Sean Penn and Haiti

Sean Penn is a quality actor, and politically the kind of American I would expect from a B-grade spy movie about communist sleeper agents. He has long put himself on the forefront of criticism for his views, his socialist preferences, and his blatant love fests with unsavory leaders like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

But given those facts, there is no question that in regard to Haiti and the relief efforts Penn has been putting his XX where his mouth is. He has directly brought doctors (11), water filters, donated huge sums of money, and actively helped to save lives of those buried in rubble. He has directly done what many entertainers only speak about from afar.

I started to search through various posts and news articles on Penn and his activities in Haiti because of the most recent comments by Penn about the efforts of the American military in Haiti. Penn has uncharacteristically stated that

We have worked very closely with Colonel Mike Foster and Sergeant Keith Horn (ph), who have been -- who are truly exceptional men in the 82nd Airborne. And it has -- it has been such an experience working with these people."

"JENKINS [partner of Penn in his Haiti specific charity]: Because I -- in Bosnia, I associated the army with killing. And in my life, they came too late, because I lost everything.

But when I got to Haiti and I've seen what the American Army has done, all I can say is God bless America and the American Army, because they work so hard. And the only sense of order that is there, I think it's them. And they are trying so hard to help, to distribute, to do anything they can to help these people."

"PENN:I would like to tell all my lefty friends out there, these guys are doing an amazing job and they're doing it with the greatest intentions in heart and in conjunction with all of the other organizations. It's a -- and it is an amazing amount of cooperation."

Talk about shock. The only problem I have with these comments by Penn is that it took this sad crisis in Haiti for him to open his eyes and notice the great good the American military does everyday.

But somewhere it seems someone is upset with Penn. Why? I have no idea. Who? I don't know because I can't find it. I imagine it has to be some of the very same far-left wackos that Penn normally rubs shoulders with. But his response to those critics on this issue in Haiti is the very same Sean Penn that we expect to hear about

"...the outspoken actor says he hopes any cynic who dismisses his efforts as a star turn will "die screaming of rectal cancer."

It's extreme all right. And at the moment I don't care as long as Penn continues to help the people of Haiti.

But if I gave myself a moment to look at this situation, I might suggest to Penn the fickle nature of what I presume is the extreme far-left when anyone does anything they don't like. Which includes those that they normally support, as Penn has now found out.

Stepping away from that, I applaud Penn (I can't believe I'm saying that) for what he has done and continues to do in Haiti. I love celebrities that give to those in need and use thier star power to provide for those that most need it. Penn deserves the positive attention he has earned, and I hope this just brings more help for the people of Haiti.

Who will replace Sean Penn as Larry in Three Stooges movie

Well there are a few changes that are coming up in several movies being planned for 2010 or so. Several high profile movie stars have been added or left planned movies. How this might affect these films is anyone’s guess. But at least you are forewarned.

The potentially big news is that Sean Penn has pulled out of the star studded Three Stooges movie, in addition to the film Cartel. The 3 Stooges movie includes Jim Carrey and Benicio Del Toro. So even without Penn this is a huge powerhouse to this film. The real question is who might be the actor to replace Penn as Larry.

So far, some of the rumors – or hopes – I have heard of include the following names: Johnny Depp, Ben Stiller, Jack Nicholson, Chris Tucker, and Ludivine Sagnier. Talk about a huge range of styles and skill. Each changes the dynamics completely.

In my opinion, Ben Stiller would be a horrible choice. I can imagine Stiller turning the film into Starsky & Hutch –esque style of bad acting. While his latest films have been good (Night at the Museum), his history of playing the same character, and badly, in each film would inevitably harm the quality of the film and drive potential viewers away. Plus he is no where near the abilities of Carrey or Del Torro.

Jack Nicholson is a stellar actor. I have no doubt that he could pull off the role. But he is older. Too much so to have a smooth mix with the very energetic Del Toro and Carrey. Plus I just can’t see him getting slapped around. That image just throws me off.

Johnny Depp seems like a great choice. He has the ability, range, and youth. He will drive in fans of all ages and backgrounds. He is a powerhouse on his own. And he has done comedic roles well. The only negative is that he might be too good looking. But makeup can fix that.

Going into the realm of something completely different, Chris Tucker would fit the bill. A Black Larry would really shake up the film. It puts a spin on the movie that I honestly can’t imagine right now. But to say that this would be a good thing is a statement I can’t make for sure. The best role I have seen Tucker in is arguably his support in Fifth Element, or perhaps the first Rush Hour film. Can his eunic like voice and race add to a film with far better actors and intense physical comedy?

Lastly there is Ludivine Sagnier. This choice has to be simply because the actress likes to be topless, and has had most of her film roles done in the nude. That is not to say that a woman could not be Larry. Just that I cannot imagine this woman in that role. Maybe Geena Davis, but not Sagnier.

Actually, now that I think about it more, I don’t see a woman in the role. Being slapped and hit, by men, with the intent of cruelty and punishment – it just doesn’t work with a woman. It crosses a boundary. It can too easily be taken the wrong way.

So of the above choices, minus Sagnier, who would I pick? Depp. He has the ability to match up with Del Toro and Carrey. He is the right age. He can easily capture the tone and essence of the character. And he can deliver.



With Penn gone, Depp is the perfect replacement. In fact, it can be easily argued that Penn should never have been in the film to start with. At least with Del Toro and Carrey in the mix.

But as a wildcard I will throw in one other name. Robert Downey Jr. While he is a bit too world-weary in his looks, there is no question of his ability or range. He might be a bit older, but not too much so. He is a powerhouse actor, and can commit to the film with as much dedication as Depp.

But who do you want as Larry in this Three Stooges remake?

Colbert earns a salute in Iraq

I want to salute Stephen Colbert. I’m sure he expects it, of course, but this time it is deserved. Because of what he has done for our troops in Iraq.

By now everyone has had the chance to see the new Colbert haircut. And how he got it. Under orders by the Commander-and-Chief himself (that would be President Obama). Who also gave a nice bit of self-mockery with his line about not needing spy satellites with his big ears.

I’m more than happy to see the President mocked in good taste. But the fact that Colbert has brought a bit of home to our troops is a far better sight. It reminds me of what Bob Hope used to do. Something that the major news media seemed hell-bent on ignoring these days.

Stephen Colbert (the man and not the character) is a liberal without shame. So it’s no surprise how often, and accurately, he jabs Conservatives and Republicans in his show. But unlike the Sean Penn’s of the world, Colbert has always supported our troops. He has always made the distinction between serving our nation and the policy makers that require the sacrifices the troops make.

Thus in going to Iraq, he has acknowledged what the major news media has denied for years now. That our U.S. military is doing a good job in a bad situation. That our people are dying because of our system of Government and their belief that it is the best in the world. Faults and all.

You don’t have to agree with the war on terror (a term that our President can’t even bring himself to say). You don’t have to like why we got into this mess, or who gave the orders to do it. You don’t even have to agree with the people that think not talking about the situation, or placating governments in the region, will end the problems. But we all should recognize those that are doing the best they can, ultimately so we can all sleep back home without pause.

That deserves attention. It deserves commendation. It makes Stephen Colbert worthy of a salute.

The 3 Stooges live again

Are you a fan of the 3 Stooges? One of the most well-remembered comedic teams in history, they are still seen in film and shorts in over 30 nations across the world. And if the Farrelly brothers have their way they will be on the big screen once again.

Originally the 3 Stooges started off as a 4 man vaudeville act. That was back in 1923. And even in that early stage they were about slapstick. But it wasn’t until 1934 that the name Three Stooges came into existence, and was the start of 283 short films over 23 years.

One thing that many may not realize about the 3 Stooges (2 Howard brothers and friend Larry Fine through the various incarnations of the group) is the fact that they produced the first anti-Nazi, Hitler parody in 1940. This predated the famous Charlie Chaplin film The Great Dictator by 9 months. It also reportedly led to their being put on a death list by the Nazi’s.

As another bit of trivia, the only film to have all 3 Howard brothers (Moe, Shemp, and Curly) and Larry is Hold That Lion!

In all, the 3 Stooges had a career that lasted through 49 years, and several “third stooges”. They captured the short film, feature film, television and live act markets. And they inspired comedians for decades after they stopped working.

So in a feature film, with such a rich history behind them, who in these modern days has the ability to play the 3 Stooges? Who could make a homage film without destroying the admiration fans of all ages have?



Well of course Jim Carrey. It seems fitting that he play Curly. And I truly can’t imagine anyone else in the role. But that leaves us with 2 other critical roles. You won’t believe who is expected to fill them.

Benicio Del Toro is expected to play Moe. I can see this a bit. He has just about the right look. Plus he has dark hair, and a bit of humor and slapstick in virtually every role he has been in. Just watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and you can see how he can fit the role of Moe (though without the near psychotic nature).

But I can’t see Larry. Not as super liberal and ultra-serious Sean Penn. Perhaps he can do comedy, I can’t recall him doing so in the past (after Fast Times at Ridgemont High). Maybe he can match the look. But it’s his demeanor, and dare I say it his public persona that just keeps me from thinking of him as funny in a comedic manner (though some of his political philosophies really do make me laugh out loud).

So there you have it. The history and the future. In 2010 they are expected to collide. I don’t envy these actors. Every aspect of their portrayals will be scrutinized and compared to the originals. They will be critiqued in the most harsh of manners. As will the Farrelly brothers.

Can the people responsible for the films Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, Osmosis Jones and Fever Pitch get the Stooges right? Can a modern day version of their classic slapstick be written and performed with respect and justice to the memories we all have?

I’m not sure. This isn’t quite a remake of their old material. It’s not quite a revisioning. Nor is it pure homage. But whatever it turns out to be, it will grab the attention and raise debate.

The anti-Wesley Snipes movement continues on - 12.18.2007.1

If I told you that an A-list American actor made a public announcement about the government and its injustice, and no one covered it, would you believe me. Think about that.

When Ellen DeGeneres cried about a puppy, it was news for 2+ days. When Rosie O’Donnell got into a battle of name calling with Donald Trump, it was news for over a month. When Anna Nicole Smith died, 3 months. And Paris Hilton has been a week each incident. And that’s just off the top of my head.

How much news did Hanoi Jane Fonda get in her various anti-America rants? Or Sean Penn? Bill Maher? The major news media seems to salivate any time that a celebrity or entertainer makes an announcement or is in the news.

But there is a difference. Even in the worst cases of the news that was apparently targeting bad behavior there is a difference. At the worst of news on David Hasselhoff, Lindsey Lohan, Alec Baldwin, or Don Imus there was a sense of sympathy.

But when the A-lister is African American things change. Compare any of the coverage I’ve mentioned above with the coverage of James Brown’s death, OJ Simpson, Al Sharpton, Michael Vick, or Wesley Snipes as an example. Particularly Wesley Snipes at this moment.

Back in late 2006 there was an onslaught of news about charges made by the Government against Mr. Snipes. There were quick and deliberate statements made, while Mr. Snipes was out of the country working (which I think the Government knew considering the resources available to them).

I stated in October 2006

“I have some issues with this whole thing. First is the fact that the government accepted an amended claim of 0 income and made a refund of $7,000,000 without a red flag popping up is not Mr. Snipes fault. I would think someone would have noticed before now. And to suddenly issue a warrant without contacting an individual that has international travel as a normal course of business seems extreme. So far as has been reported no attempt to contact Mr. Snipes has been done.”

I then went on to say in that same post

“As a celebrity it would not be unusual for him to be on vacation, or on a trip, outside the country or in seclusion. It would not be strange for Mr. Snipes to be working on a film somewhere in the world, and not immediately aware of what is going on here in the United States.”

To my knowledge there was not a single major news media organization, nor the U.S. government, that stated the abovementioned thought. 2 days later I was proven correct.

“Well I’m not sure if Mr. Snipes is exactly innocent, but I do agree that he is being railroaded. The media has worked hard to portray him negatively, though there have been no facts to go on.”

Continued in Part 2...

Hanoi Fonda back to old tricks - 1.30.2007.1

This is a post that deals with mostly one actress and politics. I have posted it on the entertainment blog due to that fact. I have let you know that it is political as opposed to most other posts. Also if you are a fan of Jane ‘Hanoi’ Fonda [I first commented on her in my post jul 26 2005], I’d advise you to skip this.

I just heard about the protest that occurred on Saturday. There were several celebrities there, including Mr. Tim Robbins, Mrs. Susan Sarandon (Mr. Robbins wife), Mr. Sean Penn, and someone I truly hate – Jane Fonda. Let me start off that I respect every person in the crowd that voiced their view on the war (except fonda). It’s a vital principle of American life that they can protest, and unlike other countries none of them were shot dead for it. The differing views are important to keep the balance of America and to attain the best for the nation.

I will mention that this is similar to the actions we saw during the Viet Nam war. Perhaps many of the youth today are too young to recall what happened. I was young when the protests were occurring myself. But I was old enough to see the result on my father, a Marine and veteran of Viet Nam. And that stuck with me for life.

I respect the actors that feel strongly enough about the actions of the government to risk their public images in protests. I respect the ordinary people that want the government to know that they disagree with the actions currently ongoing. But I think they are all wrong.

I do not feel they support the troops as their actions fail to match the definition of ‘support’. Anyone who disagrees with that should look up the definition of the word and explain to me how their actions fulfill that. That is my opinion, and it is no more or less worthwhile than theirs.

I do see this being the beginning of actions that will be similar to those of Viet Nam. Perhaps Democrats such as Senator Jim Webb had good memories of the return home, my father did not. And I will be extremely angry if anyone treats the young men and women returning from Iraq as they did my father. Some need to take a moment and recall that the only reason they can call names and not support the troops is because those same troops, and all those that have bled, sweat, and died before them, have made it possible.

As for Hanoi Jane, I agree with Mr. Danny Bonaduce in that I would be happy to have seen her shot for treason years ago. Protest all you want, but aiding the enemy of our nation and our troops is treason. I have no respect for the woman. Her (what I feel are) false and half-hearted apologies do not sway me. Some 30+ years later she has admitted remorse. Am I stupid? That is a political and economic response, timed perfectly to match a book and a movie release. I do not forget, nor will I forgive her. She had decades to apologize, or explain her thoughts. She was a grown woman, aware of her actions and their impact when she made them in the 70’s. Her hope, I feel, that the youth of the nation would not remember and thus forgive does not work with me. I am repulsed by violence against women, but I would pay to have a woman give Jane ‘Hanoi’ Fonda a beat down. I feel that strongly about her actions.

As for Deborah at News Hounds, Mr. Bonaduce is not perfect. There is no question of his well documented past. But I demand you find one instance where he sided with declared enemies of our nation, especially when our Armed Forces were fighting and dying. Hanoi Jane did do that, it is a fact. She posed for the photos and supported the enemies of the nation as our sons and fathers died. She was not forced. Mr. Bonaduce never did anything even close to that. Showing the photos she voluntarily posed for or mentioning the actions she did is not slander or nasty, it’s factual. The age that Mr. Bonaduce saw the photo has nothing to do with its impact. I was young as well and the repercussions made an impact on my family. Trauma is not restricted to an age group. Also the definition of treason during a time of war is what Hanoi Jane did, and should have been tried for. The punishment at the time was death, to remind those too young to remember this is not a false accusation. If it wasn’t true I’m sure some lawyer would be suing now. As for quoting 30,000 – that is tens of thousands, 3 x ten thousand to be exact – thus the estimate sounds accurate to the math I was taught.

Lastly, yes we all have made mistakes. Waiting 30 years to admit it is not a show of remorse to me. Consciously siding against your nation is not a mistake, no matter the time it takes to admit what was already documented in photos and other media. To remind people of the facts, and to express an opinion is not cowardly, nor a bully tactic. It’s little different than going to a war protest. If you can’t accept that, that is unforgivable.

This is what I think, what do you think?