July 6, 2012, - 8:40 pm

Wknd Box Office: Savages, Woman in the Fifth, To Rome With Love

By Debbie Schlussel

I really liked one of the three new movies at theaters, this weekend. The Oliver Stone flick is just plain horrid. I chose not to see nor will I review the Katy Perry shameless self-promotion movie, since I loathe her and her heavy marketing to kids (with inappropriate songs, like “I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It”), and she has not distanced herself enough from her absolute clown of a father, despite his starkly anti-Semitic comments.

* “Savages“: The title aptly describes the truly warped, damaged minds of far-left, America-hating, verminous director/HAMAS fan/Hitler devotee Oliver Stone and ANYONE having anything to do with the production of this absolute garbage. I feel like my mind was raped by this vile creature’s pointless exercise in over two hours of extremely brutal torture porn. The movie is an attempt at hate commentary on America. Yes, only those who hate this great country and wish to show it as the dregs of earth, would produce this malodorous fecal material of cinematic screed. If you don’t hate Oliver Stone with a vengeance, you should. You have to recall his long line of America-hating movies, including those defaming our troops as drug dealers and scum, to not conclude that this is the absolute worst of a long history of dog poop on screen (though it might be). When I walked out, all I could think was, “Uck Foliver Stone.” I hate this absolute waste of human skin. I shudder to think that American soldiers die for this schmuck’s right to make this. It’s hardly a fair trade. Not even close. This is one of the worst–if not THE WORST–movies I’ve ever seen as a movie critic. I’m not sure what the point of this is other than to show two hours and ten minutes of graphic violence, dismemberment, and rough sex scenes . . . and defame America. The word, “depraved,” is the understatement of the year for this horrible movie.

A sample of what you see: one of the main characters is forced to throw a torch on the gasoline-saturated body of another character, burning him alive. His girlfriend, who was raped by a Mexican drug dealer and with whom he shares with his best friend in a menage-a-trois is forced to watch on video as he does this. I missed the critics’ screening for this and went to see last night’s midnight showing. Sadly, the theater was packed with the dumb idiots of America who all raved over this “masterpiece” as they were leaving. Now if you want to make a true ode to the bad things about America, that would be the film: these minds of absolute mush, most of whom were in their late teens and 20-somethings and think that killing and gay-esque threesome sex scenes are what’s good and decent about this country. More proof that the saying that there’s no accounting for good taste in America is more true than ever and becoming ever more so as time moves on. This movie is yet another exhibit of America’s absolute moral decline. After being fed a steady diet of halal crap like this, it’s no wonder Stone’s son converted to Islam in Iran. No doubt, his son had a lifetime of lectures from daddy that this is what America is about.


“Savages” Director Oliver Stone w/ Ramallah HAMAS Chief Hassan Yussef



“Savages” Director Oliver Stone Echoes Views of Best Bud Yasser Arafat

The “story”: two drug dealers–pals since high school–are living in a fabulous house off the beach with their girlfriend. Yes, they share her and have threesomes. Oh, and they make sure to tell you that one of the drug dealers served in the U.S. military in Afghanistan, where he found the seeds for the best marijuana. And Stone wants to make sure that you know he became a brutally violent killing machine because he served in the U.S. military. The other drug dealer is a hippie-type free spirit who uses the drug-dealing to fund a foundation which feeds and educates poor people (many in Muslim hijabs) around the world. So, hey, drug-dealing must be okay, right? ‘Cuz it’s “humanitarian.” Riiiight.

But a Mexicana drug kingpin (Salma Hayek) wants their drug business. And they have only two choices: merge or die. When they plan to flee the country, the drug kingpin kidnaps the girlfriend, played by Black Lively. I’m not sure why there is so much praise and hype over Blake Lively since, as this movie and others demonstrate, her only talents are the two acting gigs most women can do far better: fake moaning during sex and crying. And she does it a lot here. A corrupt top DEA agent, played by an evermore calorically-gifted John Travolta, is on the take and helps all of the rival drug dealers in the movie, in exchange for bribes. John Revolting is a more fitting name, since he and this movie are both that in spades.

Anyone who finds this entertaining should be lobotomized (or perhaps already has been) and locked up forever. Watching this was sheer torture. If you love America and have any sense of decency, you will SKIP THIS tripe.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Woman in the Fifth [La Femme du Veme]“: I enjoyed this movie because I like mysterious thrillers that don’t answer all the questions and leave something to the imagination, forcing the viewer to think and ponder afterward about what really happened. But this does a little too much of that, and gives you almost no clue what really happened. It’s good to leave some loose ends. This one leaves so many that, ultimately, the movie unravels. Still, it was entertaining. And filled with suspense. This is definitely not a snoozer. So much happens in this movie that it’s hard to believe it was just a quick 85 minutes. It speeds by, as any good movie does.

A barely recognizable Ethan Hawke plays an American professor and formerly successful novelist who is down on his luck and struggling to make a comeback and get his life together. He’s come to Paris to re-unite with his estranged wife and young daughter. But the wife wants him out of her life and has a restraining order against him. He has just returned from a long stay in a prison or mental hospital (or both). And the Paris we see is the underbelly of the city, mostly dark, depressing, and ugly. Since his wallet and belongings were stolen and he has no money anyway, he stays at a mysterious cheap motel run by a Muslim Arab, who generously allows him to stay for free. But it soon becomes apparent that there are strings attached. He is enlisted by the Muslim to work nights at a mysterious underground room, allowing various men entry, during which he hears screaming and violence coming from various rooms and wonders what is going on. Clearly it’s illicit and illegal. And his love life is complicated, too. While he is developing an affair with a young Polish girl who works at the motel, he is also sleeping with an older Hungarian woman (Kristin Scott Thomas) he meets at a party, who is sort of like an informal guru. And eventually, he is framed for a brutal crime. But nothing is as it seems. Or is it? When it ends, the movie leaves you guessing. About a lot.

This is in mostly in French with English subtitles. As I noted, it’s quite entertaining, but leaves you wondering a little too much. Definitely an adult movie and not for kids. If you like your movies all wrapped up neatly and tied in a bow at the end, this isn’t for you. For everyone with imagination, curiosity, and wonder, you might like this.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “To Rome With Love“: This is not one of Woody Allen’s best movies. Not even close. It’s entertaining enough, but kind of boring and it simply doesn’t have the sharpness and tight plot of Allen’s other contemporary movies. In comparison to those, it’s dull. Still, there is good commentary in it against Communism (which Allen needs to tell his mirror, not us), statements regarding the absurdity of fame and fandom, and other issues.

There are four storylines in the movie, which takes place in Rome, as indicated by the title. There is an Italian clerk (the one-note Roberto Benigni) who is working-class and unattractive. Suddenly, he becomes famous for no apparent reason. He is followed by the press, beautiful women have sex with him, and he is invited to movie previews. His shaving sessions and meals are the topics of feverish media coverage. Then, there is a couple (Jesse Eisenberg and Greta Gerwig) who live in Rome and are visited by the woman’s best friend, Ellen Page. Soon, the guy is taken with her and cheats on his girlfriend with her, and he takes advice from his cynical imaginary friend, Alec Baldwin. And then there is the neurotic American couple (Woody Allen and Judy Davis) visiting the parents of the Italian guy their daughter has fallen in love with. The Italian father has a terrific singing voice in the shower, and Allen, a retired Opera producer/promoter, wants to get him into showbiz and singing opera. But he is reluctant, as he enjoys being a mortician. Finally, there is a couple of newlyweds, who become separated. He hires a prostitute (Penelope Cruz) to pretend she’s his wife at business and family meetings, but she’s dressed as a hooker. And the bride meets her favorite married movie star, who wants to have sex with her.

See, there’s no earth-shattering stuff here. Nothing new, nothing interesting. But a lot of funny lines. Mildly entertaining and fine if you have nothing else to do and want an okay time at the movies.

Best line in the movie: Woody Allen announces, “I was never a Communist. I could never share a bathroom.” Well, now Woody, you know how we feel about Obamacare.


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

36 Responses

I liked when Debbie used to tell us about free stuff too! here’s a share.
Free Apron from Presto’s Pizza!


sal on July 6, 2012 at 8:45 pm

Thanks for calling out Oliver Stone. He’s a real steamin’ POS.

Blake Lively is what the Japanese call “Bakku-Shan”. In America we call them “Butter-Face”. Her face is better than LeAnn Rimes(has-been skank) but only hers. LeAnn only wishes she had Bakku-Shan Lively’s face to keep her hot but horrible poached husband for keeps. Yuck to both of them.

When the moronic, celebrity obsessed American females make a big deal out of a big bore like Bakku-Shan Lively you know we are in trouble.

Skunky on July 6, 2012 at 9:37 pm

I have to say, TEN Marxes? That IS impressive, in its own way. I’d be lying if I didn’t say that it piqued my interest. What kind of movie does Debbie Schlussel think is the WORST she’s ever reviewed? Debbie, are you sure? You really liked Fahrenheit 9/11 better?

Props for the observation about most AMATEUR women being better at those two acting skills. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that line.

TEN MARXES. That is one epic rating, that’s for sure.

Statusmonkey on July 7, 2012 at 12:46 am

One thing that I learned to regret in my life…

“Natural-born Killers” was not a great first-date movie.

Anything by Oliver Stone is guaranteed to be a major cock-block.

Just sayin’. I’m off to Skyrim again.

The "Reverend" Jacques on July 7, 2012 at 1:24 am

    “Natural Born Killers” as a first date movie! That’s great. “Hi, honey, how was your date with Jacques?” “Daddy, did you know that ‘Jacques’ is French for ‘homicidal-suicidal psychopath?'”

    gmartinz on July 7, 2012 at 11:39 am

    I was in my 30s when I saw “Natural Born Killers” – it was two hours of the most sadistic violence with a psychopathic couple mowing down every one. I thought at the time it was the worst movie Stone ever made and it was two hours of my life I never got back.

    Now this movie has eclipsed that one in its absolute notoriety. There are some movies that should never be made! I’m not in favor of censorship but its not asking too much of Hollywood not to glamorize depravity, evil and death.

    This all has an effect on impressionable young minds. Those of us who love America should definitely skip movies like this and since my youth I am sadder, wiser and more informed about life.

    NormanF on July 8, 2012 at 12:21 am

It’s evident that this “To Rome With Love” can never be confused with the 1969-71 TV sitcom of the same name with the late John Forsythe (years before becoming the voice of Charlie on the original “Charlie’s Angels” and then Blake Carrington on “Dynasty”) as a widower with three daughters who accepted a teaching position at the American Overseas School in Rome (this series was produced by the same company that made the shows “My Three Sons” and “Family Affair”).

ConcernedPatriot on July 7, 2012 at 1:25 am

P.S. As for Blake Lively (there’s a name that’s an oxymoron, given that her level of “acting” is anything but lively), if it weren’t for her role on the one-note series “Gossip Girl,” no-one would have even known of – or even cared about – her.

ConcernedPatriot on July 7, 2012 at 1:28 am

I think your review of “Savages” was too mild-mannered. Maybe you should let us know what you really think of some of these movies.

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 6:39 am

One of the things that movies help us to do is to see how much worse the political and social climate has gotten in this country over the last few generations.

Most of Hollywood was always very far to the left. But in past generations, the leftists were more careful about how they let their politics affect their movies. For most of his career, Chaplin was careful about letting his political views into his movies, and even later in his career, e.g. The Great Dictator, even though he went out on a limb a little, the prevailing political currents in this country were turning against Germany.

The Communists were very strong in Hollywood during the 30s and 40s, but, for the most part, they expressed their political views in movies indirectly, except of course in World War II when Mother Russia was being attacked.

But now, it is no holds barred. Not even the slightest attempt at subtlety. The Production Codes of past generations were mixed — yes, they did stifle some artistic expression, but they also saved moviegoers of that time from a lot of political and social garbage. Leftists of today will never forgive the Catholic Church for its role in the movies during past generations.

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 6:59 am

    Hollywood isn’t holding back any more? Are you sure?

    They may have come out of their shells SOME over the last 15 years, but I think they probably have FAR more insane views that are still waiting in the wings.

    Statusmonkey on July 7, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Excuse me????? Yes, there were commies in Hollywood, but the studio producers and owners ruled with an iron fist, and nver allowed a pro-Commie film to be produced under their watch. They hated communism, nazism, and the czar, as many of them had at some of their extended family members wiped out by at least one or all three.

    Jonathan E. Grant on July 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm

So maybe, weighing the plusses and minuses, some type of censorship of the movies might not be such a bad thing.

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 7:00 am

Thanks for the review, Debbie….another $30 saved, at least….of the 3 i will go watch La femme du Veme…looks nice plus i have a crush on KST, my fav 50+ AILF…

Can someone please point me to Debbie’s rating system….I get the idea on the Marxs and Bin Ladens, but is there a formal explanation of them?

Yossi on July 7, 2012 at 7:36 am

If “Savages” is nauseating, it is understandable. The other night, I stumbled upon Charlie Rose while channel surfing, and stopped momentarily at the sight of Travolta. (He looked like a mannequin with painted hair.) It was a round table discussion with the principals of this film. The self-aggrandizement was suffocating. They actually thought they had done something important and meaningful; waxing poetic about “underlying emotions” and other drivel. All the time, Oliver Stone sat like a proud papa soaking up his children’s adoration. It was mind numbing and stomach turning. Validation for the fact that they DON’T live in the real world.

Kent on July 7, 2012 at 10:10 am

I will NEVER EVER see any oliver stoned movie!!….I hope it bombs!

Dave on July 7, 2012 at 10:59 am

Is ten Marxes your most Marxes ever? Did you ever review “Natural Born Killers?” I would have given that ten Marxes. Maybe you should retire Oliver Stone to some movie review gulag.

Having read a lot of your reviews, I’ve concluded that you’re a sucker for a good mystery. I’ll bet you were a Columbo fan.

Saw Woody Allen’s “Rome” movie last night with the missus. First, oh my goodness, the demographics. There is no reason in the world young people shouldn’t see the movie, but the audience was all-AARP. As entertaining as it was, and we laughed and smiled frequently, my biggest complaint is that too much of it seemed lazy. Allen’s schtick (I can never figure out the correct spelling of that word) in the airplane seemed old. Alex Baldwin’s character seemed a rip-off from Allen’s own “Play It Again, Sam,” and I KNEW that when Penelope Cruz’s character Milly/Anna went to the reception, all the well-do-do men would know her (in the biblical sense). Too much was too obvious. Then again, Allen’s 75. I can only hope to be coherent at 75, let alone, be clever.

A final thing, and maybe I’m the only person in America who thinks this: Jesse Eisenberg CAN’T ACT. He can’t even do reaction shots. I know that he’s got the young Woody Allen role, which requires a certain bumbling uncertainty to it, but compare Woody Allen’s character in “Play It Again, Sam” falling for Diane Keaton’s married-to-his-best-friend character to Eisenberg’s one note delivery in this movie. But maybe that’s just me – I don’t think Rihanna’s much of a singer or a looker, so what do I know?

gmartinz on July 7, 2012 at 11:32 am

Oliver Stone is one twisted cluck. He condemns America while making millions here, but applauds regimes that would either take all of his money (Cuba) or slaughter him (Muslims) or both.

He claims he served in Vietnam. I would bet he was never at the front, but uses the claim to justify his anti-Americanism.

As to your review of Woody Allen. There are two main reasons I would not see this film in a movie house..Woody Allen and Alec Baldwin, two despicable excuses for human beings. Woody Allen is a pervert, self-hating Jew, who hates the fact that Jews stand up and fight for themselves. He effectively married his daughter, molested other children according to court testimoney, attacked Israel for having the nerve to defend itself during the first Intifada (riots by criminals), attacks any conservatives or Republicans, and is a self-centered scum.

Baldwin is almost as much, or maybe even a bigger turd than Allen. He is a chronic liar, verbally abused his wife and child, physically attacks photographers and gets away with it (the District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan has always been filled with star -uckers, has called for the assassination of Newt Gingrich on Leno once, was investigated while a student at GWU for misappropriation of student government money, etc.

No thanks.

Jonathan E. Grant on July 7, 2012 at 1:50 pm

JEG, as I said, the Commies were more subtle. For instance, they prevented Darkness at Noon from being made. They did their best at all times to prevent films from being made that were critical of Communism, and succeeded to a large extent until the late 40s.

The whole film noir movement was compatible with what the Commies wanted, as it showed the seamy side of American life. Look at some of Jules Dassin’s films in this regard. Some of Warner Brothers’ films during and before WW II, which denigrated Polish people were another example. The Commies, as you may know, defended their takeover of Eastern Poland by saying that they were elevating Poland and saving it from the evil feudalists.

Many of the films of the 30s that glorified Roosevelt were another example of Communist influence.

Comments that belittle Commie influence by saying that there were no or few (exceeding garbage like Song of Russia or North Star played right into the Commies’ hands. It meant that their subtlety eluded their potential critics.

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm

And the studio owners were not homogeneous. Yes, Louis Mayer at MGM was anti-Communist, but the Warners were inconsistent, and rolled with the tide. And don’t underestimate the power of the Commies. Many of the top writers were Commies. and during the popular front and WW II it was not always easy to oppose them. They didn’t come out with overt Commie propaganda, as I indicated above. It was more subtle, and thus, harder to oppose. And of course, they had power for a time in some of the unions.

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 4:40 pm

And of course there was Mission to Moscow which glorified our peerless ambassador to Russia, Joseph Davies. The films in the late 40s which humanized illegal aliens were another example. Read up on it!

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Don’t confuse liberal with communist. I am neither, obviously, but the “reformist” films such as Humphrey Bogart’s “Knock on any Door” while having a liberal bent, was not commie or “leftist.”

As to your comment about censorship, I am opposed to all government censorship, except for those that absolutely relate to state secrets. Unlike Roberts and Ginsburg and the Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Stella D’orra, I am a Constitutionalist first.

The problem lies in the home, that parents don’t educate their children. They don’t tell them that most of what they hear is horse manure, that they have to process it, and the BMW mommy and daddy drive, and the fancy private University that the student is going to is the end result of Capitalism, not communism,even though the professors at the school making $150,000-$400,000 per year teach leftist anti-capitalist garbage.

What is going on in the homes that so many students are pro-Left. I know conservative doctors, whose children go to big name ($$$$) schools, whose children are far left? Don’t these parents teach their children how they get to experience such a school, by the sweat of daddy’s brow?

Returning to films, Chaplin was a liberal, not a commie. He was an easy target for some of the phony politicians who promoted anti-Communism as a means to get re-elected; as a result the anti-Communist movement was tarred and permanently crippled. Very few real communists were caught. Some became advisors to Presidents in the Clinton and Obama administration.

Jonathan E. Grant on July 7, 2012 at 6:38 pm

You’re getting your time periods mixed up. Knock on Any Door came out in 1949, when the Commies were all running for the exits, although, interestingly, Bogart had originally gone to Washington to demonstrate for the Hollywood Ten, and soon was forced say publicly that he had been ‘duped’. So he was not completely free of Commie influence.

Not to revive the hoary Chaplin discussion, but, while not a formal Commie, he spoke at many Commie functions during World War II, and made a number of statements about how Russia wasn’t so bad.

Censorshop is a matter of opinion. But there’s no question that movies were more wholesome in the 30s and 40s than they were later on.

I certainly agree about negative home influences, but I think the perverse morality, social and political norms that we see today are multidetermined.

And my recollection is that the censorship in the 30s and 40s was primarily self-regulation. Although the Government made a few early forays, it didn’t become seriously involved until the late 40s.

And of course, I guess we may disagree on the role of Government in the late 40s and 50s. I really wish we had someone like Joe McCarthy today. He would straighten out the State Department, like he tried to do 60 years ago, for one thing.

Little Al on July 7, 2012 at 7:21 pm

Ohhh nooo… no Katie Perry review!?!?

Katie Perry is my hero. She shows young women everywhere what you can accomplish by … let me start over. Katie Perry is an amazing singer … nevermind.

Katie Perry is a skank!

OMG on July 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm

Oliver Stone is a brilliant director. I have to agree that technical brilliance is not enough and this movie shows a side of America only Islamic terrorists could love. Its great Al Qaeda recruitment material. This is how Americans live? A country where they poison their own bodies, take bribes and kill each other? If I was a Muslim and this was my only view of America, I’d have no reason to change.

Granted, the First Amendment gave Stone the freedom to make any kind of movies he wanted. But this garbage? On second though, while “Shame” – the Rupert Murdoch movie Debbie reviewed last year is still filth, its a better kind of filth than this movie – at least it doesn’t glamorize drug dealers, crooked DEA agents and Mexican warlords. Not that we deserve either of those movies to represent what’s great about America, but if the cinematic talent that Stone embodies in the aptly-named “Savages” represents America, then America is longer the kind of country that much of the world used to admire.

NF: I’m not sure why anyone would call him a “brilliant director.” Most of his movies are actually downright crappy and terribly directed. Just because it’s the conventional wisdom (of liberals) about him, doesn’t make it so. DS

NormanF on July 7, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    He knows how to shoot a movie. That said, my point was even if one is good at something, it doesn’t necessarily make it art. I do agree with you most of his movies are downright crappy! I just think that this man’s talent doesn’t represent the best of America – as you indicated in your review of “Savages”. Your fellow movie critics – most of them liberals – will only focus on Stone’s camera work and ignore the bigger picture (pun intended). That is what truly counts. Debbie, keep up the good work and the other movie critics – they may be in love with the way Stone makes movies but the movies he has made are terribly damaging to America and this is exactly what we don’t need in our popular culture.

    NormanF on July 7, 2012 at 11:56 pm

“He [Stone] knows how to shoot a movie.”

I suppose one would mean that in the sense that, say, Major Nidal Hasan knew how to shoot his sitting-duck victims at Fort Hood (just as one example among many).

ConcernedPatriot on July 8, 2012 at 4:26 am

5 $ donate support for your work? Be kidding me! Become hooker, your work will mean something after that. Shitwork. Remember! Better to be expensive hooker, than a cheap bitch.

4U on July 8, 2012 at 10:30 am

With all respects, Debbie – NORM! has a point.

Oliver Stone knows how to present a movie as a dish – putting various visual, aural and thematic elements in a way that people would want more of the same in different permutations.

I’ve only seen 3 Stone flicks – “Platoon”, “Natural-Born Killers” and “Wall Street” – all of them showing both the beauty and ugliness of the human beast. All of them completely different. All of them well crafted – although I shall never recommend “Natural-Born” as a movie to be watched without possessing the thickest of skins.

Yet I have the feeling that each film share the same statement, they all go on the same worn thread: “I’d rather be dead than here.” For the most part, Stone seems to be obsessed with the worst and most depraved aspects of humanity and offers little in the way of balance. Even the touching father-son moments in “Wall Street” are too few and far-in-between to make an impact.

But in the end, there’s the product. And the name looming in the marquee, “OLIVER STONE”, as a totem intimidating the lesser and weak to see the latest offering. Oliver Stone knows how to design, manufacture and market his consumable wares well. And for that, he should be given some credit.

That said, Oliver Stone is a complete drugged-out id-10-t. F– him.

The "Reverend" Jacques on July 8, 2012 at 11:49 am

    I agree with you and Debbie.

    There is something unsettling about his portrayal of America that one has to hate. I mean all the riveting camera scenes, what the actors put into it – its all wasted.

    Stone is not going to be remembered as one of the great directors of all time, no matter what the liberal conventional wisdom says about him.

    If he told different kinds of stories, I think he would be more positively received. Truth be told, I don’t believe he deserves praise – not for most of his ouevre and certainly not at all for this year’s movie.

    NormanF on July 9, 2012 at 12:21 am

As for Black Lively’s appearance. Where have we seen that before? Ahhh yes. A direct copy of the Tarantino’s Ulma Thurman in Pulp Fiction. A tremendous part with intriguing and memorable appearance. But has been done, you see. By an actress that makes her parts hers.

pat on July 8, 2012 at 1:54 pm

I like Debbie’s rating system. Do 10 Marxes equal one Pol Pot (who I like to call “Lop Top”? Will ten Pol Pots equal one Idi Amin? This is fun…will 10 Idi Amin’s equal one Gengis Khan? And what is the top most awful rating?

kenny komodo on July 8, 2012 at 2:27 pm

Woody Allen,Oliver Stone,Harvey Weinstein, Brian
Roberts, would make great witnesses in front of
They could preach their hatred in front of Congress
and B.O. would give them medals.

Commander Zsvartz on July 8, 2012 at 8:36 pm

I’d like to see Celebrity boxing between Wayne Brady and Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin and Sean Vannity, and maybe Marcus Luttrell and Oliver Stone. Patriot vs Traitor. $100 ppv. Proceeds go to Wounded Warrior.

samurai on July 8, 2012 at 10:55 pm

One of the great actors, the last of the “Golden Age Of Hollywood,” Ernest Borgnine died at 95.

He had a long career, the son of Italian immigrants, served in the U.S Navy until the end of World War II and played in every movie spanning decades.

Borgnine never let fame get to him. I don’t think there’ll be actors of his caliber again in our lifetime.

Ernie, RIP.

NormanF on July 9, 2012 at 12:14 am

Even the weather, as the media commentators noted, seemed miraculous.

Target Shooting Moving onto actually using the bow will be the most exciting part for your child.
It has famous cities, like the city of Hiroshima that gained dubious
fame as the first city on Earth destroyed by a nuclear bomb,
to Kyoto that contains the districts of Pontocho and Gion,
the famous Geisha quarters.

?youth compound bow on August 7, 2013 at 1:58 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field