• Overture angles for the domestic rights to Antoine Fuqua’s “Brooklyn’s Finest,” perhaps giving a leg up to Ethan Hawke in the Best Actor race. [Variety]
• Is Charles Darwin too controversial for American multiplexes? [CHUD]
• Christopher Plummer at 80, busy as ever. [The Toronto Star]
• Drew McWeeny falls right into the tank for George Clooney’s suave handling of the media in Toronto, but offers a nice back-and-forth on the three films the actor is representing there. [Motion/Captured]
• John Hillcoat on using footage that wasn’t in “The Road” to appeal to a broader audience. [Movieline]
• Michael Ordona sits down with the “Informant!” fellas. [Los Angeles Times]
• Reporting from Toronto on Colin Farrell’s baity, pound-dropping role in “Triage.” [The Wrap]
• Jeffrey Wells sits down with the Coens to talk “A Serious Man.” [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• Traffic grab alert: Critic Anthony Quinn begins counting down his list of the top 100 films of all time. [The Independent]
• Anne Thompson gets the story of Sarah Siegel- and Gary Magness, producers of “Precious” who are being pushed to the background as the spotlight illuminates name-only exec prods Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry. [Thompson on Hollywood]
Comments
8 responses to “9/14 Web Round-up”
Is Brooklyn’s Finest going to be good. I don’t care what but I’d love to see Ethan Hawke back at the Oscars after that NOTORIOUS snub for Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.
i find it interesting that this story about the 2 people who are supposedly being pushed to the background is being run now in the thick of precious oscar talk. is this the first time this happened in history? where the little guy had something and the big wigs took it over. but i guess when tyler and oprah do it its unfair. give me a break.
Unbelievable. In most developed countries denying evolution would be no different than rejecting plate tectonics or gravity, yet here it’s considered “controversial.”
Robert, it’s good ol’ fashioned American rebelliousness! Since the 18th century, Americans have rejected popular science because we have the right not to believe in it! It seems foolishness, but I think it’s just the American spirit!
“Since the 18th century, Americans have rejected popular science because we have the right not to believe in it!”
I don;t think it could be put more succinctly.
I don’t lament an American’s RIGHT to deny a scientific reality, I lament the fact that most Americans do it. C’mon, did you honestly believe I was wanting to stop people from voicing their (however wrongheaded) opinions on evolution?
I’ll be honest, I’m a little sick and tired of “It’s their/our right!” being used as a knee-jerk defense. It’s cheap and it doesn’t really say anything useful.
Agreed, but we’re just trying to explain the psychology behind it.
Well, in that case I mostly agree with your explanation (along with other factors, of course).