From Friday’s Hot Button
“I’ve been getting the strong vibe that this has been coming for the last week or two… critics are going after Monster-In-Law not with a hammer, but with nuclear weaponry. One Stars.. 1.5 Stars… No Stars. Having seen the film and gotten the joke – and every single report I have heard from screenings, many from the critics on attack, has been that the audience was 100% with the film – I had to scratch my head.”
The rest of the column…
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I said this elsewhere, but what if they all just didn’t like it? Is that so hard to believe? It certainly looks like an awful movie to me. And what about all of the critics who enjoyed Kicking & Screaming? Are they all wrong? Joe Leydon made a good point as well, but I’ll let him address that, if he cares to.
Oh, thanks for nothing, Stella. Get me involved, why don’t you?
But, Ok, to repeat: Let me see if I get this straight. If critics attack “Monster in Law,” they have a hidden agenda. If Dave attacks the New York Times, he’s just doing his job. That the hang of it?
Or: Maybe it’s really a conspiracy. Yeah, that’s the ticket. All of the really, really smart and famous and well-respected and widely-read critics were invited to this party, where they all decided to trash “Monster in Law.” Only Dave didn’t get invited, because he’s not… Well, to continue would be needlessly unkind.
They don’t really have cycles as much as they have streaks and certain things that push their buttons. What do they like when older stars make career resurgances? They like stuff like Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast. Forget that his role is extremely one-note. It’s BEN KINGSLEY AS YOU’VE NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE in an INDIE film! The bulking up was impressive, but I’ll always prefer Terrence Stamp’s ass kicking in The Limey. Kingsley was great in House of Sand and Fog, though. I’m digressing here….
If Jane Fonda had starred in one of these indie films with a decent script and a new challenge, they’d be singing her praises no matter the quality of the movie (anyone remember what happened in Sexy Beast? I sure don’t). But a light comedy with J-Lo, an actress critics are all ready writing off, and all they need is an excuse to flush it, and apparantly, they found it.
They don’t go through cycles, but they seem to go through streaks. They hook up with whoever’s hot (the people who are sucking on Rodriguez and Tarantino’s dicks right now for making “instant American classics,” the people who are slathering Will Farrell with praise, though he does deserve most of it, and, to put one of my favorites to be fair, Soberbergh a few years ago), and kick down anything that’s not (BenLo. Jersey Girl was actually a decent movie, and nobody even gave it the time of day because of Gigli. Smith gets INCREDIBLY ham-handed at times, especially with the last shot, but I laughed and I enjoyed).
There are plenty of gray areas, and of course, the Devil’s Adocate (Kevin Thomas), so there’s plenty of room for personal preference. It may not be analysis of critics. It may just be, to use one of your Poland-isms against you, the movies, stupid (no offense).
But let’s make our points and counterpoints and move on from this soon. Honestly, I’m not wasting my ten bucks on Monster-in-Law or Kicking and Screaming this weekend. Farrell will either keep making solid hits or fizzle out from overexposure (though I doubt the latter) and Fonda will find some juicy critic bait to sink her teeth into, and everyone will forget about these movies in everything except B.O.
A bunch of critics jumping on a film, that most
likely did not deserve it? Wow. Did that happen
like last week as well? Critics do get all hive
mind. I would hate to generalize an entire profession.
Yet critics have long sense stopped reviewing films
on their merits, and now review films that make give
them some sort of arousal. Thus making what they say
about any film mostly bias filled rants. Instead of
just reviewing the film on it’s own merits alone.
I think David is being a little paranoid here. Few things are more subjective than humor. And David theory has one big hole that is Kicking and Screaming. A comedy that looks at least as dumb as Monster in Law and most people agree will be more popular (at least on opening weekend). So why K&S reviews aren’t as awful as Monster in Law?
There’s one thing David wrote where I believe he arrive in a good point. The disappointment over this film being Jane Fionda come back probably played a part on the response. I don’t think anybody disliked it because of that, but I’m pretty sure that at least some critics intesified there dislike from it. Had someone like Sissy Spacek played the mom, some of the * and *1/2 reviews might tuern out ** reviews.
Yeah, it certainly seems that if it didn’t star Jane Fonda (an incredible actress who has been away for too long) and instead starred someone we have seen on the screen three times in the last year it probably would still be getting bad reviews, but not the vindictive spite filled ones that it is getting.
But, it’s not like the movie was written for Jane so what are they complaining about. She has said she chose this movie because she wanted her first movie back to be fun and light and funny and it certainly looks like they had fun making it.
But it’s kind of irresponsible of a film critic to say a movie is bad because an actress that a lot of the film’s younger audience doesn’t even know doesnt give an Oscar worthy arthouse performance filled with multiple scenes of crying.
I’ll be seeing it when it comes out here, so until then…
You’re on target David. I saw this movie in the worst conditions. On tape after five hours of sleep having pulled an all nighter right immediately before hand. I laughed many, many times and I was not in the mood to do so. The question is whether the torrential negative reviews will keep an older audience who doesn’t always go out opening weekend out to see it at all. They may end up waiting to see it on DVD and HBO. We’ll know Sunday.
I’m not sure if there is a critics cycle going on, but they are clearly going after J-Lo and Fonda. Is it really less entertaining then “Kingdom of Boredom..er Heaven”? While it’s sadly predictable, the idea they would embrace “Kicking and Screaming” is more depressing. “Van Helsing” had more intentional laughs.
Fonda = Hanoi Jane.
Lopez = J-Lo.
Monster-in-Law = chick flick.
Monster-in-Law humor = very silly (but funny) movie.
No wonder why the critics don’t like Monster-in-Law. A lot of them still see Jane as Hanoi Jane, they don’t like singer-turned actresses (but in fact: Lopez is an actress-turned-singer, but whatever), most of them are men (Monster-in-Law is a chick flick) and critics don’t like silly comedies.
Variety:
“Nonetheless, the matchup of the weekend’s biggest new entrants is an odd one. The PG-13 “Monster,” which stars Jennifer Lopez and marks Jane Fonda’s return to the bigscreen, is tracking very strongly with femme auds.”
I think M-i-L will do very well, despite of the negative reviews. Word-of-mouth is positive.
So if David is right and critics didn’t get Monster-In-Law, did he not get Kicking & Screaming?
Hey, is it my imagination, or are we suddenly getting a lot of casino ads on the blog here? Did Dave get in too deep with his online poker habit, or what?
First, in my opinion “Kicking & Screaming” was very funny. Anyone who’s a Ferrell fan or a Mike Ditka fan for that matter is going to like it. And there are lots of soccer moms and dads out there who will like it along with their kids. It’s not as good as “Elf,” but it’s nowhere near as bad as Poland is saying.
Second, “Monster In Law” stinks! I am blown away by the fact that Fonda and J. Lo splatting each other with different liquids, putting their faces in plates of various food and constantly bickering is that funny to anyone, let alone anyone with an IQ over 7. And Michael Vartan, oh Michael Vartan… He needs to stick with “Alias,” because this is not the role for him.
And yes, I have seen both films. Interesting to hear how many of the rest of you who are posting can say that…
This is right up their with “‘8 Mile’ is racist toward African American’s” for Poland. Sometimes you just miss the point completely Dave. I think you see movies in a bubble. One big silly bubble.
I honestly think that if you like the ads and the trailers for M-i-L you will like the movie. It seems like one of those “You know what you’re in for” movies. So I do not feel sorry for Bess in the slightest because obviously you should have known it a chick flick where Jane Fonda and Jennifer Lopez do exactly as you describe.
“So if David is right and critics didn’t get Monster-In-Law, did he not get Kicking & Screaming? ”
My understanding was that Kicking and Screaming did not do that well with critics either? It’s IMDb summary didn’t sound very positive!
Aren’t a lot of critics liberal lefties (as people like to call them?) And aren’t we (liberal lefties) the ones who have actually heard what Jane Fonda had to say about the whole Hanoi Jane issue and forgiven her…?
I predict M-i-L will make between $15-$18mil, which is pretty good for a film aimed at adult women, and it may very well play well against the action summer movies in the weeks to come.
One last thing. Critics don’t hate singers-to-actresses if they’re good. See people like Cher (Oscar winner), Bette Midler (2 time Oscar nominee), Diana Ross (oscar nominee), Will Smith (Oscar nominee) and so on and so on…
Friday estimates, for anyone who’s interested.
1) MONSTER-IN-LAW – $8 million
2) KICKING & SCREAMING – $6.3 million
3) UNLEASHED – $3.8 million
4) KINGDOM OF HEAVEN – $2.8 million
5) HOUSE OF WAX – $2.2 million
6) CRASH – $2.1 million
7) HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY – $1.4 million
8) INTERPRETER – $1.3 million
9) MINDHUNTERS – $700,000
10) XXX: STATE OF THE UNION – $700,000
That looks like a surprisingly nice hold for “Crash” (opened to $2.8 million last Friday). More theaters? Word of mouth? Both?
it looks like another slow weekend, but #1 may well turn out to be kicking and screaming if the kids come out on saturday and sunday. I dont see monster in law having good word of mouth.
What does a movie getting 100% from critics have to do with what critics think of it? As Mononc Serge once sang:
“Shit is shit
Shit is shit
Even if it’s a hit
Shit is shit”
Once again, David attempts to find the ultimate solution by grouping a bunch of movies together, all of which have very little in common with each other. The reason The New Guy and Soul Plane had bad reviews? The majority of viewers thought they were bad movies. Period.
Road Trip had a charm and style barely found in any comedy movies, but this is all personal taste, so not liking a well-received film, and enjoying a panned flick, is going to happen. Simple as that.
Unleashed was clearly left on the shelf for too long. The premise isn’t going to attract “summer” crowds, and clearly has a muted palette suited for autumn or winter films. Expected Hitchhiker’s to make it to $50 million, but it’ll end at $45 million instead. Only $20 million from international numbers, so it must have a slow rollout.
Sith really will be the event to open the gate of 2005. The question is whether that gate will remain open through July.
I hope Monster-In-Law, Kicking & Screaming and all the other shit Hollywood puts out goes down in flames. How else are we going to get more of the likes of Sideways or M$B?
Crash is in 1,876 threaters this weekend and Unleash in 1,995. I guess it going to be a dog fight to see which movie becomes number 1? I’m going to stay with the stronger critic reviews and the kiddie film saturday bump that Kicking and Screaming should end up on top. Also it looks like Kingdom of Heavens will not even hold on to 50% from opening weekend.
First… a couple of Joe notes…
1. What the hell does this issue have to do with the New York Times? I think I’ve been very clear about my position on that paper. I hold them to the highest standards. They have failed a lot in the last year or so. There’s no great mystery… my opinions are not general, but quite specific. If you disagree, so be it. But I have nothing in general against any paper.
2. Casino ads? Check your computer for an ad bug. I think you have one.
As for the rest… I find it interesting that my suggestion of a trend is responded to endlessly as being about these specific movies. Let me say again… a world of 2.5 star dismissive reviews of Monster In Law would mean little to me as a cultural observer. It’s not some great defense of Monster In Law as genuius. This proposition is all about the degree of tone, not the thumb up or down.
I don’t think it is some psychosis on my part when I recall that every year at this time, there is a movie that every piles on to like it raped their sister and some other junk that just flies by. Nor do I think it makes me a conspiracy theorist.
It is when two similarly good/bad pictures come into the market at the same time and one is “great” and the other is “lower than dog shit” that my head turns.
There are always people who feel strongly either way about any picture. But when you get into the red or green area for a majority of critics, I think it calls for a little more self examination than “well, most critics just thought that.”
And as I often have to remind… Attack of The Clones got better reviews than the first Star Wars did back then. Very few of Kubrick’s or The Coen Bros’ films were well reviewed out of the gate.
Yes, sometimes a banana is just a banana. And sometimes, it is worth examining.
Here’s something I’ve noticed.
So if the general theory is that all critics somehow missed the film that Dave saw in Monster-in-Law – is it possible that Dave could have some vested interest in the films of New Line Cinema?
In 2003 – for weeks and weeks before they came out he heaped a gigantic amount of praise all over The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Elf
In the Summer of 2004, he couldn’t stop praising Rachel McAdams in The Notebook and how Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle was the funniest film of the summer.
Now he is going all out for Monster-in-Law in his usual style of blasting all the critics who “don’t get it.”
What makes this rather a bit more nefarious is that in at least two of the instances (Texas Chainsaw and Monster-in-Law) he went out of his way to BASH those films biggest competitions at the box office (Kill Bill Vol. 1 & Kicking and Screaming).
Just something to think about.
It is something to think about. I invite that kind of thinking. I live for that kind of thinking. In fact, I think KB v TCM came up, if not in the column, than on here.
All I ask is that while you are thinking about it, think about the many NL films I have slogged. I don’t think you can find a studio bias overall in any of my work. But if so, have at it.
Loved Rachel in The Notebook… didn’t think they would do half the business they did, in no small part because it was up against The Terminal, which I was sure was going to be a hit.
My issue with KB is very much the same as it is here… excessive emotion in praise. And in the case of Chainsaw, excessive aggression against.
And Harold & Kumar is funny as shit. I am still sorry it didn’t find a theatrical audience.
P.S. I loved Elf… friends of mine from other studios despised it… and some people at the top of the New Line pyramid thought I was absolutely nuts when I told them I thought it would do $140 million. It did $175m, as you probably know.
I do have a strong relationship with New Line. But I have shit on more movies than I’ve liked, including films that became hits for them like Butterfly Effect and Final Destination.
This kind of reflects on the Drew McWeeny conversation. It is very hard to be in this business for a decade and not develop personal feelings about the people you cover. But one has to watch it. And it can often work against the people you like best because one has to be even more careful when one likes their films. “Am I being too enthusiastic?” On the film side, “Am I being too stubbornly negative?”
Believe me, for the three days I was out on my own having shreded Spanglish, it was very uncomfortable, made more uncomfortable by the studio. When I called Sideways a masterpiece in its first review anywhere…. very uncomfortable.
Anyway… do think about it and do challenge me and every other journalist an critic.
“Attack of The Clones got better reviews than the first Star Wars did back then. ”
Which film are you talking about? Phantom Menace or the original one? I ask, because the very first one and Empire were both extremely well reviewed.
Although Lucas likes to populate the myth that all the films have been horribly reviewed to defend against the attacks on the prequels.
Dave,
It’s clear that you will do what you can when you have a wild-eyed love for a movie and talk about it for months and months. It’s beneath you though to take on a nation full of critics like this however. You can point out favorites and non-favorites for just about any movie critic out there, but you know there isn’t some secret Star Chamber where the respectable ones, at least, convene in an attempt to sabotage one movie or one actress or one studio. Which is why the New Line connection stands out.
I’m sure there have been more than a few New Line titles that you have “slogged” in the past, but you don’t really have to go out on a limb to bash Son of the Mask, Dumb & Dumberer and King’s Ransom. In fact, going through your archives of just last year, it’s quite difficult to find a passage that has you slogging ANY film from that studio. Blade: Trinity is about the closest thing you can find and yet I can’t find anything about After the Sunset, Birth, The Butterfly Effect, Cellular or Laws of Attraction. There’s a passing glance at the box office prospects for Raise Your Voice, but that’s about it.
No one is saying you can’t have good relationships with the studios, but we all know there are bigger fish to fry than the critical reaction to Monster-in-Law. Keep going after shoddy entertainment reporting in the NY Times and elsewhere. Get down on Richard Corliss in Time Magazine for his embargo-breaking “features”. (Although honestly, you could be accused of doing that as well, although a bit more admirably.)
If you honestly liked Monster-in-Law, what’s wrong with acting surprised at the critics and leave it at that? Why try to get in their heads about the latest film from a hack director, Robert Luketic (Legally Blonde, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton), that you clearly believe has some chops? Glad you enjoyed it. Nobody else seemed to. End of story. Getting into the backlash and jumping-on-board of the Star Wars prequels might be a bit more meaty and not seem as suspect.
Dave, I was wondering the same thing as GdB. If you go by Rotten Tomatoes, “Attack of the Clones” garnered only 65% approval from the critics on the Tomatometer. The original, “A New Hope,” is at a whopping 93%, while “Episode I: The Phantom Menace” is at 62%. That’s objectively unimpressive for “Attack of the Clones” all around.
While on the subjects of both “Star Wars” and the nature of critics’ biased responses to movies in general, has anybody noticed that the number of positive reviews for “Revenge of the Sith” has taken a noticeable drop since all of last week’s hoopla? It was holding steady in the mid-90 percents for about five days. Now all of a sudden it’s down to 80%. You’ve got to wonder if the early reviewers may have been guilty of the kind of herd mentality that Dave is talking about.
Keep in mind that major critics can only cut against the grain so often before their readership loses faith in them. And when critics lose their reader base, they more often than not lose their jobs. Just remember what happened to the great Janet Maslin.
David: I was referring to postings for casinos on several of the older threads. Sort of like the postings by “zeezee” or whoever the hell it is regarding the “Barbershop” lawsuit.
To answer your question: What the hell does this issue have to do with the New York Times? Simple — you are accusing critics of having some kind of ulterior motive. But you rant and rave and carry on when someone questions your own motives for fixating on the Times. If you can’t see that this makes you look a little… Hey, never mind. It’s your playground. Make up your own rules as you go along. Just pay no attention to those of us who laugh up our sleeves when we’re not rolling our eyes. I hereby promise to never again dis Dave for his NYT mania. It would be as useless as trying to convince Pat Robinson that he’s self-deluded on the topic of evolution.
Joe, you are one of the few people who would defend the film industry coverage at the NYT in the last year. Or perhaps you aren’t defending it, just attacking me with a smear you will never let go. If the fact that some people would rather count the number of times I criticize the paper rather than address the actual problems, I can only pity their self-enforced ignorance. That is not to say that my criticism is neccessarily always correct. But to dismiss it is far more the act of someone who “was just doing their job” than of someone who wishes to engage in real thought about the world.
Yes, I did mean Phantom Menace in the previous comment and if you look at Rotten Tomatoes on A New Hope closely, you will see that almost every review is from the re-release, long after the film was a part of film history. Look into the archives of papers, as I did when Phantom Menace came out, and you will see a lot more negativity, which Lucas accurately talks about sometimes (sorry gdb).
As for Paul, of course I don’t think there is a star chamber. That is absurd. But I do think there are trends and habits, just like there are for butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. And I think that is a fish worth some frying, if for no other reason, the critical ranks tend to endless arrogance and a loss of perspective. It is the nature of this beast. I am stunned that anyone who pays any attention to criticism doesn
Whatever you say,Dave.
Simple. And cheap. Like you like it, Joe.
P.S. I found the gambling things you were talking about… erased and banned… please let me know if you see more in the future.
First you insult me, then you ask for my help. Typical. (All that’s missing is a remark about my ass.) But of course, I’ll be glad to offer my services as a courtesy to a colleague whose website has been strongly recommended to my students as must-read viewing.
Nice ass, Joe.
Yeah, but let me tell you something, Sweet Cheeks — it’s getting smaller all the time thanks to my diet. In fact, by the time Toronto comes around, I’ll probably be slim and trim enough to finally make good on that steak-dinner bet over whether “Far From Heaven” would get Oscar nominations. (As the rest of you have likely guessed, I predicted it would get nada, Dave disagreed.)
If only you were right on that part Joe. God. If
only I had a whizinator right now and a copy of
that film on DVD. Yuck. Just YUCK all around.
I just want to address this to Chester. I think
the hive mentality towards Revenge this week. I
feel that the early critics are telling it like it
might be, be it good or bad, then the hive mentality
coming this week. I really feel this film will be
SLAMMED. I am talking about a brutal slam. More so
than any other SW film because critics have issues.
It’s apparent, and one of those issues is named
George Lucas.
Funny thing about Rotten Tomatoes: They held back
about 12 reviews from Attack of the Clones for two
weeks. Thus enabling it to be rotten to all the
world to see for two weeks. After two weeks, they
added those 12 reviews, and it went to fresh.
Paul Edwards… Robert Luketic is a hack? Obviously since you saw Legally Blonde, Win A Date AND Monster-in-Law (and Titsiana Booberini?) and hated them all despite them being exactly as they were advertised…)
I really have no sympathy for people who chastise perfectly fine movies with over-exaggurated and hyperbolic adjectives when they knew what they were getting themselves in for. Case in point – anyone who is calling Monster-in-Law absolute dreck. Try seeing a few less movies and you mightn’t be so cynacle. (this wasn’t aimed at Paul, btw, just anyone)
And I laughed heartedly when I read this
“How else are we going to get more of the likes of Sideways or M$B?”
Well, this has been discussed many times before, but if movies like the one’s that people on here constantly deride don’t make money, you don’t get any movies like Sideways or M$B because they’ll have no money to make them with.
If you were asked what movie to greenlight and you were head of a big studio and you had these two plot description “A female Meet the Parents!” or “A fat schlub sits around getting drunk for a week!”… year, exactly.
Didnt that fruit also direct the From Justin to Kelly movie? Is that not a sign of a hack?
1. No, Robert Luketic did not direct From Justin to Kelly.
2. We don’t much care for impersonal name calling like “fruit” around here. Please keep it to yourself or a ban will be forthcoming.
leydon, does the new york times pay u for all the times u defend it?
Bob: Almost as much as Team Bush pays you to be its apologist. (That was, of course, a cheap shot. But, then again, I have to save my more expensive bullets for the truly hateful.)
why would team bush need me when they got enough of u liberals sounding like nuts anyway? everytime a liberal opens his mouth, its another person out there hearing it and turning to the right. ask howard the scream how the fund raising is going, joe. or will the new york times not report that?
Why would the person who directed From Justin to Kelly be a “fruit”? So it was a bad film. Is that a reason to disparage the guy with insults that you cannot back up? What if I called you a “flamer”, Barry for that post? Would I be right?
I would call the director of From Justin to Kelly incompetent. But homosexual? That is half of Hollywood. Not much of a stretch with that one.