blocks away from where I still live in Brooklyn).

And rounding back to David's original piece, I didn't know that "Annie Hall" had introduced the word "asshole" to network airwaves, but Ido remember being startled when the (admittedly pivotal) word "bullshit" was heard repeatedly on CBS's (I think) first broadcast of "Network," which must have occurred around the same time.

Posted by: Long-Winded Bastard at July 25, 2005 05:13 AM

Provoking no one. Just really curious and inquisitive.

Posted by: Panda Bear at July 25, 2005 05:15 AM

i had never even heard that Road House was this popular until I read it on here.

You learn something new every day.

Panda?!

Posted by: KamikazeCamel at July 25, 2005 01:47 PM

"Aside from Sharon Stone's famous example, has a mainstream actress ever spread her legs in a mainstream film?"

Not exactly leg-spreading, but Nicole Kidman shows off Mr. Fuzzy not once but twice in BILLY BATHGATE. And let's not forget Julianne Moore's lengthy bottomless scene in SHORT CUTS.

BTW, there will indeed be a ROAD HOUSE sequel, but I believe it's going to be direct-to-video.


Posted by: TheBrotherhoodOfTheLostSkeletonOfCadavra at July 25, 2005 10:14 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?