Cher's Burlesque or Daniel Radcliffe's Harry Potter; who fared better at the box office this weekend?



Numbers prove moviegoers opted for harmless fantasy over sexual fantasy

After Cher called the tea party members "f-ing nuts", referring to them as 'teabaggers' while pushing her movie, Burlesque, many people took offense at what she said.

Now that her movie debuted this weekend and only grossed $11.8 million, perhaps she realized she should not have made the derogatory remark.

Besides Cher's remark, something else may have kept moviegoers away from Burlesque.

Although given a rating of a PG 13 rating, Common Sense Media onllyh approved Burlesque for kids 15+

They review Burlesque this way:

Sexy musical is forgettable despite talented stars.

Common Sense Media goes on to say this about Cher's film:

"Parents need to know that singers Cher and Christina Aguilera star in this fairly sexy musical, which has lots of suggestive dancing and skimpy costumes, as well as a scene with a naked male backside, some kissing, and some under-covers snuggling. There's also some swearing (including "s--t" and one use of "f--k") and drinking (including a scene in which a character drives under the influence)."

This begs the question:

What parent with any common sense would allow their 13-17 year old; go to see a movie with all of that garbage in it?

I saw one of Al Pacino's naked butt cheeks in the movie, Cruising, but it was Al Pacino first of all, and second of all, I was over 21 when I saw it. Even at that age, the subject matter was nothing I wanted to visualize again, in my adult life.

I could not tell you if I think that Christina Aguilera can sing or has any artistic talent at all, but somehow I think her singing is not the main focus Burlesque.

People called those who spoke out against Cher's 'teagabbers are f-ing nuts" remark, homophobic, racist, religious zealots, and even ignorant bigots.

I think the box office numbers of another movie this weekend, proves those accusations are dead wrong, and here is why:

The movie, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, released on the weekend of November 19, and grossed $$220 million so far.

The young man who brilliantly plays Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe, is an atheist, is Jewish, supports Liberal Democrats, and is a gay rights activist speaking out against homophobia.

Additionally, Radcliffe is involved in several worthwhile charitable projects including, the filming of a public service announcement for The Trevor Project promoting awareness of gay teen suicide prevention.

If the same people who criticized Cher and refused to see her film because they were indeed homophobic, racist, religious zealots, or ignorant bigots, chances are excellent that they would not go to the movies to watch any of the Harry Potter movies, but the numbers say otherwise.

I believe that a movie geared toward the young fans of Christian Aguilera, should have more than sexy pole dancing and drunk drivers, for parents of teens to allow them to go and Burlesque.

I also think that adult fans of Cher who heard her say "teabaggers are f-ing nuts", refused to go see it themselves, for that reason, and no other, other than to choosing to see Harry Potter instead.

Brad Pitt, atheist of the year?

...but no Academy Award

Recent rumors have led people to believe that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were having problems, mostly because of Pitt smoked hash (or whatever you do with hash) with Quentin Tarantino.

As if this was not enough for me to hear, Pitt was also the seventh nominee for Atheist of the Year in 2009.

What they did not clear up for me, was what trait of Pitt's makes him a nominee for any award? Is it that he wants no religion, or is it he wants pot legalized?

Saying, on the Bill Maher show, (another fine specimen you'd find at the bottom of a petri dish) that if he ran for office, Pitts' platform would be on the 'no religion' and 'pot' platform as well as on the 'gay marriage' platform.

Which is the real reason behind the rumored relationship troubles?

Is it because he's a pothead, a pinhead, or does he have a hankering for prickly petes?

They also tout Pitt as a humanitarian.

Humanitarian? Give me a break!



Academy Awards 2010 were blind and crazy

I enjoy watching the special coverage of stars on the red carpet, but last night I missed Joan Rivers more than I would like to admit.

Noticeably missing from the red carpet, and from the show, were the big stars of Hollywood last night. I usually look forward to seeing Denzel Washington, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, and many more. Matt Damon mentioned another one of my favorites, Michael Douglas, when he spoke of an upcoming project, but he was not in attendance either.

Tom Hanks showing up as a presenter came as a surprise for me because I did not see him arrive on the red carpet. I watched the red carpet coverage on two different channels, and saw the same people on both.

Last night's Oscar show lacked the glitz and glamour of the old Hollywood even more than shows in past years. If any big names did show up last night, I did not see them.

The Academy Awards show even included many television stars last night as presenters. I thought that was odd and wondered if they ran out of movie stars.

Many of the female stars wore dresses that had too much going on. I liked the different colors worn by the gals, but it seemed as though most of them wore dresses that designers used leftover material on that they did not want to waste.

I wanted first to make mention of a remark Ryan Seacrest made about Anna Kendrick's dress, that people are talking about this morning. He tried to describe the color of the dress and hesitated for a few seconds, and then said it was 'skin color'. I heard a little chatter about this remark this morning, but people should lighten up. He was referring to the color of Anna Kendrick's skin and not making a racist remark as some have suggested.

Zoe Seldana's dress looked like it had a giant purple poodle attached to the bottom. She was not the only one who wore a dress with slop attached to it.

The blue color of Maggie Gylenhaal was pretty but it looked like someone spilled black ink all over it.

I think Sigourney Weaver's dress was flattering. The deep red color looked good on her, but the black belt looked like she threw on a belt from a raincoat at the last minute. It did not match the dress.

I really liked Sandra Bullock's dress but it was a tiny bit too shiny in the bottom half.

I loved Penelope Cruz's dress. It looked liked the color of plum pudding. Miley Cyrus' dress was similar to many of the dresses I saw last night. The top part of it looked unfinished. If you watch Project Runway, you will know what I mean when I say it looks like the designer did not have time to finish the top part before heading to the runway. The top half of her body looked all sucked in. She was not the only one whose dress did that to a woman's figure. Miley also looked like a giant up on stage, but I think the dress caused the optical illusion.

On the red carpet, Ryan mentioned that the movie, The Hurt Locker, touched a nerve with some. He did not elaborate but I think he spoke of the controversy surrounding the movie which some Iraq war veterans contained inaccuracies and falsehoods about the troops. I did not see the movie, but for Hollywood to include a war movie in with their nominated films, it had to contain controversy. The enormous snub of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" proves that point.

I loved the style and color of Sarah Jessica Parker's dress. I just wish the flower decoration at the top, in the front and back of the dress, were a different color. I think the black roses should have been a lighter color. It was a pretty dress, though.

Charlize Theron's dress reminded me of the dresses with the cones sticking out of the breasts of women in videos from the 1980's. The pink rose-like decoration on her chest made the otherwise light purple dress, look hideous.

The more I see of Matt Damon, the less I like him. Instead of praising his co-star Morgan Freeman for the fabulous job he did portraying Nelson Mandela, Matt instead chose to voice his opinion on the person his costar played in the film. Given the way Matt has been vocal about the war US troops are now fighting, it would be better if he kept quiet about things for a while.

Not that she is anyone, but I wanted to mention that George Clooney's girlfriend rushed out of the house without a bra, to the awards' show. The red color of the dress was the same color as Sigourney Weaver's minus the bra.

Rachel McAdams, although I am unsure who she is, wore a dress similar in style to Miley Cyrus, where the top part looked unfinished.

Jennifer Lopez's dress would have appealed to me more if it did not have the giant train attached to it. It looked like a small child was hiding underneath it and sticking out of the side. She does seem like she is a nice person even though I do not care for her music.

Speaking about women and fashion, during the red carpet show, an ad came on featuring Evangeline Lilly from the popular show, LOST. It was an L'Oreal makeup commercial. In my opinion, the girl who plays 'Kate' on the show does not need an ounce of makeup on her face. She has natural beauty. On the other hand, the other actress in the same add, Eva Longoria, had the makeup piled on, and it leaves me to wonder what she would look like without it.

When interviewed, Jeff Bridges appeared gracious and humble, and he looked handsome last night, despite the long hair and beard he donned for the movie, Crazy Heart.

Ryan mentioned that there were many stars on the red carpet, and then ruined the statement by naming Miley Cyrus and Meryl Streep in the same category. Yes, the Oscars have changed considerably in recent years, apparently.

On the other red carpet special, I had to endure the babbling of one of the women on The View. I noticed that Penelope Cruz not only wore a dress similar to Vera Farmgia, but it seems she also forgot to bring her translator. I could not understand a word she said, and it looked like the host could not either.

George Clooney, handsome as ever, although starting to show his age a little but we are all, was either going overboard living up to his silly practical joking side, or he had one too many to drink before showing up to the red carpet party.

When the painstakingly long red carpet show ended and the awards show began, I was hoping that Neil Patrick Harris would be hosting the show as a last minute schedule change. I do not currently watch his How I met your Mother show, but I loved him on Doogie Howser and while he also proved that he is a fine dramatic actor, and a decent singer as well.

Unfortunately, the joy did not last when Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, the Oscars' host, stepped out on stage. Their whole routine was stiff and not funny at all. Alec Baldwin was even a little more comical than Steve Martin, who is supposed to be a stand-up comic, has not been funny since his stint on Saturday Night Live, as one of two "wild and crazy" guys with Dan Akroyd.

Was I reading too much into George Clooney's jokes about Jeff Bridges, up against him in the Best Actor category, or was he poking fun at Jeff being in the same category as him?

I noticed when the hosts made a joke about him, that George did not seem amused. He also did not seem to think the joke they made about Toyota was funny, either. Can George not take a joke? I loved him on ER, but I do not think he is, as one of the hosts of the red carpet show said, one of the greatest actors.

I also noticed that Alec Baldwin had an annoying tick, slapping his hand against the side of his body. Maybe he is going through the DT's after his last stint in the hospital with a reported drug overdose.

When they finally got down to some of the important awards, I was hoping to see Christopher Plummer receive the award for Best Supporting Actor. Nominated for numerous Emmys, one for his role in the Thorn Birds, the miniseries starring Richard Chamberlain, the Academy Awards overlooked his outstanding performances in A Beautiful Mind and in The Insider. As the Oscars usually go to an elderly actor who never received an award when deserving it in the past, I was surprised he did not get it this year.

What was with Robert Downey Jr not taking his blue tinted sunglasses off while presenting? I hope that does not mean he is back on the sauce again.

The tribute to John Hughes was strange for me. Seeing Molly Ringwald all grown up and almost looking like Carol Burnett was weird. I noticed that many of the "brat pack" from John Hughes' films has had substance abuse problems, like Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr., and Ally Sheedy. Speaking of Ally Sheedy, why did she look 20 years older than the rest of them? The same goes for Judd Nelson.

The tribute to horror films was enjoyable, but out of all of the films they showed, JAWS was the frontrunner. Stephen King's films Carrie, and Misery along with Hitchcock's Psycho and The Birds were great horror films as well. Along with the original Dracula movie and Amityville Horror, the other two great horror flicks were The Shining and Rosemary's Baby. That movie creeped me out as a kid and it is still scary today.

Demi Moore presented an award last night and I thought her peachy-colored dress was pretty, but had too much going on at the bottom. That must be in style this year to have a lot of junk added on to an otherwise pretty gown.

I loved hearing James Taylor perform during the tribute to those who have passed away in the last year. Was Farrah Fawcett missing from the tribute or did I just miss her? Two beautiful actresses from the days when Hollywood had many glamorous stars, Jennifer Jones and Jean Simmons both passed away last year. They were as beautiful in their later years as they were when they were young.

I was glad when The Cove won for best documentary. Up against The Cove was a propaganda film about the 'secrets of the Vietnam War'. That would have been too over the top to have this documentary win, when The Hurt Locker was enough to get the anti-war crowd in Hollywood buzzing. I am also a fan of one of the producers of The Cove, Fisher Stevens, known for many roles, including two shows I watched, LOST and Early Edition.

I did not see the movie, Precious, but Monique received rave reviews from critics for her performance. I am glad she won, but I was even happier to hear her say that the Academy went for the performance when considering the winner, instead of the politics. I hoped she was referring to the hype over Avatar, but she could also be saying that the talk of the anti-war subliminal message in The Hurt Locker did not belong in the entertainment world. Considering Avatar because it brought in tons of money like Cameron's other film, Titanic. The point of movies that draw in large crowds is moot, because Alice in Wonderland topped it over the weekend anyway.

Michelle Pfeiffer looked gorgeous as she always does, and I loved her sincere moving tribute to her costar in The Baker Boys, Jeff Bridges. I also loved seeing and hearing Colin Farrell, even though he was singing the praises of Jeremy Renner, Jeff Bridges' competition in the Best Actor category. I love Colin's accent and I do not get to hear it often in his movies.

I was so glad that, as rumored, Jeff Bridges won the Oscar for Best Actor. I especially love that he always expressed his love and thanks to his family. His acceptance speech was humble and heartfelt, and there was nothing phony about it or about him.

I was also excited about Sandra Bullock's win. I am a big fan of her work anyway, but for the Academy recognize her talent with a win for a dramatic role, something she does not do often, was great. It was almost worth sitting through all those hours of the awards' show to see that.

When Barbra Streisand came out on stage to present the Best Director Award, I knew that Kathryn Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker, would win. Could it be more obvious, with Streisand receiving a nomination for Best Director years ago? There was no surprise there for me.

It was also no surprise to know that the Academy Awards gave the Best Picture award to an anti-US troop's film. Next year, no doubt, Roman Polanski's Ghost Writer will get an Oscar nomination and if Holly weird has its way, we will see him up on stage accepting the award.

Suffering through what seemed like the longest Academy Awards show in history, was worth sitting through to see Bullock and Bridges walk away with their first win. I was pleasantly surprised to note that the only anti-war message the Academy sent to the viewing audience, was to give the Best Picture Award to a film with inaccuracies and untruths about our US troops. I predicted The Hurt Locker would win, but I am happy with the Best Actor and Best Actress wins.

The good news is that this show is over for another year and now all that is left is the chatter about who won and who lost, and why. A long program, two boring co-hosts, and three well deserved wins sums up my review of the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

What do you think?

Return to This Just In

Bourne Identity's Matt Damon disappointed at Obama

Welcome to my world, Matt!

Matt Damon, one of Obama's strongest supporters in Hollywood, is feeling like most of the country is right now about the man who promised to save us all. Like the late Peggy Lee asked in her classic hit, "Is That All There Is", Damon is feeling a little disappointed. I am no actor, Matt, but I saw this coming.

According to Celebitchy, Matt Damon said, "I'm disappointed in the health care plan and in the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Everyone feels a little let down because, on some level, people expected all their problems to go away. But real change comes from everyday people. You can't wait for a leader."

Known for being active in many other liberal causes during the Bush Administration, Damon was a member of MoveOn, the group of celebrities who said, "Win without War".

Ironically enough, while pushing his new movie, "The Green Zone", at a press conference, Matt Damon spoke on other political issues, as celebrities often do.

Given that his childhood friend, Ben Affleck, has been too busy checking in and out of rehabs to do any of his usual anti-Bush rants, Damon was on his own this time. Going into overdrive when speaking about Sarah Palin, Damon goes on to say "her politics and beliefs" are absurd and like a bad Disney movie."

For once, we can think of him as just another American, as he joins with the rest of the country in their disappointment. Matt? Welcome down to our world of reality.

Sources were unable to confirm whether Van Jones or Al Gore would be starring in Matt Damon's latest venture.

According to Celebitchy, Matt Damon said, "I'm disappointed in the health care plan and in the troop buildup in Afghanistan. Everyone feels a little let down because, on some level, people expected all their problems to go away. But real change comes from everyday people. You can't wait for a leader."

Known for being active in many other liberal causes during the Bush Administration, Damon was a member of MoveOn, the group of celebrities who said, "Win without War".

Ironically enough, while pushing his new movie, "The Green Zone", at a press conference, Matt Damon spoke on other political issues, as celebrities often do.

Given that his childhood friend, Ben Affleck, has been too busy checking in and out of rehabs to do any of his usual anti-Bush rants, Damon was on his own this time. Going into overdrive when speaking about Sarah Palin, Damon goes on to say "her politics and beliefs" are absurd and like a bad Disney movie."

For once, we can think of him as just another American, as he joins with the rest of the country in their disappointment. Matt? Welcome down to our world of reality.

Sources were unable to confirm whether Van Jones or Al Gore would be starring in Matt Damon's latest venture.

Speaking of "The Green Zone"

The Green Zone opened in theaters on March 12, 2010. Director Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon, of the Bourne series, team up for this film.

Another actor who starred in Saving Private Ryan has jumped off the army tank and onto the liberal left Hollywood bandwagon. Vocal about his disappointment with Obama not making good on his promise to end the war, Damon makes his statement in the latest anti-war propaganda film, The Green Zone.

Not to be confused with The Green Mile, where at least Stephen King only made the audience feel sorry for a man wrongly accused of murder, this movie looks to create a buzz of sympathy for Saddam Hussein.

The Green Zone is a story about a soldier who discovers a plot about cover up and deception in the search for WMD's in Iraq.

In pig latin that's ush-bay ied-lay/ussein-hay ied-day. (Bush lied/Hussein died)

I do not know where Saddam Hussein hid the WMD's or why they were not able to find them. However, we do know that Hussein used a weapon of mass destruction, in the form of chemical weapons, on the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraq.

Instantly killing 5,000 and injuring 11,000, most of them civilians. Not to mention the thousands more who died from complications, from diseases, and from birth defects in the years after the attack.

I'd call that mass destruction.

Damon and director Paul Greengrass, writer Brian Helgeland, and Hollywood will drink the Green Zone Kool-aid, and lap it up quicker than they did The Hurt Locker. It may even be nominated next year for an Oscar.

However, watching Matt Damon act in a movie now is more difficult than it used to be for, given his anti-war rants of late.

That, and his decision to make a movie that is nothing more than a film on the same level as Michael Moore's sixth grade mentality; in other words, just another anti-war movie.

Is that all Matt Damon has left? People would have thought his career as a serious actor would have lasted longer.

Costing 100 million dollars to make, The Green Zone needs to make a lot more green to break even. In its second week in theatres, it has so far only grossed $28, 439, 030 nationwide.

Advice for Damon and for the makers of The Green Zone; more action and less anti-war equals more money.

Also, Hollywood, get back into the business of entertaining movie go-ers and stop trying to make anti-war films profitable.

During WWII, the audience watched short films before the feature film that showed the heroes of the day, our US troops. engaging in battle to fight the enemy, and the crowd cheered.

Get the message?

Apparently, Damon doesn't get the message because on March 1, 2010, Damon and Greengrass made the announcement that they were not going to do another Bourne movie. They will do boring films instead.

I think they should have held off on that decision until they saw their film paled in comparison to Johnny Depp's "Alice in Wonderland" at the box office.

I think Matt Damon should go back to concealing his true identity.

Hanks' and Speilberg's "The Pacific

An Anti War Propaganda Film

Hanks' and Speilberg's "The Pacific", a 10 part miniseries ran back in March, on HBO.

Touted by Hanks' as a movie that will show the other side of WWII, saying, "'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese people", did not exactly produce shock and awe.

In the first 20 minutes, we hear WWII soldiers say the dreaded "Jap" word several times. If that is supposed to be the Oh My God moment, it was not. That word appeared in the headlines of newspapers all across America, especially after December 7, 1941. One scene came toward the end of the movie that I assume is supposed to show American soldiers for the sadistic murdering individuals Hanks and the rest of the anti-war Hollywood ilk, believe about our US troops, features the men taunting a Japanese soldier, shooting but not injuring him, and laughing.

How hard were we laughing when the Japanese tormented, tortured, raped, and killed our soldiers? Was it humorous when the Japanese used Philippines soldiers and Pilipino women, as human shields, all under the nose of the Geneva Convention?

Nothing more than a rehashed version of Oliver Stones' views of veterans, such as in the movie, Platoon, I am sure anti-war types will shout, "See I told you they're no better than baby killers!

Before Hanks starred in the one film that boosted his film career, Philadelphia, while playing a transvestite on a sitcom, no one ever heard Hanks' anti-war political rants. Before Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, fans did not know that Spielberg thought the US's involvement in WWII was unnecessary. Go figure that one out.

HBO runs several documentaries, including Rosie's Gay Cruise, and probably thought running The Pacific was a good opportunity for them to appeal to the liberal lunatic fringe. They are probably correct, but what they may have not seen is how differently people will react now when they watch Saving Private Ryan.

The scene in the beginning of the movie, showing the shot-up bleeding bodies of Americans slaughtered on the beach of Normandy, will now draw a response from many who watch The Pacific, thinking they deserved to die.

I will not watch the rest of the series; the first show was enough for me. I noticed that the biggest star in this film was an actor who guest starred in one season of 24, whose name escapes me.

Funny, but as Hanks and Spielberg are huge supporters of Obama, what do they think of his failure to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as he promised during his campaign.

It is also weird that Spielberg would make a movie, build a website about the Holocaust, then turn around, and show how barbaric American soldiers were after getting involved in a war where Hitler murdered millions of Jews.

The Pacific will do well for HBO's ratings, I presume. However, it will not spark a renewed interest in Charlie Wilson's War or any of Hanks' movies that have not lived up to the few movies he did with Denzel Washington or Kevin Bacon.

It will also not erase the memory of the day that "Japan deliberately and maliciously attacked" the US at Pearl Harbor.

And this is what I think of when I think of our veterans, Mr. Hanks:



Tom Hanks' The Pacific Miniseries on HBO
Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg pair up again as executive producers on an HBO miniseries, entitled "The Pacific" I have seen the numerous advertisements for this, and I thought I would enjoy it, until I found out the reason for this miniseries.

Time Magazine, no surprise, has Tom Hanks on the cover. Up until a few days ago, I did not know that Tom Hanks held the same liberal-left views as many of the lunatic fringe in Hollywood holds. What also surprises me is what Tom Hanks hinted at regarding Steven Spielberg's views and how similar they are to Hanks. In the Time interview Hanks, referring to himself and to Spielberg,

"Certainly, we wanted to honor U.S. bravery in The Pacific," Hanks says in the interview. "But we also wanted to have people say, 'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese people.' "

In sharp contrast to these views, Spielberg during the campaign to push his movie, "Schindler's List", the message was loud and clear from him that people never forget what happened to the Jews prior and during WWII. With Japan aligned with Germany during WWII, does any of Spielberg's feelings seem odd to anyone but me?

If Americans did not enter WWII, or into what Hanks and Spielberg call, "the barbarity of war", how many more would have died at the hands of Hitler? I cannot imagine why we would want to get our hands dirty helping in that war, do you?

In addition, they could not resist comparing WWII to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, attempting to disgrace and discredit those currently serving, as well as those who served all those years ago.

Considering Tom Hanks admits to Time Magazine that his "idea of American history was just a course you were forced to take," explains it for me. Hanks puts his foot further into his mouth by saying that he wants people to say, "'We didn't know our troops did that to Japanese people."

However, he does admit that he also "wants Americans to understand the glories" of American History. I think it is generous of him, considering that "The Pacific" reads like any other smear campaign against American and the US military.

Oddly, they sold this miniseries to the United States, not to the Japanese people that Spielberg and Hanks believe we did an injustice to during WWII. Spielberg needs someone to remind him that before America's involvement in this barbaric act of war, Hitler slaughtered millions of his own people.

I thought it was gracious and generous of both of these men to begin the campaign to build a WWII memorial in Washington DC, to honor my dad and all WWII veterans. Now I understand that it was just another publicity stunt to grab the media's, and the American public's attention for us to see how gracious and generous they were.

Tom Hanks says he 'nodded off when his friends would tell him growing up about their father's experience onboard the USS Nimitz or the USS Enterprise or the USS Coral Sea'.

I say he can go back to sleep and wake up when he does a movie that does as well in the box office as Forrest Gump did, which was over 15 years ago.

For someone who starred in stupid comedy movies and an idiotic television show about men dressing as women to get into college, he received his lucky break when starring in Philadelphia, which in my opinion was just as much, if not more so, Denzel Washington's movie.

Not that he cares, because he will continue to make money "off the backs" of the brave men who fought and died in WWII. A Vietnam Veteran says it more eloquently than I can:

"He made his biggest hits on the backs of us combat veterans and he now trashes those that have protected this country. He is just as guilty of stolen valor as the rest of the phonies that have done so in the past."

As box office figures prove, he should stick to stupid and leave politics to the politicians.

Forrest Gump 329,694,499

Charlie Wilson's War 66,661,095

Looking at Spielberg's record, I would say he should stick with what he knows best, and that is man-eating machines. He should leave the war to those who have actually been in a war.

Jaws 260,000,000

Schindler's List $96,065,768

$260,000,000 in 1975 was worth $1,081,825,433 today.

I do not need to watch The Pacific to know all I need to know about the brave men and women involved in WWII, who during Hanks' barbarity of war, saved many countries from Hitler's reign of terror.

As Sally Field (another leftwing nut with a few bolts missing) said as Forrest Gump's mother,"You never know what you're gonna git".

With Tom Hanks, that is certainly true.



Liberals' twist WWII history at historynet

Nowadays, it seems like a lot of people want to jump on the anti-war bandwagon.

Contrary to popular belief, anti-war movies do not make money and many people are tired of hearing about it. One only has to look at the poor ratings of The Green Zone and The Pacific, to know that this is true.

A site touting history, historynet.com, reviews Tom Hanks' The Pacific with words like the following: "The Pacific, the 10-episode HBO miniseries, captures the myriad realities of what hell does to its inhabitants—including moments of redemption."

Translated into anti-war rhetoric, this reads, 'veterans did horrible things during the war'.

What do you think goes on between troops on opposite sides of the war? Do you think the North and South played tag during the Civil War?

That I know of, this is the first time for an anti-WWII movie. The concept alone is fascinating, but not fascinating enough for me to want to watch it. Given that our WWII veterans are now all in their late 70's to late 80's, do we really want to send the message to America that these men are angry, bitter, and sorry for what they did? No, we do not.

The average American citizen during WWII was proud of our troops that went to war to end tyranny at the hands of Japan and Germany. At home, Americans did their part to help the war effort.

Sharp contrast to some Americans during the Vietnam War. Vietnam Veterans are painted as angry, bitter, gun-totin' 60 year old men. That could not be further from the truth. Despite the way they were treated when they came home, not as war heroes like our WWII veterans were, but as something the anti-war crowd wanted us to believe, but do not.

According to the historynet website, one scene in The Pacific shows how one Marine "nearly pukes on the award letter" that accompanied the Medal of Honor he received.

That alone sums up what I believe The Pacific is all about. It wants to try to prove that America is outraged because, as Hanks' put it, "we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods."

Hanks and the historynet are wrong. They are deliberately and maliciously attempting to disparage the courage and honor with which our WWII veterans served.

This attitude of Hanks and Speilberg makes me want to puke. Apparently, it makes others feel the same way as shown in the dismal Nielsen ratings:

The Pacific's first week "got off to a slow start on Sunday evening, delivering 3.1 million viewers."

"The second episode averaged 2.788 million versus 3.079 million in the previous week's premiere."

With a reported budget of $250 million to make, I for one hope they lose money on this venture. Maybe then they will understand that Americans are tired of hearing the anti-war rants.

History? More like fiction twisted to distort history and the memories of our WWII veterans. They should be ashamed of themselves. At least they will not make money off the veterans this time around.



Moses tops Tom Hanks' The Pacific on Easter Sunday

The Nielsen Ratings for Tom Hanks story of WWII, what he calls the "war of racism and terror", not for Japan's part but for America's role in it, dropped its measly ratings even further on Easter Sunday than in prior weeks.

On Easter, the ratings dropped to 2.5 million from the paltry 2.77 million the week before. Given that Hanks' war epic is based on a war he says was fought for the soul purpose of "killing the slanty eyed yellow man", does anyone wonder why?

The first episode was seen by 3 million people, while the second episode was seen by 2.8 million. Since this bomb cost more than 200 million to make, I am glad that viewers chose to watch The Ten Commandments on Easter Sunday instead.

The annual showing of The Ten Commandments drew in 3 times as many viewers as The Pacific, with 6.81 million people watching a movie they watch every year on Easter Sunday.

For me, there is no competition between an epic story of religious struggle and freedom taken from the Bible, and a story that trashes my country and its warriors, our veterans.



Sitting through the unbearably long Academy Awards presentation last month, was worth seeing Barbra Streisand's face as Kathryn Bigelow thanked the US troops for the service after accepting the award for Best Director of "The Hurt Locker".

The diva's reaction was bittersweet for a number of reasons, but mainly it was good to see one of the biggest phonies in Hollywood revealed for what she truly is, a loudmouth who is full of hot air.

Barbra Streisand passes herself off as one who is concerned about the environment, yet uses private jets and dozens of tour busses when she goes on tour. That cannot be good for anybody, least of all, for the environment.

Barbra Streisand also passes herself off as an advocate for the Women's Rights Movement. The expression on Streisand's face as Kathryn Bigelow accepted the Oscar as the first women to receive the Best Director Award was priceless.

Those who see Streisand for the phony she is received an extra bonus when Kathryn Bigelow thanked the US troops for their service to their country. While I did not see The Hurt Locker because of rumors that it painted our military in a bad light, I jumped for joy as the anti-war phony expressed her distaste in her face.

Barbra Streisand thanks the anti-war crowds for 'their service to the country' for being part of the radical lunatic fringe. To boost sales of her disastrous CD that contained anti-war rants, she should be doing more than thanking people. She could try groveling.

Ironically, Streisand lost the Academy Award for Best Picture, as director and producer, for The Prince of Tides. Having only won Oscars for the best actress in a comedy/musical, and for original song, one can only wonder what went through her mind as Kathryn Bigelow stole the distinction of "the first woman" away from her.

Memories of this event will sting for years to come and if Barbra Streisand wants to salvage any modicum of dignity, maybe she should go back to the way she was and play the funny girl, because raining on Bigelow's parade proves what a big fat phony she really is.