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.

Samuel L. Jackson - producer again

Of the many thing that I think Samuel L Jackson has done right, I'm not sure his next 2 upcoming projects will fall into that category.

Jackson has just signed a deal with CBS to try out 2 new shows. This will confirm the executive producing credits that Jackson gained from the Afro Samurai program that was wildly successful on Spike TV. But unlike the Afro Samurai, I think Jackson has passed his limit.

One of the unnamed shows is about what happens after a U.S. Congressman dies while in office, and his wife inherits his seat. It may not sound like it but this is proposed to be a comedy. When I first heard of this I thought of a West Wing like program. But considering that the main writer is the same from 3rd Rock From The Sun, this will not be serious.

Will it be a serious laughfest? Somehow I doubt it. There are few comedies about politics that I can recall, and of the ones I do recall - like Benson in its later years - they failed. Americans don't laugh about politics often, so this will be a huge hurdle. Especially once you consider that most viewers of CBS are older and take their politics far more seriously.

The other show, is a medical drama (yes, yet another) focusing on an emergency room doctor (but it's not ER) who uses unconventional methods to treat his patients (ever heard of House?).

Obviously I find that one to be an overused idea. Then again the writer of that program is responsible for Cold Case - a show that rips off Law & Order, CSI, and several other old cop-format television shows. Still in Hollywood there is no greater sign of success than copying. No greater way to get paid either.

I like Samuel Jackson. I think he's a great guy to have a beer with, and from what I can tell, he seems to have tastes that are similar to myself and a lot of other guys I know. Somehow, I don't see these shows, as described, as being in that vein. He's just out for the money. Which I don't fault him for, I just won't watch them a second time if I am right.

If I could advise Jackson, I would remind him why Afro Samurai worked. It's a subject he has a passion for, and a medium he understands. If he sticks to those principles, he will likely make more money and find greater success.

Now watch these both become great shows and I have to eat my words. We will see.

Blame It - Jamie Foxx's new music video

No matter what you may think of the skills of Jamie Foxx as a singer, you have to give him credit. The man is big enough from his acting career that he is able to pull out the stops. His latest album features the song Blame It - the video of which puts many entertainers to shame.

The music video is a collection of some of the top entertainers of the past several decades. Ron Howard, Morris Chestnut, Jake Gyllenhaal, Samuel Jackson, Quincy Jones, Forest Whitaker, among several other stars all appear prominently in the video. Oh, there is also T-Pain, who sings on the track. There are enough stars in this one music video to start an awards show.

But having the power to attract big names for a music video does not mean that the song itself is good. Luckily Foxx can sing. Which elevates the song. It has a message which unlike contemporary songs is not overly graphic or over the top with sexual lyrics (though it's not a choir boy song either). That is up until T-Pain starts his part. Then it gets far more graphically explicit.

The title gives you a pretty good idea where the song is going anyway so there are no real surprises. Still the video avoids the mostly naked, butt gyrating theme most videos of this lyrical nature would inspire. A bit of class never hurts, and can be among the reasons so many stars agreed to be available.

The beat is smooth and reminiscent of older R&B, nothing hits you to glaringly - except for the dramatic shift during T-Pain's section. Then again, that's what T-Pain is on the song for. While this may not be the top selling song of the year, I can see how this can do well in a club on Saturday night. I have no doubt it will get people on the dance floor, and massive airtime on the radio. There is just one riff - the stuttering of the word alcohol - that just irks me. But that is a personal irritation, which many may not even notice.

The 2 things that I left the video with are: Who is the Panda? Yes there is a person with a panda head dancing in the video - how often do you get to see that? And if I read it right, the little sister of Jamie Foxx was just introduced to the world in this video as one of the featured dancers of the video. Which I though was a sweet thing to do.

Quantum Quest - its NASA in 3D. Doesn't that sound fun?

In more mundane news there is something that sounds a bit special. Can you imagine a movie that combines Star Trek, Star Wars, samurai, a moon walk, and Grey's Anatomy?

A daunting task for anyone on their best day. but that is exactly what will be available when Quantum Quest opens. The movie is a 3-D animated film, and it will feature the voices of some of the best known sci-fi and television actors ever. The cast includes:

William Shatner
James Earl Jones
Mark Hamill
Neil Armstrong
Samuel L. Jackson
Chris Pine
Hayden Christensen
Susan Oh
Jason Alexamnder

I left out the fact that a touch of Seinfeld will be in there too.

With such a cast I am sure the producers are thinking major money. I'm not as sure such a wide mix of actors will fix together. The script would have to be very exceptional. Given the nature of writing in Hollywood these days I would take 4:3 odds that it won't work as well as it sounds. But it could be interesting as 6 of the 8 actors, and Neil Armstrong, are notable and interesting.

The description of the film explains that the concept of the film comes from NASA. While there is no question of the minds at NASA, their ability to create a film is more uncertain. The film intends

"The 3D, large format CGI-animated educational film interweaves actual space imagery captured from ongoing NASA missions with an adventure, set in an imaginary universe and intended to create a family-friendly film experience that entertains while educating viewers"

Doesn't that sound like a must see? Not to worry though. This 45 minute film is intended for young kids learning about science in school. It's 45 minutes long. My guess is that the producers hope to capture the minds of kids by the names of the actors and what they have done in the past. And for DVD sales there is the same thought as well as a few names geared more to parents.

Best bet is to wait until the eventual DVD hits the bargain bin for $3 and let the kids watch it as they prepare for a science test.

Upcoming films to avoid like the plague

So we know some of the upcoming movies that I would recommend (based on the trailers, actors, and plots as far as I can tell). But perhaps as critical is to know what to avoid in the theaters. Nothing is as painful as the thought that you just spent $30 a person to see a film that made you understand how a rat feels as it flees a sinking ship.

In the past couple of years Hollywood has flooded the theaters with these substandard, cheap, not-worthy-of–DVD purchase films. I suppose Hollywood exes expect that the law of numbers says they should make enough money on at least one of these films in the first week to justify making them all.


My advice, just avoid them. Unless you happen to be stuck on a sinking ship without a life raft in the middle of the ocean in shorts, in the middle of winter, can’t swim, sharks in the water, at midnight on a moonless night, and are paralyzed from the neck down. Otr am I being too subtle?

Pink Panther 2


The perfect example of what I mean. Please, someone in Hollywood, stop whomever is greenlighting these movies. Peter Sellers is dying all over again. Steve Martin is not funny, his accent is insulting, his physicality is like watching a 6 year old do Swan Lake. Didn’t the first film flop bad enough? I had thought so but it seems I am wrong. Why does Hollywood want to punish the public?

Really readers, go rent a copy of any of the older and far superior Peter Sellers Pink Panther movies. You’ll feel better for it and save money too.

I hate to say this next one but

Star Trek (XI)


I am a fan of the original series. I loved watching James Tiberius Kirk, Spock, ‘Bones’ McCoy and the rest. So I was anticipating this film since I heard about it. I wasn’t even put off when I heard that the kid from Harold & Kumar was going to be Sulu. But the first trailer I see now (bootleg as it is) does not inspire me.

I don’t get the thrill of Kirk, not the intellect and dedication of Spock. McCoy looks interesting. Who knows about Uhura, Sulu, and Checkov. Scotty is far too giddy.

It’s too soon to say this is a complete mess. But from what I can gather off this trailer, they may have ruined the franchise. Which really sucks. Until I see a better trailer, this movie is on my don’t watch unless in interrogation list. A real shame.

The Spirit


Every reason that made Sin City work, fails in this film. I like Samuel Jackson but his character in this film just doesn’t catch. The focus on women is a distraction. It makes me believe that the movie studio knows that this film won’t work on it’s own merits, thus go with the sex always sells tactic. A very bad sign.

I’m not drawn into the movie, not enticed. Not that I every liked The Spirit. This may well be one graphic novel too much. The transition from comic graphic novel to film isn’t making it. I just hope it doesn’t affect the Watchmen in a negative manner.

So the good news is that there are more films coming up to watch than not. Though I tend to ignore most of the garbage, it generally doesn't deserve the attention my blogs provide. But the final verdicts are far from in.

Previews of 2008 films - 11.30.2007.1

Recently I was in the movies watching the Hitman movie and of course before the film there were several trailers. One of the trailers was for the new Will Smith film I Am Legend. I think that will be a good remake, this is the 4th reiteration of the film. I’ve spoken about this film before.

But there were 2 other trailers that also caught my attention. Both have A-list stars in them, and in each one of those stars is also African American. Both are Sci-fi films, and as longtime readers know I love comic books, video games and scifi. (Yes I’m a bit of a geek) But the big differences in the 2 films are the date they will be coming out and the quality of the films. One will bomb almost assuredly, the other should do well as long as it’s not up against Iron Man.

I’ll start with the worst and go to the best.

Jumper is trash. Not only did I get that impression from the trailer, but it is confirmed when the trailer states the movie will be out in mid-February. The worst of films almost always start off the year and appear between the middle of January thru February. It’s a dead time, with only a slight break for romance movies targeting the Valentine’s Day holiday. But romance movies don’t bring in the money.

This film has several fatal flaws. They are so big even Mr. Samuel Jackson can’t save the film with his presence. The big problem? They went for CGI heavy effects and forgot about the plot, and you can’t blame this on the writers strike. As you can see in the clip, the main character is a X-men-esque type with the power to jump from anyplace in the world to any other. Ok. Anything he holds onto goes with him. OK. So when he jumps to some other place in the world how can a rope catch him half a world away and pull him back? The rope was after the fact, and once it went through shouldn’t Mr. Jackson be pulled to the kid? Sci-fi films that rip off good ideas for quick bucks on a gimmick tend to fail. So will this I bet. See for yourself.



On the other end of the spectrum we have a more action based film with sci fi elements. WANTED looks to do quite well. It has Mr. Morgan Freeman (as a headmaster assassin – a bit different if he really is a bad guy), and the lovely Mrs. Angelina Jolie. It a movie about top assassins, so good that the laws of physics fail. [Yes a Matrix rip off, but it looks like they paid for a plot too] Our everyday guy, turned super killer looks plain vanilla enough. The chance for massive gunfights with really hi-tech guns seems excellent. And Mrs. Jolie looks great in those outfits.



Neither film will win an Oscar, granted. But my money says that WANTED is a winner, and Jumper will only look like a strong film when compared to Redacted or Lions for Lambs (the theme of both I hate, and happy to see them burning up in red tape).

Well you know what I think, what do you think of them. Which does better? And I still say Iron Man is the early leader for best blockbuster, and overall best film, of the year 2008.

Movies old and new, comic books, stocks and Jesus - 2.27.2007.1

Amid the various cries of those terrified that their stock portfolio will turn into the ultimate tax write-off, or the anger at potentially finding out Jesus may have had a family, there has been some other news. Now I won’t say that a 4% move isn’t significant for one day, but it’s really not that big a deal. For many stocks it only equates to .50 cents to $1.50 and that’s really no big deal. After more than a decade dealing with stocks and the financial markets, bumps in the road never give me pause. If you are freaking out think of this, if you believe that America will continue and that GE will still have people working tomorrow (or the next 6 months) then don’t worry. Stocks move up and down, and a good investment made for sound reasons will generally tend to work out. I’ve said that to clients as a broker for a long time. Mr. Warren Buffett said similar things for decades. And generally it is always true.

As for those who can’t live with the thought that Jesus could have been human in his actions, well that a religious interpretation. I don’t have an opinion either way. If you believe a thing then it doesn’t matter what others say, I believe. That’s why it’s called faith. Take it up with Mr. James Cameron. Enough said there.

But in the rest of the world there were a few things I’d want to touch on. Mr. James Brown has still not been buried. The drama with Ms. Anna Nicole Smith still dominates media attention while news of this successful entertainer of decades remains unspoken. I just don’t get it, not even 2 months after his death.

Another sad loss is that of Lothar-Guenther Buchheim, the author that inspired the film Das Boot. I’m not sure how many have seen this WWII submarine film, but I strongly recommend it. While it was about German U-boats it was not about Nazi’s. It was not a glorification of war, or an ideaology, but the human spirit in trying times. The will of the submarine’s captain is enough to overcome almost anything, and rally all his men to continue to live. It’s a powerful film, best seen in the original German if you ask my opinion.

On a lighter note, an end is coming to the production of The Producers. This old play, which inspired 2 films (the Mr. Nathan Lane and Mr. Mathew Broderick remake is inferior to the Mr. Gene Wilder and Mr. Zero Monstel original), resurged in a second run on Broadway and has had 2,500 performances. A run like this is quite impressive, and the material justifies it’s popularity. But if you haven’t seen it yet I’d advise the aforementioned original film. Better than the remake and, unless you like Mr. David Hasselhoff or Mr. Tony Danza, far better than the actors on stage until April 22nd.

On the comic book front a new deal will provide what is now a rare reversal, comic based on television shows. Of course I doubt this deal will be of much worth. The source of the comics material will come from programs made for SciFi Channel. While it has taken the SciFi Channel years to finally stop making giant animal films, or horrendously bad rip-offs of bad sci-fi movies, there really hasn’t been that much quality. Beyond the never ending spin-offs and additional seasons of Stargate SG-1, the terribly named, horribly ‘revisioned’, though well acted Battlestar Galactica, and the refreshing Eureka the cable channel has nothing. Just re-runs that have been on dozens of channels for as many years and cancellations of interesting programming (like Trippin’ the Rift – but there is no surprise they would do that). Oh but don’t let me forget they have the ultimate sci-fi draw, wrestling. And they wonder why they can’t keep the core audience. Good luck collecting their probably short live comic book venture. I won’t even bother looking for them.

Lastly I must mention that Black Snake Moan is due in movie theaters soon. This is the latest film with Mr. Samuel L. Jackson and Ms. Christina Ricci. While the film does have Mr. Justin Timberlake as well (hopefully in a very minor role) it sounds as if it is more than the name and posters imply. I noticed the posters earlier this month will back home in New York City. If you haven’t seen them, expect to be caught off guard. When the television commercials start you’ll understand why, and I’m sure there will be someone protesting. I’ll give you a hint, an older Black American has a young White girl chained in his house while scantly clothed. Oh, and it’s in the South. If that doesn’t catch your attention I don’t know what it will take to get it. I just have to see this film, if the 2 theaters in this small town will play it. What about you? Are you looking forward to a film like that? Why?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Best Films of 2006 - 12.27.2006.3

So perhaps you are a bit too old for video games (whatever that means, I’m almost 39 and Mr. Samuel Jackson is older than me) or you just don’t find them interesting (truly a shame). Well perhaps you enjoy movies. Cinema is perhaps one of the largest forms of entertainment on the planet (I know that someone wants to debate that, but I’m going with it for the moment).

Sadly that also means that there is probably the most money in this form of entertainment. Where there is money there are bean counter trying to reign in costs and corporations looking for profit-centers (reigning in ideas). Occasionally this war of numbers works out and we get some decent films, maybe a surprise and rarely something everyone must see. Most of the time we get different flavors of feces, sometimes hot, some cold and more than a handful that make you wish you could throw up just so it would be more entertaining than the movie. The movies of 2006 is no different.

So let’s look at what was good. This is a short list, mostly because it seems that Hollywood is afraid of new idea (or they just won’t spend money on a new one). Casino Royale and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest are at the top. My preference is for Mr. Johnny Depp. Who wouldn’t want to take a trip to Tortuga with Capitain Jack Sparrow via a broken compass?

United 93 is a trip in time that makes the realities of yesterday come to life again. It’s hard to watch without the emotional connection to that day. Even more difficult for those of us in New York City and in the area that day.

Feast shows that Operation Greenlight can work. Director John Gullagher makes a movie that shows he has a vision. Worth the wait, though I think they should have given it its national big screen debut it deserved and many of us waited for.

Superman Returns and Apocalypto are 2 movies I didn’t see. I won’t see Superman because the entire theme of the character is uninteresting and annoying to me. Superman doesn’t represent me nor does his values of truth justice and the American way (all based on the themes of early 20th century America that did not see me as part of those themes). Unfair as that is I can’t separate the movie from the origin.

Apocalypto is a movie I have yet to have a chance to see. I plan on it though. Mr. Mel Gibson may have many issues but his ability to convey sweeping themes in his movies are unquestioned. From what I’ve been able to see the visuals are stunning, and I’ve long held that if the movie is well acted the language is unimportant. It would seem that many agree with my assessment.

Mission Impossible III was more bang for the buck. Finally we get to see an IMF TEAM in action. Closer to the concept of the original series, well worth the admission price.

Also worth noting though probably less familiar to the general population are The King of Scotland, This Film is Not Yet Rated, and Thank You For Smoking. Also DreamGirls which just came out and should be counted for 2007.

Continued in Worst films of 2006

My best/worst video games of 2006 - 12.27.2006.2

**My comments on the passing of President Ford can be found at www.mvass.com**

Well it’s that time of year again. Time for the best and worst of what was 2006. I’ve already mentioned some of my thoughts about the year previously, now for some lists. Come on we all love a good list, sometimes even a bad one. Hopefully I will have the former and not the latter.

First off are video games. Yes, the bane of wives, mothers and girlfriends. A good game is worth it’s weight in coffee, or caffeinated drinks if you prefer, and then some. A bad game makes you think the ladies are right (unless you are Mr. Samuel Jackson – his wife loves them and so he married her or so he said at the Spike Video Game Awards). My preference is PC games, though I have a PS2 as well. My thoughts on other systems is culled from Gamespot.com, a site I find to be quite accurate and useful.

The number one game I played this year has to be Worldwide Soccer Manager. Most may not have heard of this one, it’s a European game but it’s fantastic. Very addictive and fills the time until the next World Cup, or the next version, quite well. If you love soccer (football to the rest of the world) you need this. It’s not a action game, but watching the matches play out is so close to the real thing you will be caught in it’s web quickly.

Guitar Hero is the second best game of the year to me. Yes I know that Guitar Hero II is out, and I have that as well. But I like the music on the original better. There is nothing like rocking to a classic rock song and feeling like you are playing it yourself. It’s as close to being in a rock band as I will ever get. If you want to do well on expert I suggest extreme practice or knowing how to play a guitar, I’m still not near that point yet.

Third for me is Elder Scrolls IV : Oblivion. Immersive, graphically beautiful and open-ended. It’s hard to ask for more. There is little better than doing what you want in a world you can master. For the casual gamer it’s better than a MMO (massively multiplayer online game), and for those that are cheap. Expect to dedicate days and weeks to the game, looking for that better piece of armor, or sneaking into that one room to rob.

The new Wii system demands to be discussed as the sports are easily the best new innovation in some time. The Legend of Zelda has been a constant favorite since I was in college and the latest is no different.

On the other end are the games we really don’t want to ever remember playing.

First I must mention my hate of all the GTA rip offs. I find them to be playing to the worst stereotypes and making them glamorous. I dislike the thought and the intention. There is no benefit or justification of these games.

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The kids all want this, and none of them should see it. Unless you hope for your child to become a buffed up, ignorant, pimp-drug dealing- gang member. I have nothing against violent games. I will not say that any game should not be made. But I don’t like this and never will.

Torino 2006. Like virtually any game that tries to cash in on a theme this fails. What more do I need to say than curling?

Superman Returns. Decent movie, crappy game. This helps to reinforce the idea that you never buy a game that is based on a movie. It’s just a way for the movie makes to suck away more of your money, regardless if the movie was good or not.

Infinity: The quest for earth. I’m not sure when this popped up. It’s supposed to be a free MMO, based in space. Of course like many of the new MMO’s (especially the free ones) it’s broken. Or not yet finished. Why it should exist as only part of a game I don’t understand.

2007 should be interesting. A lot of MMO’s are supposed to be coming out. Vanguard is the first one I think I will be checking out. That is after it launches and the bugs are found. Give it a month from launch and look for a review.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Latin music, celebrity donations

Well I really haven't thought of much to seriously speak about lately, so I'll stick with a few light thoughts.


I noticed that Mr. Marc Anthony and wife will be doing a somewhat biographical film due out next year. This should be quite interesting, as I like Mr. Anthony's music and acting. And he is a Nuyorican... like me. So that is a big bonus to me. His choice in a wife, as expressed by his current, is another matter but he is happy so what does my opinion matter?

One thing that does matter is the amazement that constantly surounds the music industry in the U.S. when any form of music that isn't in english does well. Given that there are several ethnic populations within the U.S. it shouldn't be surprising. Considering 'Hispanics' (I don't like that term) are the 2nd largest group in the nation and that spanish is the 2nd most popular in the world, it really shouldn't be a surprise. And the 'Latin Explosion' or whatever the exact term was back a few years ago was silly. You would think there was never a popular 'Hispanic' musical artist selling well in the U.S. before (Santana, Julio Isglesia, Gloria Estefan, Ruben Blades, Jose Feliciano and many more).


On another front is the news of Mr. Denzel Washington making the largest donation ever to Winter Assistance for Rocky Mount program. I enjoy seeing when movie actors and other celebrities give to worthy causes that they believe in. Too few do so. Or make charitable acts. Like when Mr. Samuel Jackson was on The Daily Show, and spoke about how he helped the Hurricane Katrina victims he encountered personally. He also mentioned how (as I recall) he helped Mr. Tommy Lee Jones feed hundreds at a cookout. [Mr. Jackson mentioned in the same interview that he feels direct help is better as donations get spent everywhere first leaving little to actually help people with - ie the 'guy who buys stamps']

Many artists of various types and fields of focus, often do events in honor of ____, with proceeds going to that cause. I hate them. While We Are the World, Live Aid (the first) and maybe the first Farm Aid were are helpful, and unique the rest are much less so. Much like the money wasted on providing some New Orleans victims residence in luxury cruise ships (at 3x the cost of a seven day cruise), funds from these events is wasted on every hand involved. Paying for television time, cameramen, organizers, security, lights, grip work, commercial sponsors, ect. All that must be paid for... Oh, and the entertainers too, as most do not forgo their fee to support the event.

Why can't Artists just donate their time or money or both to a cause they believe in? The excuse of 'everyone will line up for a donation' just doesn't work. These are famous and well-paid movie actors, sports stars and other celebrities we are speaking about. They already get people lining up for handouts. You think Ohpra doesn't get solicitations every day from some group or another? Or Puffy Combs? Donating to a truly needy cause or helping them directly (and at no cost) just helps people, it doesn't hurt the celebrity. As a bonus that most don't talk about, donations are tax deductible. And before anyone says, but they do it annonymously... most can't. Why, because its easier to go to Mr. Shaquille O'Neal and say Mr. Michael Jordan just gave X, can't you at least afford to match it. Once you tell one person a secret it stops being one. So most of the time if you don't see a donation from an artist, but you do see a big event with part of the proceeds donated, then you can conclude they haven't given anything but they did recieve.

But as for Mr. Washinton, again I say it's nice to see a celebrity make a donation to a worthy cause they believe in.

All of this are my thoughts, what are yours?