If he's Hillary now, does this mean that he has a snuke up his snatch?
Posted on 02/22/2008 1:11:28 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
George Clooney is already practicing his "it's an honor just to be nominated" speech, telling Time magazine in a new interview that he doesn't have a shot at beating out Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Actor at Sunday's Academy Awards.
"For me, it's like being Hillary Clinton," says the Michael Clayton star. "If it weren’t for Barack Obama, it would have been a very good year." Adds Clooney: "I thought Daniel Day-Lewis had the best performance of the year."
(Excerpt) Read more at people.com ...
It's still funny though!
He's the shrill ugly bag everyone hates and always dresses in dark pants suits?
If he's Hillary now, does this mean that he has a snuke up his snatch?
Hillary, the SUB [shrill ugly bag]
The Left loves these characters.
George was good in “Oh Brother Where Art Thou?”. He play a pedantic, antisocial, jerk with a little talent. Where was the acting?
George, George, George.
You can stop talking now. Just stand next to me and do what you do best - be quite and look pretty. OK?
It’s really such a shame that such a handsome man is such a stupid lib.
I’d still like to try to convert him however :),
Maybe a little sweet “conservative” pillow talk could do the the trick. I know I could do it or I could just have some fun trying.
Or, the George McGovern of actors.
George Clooney: I’m the Hillary Clinton of the Oscars...
it takes an a-hole to know an a-hole!!!
Huh? Bardem was great in that film. What if he had been nominated for playing an evil character like Iago or Richard III?
Who is Daniel Day-Lewis and what was he in?
Did everything go all right at the doctor's/dentist's?
Evil characters were set forth in the past as negative examples to see the consequences of evil, the characters in modern movies are glorified.
The Left glorifies the serial killer because it loves idea that the average person is living in fear and is a helpless victim.
I don’t know how many movies he’s made, but he has been nominated for an oscar 3-4 times. Try My Left Foot, In The Name of the Father or Gangs of New York.
I thought he was over-the-top in Gangs also.
I'd like to see him in a stage production.
...although that scene where he screws around with the gas station, convenience store cashier about calling heads or tails is SEARED...SEARED in my memory. LOL!
I didn't see the movie Holbrook was in, but he's one of my favs.
If you’ve seen the movie...and I take it you haven’t...you’d know that it does not glorify that character all.
Is he gonna cry?
Big thighs?
He’s got a high nomination batting average.
I love him. I loved the ending. I loved the movie.
Sue me.
MM (in TX)
Interesting to watch. I don't know how the oscar will go, but I'm a Tommy Lee Jones fan. Didn't saee Elah (sp), but liked Old Country.
I love Tommy Lee Jones, too. Saw both Elah and No Country. He did a great job in both.
MM
How was Elah? Was a propaganda piece?
It didn’t hit me as a propaganda piece at all, Purp. I don’t want to say much lest I spoil it for you, but I saw it with no pre-conceptions and did not take it as a hit piece. I’d love to hear your thoughts if you see it.
MM
Thanx. May have to wait for a rental now.
I enjoy movies, just lousy with names but great with faces. Names are only good for my trivia games like naming the movies of Jack Elam, Strother Martin and Willis Bouchey.
Just last night I watched Michael Clayton and recognized the lawyer that went nuts as the same guy who played Cornwallis in The Patriot.
On the other hand, my brother can tell you who was the key grip in Creature From The Black Lagoon.
What are the "Academy Awards"?
It gets funnier every time. /sarc
Look at me caring what you think.
‘Look at me’ is exactly what the endless stream of What’s a ‘fill in the blank’ posts are all about.
Actually, I thought George was quite good as Michael Clayton. I am guessing that GC is correct and Daniel Day Lewis will win, but I thought he wasn’t that good in There Will Be Blood (in fact I really didn’t like the movie either).
And FWIW, since you just saw the movie, I really like that they shot on location actually using the inside of split level (or hi-ranch as they call them out on Long Island) for the Clayton father's birthday. Alot of times they show exteriors that never, ever match up to the cavernous interior...but that was a split.
George, shut up and, well, just stand there. Your ramblings make your beautiful face less attractive.
Mark me "don't care".
You are correct, I haven't seen the movie, but I am also sure what you consider 'glorifying the character' and what the Left does, are two different things.
“Day Lewis has only made 5 films in the last 15 years.”
You forgot he starred in “The Last of the Mohicans”, and was great in it. That was the first film I saw him in. In Gangs of New York (which I’ve seen) and There will be Blood (which I haven’t seen yet but plan to; have seen previews and trailers), he does act a bit over the top. But that is why I love him; he takes risks all the time in the parts he chooses to play, and is a great character actor in the pure sense of the word. I love his acting and his incredible versatility.
Interestingly (at least from my point of view), I believe Heath Ledger, if he hadn’t messed up his pills and died, was heading in the same direction as DDLewis as to acting abilities and choices of films. Ledger too was branching out from just doing pretty boy roles; he too took on risky and challenging acting jobs. From his role in The Patriot, to Brokeback Mountain, and to the dark role of Joker in Batman (plus others that were unique acting roles). I think DDLewis saw this same quality in himself as he did in Ledger also. At the Golden Globe Awards, where DDLewis won in the best actor category, he symbolically gave his acting award in the memory of Heath Ledger. Odd he should do that, no one else did. And that is because I think he felt Ledger was a kindred soul in where he wanted to go in his acting career. I liked Ledger’s acting ability also. Too bad his light went out so early and he has left the stage.
LOTM was released in 1992. Over 15 years ago. :-)
I don’t follow? I have seen the movie and it does not do what you ascribe. Furthermore the Coen Brothers who made the film have always had an acute sense of morality in their films however tangled and acerbic it may be.
Really?
Was there any character development explaining what made this character so evil, or was it just a series of ruthless murders that couldn't seem to be stopped?
Furthermore, I haven't seen anything coming from the Coen brothers representing any type of morality.
If the morality is 'tangled and acerbic' it is not really moral, it is purposefully ambiguous, allowing the viewer to put his own view of morality on the film, and therefore is not being 'judgmental'.
Do you need someone to come out and dictate what you should think? Raising Arizona and Fargo were very moral films. Barton Fink and The Big Lebowski were about ethics (and many other things). The Bardem character is seen as a force of nature. Evil incarnate. And the two characters who stand up to him (the wife, the shop owner) look evil right in the face with courage.
Raising Arizona was a comedy and Fargo, what morality was there in that?
As for the Bardem character, I asked you for some character development, as there was for Richard lll, which you brought up.
There isn't, just evil running rampart.
Here is how Christianity Today reviewed the movie,
No Country for Old Men is rated R for strong graphic violence and some language. The violence is graphic and bloody, the language harsh. These men curse, take the Lord's name in vain, and seem to be sinking into despair. It's the kind of movie that could severely frighten children and teens—and some adults, for that matter.
Which is exactly why the Left loves these type of psychotic killers, they lead one to believe that there is no hope, and no God.
There are definitely more than enough opportunities in No Country for Old Men to ponder that point, since scene after scene of heartless inhumanity does indeed motivate viewers—along with the story’s world-weary sheriff—to wonder about the fragile hope for human redemption in a world falling down before advancing darkness. But no answers are offered to us or the sheriff, nor is there even a hopeful signpost along this corpse-littered trail. In fact, if the trail leads anywhere, it’s to an empty malaise.
This feels like a film trying to have its dark cake and eat it, too. Or worse, it’s offering audiences shovelfuls of gory grit while pretending that that’s not really what it wants them to bite down on. Any way you slice it or shoot at it—and despite a quick look at the power individual choices have—all you’re left with is a nihilistic annihilation that exhibits one primary talent: turning your stomach.
http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0003512.cfm
No, the fact is that evil seems to be in control, not the good.
Raising Arizona was very pro-life and the need of a criminal to change his life through the love of a good woman. Fargo has at its center an decent oridnary woman who is caught up in extraordinary events of unfathomable evil. Remember that speech she gives the killer at the end in the police car?
Raising Arizona was a goofy comedy and in Fargo, one was left with an empty feeling that life really had no meaning or purpose.
There is usually some good in most movies, since they have to sell them, but the issue what is the general theme and in the Coen brothers all you find is a general darkness and despair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.