Crowder is way more metrosexual (looks-wise) than either of those guys. The tight shirts, the poofy hair, etc, etc.

I liked his earlier showtime too, but the low ratings of "The Jay Leno Show" will guarantee that no television network will ever try this again.

Apparently that ridiculous police station walk-through actually happened in real life. It's a reminder that sometimes fact really is stranger - or less believable - than fiction.

Quite honestly, I don't care about an actors personal life for the most part. The behavior sounds vile, but I enjoy him as an actor, and at the end of the day that's the factor that holds the most weight in my film/TV choices. Choosing films/TV based on ethical/moral concerns of a particular individual involved doesn't make too much sense for me. On any one production, there is most likely at least one terrible human being, either amongst the actors, crew or marketing department. It would be impossible to be consistent. There are some artists who I may have trouble supporting in any conceivable way, and I'll skip their films, but in general I think it's important to realize that if 1 in 100 people is a psychopath, there is at least one despicable person involved in any - and every - film. Personally Charlie Sheen doesn't cut it for me, but I can surely see why he would for others.

This is rather silly. Zemeckis's line is almost verbatim what Dickens wrote, simply cut down and shortened for clarity. Even with the minute differences, the intention is the exact same as Dicken's. This is part of what's wrong with the conservative movement right now; ridiculous quibbling over imaginairy issues rather than focusing on matters worthy of attention (i.e. not three extra words in a Jim Carrey film) just gives ammunition to liberals. The lines are the same and I can't see anyone actually getting upset over this unless their skins as thin as one of the Ghosts of Christmas.

That's not cool. If you don't want to pay for a movie, just don't watch it. This sort of mentality works both ways; next time a movie comes out from an openly conservative writer, plenty of liberals will download it and essentially ruin it's chances of success. I don't think there's anything wrong with boycotting or skipping, but pirating is stealing in my books.

No, there are still plenty of movies being made that embody different perspectives. They may not be the big-budgeted hits that are advertised excessively and endlessly, but if you look, you can find them. This year I enjoyed both Coraline and Moon immensly. While I'm not one to be deterred by politics of any sort, I don't recall any overtly liberal politics in either of the films. Neither did particularly well.

I'd actually have to agree with you. There are plenty of purely fun movies I enjoy. However, the majority of people complain about how 'mindless' movies are these days, then turn around and go see the likes of Transformers, New Moon, etc, etc, etc. Obviously none of those movies are going to be thought-provoking, let alone worth watching in many cases. It reeks of hypocrisy when people complain about how bad movies are while consistently going to see what are, by most indications, utterly terrible films.

I'm wondering if the Liberals and NDP will ever realize their constant whining, complaining, and faked outrage over anything and everything Stephen Harper does is actually harming their own parties. Especially now with Ignatieff; every week he harps on about some new ridiculous thing and every week his approval ratings drop.

There are actually quite a lot of good films coming out, but yes, they're mostly independent. However, I don't think independent film will ever become any more "commercial" than it is now. The majority of filmgoing audiences pay for mindless entertainment.