2010 Razzie Awards predictions

Every year I find that the Razzie Awards are more on the mark and widely agreed upon than anything the Oscar Awards ever comes up with. The Oscar's inevitably select some of the least seen, least enjoyable films and give them the biggest awards. But the Razzie's stick with what the public saw (or refused to see), and what we were going to the movies for - entertainment.

Given this year the Oscar's added Avatar to it's list of nominees (which may have more than a bit to do with the political statements of the film as much as anything else). But who saw the Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, An Education, and/or A Serious Man? Besides critics and family of the various cast and crew.

Doesn't mean they aren't good films. It just means that the Oscar's don't really address what people see. But the Razzie's...

3 of the films up for Worst movie of 2010 are films I previewed/reviewed and hated. Each one was cited as a waste of your money, and an excursion into the depths of nausea that only Hollywood could create. It seems that I was spot on.

Worst Film of 2010 -

All About Steve
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - I reviewed, hated it
Land of the Lost - I previewed, and saved myself the waste of life it would have required to see it
Old Dogs
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - I reviewed it, and still am amazed that people paid money for this crap. Then again people bought pet rocks too.

Prediction - winner will be Land of the Lost. Even though it would be quite funny to see Sandra Bullock win an Oscar (she is favored for another film) and a Razzie in the same year, I think she is going to be hit with the same thing that got Eddie Murphy. Hollywood has a problem with an actor/actress that does one film that is serious, and in the same year does a film that gets them paid.

Thus Will Ferrell will be picked, signalling the absolute end of his short-lived career as a movie star.

Worst Actor

Kevin, Joe and Nick Jonas -- Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience
Will Ferrell -- Land of the Lost
Steve Martin -- Pink Panther 2 - I recommeneded against this film
Eddie Murphy -- Imagine That
John Travolta -- Old Dogs

Prediction - Well, to be honest I avoided all of these films. Every indication was that they were awful and likely painful to see. But I have to believe that Steve Martin will win. Because not only is he insulting as Inspector Closeu - if you have seen any of the Peter Seller originals, he is abysmal from a revisioned new viewer point of view as well.

Worst Actress

Beyonce Knowles -- Obsessed
Sandra Bullock -- All About Steve
Miley Cyrus -- Hannah Montana: The Movie
Megan Fox -- Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Sarah Jessica Parker -- Did You Hear About The Morgans?

Prediction - In a crowd of horrible acting and worse films you go with what was the biggest let down. We know Beyonce can't act, and Parker gave up on the idea after cashing in with Sex in the City (movie or television show, take your pick). Cyrus is a kid, in a kid movie so there was no real acting expectation. That leaves Bullock and Fox. Fox was supposed to be sexy, an up-and-coming actress and important to the sequel. She wound up being none of the above.

Worst Remake, Rip-off (ie. revisioned), Sequel

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Land of the Lost
Pink Panther 2
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Twilight Saga: New Moon

Prediction - wow this is a tough category. Every one of these films turned my stomach. In each one the best part of the film was the end credits rolling onscreen. How do you pick the worst of true wastes of far better ideas?

GI Joe. Because this was an action figure for decades (before they got shranks to 3 inches), a fun if moronic television cartoon for decades, and thus the stuff of positive memories and fantasy. All crushed and mangled after seeing this equivalent of a purse-snatching of the public's money.

Future prediction - When the sequel comes out, and you know it will, avoid that too. It won't get better, just worse.


As a bonus this year we also get to select the worst films in the last decade. Considering the decade and the rash of politics-instead-of-entertainment films the list choices could be huge. The Razzies picked the following.

Worst Picture of the Decade

Battlefield Earth
Freddy Got Fingered
Gigli
I Know Who Killed Me
Swept Away

Actually I would have had Lions for Lambs and Redacted in this list. Then again, no one saw those film. War, Inc. is also another great choice, and only a handful of critics saw it (the only audience likely).

Of the Razzie choices I picked Gigli. Not only because it was horrible, but because no one can pronounce the name right. But if I had my choice in the last decade I'd go with Capitalism by Michael Moore. Because the very subject this multi-millionaire rails against is the thing that provided his wealth, is the purpose of the film in a theater, and the freedom to be a hypocrit.

Worst Actor of the Decade

Ben Affleck
Eddie Murphy
Mike Myers
Rob Schneider
John Travolta

While Eddie Murphy will likely win - he does have more roles to pick on since he has played more roles in a single movie than most other actors play in a decade - I don't think he should. I'd go with Myers. Affleck occasionaly does something decent, and other than Gigli has not been gut-wrenchingly bad. Travolta, even in BattleField Earth, is interesting to watch. Schneider couldn't make a good film if James Camerron centered a film around him. Thus Myers is the only one that really was supposed to be interesting and completely failed. Plus who didn't hate how he killed Dr.Suess's beloved Cat in the Hat.

Worst Actress of the Decade

Mariah Carey
Paris Hilton
Lindsay Lohan
Jennifer Lopez
Madonna

Talk about a list of women whose main talent is their body. Seriously, Lopez is better known for her ass and who is getting to bump it than acting (and rightly so). Lohan is best known for being a drunken lush. Carey and Madonna at least can sing, though when was the last big hit for either?

Hilton is a special category. Her only claim to fame is she inherited so much money that everyone can get a peice of it (and her for that matter) and she will still be wealthy. The only redeeming quality of Hilton is her money.

But I guess the winner will be Carey. Not that any of the women on the list have more talent, or were in any degree better actresses. It's just that Carey broke an unspoken rule: If you have no ability, but look great, shut up and just walk sexy (in tight clothes) as much as possible. It's the only reason the movie Catwoman made any money (though Halle Berry does have acting skills).

The greatest Black films ever - in domestic dollars

Here is a list of the highest grossing films to feature Black actors, directors, writers and on. It's something you never really hear about, but Black film makes money. And lots of it.

1. The Lion King ($576 million inflation adjusted dollars) - yes I know it's animated. And yes I realize that its about animals. But this is Africa. The reality is that this film, if portrayed by human beings (even animated ones) is about Black people.

2. Shrek 2 ($530 million) - there is no shrek movie without one of the most successful Black actors ever, Eddie Murphy. He is a co-star of the film and a central theme. So this film counts.

3. Independance Day ($516 million) - the word is Will Smith.

4. Beverly Hills Cop ($500 million) - An undisputed Black film. And the first film that stars prominently and solely and African America - Eddie Murphy.

5. Blazing Saddles ($471 million) - the film is co-written by Richard Pryor (the Sheriff Bart role was supposed to be his). It stars Cleavon Little. It's about the racist history of America, in a very comical way. Yes, it's a Black film, made by jewish Mel Brooks.

**Note ** The next should be The Passion of the Christ which made $445 million. Because Jesus was Black - unless you think a man with bronze skin and hair of wool describes your average European. But since Mel Gibson chose to depict him as he did I won't include him in this list.

6. West Side Story ($417 million) - ok so they aren't Black but Puerto Rican. So am I. And the Caribbean was filled with African slaves. Ok, it doesn't belong on the list but deal with it.

**Lawrence of Arabia (417 million) - Again a film that was made about Africans and Middle Eastern people, that I define as Black, that were all shown as White.

7. Men In Black ($407 million) - Will Smith again.

8. Aladdin ($391 million) - That isn't a suntan every character in this film (except the genie) had.

That would make the top ten list of greatest grossing Black films ever, if you include the notes I made. I'm sure there is dispute about many of these films. I'd like to hear that dispute.

But the next time you hear some dumb Hollywood exec make an obtuse statement like "American won't watch a show starring an African American/Latino/person of color" remember this list. Because American will watch people of color and African American, so long as the film good. Just like anyone else.

The numbers are from Box Office Mojo

The top (and worst) actors per dollar in 2009

In Hollywood it is often said that

you are only as good as your last film.

While still somewhat true, there are those that are worth the money they make on each film and then there are those that are not. Generally, the quality of the actor often matches the box office bucks they generate.

But every year the best and worst actors per dollar they bring to the box office is figured out. Still Hollywood doesn't always pay attention.

So here are the very worst actors that money can buy

Will Ferrell - he was great in Elf. Then he kept doing the same character in every subsequent film - most recently in the bomb Land of the Lost revisioning. At this point his films are just really long, and bad, Saturday Night live skits. Of course he keeps getting paid too well not to be stuck in the mud. He generated $3.29 for every dollar he made.

Ewan McGregor - was a decent Obi Wan. Too bad he hasn't used the force to read any of the scripts of the films he has done since. He brought in $3.75 per dollar to him.

Billy Bob Thornton - been a while since that name was attached to something anyone saw. It's also been a while since his movies brought in a profit. I guess the mojo of Angelina Jolie's blood has worn off. $4 per dollar he made.

Eddie Murphy - was a superstar when he was young. Now, if you are under 15 you probably still think he is great. But his box office numbers look like somebody's allowance. His $4.43 per dollar he earned almost pays for a DVD of Meet Dave.

Ice Cube - not really an actor, but getting there. He's still earning his chops but it seems that his rap fans won't stick around in theaters to watch the lessons. I can't say I blame them. He made $4.77 in the box office for what he got paid.

Tom Cruise - yep, believe it or not he is overpaid. Thank goodness he has his own studio. Of course if he keeps making films like Lions for Lambs he will earn a permanent place on the overpaid list. But MI:4 might help him out. $7.18 per dolloar he got overpaid.

Drew Barrymore - there had to be at least one girl on the list. Yes she is pretty, and seems like a nice person. But none of that seems to matter when she is in a film like Lucky You. Too bad producing a film is not counted otherwise she might have brought in more than $7.43

Leonardo DiCaprio - overpaid and overhyped. You don't have to agree but more do than don't. The proof is in the $7.52 he brought to the box office versus what he got.

Samuel L. Jackson - it hurts me to have him on this list. Still my personal like of the actor and some of his work does not prevent Snakes on a Plane and Soul Man from happening. He made $8.59 in box office for every dollar paid to him. Not good.

And the final top 10 overpaid actor is Jim Carrey. He just made it to the list, but with good reason. Either his movies are huge hits, like The Grinch, or they are bombs like Number 23. Considering how much he gets paid per film I'm sure Hollywood execs were hoping for better than $8.62 at the box office.

Ok, now that you have suffered the pain and if you are still with me, here are the best actors per dolloar. But again, don't assume quality with earnings.

Shai LeBeouf - proof that ability has little to do with anything. He was in all the right films and tops the list with $160 brought in for every dollar he earned. Expect this to go way down since there's only so many Transformer movies that can be made - I pray.

James McAvoy - Not familiar with the name? Well he filled theaters when WANTED came out - or was that because of the scene with a bare backed Jolie? Either way he brought studios $114 for every dollar they brought him.

Michael Cera - not one of the leading male actors in looks, but he brings home the bacon at the box office. Even with films like Year One, he still pulled off $102 per dollar he got paid. But can he do it 2 years in a row?

Daniel Radcliffe - is still riding high off of Harry Potter. That franchise alone put him almost at the top with $93 in the box office for what he earned. Considering he's almost all grown now, will he keep the young girls swooning in his roles after Hogwarts? Maybe.

Robert Downey Jr - Probably the best actor on the list. He is phenomenal when he is sober, and better than most when he isn't. Possibly the only actor to be stuck in a proverbial can and still out earn most any film where you can see the acting. He brought in $78 at the box office for every dollar, and would have done better if he didn't get roped into Tropic Thunder. Iron Man 2 and Sherlock Holmes can't come out fast enough.

Javier Bardem - don't know his name? Well like Cera you went to see him, over and over again. To the tune of making $73 at the box office for what he was paid. Maybe you'll remember his name next time since he will likely get a lot more films.

Ryan Reynolds - I'm glad he made the list. He's just a funny guy, that can do action at least as well as anyone on this list. And who didn't want to see him in X-Men Origins: Wolverine after watching the movie trailer (too bad the film was a waste of time). Expect higher numbers than the $61 in the box office for his pay once Green Lantern and Deadpool hit screens in 20011-12.

Christian Bale - he terminated the competition as a Dark Knight. The franchises have been good to him and to the box office of Hollywood. $55 for his every dollar. And more sequels are coming.

Aaron Eckhart - he doesn't make big bucks himself, but compared to what his movies bring in... Suffice to say that even with PC Hollywood he made smoking interesting again. $45 to the box office for ever dollar getting him on-screen.

Dennis Quaid is the old man of the list. He brought in $43 for every wrinkled dollar he earned. Lucky for him The Day After Tomorrow was not part of the calculations.

Well that's the lists. Love it or hate it, there you are. I'm glad Forbes made the list because figuring it all out just takes too long.

David Caruso should have watched Eddie Murphy

David Caruso should have seen Eddie Murphy’s comedic take on the divorce of Johnny Carson.

Warning – this video contains language that is not for kids.


If he didn’t his ex-girlfriend did. Because after 4 years being together she is suing him for $1.2 million.

Now I understand that they have children together, and I fully believe that those kids must be taken care of. But that is not the basis of the lawsuit. There seems to be no question about Caruso taking care of his children. The lawsuit is about the needs of Ms. Marquez.

I understand that Ms. Marquez gave up her job, for whatever reason. I understand she needs a home to live in. But unless she had a home prior to the relationship that was worth a million dollars, and/or she was making money to the extent of what she is asking for, she is just being vindictive and gold digging.

How many stories have filled the airwaves and internet about a celebrity breaking up and losing millions. Johnny Carson and Paul McCartney are just a couple of the most visible having lost the most money – for no apparent reason. In this case there isn’t even the benefit of marriage involved. Yet, we can be sure that she will get most everything she is asking for.

Just like a friend of mine who has to work extra hours to pay his ex alimony he does not have. Because even though she gained his house, most of his money, and much of his retirement funds – the judge believed that the losses he suffered in the stock market (like the rest of American investors) were his fault, and he has to make up for those lost funds for the rest of his life.

Or like another friend of mine that had his wife go to the Government and declare he was a deadbeat dad. This is while he lived with his wife and kids, paid every bill, she did not work, and the kids had everything they needed. And the Government agreed with her. So he had to get another job just to make payments the Government believed he owed her.

I don’t know David Caruso. I have no idea how the relationship he had went. But I believe that the judicial environment is such that he has no chance of winning. And that is sad. Because it seems there is no question of his ability to take care of his children. Just accusation and demands of money from his ex-girlfriend.

It’s a shame. She doesn’t deserve it, if the best excuse for the money she wants for herself and not the kids is “he promised it to me”.

Texting gets a tabloid flavor

From time to time, basically every day, I get emails from various PR groups promoting this party, that gadget, or a request to place ads for some insanely high interest loan company (which I will never allow as I disagree with the business model of such companies). But occasionally I get something that perks my interest and makes me take a second look.

So I checked out Predicto, owned by NextWeb Media. This purports to be an mobile text survey system. I don’t care what they charge or the free gifts they claim to provide to winners of contests they run. So don’t ask me if any of that is real or useful.

But what I did want to look at were a couple of the claims they made. It seems that their subscribers vote on various question posted each day. This is supposed to reflect the opinion of the nation. Whether it does or not I cannot say. But the questions intrigued me.

Top surveys as of this moment:

If Johnny Depp will get married to long-time girlfriend by April 25th – 61% yes

If Marc Anthony and Jennifer Lopez will announce a divorce by Feb 25th – 57% yes

Will President Obama add an indoor basketball court to the White House – 52% no

Will Eddie Murphy be the next Riddler in the Batman Begins series of films – 70% yes

Honestly, does anybody really do this? Is there anyone who is so without purpose that they spend their day just texting in responses to polls on their phone?

Look I am not against polls. Nor am I saying that mindless trivia is without merit (well maybe a little). But I really have to ask why anyone cares about the lovelife and/or marital problems of Depp, Lopez, and/or Anthony? Even if you are right, what does it change? This is just mostly interactive tabloid trash. As a friend once told me

“It’s the worst form of mental masturbation.”

Why am I speaking on it then? Because I discuss movies, and the question on Eddie Murphy looked like it could be relevant. But I was wrong. The poll had no facts, and would not even provide the number of people that voted. It could be 10 or 100 or 1 billion. The votes might even be by 1 person a dozen times. So it’s a useless poll.

But mostly, anything that engages in tabloid fodder – exhibiting paparazzi pictures that are clear violations of privacy, anything interfering with the children of entertainers and celebrities, attempts to invade the marriage or sex lives of anyone, ect – is something that I feel is unworthy of reading. In general I feel disgusted by it.

You may disagree. You may want to know what Joe Bob in Montana and Daisy Sue in Kansas think about some aspect of unimportant issues of a celebrity they have never seen. I really don’t care. You may want to invade the privacy of entertainers. I do not.

So for me Predicto is a unique gimmick meant to up-sell various products. Nothing more. I don’t recommend it to my readers. But you can make the choice for yourself.

The Razzie Award nominations are out

Ah, what is January without the annual Razzie Award nominations. Not that 2008 was a year lacking actors, actresses, and films aplenty for the nominations. In fact I’m sure the judges had quite the time trying to narrow the field.

But the Razzies generally pick the top of the worst of any given year. And unlike the Oscars, the film nominated here you have definitely heard of, and sadly might have seen. Such is the shame of Hollywood year after year.

For 2009 we have the following, with my comments included:

Worst Picture:

Disaster Movie
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Meet the Spartans
The Happening - boring
The Hottie & the Nottie – any movie that would have Paris Hilton in it should automatically be nominated, if not win.
**Why is The Day The Earth Stood Still not in this?**

Worst Actor

Mike Myers - The Love Guru
Eddie Murphy - Meet Dave - What is wrong with Murphy these days. He can be so much better than this.
Al Pacino - 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill
Mark Wahlberg - The Happening and Max Payne - Neither film was worth the money
Larry the Cable Guy - Witless Protection - How he cannot win I can’t imagine.
**I know everyone seems to disagree, because he is dead, but Heath Ledger’s Joker sucked.**
***And Keanu Reeves deserves to be in this group more than Wahlberg does, for his work in The Day The Earth Stood Still***

Worst Actress

Jessica Alba - The Love Guru and The Eye - She is just really bad.
Cameron Diaz - What Happens in Vegas - Embarrassing
Paris Hilton - The Hottie & the Nottie - The must win choice. The other ladies may have tried but they all have far more talent in their sleep than Hilton at her best (if such a moment exists).
Kate Hudson - Fool's Gold and My Best Friend's Girl
The Entire Cast of "The Women" - Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Meg Ryan.

Worst Supporting Actor

Uwe Boll, Postal
Pierce Brosnan - Mamma Mia! - How far we have fallen since The Matador and Bond.
Ben Kingsley, The Love Guru, War, Inc., The Wackness - I like him, but War, Inc. just puts him over the top in this one.
Burt Reynolds, Deal and In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Verne Troyer, The Love Guru and Postal.

Worst Supporting Actress

Carmen Electra - Disaster Movie, Meet The Spartans - Hey, be nice she can’t do better.
Paris Hilton - Repo! The Genetic Opera; - Yet another film proving that were it not for money she would have nothing to justify her life
Kim Kardashian - Disaster Movie
Jenny Mccarthy, Witless Protection; - She deserves it just for appearing in the film
Leelee Sobieski - 88 Minutes, In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Worst Screen Couple

Uwe Boll and Any Actor, Camera and Screenplay
Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher, What Happens In Vegas - The only words I have are, I understand why they got a Razzie
Paris Hilton and either Christine Lakin or Jorel David Moore, The Hottie And The Nottie - Again the queen of too much money and no talent stands out.
Larry The Cable Guy and Jenny Mccarthy, Witless Protection; - Giving Paris Hilton the only kind of competition she deserves.
Eddie Murphy In Eddie Murphy, Meet Dave. – Not really a couple now is it?

Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake Or Rip-Off

The Day The Earth Stood Still - Horrendous remake, the writer should be slapped.
Disaster Movie
Meet The Spartans
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
Speed Racer - Someone was on drugs when they filmed this. Give me the original cartoon anytime.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - George Lucas can’t need the money that bad, can he?
**Max Payne fits this category, as it is a ripoff of the video game. And a bad ripoff at that.**
***Again in the ripoff, a film that stole from at least 3 other films - Doomsday. If you missed it, be happy.***

Worst Director

Uwe Boll - Tunnel Rats, In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale And Postal
Jason Friedberg And Aaron Seltzer - Disaster Movie And Meet The Spartans - And anyone expected better in these ripoff ideas?
Tom Putnam - The Hottie And The Nottie - Paris Hilton, do I need to say anything more?
Marco Schnabel - The Love Guru
M. Night Shyamalan, The Happening. – The best film to put you to sleep.

Worst Screenplay

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer - Disaster Movie And Meet The Spartans - The obvious favorites to win.
M. Night Shyamalan - The Happening
Heidi Ferrer - The Hottie And The Nottie
Doug Taylor - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Mike Myers and Graham Gordy, The Love Guru
**Actually I don’t understand how The Day The Earth Stood Still missed this category**

Worst Career Achievement

Uwe Boll - "Germany's answer to Ed Wood" - Ed Wood was funny at least.

Such are my thoughts of the films worth of Razzie’s in 2008. Perhaps you know of a film that deserved to be on this list? Let me know because no one should need to own a DVD of films of this quality. Even if you need a Frisbee in an emergency.

Oh and here is an early prediction for 2009, Notorious will top a few of the categories here.

Forbes best paid actors - my version

On a less important and trivial note, news came out today on the top paid actors in America. Now this list has nothing to do with talent per say. Several people on the list are horrible if you ask me. So even though they may have made money I want to present the list in the order of quality each actor on the list has, and I’ll throw in a movie I think that justifies my though.

Let me know if you agree.

• 1. Will Smith. Forbes had him at #1 and he deserves it. He made $80 million in the past 12 months and has a record-setting 8 consecutive films breaking $100 million to show for the salary. Sci-fi, drama, action, you name it and he can act his ass off. So much for those that argue that White audiences cannot connect with a leading actor that is of a different race. – See Ali, Hancock, Independence Day and so on to see what I mean.
  
• 2. Johnny Depp. Another great actor, capable of a range that equals anyone else on this list. He may prefer esoteric roles like What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, but when he wants to go mainstream it’s like a day in Tortuga. Forbes had him in 2nd and I would say it’s as close as his $72 million makes it look. – See any Pirates of the Caribbean.
  
• 3. Bruce Willis. Here Forbes goes by the numbers and I go by quality. Of the remaining actors and actresses he tops the list. He is the everyman that gets the job done with style. He may be the oldest and only made $41 million for Die Hard 4 (which made $380 million) but he most importantly delivers entertainment. – See Hudson Hawk, 5th Element, or any Die Hard film
  
• 4. Nicolas Cage. While you wouldn’t imagine that he was paid $38 million from movies like Next and Ghost Rider, he still can get it right more often than not. He is another of the versatile entertainers on this list. – See National Treasure
  
• 5. Mike Meyers. He is still coasting of the success of Shrek and Austin Powers. And he needs to considering his turn as the Cat in the Hat (thankfully Dr. Seuss was dead before the movie was made). Still Shrek is funny, though not worth the $55 million that he made. – See Austin Powers, or the first Shrek
  
• 6. Eddie Murphy. I would put him higher as he has more lasting power than most on the list, and he has enough talent to do nearly every role in a movie. But his last couple of films were not that good – Norbit and now Meet Dave. Yet as an entertainer he can wow the audience with roles like Dreamgirls (he was robbed of the Oscar plain and simple). His $55 million is like paying a couple of actors each, and it would have got him over his Shrek co-star but his overly family friendly films don’t work above the age of 11. – See Dreamgirls and be amazed.
  
• 7. Keira Knightley. The first lady on the list. She only makes it one step above her Forbes ranking in terms of cash, but she is miles ahead of the next closest female entertainer. She’s sexy, smart, and can do a bit of action – yet none of it over the top. For $32 million I think she is getting underpaid. –See Star Wars episodes 1,2,3
  
• 8. Adam Sandler. While his low-brow comedies are a hit or miss proposition he is more than where he started from. He has grown to do quality serious roles like in Reign Over Me (with a good dose of help from Don Cheadle – massively underpaid) which helps us all forget films like Little Nicky. My guess, his career will grow, and his pay of $30 million, if he stays away from dumb comedy like The Gong Show (yes I know it’s a television program). - See Spanglish.
  
• 9. Leonardo Di Caprio. Basically I put him here because I dislike the rest of the actors even less. I don’t find him all that good and I wouldn’t pay the price of admission to see any film he starred in as sole lead. But he made $45 million so some Hollywood exec must think he is worth it, though some exec greenlighted Soul Plane too. – see something he is in. I wouldn’t know.
  
• 10. Will Ferrell. I liked Elf. Moments in Ricky Bobby (or whatever it was called) were funny, though most of it was exactly what most of America tends to think of when they think of NASCAR. Sadly though he has been paid $31 million to keep playing the same sort of character found in both those movies, over and over again. Semi-Pro didn’t do well because of this, Stepbrothers probably will fare the same. He needs to change or the entertainment career will be like his work on Saturday Night Live, a flat bomb. – See Elf.
  
• 11. Cameron Diaz. She only precedes the next guy because she is a lady and I thought I’d be nice. I don’t find her funny, attractive or talented. Seriously she is ugly and needs to gain weight. I believe the only funny film she was in was Something About Mary (and luckily it was an almost good film for Ben Stiller too) and any other work she has done is too vapid to remember. The $50 million she was paid needs to seriously be spent on other actresses. – See the revisioned remake of Charlie’s Angels, you’ll go to sleep but it’s better than the next guy’s films.
  
• 12. Ben Stiller. He came from a comedy family. He’s been in films with huge talents. He was paid $40 million. Yet this guy cannot stop playing the same insipid character in every movie. I will say this for him; he has mastered the art of doing the same thing badly and getting paid well for it. – See The Royal Tenenbaums, not because he is in it but because everyone else in the film is great.
  
• 13. Last and least of all the entertainers on Forbes list of the best paid (and some of the most overpaid in my opinion) is the #3 woman on their list, Jennifer Aniston. Simply put she needs to eat some food and stick with unrealistic television sitcoms. – See Friends because you won’t have to focus on her and it’s slightly better than the Charlie’s Angels remake.
  

Since no list should go to 13 I will add one more I think deserves to be on the list – Denzel Washington. If he is not the highest paid actor per film he should be. He is quality and can act against anyone on this list and make them all look good via osmosis (yes even Aniston and Stiller).

So that is my take on Forbes. How would you rank them? Who would be your 14th entertainer on the list?

Reader comment: Jorge on Tropic Thunder and Robin Kassner

This comment comes from Jorge at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author. In his comment I am questioned on my thoughts about Robert Downey Jr., the movie Tropic Thunder, and the event involving Robin Kassner at the Regan National Airport.

Jorge's comment verbatim is:

You ask for people to understand that double standard here is OK but in your article about the lady in the airport you’re outraged at the double standard. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.

You either condemn all double standards based on race or you have to accept them all.

It is ridiculous to say that blacks air exempt of criticism or parody because of history but they can make fun of white lifestyles, mannerisms, and looks. Again, either accept the fact that like all double standards, such as those based on gender, racist double standards are a double edged swords and you cannot pick and choose which parts are convenient to you and which aren’t.

My response is:

Jorge,

I’m glad to see that you are an avid reader of my posts. I thank you for that and your comment.

It’s important for me to be honest and consistent in what I write. I don’t do this to create shock (though I admit that some of the things I say may shock some readers) or for self-aggrandizement. I speak my thoughts and often comment on the racial complexities that is race in America. So I went back and re-read every post on Tropic Thunder (Is Robert Downey Jr funny as an African American? - 3.5.2008.1 and Tropic Thunder draws questions of racism - 3.12.2008.1), and my comments about Robin Kassner.

Now you state that I

“...ask for people to understand that double standard here is OK but in your article about the lady in the airport you’re outraged at the double standard. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.”

In fact my comments about Tropic Thunder are not to accept the double standard but to highlight it. And I did not ask anyone to accept anything, other than the history of the work by actor Robert Downey Jr. has consistently been quality work which is a positive towards a movie that I feel unease about.

“This could be like the absurdity of Gene Wilder in Silver Streak. Or it could be Al Jolson. When you add in the nudge against Eddie Murphy, the undertone is not quite so positive.”

I have no problem with an actor portraying a character of a different race, if it is done with respect and done well. But I also do understand that far too often Hollywood has avoided using highly qualified and available actors of color, insteasd using sub-standard White actors in a manner that is degrading.

“A Black entertainer making a bad portrayal of Whites is seen as a failure on the entertainer’s part. A White entertainer in the reverse position (for most of the history of Hollywood) had been seen as making an honest attempt at portraying Negroes, which were considered below them. That’s the history of the situation.”

The question is the intent of the portrayal. Too often it has been to embarrass or humiliate those being imitated. Too often it has been an act of White privilege to presume they can accurately portray other races, and that their depiction was more than fair. That is where I have conflict.

But in regard to Robin Kassner the issue is how the media portrays reality. This is not a film, there are no characters. The reality is that Kassner was treated in a manner that many Muslims and people of color have experiences since 9/11 in airports across the nation. But instead of taking the same lazie faire attitude that has come from the media, or blaming those persecuted, the major news media has taken sympathy on her plight.

That is a different double standard.

Either Kassner was presenting a danger to the public interest, as was the excuse for the reaction when Muslims and people of color were treated in this manner, or all the other victims were over-reacted against and deserve the same sympathy and funds claimed in her lawsuit.

Whether it’s the presumption of innocence as in the Duke rape case, or the avoidance of the topic like in the Megan Williams case, or the near total absence of fact like in the number of reported missing Black, Hispanic, Asian children in the nation the major media is playing a double standard that is not only unfair but potentially damaging.

When I highlighted that fact how is it the same as questioning the ability of an actor to make a respectful portrayal?

When Eddie Murphy made a portrayal of a White man on Saturday Night Live, was that wrong or funny? I say funny because it was honest and respectful. When Joel Grey played a Korean it was honest and respectful and he got a Golden Globe nomination for it. When the Wayan brothers portrayed 2 White girls it was stupid and ignorant. When Gene Wilder tried the Black face in Silver Streak it was funny because it was an admission of absurdity and the ignorance (stupidity) of some people.

Robin Kassner was either being treated like a threat or abused. There was no respect, humor, social commentary in it. The news media coverage of the event was biased, but in similar events the bias goes in the opposite direction.

How am I wrong to point that out? How is that like questioning if the storyline in a movie is respectful and humorous? How is pointing out when the news media identifies Blacks in chest high flood waters as looters the same double standard as questioning the script a White actor in make-up follows?

Hollywood has long believed that a White actor can portray another race in any manner and it’s ok – which I disagree with. The media has long believed that people of color, especially African Americans, can be portrayed as dregs of society – which I disagree with. I believe my posts highlight those views.

If I am incorrect, please do show me where I was wrong.

Tropic Thunder draws questions of racism - 3.12.2008.1

I find it interesting that the question over the movie Tropic Thunder is quickly becoming an issue of whether or not a White man can play a Black man. How this became the case is not really the issue I expected, rather I was considering the question of whether this would be a funny portrayal and a decent movie.

I feel that Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. I think he is dedicated to his roles. So I believe he will try to make this role as positive as possible. But a bad director and/or writer can kill a great film and performances by entertainers. That’s a fact. Thus I am concerned about what Ben Stiller is going to do, in his role as director. Because I think he is the weak link of every film he has ever been in.

But around the web I’m seeing the argument become, ‘Why can’t a White man play an African American?’

Some comments on it include

“I can totally see the outrage over this, I mean with all the white, young blonde actresses trying to get a break in Hollywood, how could these guys possibly be so racist as to take work away from who could be the next two big starlets of Tinseltown? I mean... um, what?... You mean this isn't all about White Chicks? There was no outcry over the race reversal in that movie?”

and

“How about Eddie Murphy playing an old white man in the excellent Coming To America? Or Eddie Murphy going undercover as a white man for Saturday Night Live? Both classic cases of just having fun, both some of the funniest films or TV moments from Murphy's career. (He was ROBBED at last year's Oscars!!)”

and

“Typical nonsense, the usual double standard. It's the same thing with black comedians ripping on white people, total acceptable, but lets see a white comedian tear into black people and listen to the out-cry. Eddie Murphy has made a career out of playing stereotypes for humor and no one says a word. Whether they be fat, white, Jewish, Asian, whatever, he has done it all and nothing is said.”

I can agree with the concept that acting ability is not limited to any one race. I have no doubt that a qualified and professional entertainer, with the proper tools can portray any race with respect.

At the same time I realize that there is a double edged sword in America. In the name of humor and jokes African Americans have long been ridiculed and minimized. The white actors portraying Amos n Andy, blackface, C Thomas Howell in Soul Man, and so many more are examples of bad representation. And there are those that are sensitive to this fact.

What’s the difference?

A Black entertainer making a bad portrayal of Whites is seen as a failure on the entertainer’s part. A White entertainer in the reverse position (for most of the history of Hollywood) had been seen as making an honest attempt at portraying Negroes, which were considered below them. That’s the history of the situation.

So I agree there is a double standard, and it is a matter of sensitivity. The double standard wasn’t created today, but is based in the past. While many Americans today don’t want to address or acknowledge the openly racist past (nor the quietly racist current day) of America, it does not change the wound that is there or its effects. To be aware of that is not to be alarmist, though some to go to that extreme.

The past cannot be ignored if one wants to make this movie a discussion or comparison of what race can or should play another. And the character that Jack Black has in this movie sounds exactly like a take on Eddie Murphy, so I do see that concern.

But I don’t think that should be the point.

Based on the storyline, and the roles that Robert Downey Jr. has had, I don’t think the intent is bad. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Still the movie deserves to at least present its trailers before any conclusions are made.

The question here should simply be are they making a funny movie without degrading to laughter based on, or built upon, stereotypes. Without seeing what has been done, none of us can say.

Yet, to argue that other movies having an entertainer portraying another race and were done well means that all movies with such a device are ok is ludicrous. American memories are very short, and at times willfully so. But everyone remembers pain, and often there are questions asked that are embarrassing.

Like why in almost all westerns were the roles of Native American Indians played by Whites? In older movies Whites also played Asians too. And none of those roles were positive. Is that ok?

I recall when the movie Remo Williams came out. There was a huge outcry when the lead character of Chiun was given to Joel Grey (who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his portrayal). Chiun was supposed to be an old Korean and Grey made the character realistic and was respectful in his portrayal. I see no reason why Robert Downey Jr. cannot do the same thing.

If this film becomes an equivalent of Soul Plane, then all involved deserve to be ostracized. If it is the equivalent of Remo Williams they should be lauded. But to simplify the big issue no one wants to talk about, the elephant in the room so to speak, to they did it so we can too and it’s all ok is to say that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because France has them.

Not the best analogy but you get my point.

Is Robert Downey Jr funny as an African American? - 3.5.2008.1

On March 17th America will have its first chance to decide on what may become one of the largest bets made in the entire year. I don’t mean a Democratic Primary race. But it does cut along similar lines. What is it? Tropical Thunder.

Name doesn’t ring a bell? Me either. Until I saw a post at Slashfilm.com. Then I found out something I’m still not sure how I feel about.

Tropic Thunder is a film, directed and starring Ben Stiller. Generally I don’t like his films. Starsky and Hutch was a flop, Zoolander was ignorant, and so on. He isn’t funny and constantly plays the same dumb character in each film. Perhaps the only film I liked him in was The Royal Tanembaums, which I recommend, and he was the worst actor in the film.

The film is a spoof/satire on Hollywood actors. Specifically the prima dona set. A remake of Apocalypse Now stars several major actors that all have issues. Thus the director and writer place them in a real war scenario that they don’t realize is real. Cue the laugh track.

There are 2 things that may work for the film, and several that work against it. The biggest negative is Ben Stiller, as I mentioned. But on the positives there is the fact that Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. are in the film. Both can be great comedic characters and are quite successful at it. They are entertainers that usually get it right.

But Jack Black is playing a character that

“portrays a comedian known for performing multiple roles in a single film — his latest is called The Fatties: Fart 2.”

Sound familiar? That actor is Eddie Murphy. So we know that Stiller is directly taking on an Oscar nominee, an acclaimed stand-up comedian, and an actor that has more successful films than Stiller has been in. Now the fact they are making fun of Eddie Murphy is not necessarily a bad thing. Given the ability of Jack Black, it may even be a funny and well-done send up. But there is another component to the film that changes the tone of this characterization.

Robert Downey Jr is a great entertainer. He commits well to his roles and is able to play a huge range of roles. He dedicates himself to his character and makes them authentic. That’s the good thing. It makes me pause when I understand that his character is faking being Black. Not Jack Black, but African American.

Look at the photo. The person in the circle is Downey. He is not in black face, but in full make-up. His character in this film

“Kirk Lazarus, a very serious Oscar-winning actor cast in the most expensive Vietnam War film ever. Problem is, Lazarus's character, Sgt. Osiris, was originally written as black. So Lazarus decides to dye his skin and play Osiris, um, authentically.”

So we have a White man, playing as an African American, in a film making fun of actors. This is the razor’s edge indeed.

Can this be funny? Maybe. Some audiences so far have seen portions of the film and it is testing well, they say. Given the commitment of Downey, I can see the satire in it. But I don’t trust Stiller’s ability to direct or act. I’m not confident in the writing.

Most of all, I’m not sure how I feel about it.

This could be like the absurdity of Gene Wilder in Silver Streak. Or it could be Al Jolson. When you add in the nudge against Eddie Murphy, the undertone is not quite so positive.

On the 17th video clips and trailers will be released. Already Robert Downey Jr. has said

“At the end of the day, it's always about how well you commit to the character," he says. "I dove in with both feet. If I didn't feel it was morally sound, or that it would be easily misinterpreted that I'm just C. Thomas Howell in [Soul Man], I would've stayed home."

So given that we have yet to see more than the above picture, I wonder what you think.

Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy - 10.13.2007.1

Keep an eye out on the horizon for a new movie that will be coming out probably next year. The movie is called Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy.

This is not a comedy show, like The Kings of Comedy or Mr. Eddie Murphy’s RAW. This is a documentary. Now before you say well that’s too boring and I won’t see it, listen to who is involved.

Beside the fact that it is being co-produced by Mr. Robert Townsend, who is no slouch in his own right, it contains interviews with some of the top Black comedians around today. That includes D.L. Hughley, the Wayans brothers, Paul Mooney, Tommy Davison, Reynaldo Ray, Marla Gibbs, Eddie Griffin and Katt Williams.

But this documentary, like Black comedy, will also include political commentary and thoughts from the world of hip-hop from noted individuals like Dr. Cornel West, Stanley Crouch and Russell Simmons.

At just 90 minutes some of the best go from their comedy routines to the roots of what is happening in the Black community and how they transform these topical and emotional events into humor. From Don Imus, to OJ Simpson, to Jena 6 and more.

If this doesn’t sound like something you want to keep an eye out for, what else is there for you to look forward to? How often are you able to not only see where the comedy comes from but how and why it affects us all. How comedy interacts with all the facets of life in America, especially for those of us who often have no other voice to carry in the media and public.

With the people associated so far, one thing is certain. There will be quality and depth and intelligence. Insight and debate will ensue. Critical questions will be posed. And isn’t that one of the things that we expect from movies?

How do you feel about what Jerry Lewis said? - 9.5.2007.1

What a unique world we live in today. There are just some things I would never expect to see happen and just leave me with mixed emotions when they do. And the best part is the special moments that the news media and the general media provide every day. Or perhaps I should say, the items they forget to provide us everyday.

Obviously, there was a recent news that Mr. Jonathan Riches finally was brought to justice after 43 years without law enforcement harassment or attention for his murder of two teenage Black men in Mississippi. Aren't we lucky that those in charge of the major media news felt we needed to be protected from the news that our justice system, moving at a pace so slow as to make snails look like jet engines, only works in the most abysmal manner sometimes.

Of course, that is not to say that the legal system is always accurate. There is of course the 41 years that it took for Mr. William Barnes to be convicted of shooting a police officer. Mind you that the police officer in question did not die those many years ago. I know this because Fox News took the opportunity to tell me about this case five times today. Now I'm quite happy about that, especially in retrospect, that Fox News took the opportunity to spend 30 seconds in discussing the incarceration of Jonathan Riches.

I know some may say that "well, at least it covered the story." While that fact is true I find an inherent imbalance in their actions. In 24 hours to spend only 30 seconds on an injustice done to people on the basis of an example for an entire race, that's a slap in the face. Compounding that slap would be taking a similar story and spending 15 minutes in another 24-hour period. Essentially, it's just saying, one group of people aren't worth remembering and another group are. It's just that simple.

But that actually is not what I want to speak about. What I had not expected to happen and what did happen involves Mr. Jerry Lewis. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Jerry Lewis, he's a comedian. And he's 81 years old. He's made at huge number of movies and special programming. That does not include the advances in television programming and equipment he's developed over the years. Focusing on his comedic career he has made movies such as Cinderfella, the Nutty Professor (I'm talking about the original film. Not the one's Mr. Eddie Murphy made), the Geisha Boy, the King of Comedy, and many others. His comedic genius is regarded so highly that in France his last film premiere was made a national holiday so people could see it.

On a more personal level, from what I can tell about it as I don't know the man, there is one thing that stands out above everything else. He is absolutely committed to the muscular dystrophy telethon. He was one of the first celebrities to lend their name to cause and to seek out donations from the public for that cause. In 46 years, Mr. Lewis has never missed a telethon, and during each telethon he spends virtually the entire time awake. It honestly is an amazing display of absolute dedication. The reason why Mr. Lewis does this is completely unknown. It has been said that Mr. Lewis will only reveal the reason why he does this every year after he is dead in a document read during a telethon so that it can raise even more money for this cause.

Given this ability and looking at the dedication to such a worthy cause I was very upset to learn of comments made by Mr. Lewis. 18 hours into this year's marathon he told a joke, actually he started to tell a joke. To call it off-color would be marginalization on a grand scale. Essentially he started to insult gay people. He has since apologized for his comment. He hasn't gone to a rehab, or some other ultraliberal pro-PC excuse. He took the blame, and all he has asked for is for this to not affect the telethon.

So I'm stuck. On one hand, I find it deplorable for anyone to use any group as the butt of the joke. That is especially true when the joke is based on race, ethnicity, or some other factor solely used to distinguish one group from another. On the other hand, is the fact that on a regular basis we all have made those jokes and found them quite funny. Comedians such as Mr. Carlos Mencia say jokes based on exactly that same thought every day.

So which one is right? Should Jerry Lewis be condemned for making a gay joke, or forgiven? Does this one statement justify the end of the muscular dystrophy telethon, and all the positives it has provided? Does the fact that a significant good is happening out way and negative? If the earth were filled with utilitarians, the answer would be easy, but the reality is far from that. I don't know, what is the right answer and honestly that troubles me.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Is TMZ right about Robin Thicke and the BET Awards? - 6.14.2007.1

TMZ.com has just reported on the chance of Mr. Robin Thicke winning the BET Award for either Viewer’s Choice or Best Male categories. While TMZ was a bit smarmy in their comments it is an interesting question.

There is no question that the Oscar Awards made a point of not selecting African Americans for nomination or a win for decades. I spoke about the snubs the Oscars recently made against Dreamgirls and Mr. Eddie Murphy.

“I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture.”

And

“The difference in what the public feels was a great performance and what the Academy deems award-winning is a vast ocean apart. I’m referring to the loss of Mr. Eddie Murphy. Widely held as the best performance in his acting career, winning several awards leading to this ceremony and then snubbed.”

Similar snubs have happened in music, but that barrier was broken years ago. I recall hearing about advertisments made on behalf of Mr. Elvis Presley, stating that people should buy his version of certain songs and not the ‘colored’ version (I think Hound Dog was one of them). Thankfully those days are long past. Or are they?


Is there a difference in the BET Awards not nominating more White entertainers and that of the Oscars apparent prejudice to Black entertainers? I realize that the BET Awards have nominated White performers before, 2 to be exact, and they did not win. I realize that Mr. Thicke may not win, the competition is strong. Mr. Thicke is up against Akon, Mr. John Legend, Ms. Beyonce Knowles, Ciara and several others. But is this the discrimination that seems to be implied by TMZ?

I can’t say, I don’t watch award shows. In addition I don’t listen to most hip-hop or R&B music these days (as can be guessed by my other posts I’m not a fan of gansta rap). I tend to enjoy classical (love Beethoven) and rock&roll more. [Sadly there are few African American entertainers in rock, which is a shame as I have to believe Living Color, Fishbone, and Mr. Lenny Kravitz are not the full range of what could be offered.] Still this is a question I am wondering about.

Since I don’t know enough to make a comment on one side or the other, I ask what you think. Has the BET Awards acted like the Oscars in restricting who gets nominated? IF they have is that wrong?

This is what I think, what do you think?

The surprise about broadcast television - 3.14.2007.2

The key is the quality of the program. For that matter it is the quality of the medium, whether movies or plays or television, that determines viewability. The FX Network program Thief may not have lead the ratings, but I bet it’s ratings would be on par with or better than half the broadcast television shows on today. Yet broadcast television won’t touch such a show. Even with the fact that the top shows of today get fewer viewers that the middle of the road shows of the 70’s (due to DVD’s, VOD, cable and so forth) and a dirth of programs highlighting this untapped market, executives are holding on to what is a staple of the ‘I wish it was 1950 again’ mentality.

It was that mentality that prevented any African American actor or actress from getting recognition at the Oscar Awards for decades. [Directors as well, notably Mr. Spike Lee for Malcolm X] Thankfully part of that hurdle has been broken, partially, though the slap in the face to Dreamgirls (first movie in 79 years to have the most award nominations and not get nominated for Best picture) and the subsequent snub of Mr. Eddie Murphy highlight the fact that the 98% majority of Oscar voters have not completely seen the light.

It was mentioned in the Yahoo article that Roots is still the most watched mini-series ever. The reasoning given is that it was a special event and thus free of the guiding forces that pertain to broadcast television. Right, how about another heaping spoonful of that stuff. More likely is the fact that Roots was a well acted, well-funded, intelligently written program, based in fact, that had appealled to every African American in the nation as well as non-minorities. Perhaps if there were other well written, produced, and directed programming the same would happen. Instead we see money thrown at sitcoms [mostly ill-conceived, poorly acted, yet virtually the only option, akin to drinking sand because there is no water in my opinion] and starved from dramas where the lead is non-White.

I see it as a barrier that no one likes to talk about. It’s like reparations, or an apology for slavery. Mention it and red flags pop up everywhere and no one wants to listen. The fact that a logical and sound argument for change can be made has no bearing on the reaction. Because the entire reasoning made implies that if non-minorities cannot connect with a lead that is not EXACTLY like them, Mr. Denzel Washington, Mr. Samuel Jackson, Mr. Wesley Snipes, Mr. Will Smith and others could not have leading roles in movies and command $20 million per film. According to the logic presented, maybe they could have one film, out of the group of them, but not a couple of dozen that exists in the real world.

I am angered by the supposition that African Americans can only excel at comedies and as non-lead characters. Black Americans can present more depth than a character that is being, “…laughed with them and at them,” as Mr. Brooks stated. Such a shallow view is undeserved, and if any apology need be made it should be to the actors and the nation for inferring such impotence.

Finished in Part 3...

And the winners are - 2.25.2007.1

So the Oscars Awards have been handed out. As always there were a few surprises a few let downs and a couple of sure things. I was glad to hear of Ms. Jennifer Hudson’s win. I’m very glad to know that Mr. Forest Whitaker received recognition for his performance in The Last King of Scotland. As my choices go those were right on the mark.

Of course there was the win by Mr. Martin Scorsese for his movie The Departed. Considering how many times he has been nominated there is no shock in his win. The Academy definitely lives up to it’s history of rewarding today for actions in the past. While there are stand-out moments, and big wins for deserving newcomers, like Ms. Hudson, generally winners in the top categories are those with long histories.

Of course the recent wins by Mr. Jamie Foxx and Mr. Whitaker do seem to fly in the face of that. Not to mention the Oscar Academy’s penchant for ignoring any non-white performers. Yet there is still the fact that Dreamgirls was historically not nominated for best picture. Historical in that it was the first time that the film with the most nominations was not also nominated for best picture. Perhaps the fact that only 1.9% of the Academy is African American (out of 5830 members) has had something to do with that.

And yet the Oscar Academy was very consistent in nominating films that the general public never saw, and most likely never will. The difference in what the public feels was a great performance and what the Academy deems award-winning is a vast ocean apart. I’m referring to the loss of Mr. Eddie Murphy. Widely held as the best performance in his acting career, winning several awards leading to this ceremony and then snubbed. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that his next film, Norbit, was a comedy and low-brow. Of course it was made well in advance of the release of Dreamgirls or the Oscar nominations. Comedy is what he has built his career upon. Not that that is a positive in the eyes of the Academy. Some have noted that his joking manner at the Screen Actors Guild Award cost him. Let me say it again, comedian.

Well given the snub of Dreamgirls, and Mr. Murphy I am left with a single thought. I hope that directors will not ignore Mr. Murphy and his abilities.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Screen Actor's Guild Award winners - 1.29.2007.2

Excuse me for a moment as I take a second to give myself a bow. Yes I got 5 out of 7 right – 71% - which I call pretty respectable. If you are wondering why I’m so pleased with myself, of the guesses I made on January 9th for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards [Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1] I came pretty close to a clean sweep.

Not too bad for a regular guy. Perhaps the Oscar Award voters are paying attention. They should be. Considering how they have completely disconnected with the public, again, in not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture. I would love to hear the reasoning on why it was not nominated. I will give the SAG Awards the benefit of doubt on Little Miss Sunshine, at least they recognized the talent in Dreamgirls by giving them a nomination for best ensemble (basically best picture).

The snub really irritates me. 8 Oscar nominations, but not best picture. Never in 79 years has the leading nominated film not been a best picture. If it is so highly regarded how can it not also be best picture? This reminds me of the fear in 1993, when Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture, nor Mr. Spike Lee for best director. Yet there was large critical acclaim for the film, it won several awards (lesser ones but still won all the same), and Mr. Denzel Washington was easily recognized for his portrayal. In that case though I think the political commentary of Mr. Malcolm X was too much for the predominantly liberal white Oscar committee. [By the way I think this was the reason Mr. Washington won the Oscar. Often the Oscars will give a deserving actor/actress an award in a later good movie for a phenomenal role they were passed over on previously.]

The excuse for Dreamgirls escapes me. It’s popular, making money, still in movie theaters, well done and critically acclaimed – even before the Oscar nod. The only reason I can see for it to get snubbed as it has is a horrible and deplorable reason. I can only hope that isn’t the reason.

But to get back to the point of this post, I am sure that my winning choices will win the Oscar Awards as well. The choices that apply anyway. My congratulations to the winners, Mr. Hugh Laurie (you really should see him play the title character House. Biting wit and sarcasm matched with intense ability. Well written and balanced by an excellent cast), Mr. Forest Whitaker (a long time favorite of mine. His work in Ghost Dog is especially good, though his role as Idi Amin is even better), Mr. Eddie Murphy (I spoke about him in What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1), Ms. Jennifer Hudson and all the other winners.

Now let’s see how I do for the Oscars.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Historically bad Oscar omission, great Razzie choices - 1.23.2007.1

Ok, I’m shocked. This took me completely by surprise. Whoever is on the nominating committee for the Oscar’s should be checked for drug use, in my opinion they are acting like they are on crack. Perhaps that’s too harsh but I still think the dramatic move away from tradition is severely unwarranted. Of the few historic moments in Oscar history, this is not the one most might have hoped for.

I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture. It’s more than an a snub its an insult. Perhaps those that chose felt a Golden Globe win was enough, or that Mr. Martin Scorsese has earned a win. I would hate to think it was a remnant of the ‘old boys club’ mentality.

With 8 nominations I think Dreamgirls deserves the nomination. I am not shocked with the nominations of Mr. Eddie Murphy and Ms. Jennifer Hudson. I had picked them earlier in the month to win the Screen Actors Awards and the Globes. I feel Mr. Murphy will get the win, as he has had many films over the years and most have been well liked. In addition it’s time that recognition be given to his ability, as I mentioned in December he has played more characters in a single film more times than any other actor to my knowledge. Mr. Murphy’s current portrayal is just the feather in a cap of a career filled with memorable roles.

Sadly, I don’t think Ms. Hudson will win for the same reason that Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Forest Whitaker will win. They all have a body of work with many powerful performances behind them. Mr. Jamie Foxx has already won, deservedly for Ray, and Mr. Will Smith has been nominated before.

I will say that it is interesting to note how many deserving African American actors are getting noticed for the roles they should be noticed for, since the win by Mr. Denzel Washington. After decades of being ignored, en masse, it’s refreshing to see the change. Still I think Dreamgirls is being affected by the same thing that hit Mr. Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, it’s a subject the Academy doesn’t want to look at.

On the other side of the movie industry, there are the Razzie Awards. How they were able to whittle down the numerous losers from last year it’s hard to say. One pick I had thankfully forgotten was Little Man. Mr. Keenen Ivory Wayans is a great director, and his comedic instinct is usually on the mark. Still there is only so much that can be done with material like the stuff of that movie. Then again it was a far better film than the forgettable Basic Instinct 2.

But it was a bad year for big names overall. Many of the normally steady actors made choices I have to imagine were just for the money being offered. Mr. Robin Williams, Mr. Tim Allen, Mr. Nicolas Cage all had films that just didn’t match up to the films they usually work in. Well anyone can make a mistake from time to time. Of course the people greenlighting films like Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, The Shaggy Dog (remake), and the multitude of needless sub-par remakes [mentioned in my recap of the worst films of 2006] get it wrong far too often. There should be Razzie’s for worst greenlight, most remakes okayed without any idea what the original was, and most likely to buy an ice cube in Alaska during a snowstorm in winter (executives and movie companies only).

This is what I think, what do you think?

Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1

Well it’s January and the worst of the films of the year are starting to be released. I’m sure many may have noticed that the early weeks of the year seem to have a bunch of films that blink away with a speed that is rarely seen. This of course is a good thing, as many of these films don’t deserve to be released in a theater and I doubt many will be worth a DVD either. One such film, I’m guessing, is Code Name: The Cleaner.

Cedric the Entertainer (his real name is Mr. Cedric Kyles) can be a funny man. I’ve seen some of his stand-up on film and it wasn’t bad. Star quality it was not, nor has anything in his body indicated that he has leading man capabilities. That’s not to say he doesn’t have talent. I just think his talent isn’t being conveyed in the films he has done.

Beyond his support work in The Steve Harvey Show, which had it’s moments though they were few to me, his movie Johnson Family Vacation is probably his best film work. I’m not counting the 5 animated roles where he supplied his voice (including the upcoming Madagascar 2). I am including his leading role in the Honeymooners remake [horrendous] and the sequel supporting role in Be Cool [just bad]. The Cleaner looks to be on par with these lesser films and will no doubt clean the few pockets that view it. Of course there is a following for Mr. Kyles, as well as those that will watch anything that has an African American lead because they are showing support – even if that support goes to cheap and tasteless theatrical films like Soul Plane. I admit I haven’t seen it, nor will I, but if others do and disagree please let me know. If you convince me of the worth perhaps I will watch it, via a bootleg DVD.

Speaking of movies, here are some of my choices to win the Screen Actors Guild Awards. I hope these will lead to nominations and wins at the Oscar’s as well. For best actor I chose Mr. Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland. I think it will be Ms. Helen Mirren in The Queen. For best support I pick Mr. Eddie Murphy in his stand out performance in Dreamgirls and from the same movie I pick Ms. Jennifer Hudson as best supporting actress. In the cast category of course I chose Dreamgirls.

In television I have fewer choices as I don’t watch many shows. I may well be off on these but here are my choices. For best actor in a drama I think Mr. Hugh Laurie wins for House. For a comedy I would chose Mr. Tony Shalhoub for Monk, though I do like the comedic acting of Mr. Jeremy Piven. Sadly I have not seen Entourage so I can’t say if his work is better than Mr. Shalhoub.

As for the other television shows, I have no comment. I watch little regular broadcast television programs. In general I think the effort executives have put into finding the lowest common denominator in programming is so bad as to not warrant viewing. And yes I do prefer a more high-brow television show so that doesn’t help either. Still a preference towards House, 24, and the West Wing does not prevent me from enjoying Farscape, Gilligan’s Island, or Cheers.

Well let’s see how good my choices are.

This is what I think, what do you think?

What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1

As Christmas and the new year approach, and I watch Mr. Eddie Murphy on Inside the Actors Studio I come upon several thoughts. First I am caught by the poise that Mr. Murphy presents in the program, and how quiet and reserved he his. It’s not quite the same as the mental image I have for the man though he obviously is not the same as the 20-something that burst into movies and stand-up and national attention.

I am also drawn to the movie Dreamgirls, the play of which I saw back during high school. I’ll speak on the movie later, but the clips of Mr. Murphy singing (yes it’s his voice) and doing his Motown-esque routine are captivating and well done. The movie allows a great range to be displayed and from what can be seen of the non-performance clips it delivers.

But I am also drawn to another thought. I believe that no actor (with the exception of perhaps Mr. Frank Oz and Mr. Jim Henson – though muppets are not quite actors) has ever played so many roles in one film, or has been in as many movies portraying separate characters. I’m not talking about playing a twin, like Mr. Jeremy Irons did so well, but completely separate and realistic characters. In 5 films he has played a total of 24 characters, I don’t think anyone else has ever played more multiple characters. To his credit, these were not knock off characters or bad acting roles. Each of the Klumps, or the old men in Coming to America, or any other character was a real and well done role. Some done so well as to seem like a completely different person was that actor.

While there are those who have asked about the potential of Mr. Murphy to go into dramatic roles, I think his portrayal in Dreamgirls will answer that. Some have questioned his efforts to help break African Americans into the Hollywood machine. I think he has, though not in the way that was requested. Mr. Murphy has inspired many who are stars today including Mr. Martin Lawrence and Mr. Chris Rock. The cumulative effect of his presence and ability should not be overlooked. Inspiration is a powerful tool for those that wish to achieve a thing.

The inspiration that he provides is not limited to his stand-up or comedic roles. Mr. Murphy has directed (Harlem Nights), produced (13 films including Life and the upcoming Johnny Blaze), written (10 productions not including the various skits for Saturday Night Live), and sang (10 including Shrek and Dreamgirls) as well as being a recording artist. He was the first novice movie star to receive 1 million dollars in his first film and he is perhaps the most successful SNL star (Mr. John Belushi may have been if he lived, Mr. Dan Ackroyd has not been as successful, and Mr. Will Ferrell may get there in time but is not currently). That is quite inspiring from any actor.

I have to say I just never thought about it till I saw this episode of Inside the Actor’s Studio. Reflection brings interesting revelations sometimes.

This is what I think, what do you think?