Seriously!?:crazy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=25&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.arts.movies.current-films&selm=186c4d4a.0208151448.64c20161%40posting.google.com

Keep in mind that the original grossed roughly around $125 million and
was arguably marketed mostly towards the youth crowd (e.g. MTV &
Nickelodeon) and/or the 18-34 demographic (the stars hyping it up
while presenting on-stage at the Oscars is one good example):
http://www.familyeducation.com/whatworks/item/front/0,2551,1-9128-8057-34,00.html

SMOKING
The Thin Man smokes more than 5 times, Knox smokes a few times, Dylan
does so once in a flashback to her rebellious years, some
miscellaneous/background characters smoke (one uses a cigar), and we
see a still smoking cigar in an ashtray (that belongs to Charlie).

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/1127/c.angels.html
The first few days were difficult. Barrymore was distracted by
personal affairs. Liu, who speaks Mandarin and served as an
interpreter, wasn't there for the first month. Diaz was just plain
"wooden," says Yuen. "I thought Cameron was going to be the most
difficult of the bunch, the slowest learner, though they were all a
little scared of me. I didn't think they'd make it through the first
month, never mind four." As it was, the Angels buckled down, bending
their bodies places God never intended them to go.

Diaz was skeptical, too. "The first day was a nightmare," she recalls.

"I'd just quit smoking. Drew and I show up at the production office.

I'm wearing a very short skirt, which might have worried the Master
[their pet name for Yuen] a bit, and he makes us run up and down a
basketball court a couple of hundred times and make kicks. It was
insane." But Yuen persevered, putting his team through their moves
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. After spending a month focusing on
basic kung fu skills they zeroed in on specific sequences for the
movie. Remarkably none of the cast members was injured more seriously
than, as Diaz puts it: "going to bed every night sore from head-to-toe."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...es_eo/10368&e=1
By Joal Ryan

Ready for more Demi Moore?

The smoky-voiced Brat Packer who became Hollywood's highest-
paid
actress in the mid 1990s, only to dig in with the potatoes in Idaho in
the late 1990s, is set to return to the big screen in her first major
flick in five years.
Moore, who turns 40 in November, will appear as an evil "fallen angel"
in the Charlie's Angels sequel, Charlie's Angels 2: Halo, according to
Thursday's trade papers.

Moore's part is described as small, but there's nothing small about
Halo, which reunites Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu in the
would-be blockbuster follow-up to 2000's $125 million grosser.

Production, with director McG returning to the helm, began in June.

Halo is tentatively set to be released June 27, 2003.

Besides the fact that the movie was ridiculously over-hyped, the
utterly slapdash, heavy-handed, boarder-line degrading mentality
towards the script (which tends to suffer from an extreme case of too
much of the "cutes" for its own good) and action sequences, the
reported on set battles/turmoil (which is supposedly one of the main
reasons why Bill Murray chose not to be in the sequel), the completely
disgusting Green/Barrymore angle, etc. To make matters worse, leading
to the release of the first movie (right around the election no less)
the stars apparently got a little bit too comfortable w/ suddeningly
shooting off their rather annoyingly far left views. Watch and learn:
http://www.teenpeople.com/teenpeopl...y/0,8102,58836, 00.html

Unlike their TV counterparts, these Angels didn't have to take target
practice at the police academy to earn their wings: In the movie, the
good guys -- or women, we should say -- don't pack heat. "Guns are
cowardly," says Drew. "With the flick of one finger, you can kill
somebody. I always think about what the world would be like if people
didn't have that ability."

I feel like I'm the only one who can still strongly recall Drew
shilling hard for the "importance of voting" (I bet her publists had
had some part in this sudden front) on such places as MTV,
Entertainment Tonight, and Rosie O'Donnell's show in the mist of doing
publicity for Charlie's Angels.

Here's a rather pretentious statement from Diaz concerning the 2000 Election:
http://www.omnileonardo.com/boards-elec00.html

This election is the most important election that has come upon our
nation in recent history and will effect not only our current
economics but the planet we live on. I'm talking about the actual soil
from which we take our food, the water that gives every organism its
gift of life, the air that we...well, I am sure I don't have to tell
everyone how important oxygen is to our existence. But wouldn't it be
nice to have someone who actually cares about the quality of our one
intangible lifesource. We need someone who will not be swayed by big
business into compromising our environmental integrity. We cannot
ignore this issue. Nor can we ignore the fact that we are dangerously
close to losing the basis of our nation's greatness. The right to
choose. The right to have a choice. Having a choice is something we
cannot take for granted. This country was built on the fundamental
idea that all humans should have a right to choose. Our history shows
that it has been a great struggle to make that statement true.

Why do
we want to move backwards? If we take away a woman's right to have
safe abortion, we are doing every American a disservice. If that right
can be taken away, what other rights are we endangering? We must trust
that the decision not to have a child is not a thoughtless one.

That
the women and men who are faced with the decision will make the right
choice. It is our right inherently, the government protects that right
and I think it is insulting, degrading and violating for anyone to
tell a woman what she can do with her body. If there is any one reason
why a woman should vote, it should be to protect her body.

And for the future of our children, the only way to ensure that not
only our country, but our planet will be able to sustain their lives
and the lives of their children, is to educate. Why not strive to be
not just the strongest country, but the smartest? We must give every
child an education that they can use. One that equips them not only
academically, but gives them the ability to function as productive
members of society. Taking the federal government out of education
leaves education up to local means. Meaning the wealthy can take care
of the wealthy and the poor are still left without resources. It is
important that no child is left to fend for him or herself just
because they are not privileged enough to live in an affluent area. We
can not make the quality of education an issue of class.

It is very difficult to state every concern in such a minimal amount
of space and time, but as election day is literally upon us, it is
clear that something must be done. I can only hope that by stating
these few concerns, I will reach others who care about these issues
and help them realize the importance of their vote. You absolutely
make a difference. You must find a way to go out and vote on Tuesday.

No matter what it takes. Vice President Al Gore has been an integral
part of the success of our nation for the past eight years. He has
proven himself on these issues. The environment has always been a
priority, he vows to defend the rights of women, and his concerns for
a valuable education are shown in his persistence to build and to
nurture our public schools. We need an experienced leader. We must
vote for the most qualified candidate, not for the guy you want to
have a beer with.

http://www.beatboxbetty.com/celebet...rliesangels.htm

Betty: Cameron, can you tell us what you'll be thinking about when you
go into the voting booth to pick our next President?
Cameron: Yes. I will be thinking about our rights as women and our
environment. We want everyone to vote.
Lucy: We're not saying you have to vote for... All: GORE!!!
Lucy: But you should just go out and vote.
Cameron: But voting for Gore is the best choice you can make at this
time. People don't think that their choice makes a difference.
Drew: They also think they'll always be protected and that's not true.
Lucy: God, we could possibly be really screwed if we don't pay
attention and wake up.
Cameron: But the issue is that there is a man out there [BUSH] that's
going to take the rights away from women and tap into our natural resources.
Drew: But there are people out there that think "What do you crazy
Hollywood girls know?" We just have to vote at this election!
Betty: Okay! I'm going! I'm going!

"I Won't Vote for a Son of a Bush!" shirts on "TRL":
www.freerepublic.com/fourm/a39f71604096b.htm
www.muthafukka.com/100200-103100.htmlhttp://66.147.65175/scene/husted1026.htm
www.post-gazette.com/magazine/20001029tv7.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23602&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Hollywood
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=av4nluk4nc35fnfg5e1mahorvjvu0apq5n%404ax.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dalt.tv.nickelodeon%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26hl%3Den



:confused:

Okay, so some of that is goofy or whatnot but why exactly do you ask if we should protest it? Political disagreements? Refusal to watch ditzy actresses? Kung fu is bad? Cameron Diaz talks funny? Drew smiles too much and doesn't like guns? Smoking, unfortunately and shamefully, is at issue in pratically every dang movie so you'd be left out in the cold if you protested or boycotted movies for that reason. Do you intend to protest or boycott the movie, and if so, what are your reasons? I won't be seeing it but that's only because I'm not interested in it's, I'll say, based on the portions and adds I saw from the first one, lack of mental stimulation.

If I protested every movie I thought was going to suck, I'd never see anything!

First and foremost, whenever you hear about somebody crying about how dangerous firearms are to our society and how we desperately need strong gun control laws, I would suggest to tell them that guns don't have minds of their own. A gun is an inanimate object that can't do any harm as long as it isn't in the hands of anybody. It takes the conscious of a man or woman to decide whether or not they're going to pick up a gun, load it, aim, and pull the trigger.

It's extremely hypocritical for those people to front like they're doing all of us a great service by boasting about how they toned down the level of gun-play in an action movie. Liu packed heat in "Payback", Diaz was seen holding a gun (it's even on the poster) in "A Life Less Oridnary", and the ringleader in the form of Barrymore not only made a movie called *Guncrazy* but was (if I remember correctly) carrying around those pesky guns in "Bad Girls" and "Mad Love" (going back to the smoking isssue, I tuned into this dreck a few weeks ago on WGN and she's, a supposed one time drug abuser turned strict vegetarian, smoking up a storm). I remember watching the trio on Rosie O'Donnell's (another person who will hit us over the head w/ her "I don't like guns" stance any chance that she can get) show when the first Charlie's Angels movie came out.

It seemed as if Drew, who produced movie, was putting some spin in response. So she was talking about how it was intended to give the characters an added sense of "power" while referencing Indiana Jones and Superman. Hey Drew, Indiana Jones did pack heat in the now famous scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in which Harrison Ford causally blows away a show-boating swordsman. As for Superman, he's the "Man of Steel" for a reason!:rolleyes: Heck, I'm willing to bet that she served to be a big time influence on "enhanced speical effects" for the 20th anniversery re-release of "ET" in which Steven Speilberg & company decided to digitally change the guns that the feds who were chasing Elliott, ET, and their bike riding posse to walkie-talkies.:eek:

Originally posted by TJL
If I protested every movie I thought was going to suck, I'd never see anything!

LOL- Gotta agree with you there TJL.

Pointing out hypocricy in actresses promoting their movies is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. They're paid to hype in the interest of the bottom line. They're lives are public, and they play many different roles in their careers. If Harrison Ford decides to express his opinon on gun control, and it doesn't happen to agree with yours or that of the NRA, I suppose you could ridicule him also. But, don't forget to differentiate the difference between movies and reality. Drew played the best buddie to an alien once. Does that mean that she shoud be expected to be an expert on aliens or even believe in them?

Originally posted by kittflynn
Pointing out hypocricy in actresses promoting their movies is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. They're paid to hype in the interest of the bottom line. They're lives are public, and they play many different roles in their careers. If Harrison Ford decides to express his opinon on gun control, and it doesn't happen to agree with yours or that of the NRA, I suppose you could ridicule him also. But, don't forget to differentiate the difference between movies and reality. Drew played the best buddie to an alien once. Does that mean that she shoud be expected to be an expert on aliens or even believe in them?

Does marrying Tom Green count as a case of coming into contact w/ alien lifeforms!?:lol:

:rolleyes:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/dynamic.asp?intSectionID=210&intArticl eID=2443
"People just sit behind their [expletive] weapon and they can kill somebody and it's just so cowardly."


Drew Barrymore
Petition signer Barrymore could no doubt lecture us all on courage; after all, she foreswore guns for karate in her remake of "Charlie's Angels." And she looked way cool, almost like she would know what to do in a real mortal combat situation.

http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Hollywood;action=display;num=1027228478

Originally posted by TMC


Does marrying Tom Green count as a case of coming into contact w/ alien lifeforms!?:lol: Absolutely, without a doubt! :lol:

Personally, I almost want to get a little bit offended when I see people like Drew & "Miss Environment" Cameron Diaz rant about various social issues that you've read about in the opening as if they're much worldly than all of us since they're in the public eye. Frankly, it's almost asinine for Drew to force her political beliefs or what not and/or the importance of certain issues upon all of us when she herself can't be the most righteous person in the around! Lets put it this way, she maybe a big movie star and have more money than I can ever dream of. But I might as well surpass her in the I have a bigger conscious. Lets put it this way, while Drew wants to be self-righteous about guns and the importance of voting, unlike her, I never did drugs (especially before I hit the age of 13), I never had two failed marriages before I hit the age of 30, I never dropped out of grade school, and I ever had to get a legal separation from my parents. Even if she did change her act for the better, that still doesn't mean that I at the very least can trust her. What seriously bothers me was that there was a period of time in which Drew acted as if she was trying to pander and show examples of responsilibity young people as if to reach a greater audience (particularly pre-teens). So she shows up on Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards shows (Drew even won the award for Favorite Actress for "Charlie's Angels"), she makes the family friendly "Olive, the Other Raindeer" TV special, when she hosts "SNL" she talks about the variety of dumb things that she did since the first time that she hosted 15 or so years before during the monologue etc., etc., etc.

But then comes the following year as we get towards the main subject of the conversation (which was a movie that Drew *produced*). Lets look at the stats for Drew's character shall we:
http://www.familyeducation.com/whatworks/item/front/0,2551,1-9128-8057-34,00.html
*We see brief flashback footage of Dylan as a recruit and she punches her "drill sergeant" instructor in the face (after tiring of him badgering her).

*Knox turns out to be a bad guy who tries to kill Dylan (and

*We see Dylan at a younger age and she gives "the finger" to the camera. thinks he's succeeded), and Vivian turns out to be his criminal accomplice who fights the Angels. Meanwhile, the mute Thin Man works for them and fights/tries to harm/kill the Angels.

*We see part of Dylan's bare hip (as well as lipstick smeared across her face) as she sleeps in Chad's bed (suggesting they slept together). When she gets up, he states that they can have breakfast and then maybe "a little Chad."

*Dylan shows a great deal of cleavage while dressed in an auto racing jump suit that's zipped down quite a ways in the front (she isn't wearing a shirt). She then tries to distract a limo driver by stating that it's "hot" and then suggestively licking his steering wheel

*We see Dylan get out of Knox's bed with just a sheet wrapped around her, suggesting that they had sex. When Vivian later spots her that way and comments on working undercover, Dylan snidely remarks that hers is a "full service job." Later, Knox states that Dylan was (what sounded like) "a tomcat in the sack."
*Moments later, Dylan hangs from that sheet and then falls to the ground below and rolls down a hill completely nude (seen from a distance and without any detail, but you can tell she's nude). She then picks up an inflatable, donut shaped pool tool that she holds up to her body (thus covering her breasts and crotch, but we see her bare belly and the sides of her bare hips from a frontal view) while knocking on a sliding glass door to ask two boys for help.

*Dylan does so once in a flashback to her rebellious years

*Drew Barrymore's character sleeping with two different men over the course of the film.

http://familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,67-20030,00.html

Oh, and how about the time between Drew and that little publicity hounding, talentless degenerate from Canada named Tom Green...never mind!!!

And if you're not convinced that this movie as marketed very hard to a swarm of young crowds then think again (as the sequel is likely to also) as this article below would like to suggest:
http://www.ew.com/ew/daily/0,2514,3915,howcharliesangelsscored.html

Teen 'Angels'
How ''Charlie's Angels'' scored with young ticket buyers -- Columbia's savvy marketing focused on comedy, sex appeal, and the MTV audience


GIRL POWER ''Charlie's Angels'' courted teens at the box office
by Lori Reese

''Charlie's Angels'' soared last week to a record breaking $40.1 million debut, with help from ticket buyers way too young to have known the feathered, hairsprayed 'dos of the original TV series. Thus far, teens have comprised about 35 percent of ''Charlie's Angels'' audience, says a spokesperson for the film's distributor, Columbia. But according to industry watchers, the kids will have to keep coming back if the $92 million budgeted film is going earn its keep.

Selling a movie based on a '70s show appealing to the Clearasil set is no easy task, says Robert Bucksbaum of the box office tracking firm Reel Source. Take MGM- UA's woeful 1999 feature adaptation of ''The Mod Squad.'' Despite prerelease hype, it grossed only $13.3 million. ''It's so hard, because a lot of people want to forget the '70s. I mean, platform shoes and polyester, who wants to remember that?'' says Bucksbaum. ''Kids don't want to see because they have nothing to identify with.''

Moreover, the teen market has been especially fickle this year. ''Two years ago, anything you released to that crowd would be a hit,'' says Bucksbaum. ''But now, it's very hard to target and find out what they're interested in seeing.'' That may be why Columbia Pictures, in particular, has been hit hard this year. The studio's would be summer smash, ''The Patriot'' -- featuring hunky newcomer Heath Ledger and hunk emeritus Mel Gibson -- earned a respectable $113 million in the U.S. But ''The Patriot's" reported budget was nearly that much -- and the movie's R rating (for its stirring but savage action sequences) may have kept away younger audiences. Meanwhile, the studio's $20 million budgeted ''Loser'' seemed to have everything in its favor: a PG-13 rating, a hip director (Amy Heckerling of ''Clueless''), and two hot young actors, ''American Pie's" Jason Biggs and ''American Beauty's" Mena Suvari. But it too fell short of expectations with a $15 million domestic gross.

This trail of bombs has helped put Sony (Columbia's parent) in last place for market share among major Hollywood studios. But, says Bucksbaum, that could all change with a successful run for ''Angels.'' Despite competition this weekend in the younger market from movies like Adam Sandler's ''Little Nicky'' and the sci fi action movie ''Red Planet,'' Bucksbaum predicts that teens will continue going to see ''Angels.'' ''It will definitely do $100 million plus,'' he says. ''It'll have enough legs -- legs, that's a good word for it -- to sustain itself.''

So what makes ''Angels'' so appealing to the 'N Sync crowd? Here's what Columbia Pictures has done right:

UPDATING Kids might have been turned off if they thought the new ''Angels'' was a period film, says Bucksbaum. The hiring of an MTV trained director -- McG -- ensured that the babe flick would get a millennial look. The movie is not only fast paced, it's buzzing with contemporary gadgetry -- cell phones and inflight TV sets -- that would have made the original Bosley's head spin.

THE BIG TEASE TV commercials and theatrical trailers made it clear that the movie is geared toward younger crowds instead of their baby boomer parents. ''They had those built in teasers in the trailer, the 'Matrix' martial arts, Cameron Diaz dancing in her underwear,'' says Bucksbaum. ''Almost every big teen movie of the last 20 years has featured a star dancing in their underwear. It's always a good selling point.''

COMIC RELIEF The self parodying feature not only spoofs its inspiration but other spy/ action movies, including ''Mission: Impossible'' and James Bond flicks.

THE MTV FACTOR Destiny's Child, the red hot girl group that performs the lead song for the film's soundtrack, did press for the movie alongside stars Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore. Ads for the movie also highlighted blurbs from shows like ''Total Request Live'' instead of the usual Roger Ebert quotes. Hey, who says Carson Daly can't be an influential film critic?

:eek:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3924c8b56ca5.htm

Drew Barrymore's Mom Busted

Some moms never stop embarrassing their daughters.

Take Drew Barrymore's for instance.

The actress' estranged mom, Jaid, has already posed nude in Playboy and tried unsuccessfully to sell Drew's baby clothes and other keepsakes on an Internet auction.

And now this: The elder Barrymore was busted over the weekend in New York on illegal gun charges.

New York's finest nabbed Jaid Barrymore after discovering her putting up promo posters for a rock band on a Manhattan street corner at 2 a.m. Saturday. The cops decided to search her and discovered a loaded, unlicensed .357 Magnum in her purse.

She was booked for weapon possession, criminal mischief and illegal postering and released on bail.

Her lawyer issued the following statement:

"This is an unfortunate situation, the circumstances of which will be fully presented to the court and the hopefully resolved to the satisfaction of all parties."

Barrymore, who has said in the past that she hasn't spoken to her daughter in "a couple of years" and that they are "a bit estranged," is due back in court July 26.

Daughter Drew, meanwhile, is busy finishing up the Charlie's Angels film, and has not made any comment on the matter.

:lol:

So what exactly are Drew's motives towards were opinions concerning guns and the "cowards" that use them. Is she sincerely trying to help keep are neighborhoods safe or is she simply trying to get back at her mother for embrassing her!?
:confused:

I dont know..but I am still planning on Seeing Charlies Angels 2!:)

I get your drift, TMC, but still...Cameron Diaz...Drew Barrymoore? Why geit on them for expressing their views? If you doubt someones motives, look to George: Attack Iraq? Woah Man, hold your horses!

TMC--You've been ripping Drew Barrymoore ad nauseum here and on at least another board I've read. Did this woman do something personal to you? You make her out to be the pariah of Hollywood.
As for her personal life, it's true she had a substance abuse problem at a very young age. With a whackjob for a mother and an absentee drugged-out father, she was a product of her environment. I give her credit for overcoming her addictions. Alcoholism runs deep in her family's history, and it's a difficult and vicious cycle to break. She had a few failed marriages--big deal. She's most likely working through some abandonment issues. Divorce and Hollywood--not exactly a newsflash here.
I don't give a rat's ass about her views or any other actors' views for that matter. My views on Scientology won't keep my away from a John Travolta film. I think Drew is a talented actress who's hitting her stride as she matures and takes on more challenging roles. Riding in Cars With Boys showcased her talents. Personally, I've always thought there was something very sweet and vulnerable about Drew. I enjoy her performances.
You can cite all those movie watchdog groups who count every cigarette that's lit, who's not putting their seatbelt on, every profane word, every act of violence, etc, but what's the point?
There's a movie rating system in place. If you can't handle anything more the a G-Rated movie, that's your choice.
Parents have to be responsible for their children's viewing habits.

Lets put it this way, if Drew wants to be a veggie or Cameron wants to drive electric powered cars and be a devoted environmentlist and what not then so be (more power time). The main concern that I have is when celebrities seriously feel the need to impose their beliefs upon all of us. It's almost as if they're on the verge of risking alienation towards half of their fan base and the paying public. A perfect example of this is when Lucy, Drew, and Cameron went on MTV's "TRL" and tried to hype up the importance of voting. No big deal right!? Well they were doing it while wearing matching t-shirts that read "I Won't Vote for a Son of a Bush!" Frankly, that act was purely hypocritical, selfish, and maybe even a bit childish. I would've had far more respect for them if they simply said "I believe that Al Gore or vice-versa is the right man for the job!" and left it like that rather than make such a pretentious show (while likely abusing their powers as de-facto role models) about what we should do during the election.

Alright, that's your opinion, but, I might have missed something and you may enlighten me if you wish, I didn't see one single "conservatve" bashing a "liberal" in your line up of "annoying celebrities" or in any of your writings. I doubt that this 'abuse of the role model privilege' is completly one sided. Did I miss some that you listed, did you leave them out, or---and this is extremely doubtful---are they non-existent? Unless 'non-existent' is your answer, your writings are so lopsided as to be unconvincing so far as stateing a problem that needs solving or even attention. Besides, what is to be done about celebrities taking advantage of their freedom of speach, except to complain about them? As you have done.

;)
I'm just like Drew, who seems to purpose that we all learn kung-fu in order to protect ourselves, in terms of wondering what exactly would it be like if there was no such thing as a Second Amendment as we would live in a purposed radical utopia that she seems to yearn so much for. I guess if there wasn't such a thing as guns then cops and robbers (not to mention the armed forces) would be stabbing each other to death with as many sharp objects as we can find. If not that then we all would be hitting each other over the heads w/ blunt objects sort of like cavemen. Are these alternatives less violent and savage than gunshot wounds...you be the judges?
:rolleyes:

http://us.imdb.com/board/bd0000008/thread/24793

Here we go again!!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=C....att.net&rnum=1

From Sky News UK

Trouble has already broken out on the set of Charlie's Angels 2 - before
the cameras started rolling

Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore reportedly chose not to go to fitness training in preparation for the movie.

The girls decided they would go shopping together in Beverly Hills instead.

That left co-star Lucy Lui alone in the gym working up a sweat.
Charlie's Angels 2: Halo is due for release next year.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23435


:crazy:

Originally posted by TMC
http://us.imdb.com/board/bd0000008/thread/24793

Here we go again!!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=C....att.net&rnum=1

Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore reportedly chose not to go to fitness training in preparation for the movie.

The girls decided they would go shopping together in Beverly Hills instead.


http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23435


:crazy:
Have you ever been shopping in Beverly Hills? That's more that enough for these gals!
:lol:

im sure these are important issues and everything, but teenagers like myself dont really consider them when we see movies, we either go cuz like theres someone we like in the movie or we are really bored..so I know im going end up seeing this movie whether I agree with the issues or not

Originally posted by hockeybabe528
im sure these are important issues and everything, but teenagers like myself dont really consider them when we see movies, we either go cuz like theres someone we like in the movie or we are really bored..so I know im going end up seeing this movie whether I agree with the issues or not Or, in other words, who gives flying tortilla?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2e40396fb9.htm

Although I object to subsidized victimhood as much as the next free-market conservative, my current beef with Democrats stems from what they have done to my mind rather than what they have done to my wallet. In the traumatized part of my brain formerly occupied by the music for the Small World song at Disneyland, I now hear Democrats calling continuously for a “full, fair, and accurate” recount of Florida votes. Even as multiple legal setbacks take the polish off that dishonest phrase and his political career draws to an ignominious close, Al Gore seems blind to the fact that what he calls full, fair and accurate is more truthfully described as partial, partisan, and error-prone. Accuracy is worth striving for, but if it were the universal salve that Al Gore pretends it is, the American lexicon would never have made room for the phrase “close enough for government work.” Nevertheless, one can sympathize with a desire to be accurate, even while viewing it with cynicism, and pointing out that it is often at odds with the other Gore goal, fairness. Memo to the Democrats: Fairness is completely inappropriate in the winner-take-all political contests for which this country is famous. Appeals to that ideal lose arguments on moral, historical, legal, and cultural grounds.

On the moral plane, fairness takes a beating from hypocrisy. Next time a Democrat bleats about fairness while rounding the metaphorical bases toward disenfranchisement, ask yourself why Democrats opposed to abortion are never asked to make speeches at party conventions. How fair is that? You might also ask why journalists who decry conservative invective never dream of admitting their own biases. When CNN anchor Bernard Shaw grilled Republican vice-president-elect Dick Cheney about his health, most of the media conveniently forgot that our current president has been hiding his own medical records for more than eight years.

If moral arguments are not to your taste, American history, like life itself, is rife with examples of disdain for fair play. This may perhaps be because fairness is a concept usually identified with English prep schools and that Victorian bully who standardized bare-knuckle boxing, the Marquis of Queensbury. Recall the American Revolution, where George Washington enjoyed his greatest success as a military commander by engaging in guerilla-style combat with British troops. As P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, even the contrast in diets between combatants was, in retrospect, unfair. Men fortified by “tea and crumpets” fought men fortified by “raw squirrel and whiskey,” and we all know who won that war. Four generations later, one could hardly say that the overwhelming numerical advantage enjoyed by Federal troops under Ulysses S. Grant was fair to the Confederacy, or to Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia.

Law, of course, has no place for fairness, except in the minds of activist judges who treat the Constitution as a launch pad for various social engineering schemes. In that respect the title we give Supreme Court judges is a misnomer, because their job is to interpret law, not to dispense justice. That this goes unnoticed by lawyers to the left of Ann Coulter is stark testimony to the decline of educational standards at all levels.

Even popular culture consigns fairness to its rightful place in the minor leagues. Although it recently hired a pair of off-camera Republican consultants, the popular TV drama “West Wing” is as unapologetically partisan as the day is long. Responding to a fawning article about the show on the Salon.com web site, one reader pointed out that what the show’s fictional president has that Al Gore and George W. Bush do not are “political enemies that follow a script handed to them by liberals.” Few people seem to mind.

Over on the big screen, the movie “Charlie’s Angels” offers more evidence that fairness is a leaky raft on which to brave the tides of public opinion. In the movie, attractive actresses Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu update roles first played by a trio of beautiful women in 1976. Each of the original crime-fighting “angels” was smarter and sexier than the villains that she helped to apprehend. The movie retains that formula but adds martial arts and athletic stunts. Mercifully, Chad in this film is a boyfriend, not a piece of confetti with political implications. Barrymore produced the film and does not like guns, so when her character is tied to a chair and confronted by a handful of muscular men, she simply fights her way out of trouble. Her colleagues perform similar feats of unlikely derring-do. In fact, every woman in the cast cheerfully defies the laws of gravity, physics, and probability without so much as smudging her makeup.

Like most of her Hollywood cronies, Barrymore is an unreconstructed liberal with a visceral dislike for anything even vaguely conservative. In spite of that limitation, Charlie’s Angels suggests that Miss Barrymore is smarter than the self-styled Inventor of the Internet and the so-called Conscience of the Senate. Unlike Gore, Lieberman, and legions of mind-numbing Democrats, Barrymore never pretends to be fair. That is precisely why her current movie remains a guilty pleasure. Barrymore has her fellow Democrats beat in other ways, too, because her lifetime of public service is shorter but indisputably more entertaining and less dangerous to liberty than their own.

http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Hollywood;action=display;num=1027845440

Wake me when you're through.

How the heck can you pay so much attention to what Drew says without noticing just how luscious the mouth is that she says it with.? I'd be a little---distracted by that if I were the Drew maniac that you seem to be. She's a doll. Who cares what her politics are?

Your posts sound like the rantings and ravings of a disturbed person. Enough already, we got it the first 20 times you said it. I hope you don't think anyone's reading these rants anyway, lol.

Personally,

I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE, I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE!!!

Anyone with me here? Let's all chime in,
I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE. :heart:

Originally posted by JanLady617
Your posts sound like the rantings and ravings of a disturbed person. Enough already, we got it the first 20 times you said it. I hope you don't think anyone's reading these rants anyway, lol.

Personally,

I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE, I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE!!!

Anyone with me here? Let's all chime in,
I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE. :heart: I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE!!!

Originally posted by JanLady617
Your posts sound like the rantings and ravings of a disturbed person. Enough already, we got it the first 20 times you said it. I hope you don't think anyone's reading these rants anyway, lol.

Personally,

I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE, I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE!!!

Anyone with me here? Let's all chime in,
I LOVE DREW BARRYMOORE. :heart:

:mad:
Frankly, you're acting as if I don't have the right to debate another person's opinions and points of view. What how come what I say and post is simply considered to being a mindless rant & rave fest when compared to that article from the first post concerning a "statement" from Cameron Diaz during the Presidential Election (talk about a double standard)!?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by kittflynn
Or, in other words, who gives flying tortilla?


basically and that most teenagers really dont care bout those things

also I am huge fan of Drew Barrymoore and Cameron Diaz- they are cool...

how bout some quotes


Alex: What do you know, he speaks Natalie
~@~@~@~@~@@~@~@~@
Charlie: Once upon a time there were three very different little girls who grew up to be three very different women with three things in common: they're bright, they're beautiful, and they work for me. My name is Charlie.
@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@~@
Eric Knox: So where we going, House of Pancakes or The Sizzler?
Vivian Wood: What are you, the cheapest man on the planet?

http://www.workfromhomemillionaire.com/dbarrymoore.jpg

I for one love Drew Barrymoore!! Very wonderful actress!

She is a good actress. GoldenFamilyTies also thinks she is a good actress.

Originally posted by TMC


:mad:
Frankly, you're acting as if I don't have the right to debate another person's opinions and points of view. What how come what I say and post is simply considered to being a mindless rant & rave fest when compared to that article from the first post concerning a "statement" from Cameron Diaz during the Presidential Election (talk about a double standard)!?
:rolleyes: Hey! S***t can it, man! Enough is enough. You don't have any standards. It's just grill, grill, grill. This is just a danged movie forum. You don't like Drew or Charlies Angels we're convinced of that. Now go tell some one else your troubles, if you must.

Originally posted by TJL

Have you ever been shopping in Beverly Hills? That's more that enough for these gals!
:lol:

LOL! You have got a great sense of humor man. :)

Anyway, I like to read opinions that differ from my own. I may like a celebrity- I'll use Drew Barrymore as an example since she was brought up so much in this topic. I may go see all of Drew's movies, but I have a mind of my own. If its her thing to wear a shirt that says "I won't vote for a son of a Bush" its just her opinion. If I wanted to vote for Bush, I would still go ahead and vote for Bush. I have my opinions and celebs have their opinions. I can't control their mind and they can't control mine.

We are like celebrities in our own way. Celebs voice their opinions to the press right? We are basically doing the same thing on this board. The board is our press. We all have our different opinions, and people are either going to like it or hate it right? If I post on here "Abortion is wrong. Nobody should have an abortion. It should be against the law to have abortions." I'm going to have people reply back to me either agreeing with me, or stating their opinions back at me on why abortion is right sometime.

To make a long post short, we all have our own brains. Nobody, not even celebs can control our thoughts on certain subjects. JMO

Originally posted by kittflynn
Hey! S***t can it, man! Enough is enough. You don't have any standards. It's just grill, grill, grill. This is just a danged movie forum. You don't like Drew or Charlies Angels we're convinced of that.

Now go tell some one else your troubles, if you must.

Hey, nobody forced you to start replying to my posts accept yourself!
:p

.

Diaz was skeptical, too. "The first day was a nightmare," she recalls.

"I'd just quit smoking. Drew and I show up at the production office. "

:confused:

Personally, it seems a bit ironic to see Cameron talk about environmental issues like electric cars instead of the typical fuel powered ones, drilling in Alaska, and signing Leo DiCaprio's petition to pursuade the president to attend an environmental summit in Sweeden or whatever the hell that Euro country was that I saw on the news the other day. But If you look at her quote from up above on this smoking issue. Lets put things in perspective, doesn't the chemicals inside of stuff cigarettes greatly pollute the air!? And it seems a bit funny for her to talk about the right to "protect your body" in the past article when smoking sure as hell doesn't benefit your body's well being.
:rolleyes:

So ends my latest rant!
:wave:

Originally posted by kittflynn
Wake me when you're through.

How the heck can you pay so much attention to what Drew says without noticing just how luscious the mouth is that she says it with.? I'd be a little---distracted by that if I were the Drew maniac that you seem to be. She's a doll. Who cares what her politics are?
It now appears that he's on a crusade against Cameron Diaz as well as Drew Barrymoore. Maybe he doesn't like blondes.....or women for that matter. :eek:

Originally posted by TMC


Hey, nobody forced you to start replying to my posts accept yourself!
:p You're right, TMC. I didn't take myself by the short hairs, or call myself on the phone with a ransom demand, or point a gun at my big toe and repeat to myself, "Reply to TMC's posts or I'll shoot yur toe off," I just tried to have a little fun and reason with ya at the same time. But holly stocker, Batman, leave the girls alone, they ain't really hurtin' anybody all that bad, are they?

Originally posted by JanLady617

It now appears that he's on a crusade against Cameron Diaz as well as Drew Barrymoore. Maybe he doesn't like blondes.....or women for that matter. :eek:

Nice cheapshot!!!:rolleyes:

:happyface

Originally posted by Jenny


LOL! You have got a great sense of humor man. :)

Anyway, I like to read opinions that differ from my own. I may like a celebrity- I'll use Drew Barrymore as an example since she was brought up so much in this topic. I may go see all of Drew's movies, but I have a mind of my own. If its her thing to wear a shirt that says "I won't vote for a son of a Bush" its just her opinion. If I wanted to vote for Bush, I would still go ahead and vote for Bush. I have my opinions and celebs have their opinions. I can't control their mind and they can't control mine.

We are like celebrities in our own way. Celebs voice their opinions to the press right? We are basically doing the same thing on this board. The board is our press. We all have our different opinions, and people are either going to like it or hate it right? If I post on here "Abortion is wrong. Nobody should have an abortion. It should be against the law to have abortions." I'm going to have people reply back to me either agreeing with me, or stating their opinions back at me on why abortion is right sometime.

To make a long post short, we all have our own brains. Nobody, not even celebs can control our thoughts on certain subjects. JMO

http://www.voicesofunreason.com/fullThread$2316

By: Brian Webber on 10/22/2001; 1:27 PM

Rosie O'Donnell, talk show hostess, has offered her opinion on public education. According to the April 9, 2001 issue of Newsweek, Ms. O'Donnell said, "I think there's no way they should have to teach [math] now. We have computers. We no longer need to know why 3x = 2y/4."

I disagree with this opinion, though not as strongly as a person by the name of James.

"Thank you Rosie, for that incredibly unhelpful public comment. Math is extremely important to students who enter a job market. The critical thinking necessary for solving mathematical problems is even more crucial, crucial, unless of course the student becomes a talk show host."

I'll take the high-ground and not mention the questionable grammar on that last sentence. The point is, it's her OPINION, and in a free society, which is what the U.S. is, James, she is allowed to have her OPINION, and even state said opinion on TV is she so chooses.

But, I'll give you credit for not taking the typical extremist path of calling for boytcotts and cancellations. In fact you should be praised for answering spech with speech, instead of speech with calls for censorship. You're a good man James, albeit an angry one.

But you do bring up an interesting thought. Celebrities are often attacked for their opinions. Any time a celebrity proclaims to be either for or against gun control, they take a lot of heat, get lots of hate mail, and risk their careers. It's a no win scenario. Sometimes an actor's politcal affiliation can affect the parts they get, the billing they get on the posters, and the grosses for their films. It's as if we are saying that becasue these people are famous, they should not have an opinion.

But celebrities ARE human beings people! Well, maybe not Kathie Lee, but that's beside the point. Really, should a star's opinions affect their talent? NO! I know Mel Gibson is a Republican, and opposes contraceptives as is the general rule for devout Catholics. I am a Liberal, who is pro-Choice, and anti-organized religion. Do I stay away from Mel's movies? NO! I love, and will continue to love, many of his movies, and I look forward to when Million Dollar Hotel comes out on video. It looks like a dark comedy, and I love dark comedies.

In fact, if you go to the 200 Films I Love section of my website (won't post link here to avoid looking like a Spammer), many of those films contain actors who personal lives I may not care for. I dislike Scientology STRONGLY, but you know what? I still like Grease, M:I 2, Jerry Maguire, Michael, Phenomenon, To Die For, and Star Trek II (Kirstie Alley in case you weren't aware).

[10-06-01 UPDATE] I should've done this sooner, but since my website no longer exists I think you should ignore that last paragrpah's mention of it.

So why can't more people be like me in this respect? Why should we let these people's private personal constitutionally protected opinions affect our enjoyment of their work?

End of rant.

Reply

Originally posted by TMC


So why can't more people be like me in this respect? Why should we let these people's private personal constitutionally protected opinions affect our enjoyment of their work?




who ARE you?

Originally posted by TMC


I look forward to when Million Dollar Hotel comes out on video. It looks like a dark comedy, and I love dark comedies.


Don't waste your time. It is a horrible movie, and Gibson has said himself he shouldn't have taken part in it.

I'm unsure of when TMC himself is writing, and when TMC quotes from the, all the same but many, sites that he brings into it. Maybe you could use the 'Bold letter' ditty to bounce back and forth with, so that I/we could be sure of who's speaking.

Note that I'm quoting (at least in this case) here for those who keep wondering:
http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/hci_ctour.htm

Drew Barrymore
When we mention the graphically violent movie Scream, who can possible forget the bloody death of Casey Becker? Barrymore has added her talent to that of Arquette's in this epic horror movie. Barrymore, as Becker, shows the audience that having a firearm is unnecessary in today's world. If confronted with a serial killer simply submit and he will make your death quick and painless. Even in Hollywood, firearms are not a requirement when creating carnage and gore for entertainment.

http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Hollywood;action=display;num=1027228478;start=0




:eek:

I liked the original.It was very good IMO!

Originally posted by kittflynn
I'm unsure of when TMC himself is writing, and when TMC quotes from the, all the same but many, sites that he brings into it. Maybe you could use the 'Bold letter' ditty to bounce back and forth with, so that I/we could be sure of who's speaking.
My hat's off to you Kitt. I can't get through half of one of his diatribes. Maybe I'll read War and Peace again--quicker than one of his posts.
What do you suppose TMC stands for? Perhaps:
Totally Mad Creep
The Moron Critic
Trashes Many Celebrities
:lol:

http://familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,67-20030,00.html

Katy Abel

Opens November 3, Rated PG-13

Movie in a Moment: Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Bill Murray star in big-screen version of the popular '70s TV series of the same name.

Mom Wants to Believe in Angels: Please trust me when I say I don’t want to be a PC reviewer who always finds fault with every Hollywood movie. I really wanted to like Charlie’s Angels. I started rooting for “the elite crime-fighting team backed by an anonymous millionaire” even before I set foot in the theater. I was tickled to read in Newsweek that Drew Barrymore had vetoed the idea of the trio carrying guns! You go, girl! And for the first 40 minutes or so, sitting there in the dark, I thought maybe, just maybe, they had pulled it off -- given us a movie so campy and funny that violence would become unnecessary. In the end (actually, from the middle on) I guess it was too much to ask.

Let’s just say my wings (of expectation) were clipped.

But First the Good News: There’s a lot of fun in this flick. The Angels are all perfectly cast in their roles. Cameron Diaz is only slightly less spacey than I remember Farrah Fawcett being. Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore are equally delightful. They’re all mildly amusing, as is (of course) Bill Murray. It’s nice to see women this fearless and physically strong. True, they flaunt their sexuality, but usually with comic flair. The fast-paced editing and grinding rock’n’roll soundtrack propel the action nicely.

And for a while, the inevitable scenes of conflict –- Angels versus bad guys –- are really fun to watch. When the Angels do karate kicks, they often do so in unison, like high-stepping Rockettes. They twirl like ballerinas to escape a swirling sword. Their acrobatic feats are so incredible and so improbable that you’re tempted to lose sight of how violent their behavior is. Many people would argue with me (and they might convince me of their point) that this is even more insidious than hard-core screen combat.

Now the Bad News: Aside from subliminal messages –- this is fighting but we’re making it look like lots of fun –- the screen violence in Charlie’s Angels is just wildly uneven, to the point of being off-putting. As the movie progresses, you begin to realize that you don’t know when the violence will look like a well-choreographed dance, or when Cameron Diaz will morph into a vicious kicking machine who forces her victim to choke up shards of broken glass. This alone means Charlie’s Angels is bad news for the under-13 crowd. The movie crosses the line from action to violence, then back again, in such unpredictable patterns that children won’t know what hit them. To lure adults, as well as kids, Charlie’s Angels melds the karate moves of the Power Rangers with hard-core combat, throwing in some shots of Cameron Diaz’s butt and Drew Barrrymore’s breasts for good measure. “Something for everyone,” without a doubt, but heaven forbid that the Angels consider the impact of their disturbing scenes on the youngest, most vulnerable members of the audience. Little matter; Charlie’s Angels seems destined to soar on the wings of its own cynical formula for box office success.

Trek to the Theater or Wait for the Video: Teens will enjoy the movie, and chances are they won’t be overwhelmed by the violence. Not worth a purchase for the video library.

Originally posted by JanLady617

My hat's off to you Kitt. I can't get through half of one of his diatribes. Maybe I'll read War and Peace again--quicker than one of his posts.
What do you suppose TMC stands for? Perhaps:
Totally Mad Creep
The Moron Critic
Trashes Many Celebrities
:lol:

:confused:
If you and your little play-pals don't agree w/ me than fine. But how punkish can one get when you start ripping on one's screen-name the moment that you can't handle what he/she has to say. I'm not here to take pot shots at you when I don't agree w/ your opinons so I seriously don't see the justification of you throwing low blows at virtually any and everything (as you would like to call "diatribes") that I dish out!

:(

Originally posted by TMC


:confused:
If you and your little play-pals don't agree w/ me than fine. But how punkish can one get when you start ripping on one's screen-name the moment that you can't handle what he/she has to say. I'm not here to take pot shots at you when I don't agree w/ your opinons so I seriously don't see the justification of you throwing low blows at virtually any and everything (as you would like to call "diatribes") that I dish out!
:(
Sorry I made fun of your name. It was childish, but you have to understand that if you're going to be inciting people with your inflammatory essays, then be prepared to take a punch here and there yourself.
From here on, I'll only argue the content of your posts.

Originally posted by TMC


:confused:
If you and your little play-pals don't agree w/ me than fine. But how punkish can one get when you start ripping on one's screen-name the moment that you can't handle what he/she has to say. I'm not here to take pot shots at you when I don't agree w/ your opinons so I seriously don't see the justification of you throwing low blows at virtually any and everything (as you would like to call "diatribes") that I dish out!

:( As I pointed out in an earlier post, it's hard to tell what your opinions are because you've been hiding behind miles and miles of other peoples writings. And then, after beating the hell out of all your targeted women... you whine? If you're going to come onto a movie board and rip women to shreds for making movies that don't fit into your eversotiny category of acceptible, you should expect to be taken to task. To snivel about that on TOP of all of your girl bashing is exceptionally weak.

I'm not going to try and change your mind TMC. It seems that you have your mind set on what your beliefs are. I just draw the line between the actor and the character that they play. Take Julia Roberts for example, I've heard she has her bitchy moments-yet she still rakes up at the box office.

I don't agree with everything that a celebrity does. I can think of one moment from Drew Barrymore that I didn't agree with, when she was on Letterman and did the little topless thing. I didn't particurlarly agree with that one, but I admire Drew because of the fact that the woman is tough. What has this woman gone throught? She's battled drug addiction, alcoholism, (and a marriage with Tom Green- that one alone deserves a gold medal) and yet she is still here to talk about it. She cleaned up her act.

How about Elvis? Elvis was addicted to prescription pills. I don't agree with that moment in his life, but I still love his music. I know some people that would probably rant and rave saying that Elvis was a big dopehead and its a pity he still gets recognition for all that he's done. I don't agree with that last statement, but I'm sure some do. I would've loved to have known Elvis the person, but I only know Elvis the entertainer. For some reason, I feel if he had lived long enough- he would've kicked the pill habit.

How about Todd Bridges? He's another one that cleaned up his act. Yet people still give him hell about his past. It's like the name Todd Bridges is permanently married to the description "whose had run ins with the law" Yes, Todd did have trouble in his past. He's cleaned up his act now and I'm clueless why the press can't separate Todd Bridges from his past description.

To make another long story short, its very few times when a person knows a celebrity for being the person that they are. Most of us are just fans. We buy the albums, we rent the movies, we watch the tv shows- we just see the actors and actresses as being entertainers. I want to be entertained for a while, let me turn on the cd player. I don't know Todd Bridges the person. I don't know Elvis Presley the person. I don't know Drew Barrymore as a person. I'm not buddy buddy with any of them or met any of them. If they do something I disagree with, I just shrug my shoulders.

I applaud any person that can get through the big hits in life. You said something about the movie ratings. If you are over a certain age (18) then you have the right to decide what you want to see or not see. I say if you have someone under the age of 18, maybe that is when the parents should interfere and put their foot down.

I'm kind of surprised you haven't done a rant on Marilyn Manson yet. I'm not necessarily a big fan of Marilyn Manson, but I have heard people blamed his music for the Columbine bit. No. Marilyn Manson did not go up to those two Columbine boys and say "Do it. Take a gun and get revenge. Shoot the cheerleader that turned you down for a date and laughed in your face. Shoot the football player that beat you up when you were 14." He didn't do that. From the sounds of it, the boys had a messed up minds. I bet if someone had said the word "shoot" around them, that could've set it up. You never know.

Its the same thing as saying guns kill people. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I'm going to stop this rant for now, but I may be back later to pick it up.

To be fair, I don't know Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, or Lucy Liu personally. I just go by what I see on TV, the movies, and read in newspapers, magazines, and on the internet. But with that being said, I seriously bothers me whenever somebody famous, who essentially, are simply entertainers, have to force their opinions concerning world affairs and social issues upon all of us (especially if it's in such a paranoid and/or alarmist fashion like the aford-mentioned anti-Bush shirt stunt on MTV). I almost what to believe that there are still folks out their who take all of the freedoms and liberties that the United States of America for granted. Lets put it this way, what other place can you think of in which Drew would be able to get away w/ flashing David Letterman on his birthday other than the USA. Besides that, I'm almost dumbfounded to read about how Diaz is very, very concerned about the "rights of women" in America when the women have just about little if any rights in the Middle East (especially when the Taliban was in power).

Frankly, when Diaz & Liu appeared on that telethon to raise money after the September 11th terrorist attacks, it just didn't ring true enough (as did was the case for just about everybody else who showed up) if you ask me (simply reading off of a teleprompter didn't help much). The most agonizing part of this was that I at the very least doubt that millionaires like this even bothered to contribute their own sums of cash (keep in mind that Diaz is reportedly making $20 million for the "Charlie's Angels") sequel while pleading to the average American. Hell I was even a bit skeptical when Drew, a seemingly wannabe peacenik and/or hippie, cut a promo (incidentially w/ Liu by her side) for "Access Hollywood" for the armed forces roughly a month after 9/11 and right around the same period that the bombing in Afghanistan began:
NY POST/MICHAEL STARR...
--"Access Hollywood" will begin airing a new segment tonight called "Messages
To The Troops," in which celebrities including Heather Graham, Patrick Swayze,
James Caan, Johnny Depp and others are sending messages to our troops via the
Armed Forces TV Network. "Thank you for protecting us. I wish that I could find
all the most beautiful words and feelings and hearts and souls to offer my
absolute gratitude," says Drew Barrymore in her message. "I feel like such a
small person saying this but if it would make any difference to have one more
person saying 'Thank You' and have my utter beliefs then I would like to be
that person."

The way I see things...

There are some celebrities that feel that they have to take a stand for something, because they are in a position to be heard.
That's okay, after all is their right, but unfortunalty, most of them really have nothing to say. Some of them are lucky they can read a script, much less pontificate about the state of the union...

I don't care what Drew Barrymore or Cameron Diaz have to say about our country.
When they are running for public office, then I will listen.
Heck,that was the only time I gave a crap about what Reagan had to say.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/charlies_angels.htm

THE MATRIX THUMBPRINT
The film is a reflection of this present era as well. The influence of Matrix is all over this film, but with a difference. Matrix had lots of guns. Charlie's Angels does not. Producer Drew Barrymore made a conscience effort to down play gun violence.

NO GUNS
The disappearance of gun violence is very apparent in the new logo design. Drew Barrymore pulls on a strong World War II image of women, who served the cause of justice with their body strength and abilities rather than with guns. Kudos to Drew. Note: if you enlarge the picture on the left you will notice a very powerful non violent weapon in Diaz's hand. Can you guess what it is. Click and see.

SHE TAKES ON FOUR BUFF MEN WITH HER HANDS TIED BEHIND HER.
To really make her point, Drew has a scene where she takes on four bad guys with her hands tied together. Young women today have so many images of strength and can-do confidence. It is a new day. And I welcome this new self assured "We Can Do It" and "I Will Be A Victim Any More" image for women.


LIFE VS DEATH
The only use of a "weapon" by an Angel is to connect a cable to an air craft via a bow and arrow. It is used as a life saving device, rather than a weapon of violence and death.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/charlies_angels.htmBULLETIN BOARD (rules)
Post your comments -click here.

TWO THUMBS DOWN
Subject: Charlie's_Angels
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001
From: Sherman


To quote the Bible and then to protray these three young women as role models for our children is contradictory. The Bible quote was great... the idea of protraying your body and sleeping with complete strangers to gain something is wrong. Have you forgotten the message of "just say no?" That is not for drugs only... it is also meant for the health of our daughters and sons. Many sexual diseases still are destroying our children. Your message to our children should show the courage and braveness of the modern woman... which it does... but why is the sex so important...and also one last thing... The Church and State are separate... The Actors and the State should not tell me who to vote for.

TWO THUMBS UP
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001
From: Ralph Reed

I want to give a "two thumbs up" opinion on Charlie's Angels. In a country shamed by violence such as evidenced by the high school and even middle school shootings, people should applaud Drew Barrymore's refreshing attitude on guns. The Angels don't have to "gun down" people to fight crime. I would ask for people to think about what Jesus would be more offended by, a partially-exposed breast, or Drew gunning down the opposition in cold blood. But I guess people seem to forget about Jesus' non-violent qualities (such as the instance of healing the slave's ear and such as his comment about casting the first stone). I never cease to be amazed by people who blame their anti-welfare, anti-abortion, anti-woman, pro-gun, and pro-military political views on my Savior. Can anybody really say with a straight face that Jesus is a Republican? He and his apostles lived a communist lifestyle, with each given to according to his own needs. Actually, I doubt that He supports any particular party. The petty politics of humankind are probably far-removed from heavenly pursuits. Again, two "thumbs up" for Charlie's Angels

REVIEW FOR CHARLIE'S ANGELS
Subject: Re: G2SR--
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
From: LizCarr

The Movie: Charlie's Angels Rated: PG-13
Starring: Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Bill Murray.

The Plot: An anonymous millionaire (Charlie) backs a detective agency with three beautiful lady detectives. They fight an evil plot to steal a satellite something or other, while never breaking a nail. This old TV show turned big screen blockbuster keeps us on the edge of our seats as the "Angels" fight crime.

The Opinion: Okay, besides the fact that I hate Cameron Diaz, and the fact that Cameron, lucy, and drew never look not perfect, it was actually okay... It was a little slow in parts, but the action scenes and wardrobe made up for it... The angels do run around in designer clothes and shoes the whole movie... Hey, if you got it, wear it! Some of the moves were unbelievable... But, they did a great job of keeping the original TV show's flavor, while adding a great "Millennium" flair to it... Bill Murray is hilarious! Reasons not to see this movie: 1. Some of the moves were really fake! (Example: Drew does a split kick and hits some guys in the face... It looks like something is pulling her up... Of course, I can't do it either, but they should have taken it out!) Jackie Chan would not be impressed. 2. There was a lot of sexuality... Nothing is shown, though, keeping the PG-13 rating. 3. It is a little long in some places... But not enough that anyone but me would notice.

Reasons to see this movie:
1. Good mystery plot that moves....
2. Special effects.. good.
3. Pretty humorous...
Bill murray makes us laugh, Angels kick butt, and Charlie is ever present with his "Nokia" cell phone, giving helpful advice... Not to mention, the perfect designer clothes, and other numerous financial backers; boat brands, car brands, pop brands... You name it! all in all--- a 6... I wasn't impressed with the karate moves, or the fact that they always look perfect... Was I supposed to be, being a young female??? No... Eye candy for the guys!

ALL THE CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000
From: Joyce

Sorry, didn't see the movie. When the 3 actresses were on Mtv with their "We're not voting for the Bush' son" t-shirt on, I couldn't stomach spending my money on their movie. As usual, Hollywood wants to slander my political party and then ask me to go and spend my money on their films. I have limited myself to view Independent Films only where the "real" creative people are. I have lost any respect that was still lingering for Hollywood since this election. Their anti-gun politics is exactly that, POLITICS. Leave POLITICS out of films please, political correctness has no home in films. Drew said she was setting examples for our "daughters" w/the non-gun issue, really? What about the prancing around in the underwear and sleeping with the enemy whom you just met, yea, real positive role model for our "daughters". Read the previews, sorry, unrealistic, all the bad guys had guns, and these little women would be dead in a heart beat in real life. Which I guess speaks for the angels political affiliation, ALL THE CRIMINALS HAVE THE GUNS!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39f7157508f9.htm


Charlie's Angels go for Gore

Politics/Elections Humor Keywords: ANGELS, GORE
Source: FoxNews
Posted on 10/25/2000 10:16:37 PDT by TheBigB
I'm having trouble pasting the text, but you can see the article here:

http://foxnews.com/entertainment/fox411/index.sml

Basically, these three b*tches, Diaz, Liu, and Barrymore, all wore "I won't vote for the Son of a Bush" shirts to the CA premiere. Ths type of Hollywood BS just makes me so mad I wanna puke. I hope to Hell their movie tanks. Anyone know if there's an official movie site we can FREEP??


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:16:37 PDT by TheBigB
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: TheBigB
Here's the URL for the offical site:

http://www.spe.sony.com/movies/charliesangels/

2 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:24:51 PDT by TheBigB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: TheBigB
These three bimbos wouldn't know their names without a cue card and, like most of today's generation od starlets who are popualar for 15 minutes, wouldn't know how to do an interview with the producer except on their knees.

Think Clorenton has found three contenders for Monica 2000.

3 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:36:25 PDT by MindBender26
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MindBender26
"These three bimbos wouldn't know their names without a cue card and, like most of today's generation od starlets who are popualar for 15 minutes, wouldn't know how to do an interview with the producer except on their knees."

Zahhhh-eeeeeeenggg!! LOL...yet another movie I refuse to patronize due to my disgust with the star's politics!! Gettin' to be where I only watch movies with either Mel Gibson or Clint Eastwood, although Kurt Russell and Bruce Willis get a dollar or two of my entertainment fund as well.

FReegards...MUD

4 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:41:59 PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: TheBigB
I found the whole page interesting:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charlie's Angels Go For Gore

Yesterday on MTV, Charlie's Angels stars Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu took a stand. They wore t-shirts that read "I Won't Vote for the Son of A Bush" while promoting the movie, which opens Friday.


Kevork Djansezian/AP

Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore, and Cameron Diaz, stars of Charlie's Angels arrive at the premiere of the film.




Diaz told me at last night's New York premiere of the film that her campaigning is not limited to t-shirts. "I gave over 50 interviews today by satellite and encouraged everyone to vote, and to vote for Gore," she said.

Diaz is in town for a minute before returning to the Italian set of Gangs of New York. That movie, directed by Martin Scorsese, stars Daniel Day Lewis in his big comeback. But Diaz says she hasn't had scenes with him "yet. Maybe in the next few weeks." Diaz, like the other angels, was otherwise not interested in giving interviews last night. She was particularly sensitive on the subject of her former friendship with jailed money manager Dana Giacchetto. "I can't really talk about it," she said. "We never had that kind of relationship. He was just doing some little things for me."

There is already a lot of talk in Hollywood circles that Charlie's Angels is going to bomb big time.

6 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:48:32 PDT by dfwgator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Mudboy Slim
""These three bimbos wouldn't know their names without a cue card and, like most of today's generation of starlets who are popular for 15 minutes, wouldn't know how to do an interview with the producer except on their knees."

Would you believe this is the kindler, gentler MindBender?

7 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:54:33 PDT by MindBender26
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: TheBigB
Remind me again which of the original Charlie's Angels was oriental. Yes, I said ORIENTAL! Not asian. I never watched the show, so if one of them was Oriental and I am mistaken, sue me.

8 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:55:19 PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Phantom Lord
I'm surprised the NAACP isn't all up in arms since none of the Angels are Black.

9 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:57:11 PDT by dfwgator
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Phantom Lord
I don't think any of the orginals were Oriental--Farrah, Kate Jackson, and Jaclyn Smith, wasn't it?

10 Posted on 10/25/2000 10:59:46 PDT by TheBigB
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: TheBigB
I just let Sony Pictures have it with both barrels...because I was planning on going to it with a girlfriend! They just lost two tickets and anyone else I can persuade.

So what? They already have a punishment worse than death. They will forever have this steaming pile of dogcrap of a movie shackled around their necks for the rest of their lives. PeeeeYEWWWW! *shudder*

17 Posted on 10/25/2000 11:13:12 PDT by JohnYankeeCmpsr
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: TheBigB
Sounds like it's another crap POS hollywood liberal wonk movie.

http://libercratic.government.directnic.com/Journal/culture/movies.htm

Charlie's Angels (2000) - A reviewer(2) said, "One major departure from the Farrah era: No guns for these Angels, thanks to an edict from Barrymore. First-time feature director McG got over any worries and "wrapped myself around the beautiful female form as a weapon."
In order to be politically correct, these chimeras avoided using guns and instead used the female body as weapons, which is much worse, more obscene and more likely to provoke violence against women. By using the body as a weapon, men cannot avoid desiring to commit violence against the women. The interlacing of sexuality and violence by making the violence look sexy and the constant insane obsession with portraying violent females make the men who see it what to beat the hell out of and rape them.
The director said that Liu is "the most fluent in her groundwork, [able to make] beautiful motions with her arms and legs."
Ugly violent motions. If anyone is so perverse as to think that portraying the female body as a violent weapon is beautiful then you should witness the beauty of their violent death.
Barrymore, known for her bisexuality and drug use, said "the kick is in seeing women kick butt while still retaining their femininity."
Insane perversity of the most extreme -- schizophrenic in its viewpoint. The Barrymore's have a history of mental illness in the family, her father was insane.
"This doesn't male-bash," she says.
No, its women bashing. And the inevitable result will be an increase in the women who are bashed by men incited to violence against women by this violent pornography.
"The three Angels are non-competitive but sisterly and supportive. In this we save the men and everyone."
The three amazons are brainless whores who prostitute themselves as mannequins to be manipulated into violent playacting to titillate men's perverse desires for sexual violence. It would be socially less destructive if the men who make and watch this garbage would just get their rocks off on queer men being violent and leave women alone.
Drew said, "That's what's cool about Charlie, he gave women the opportunity to be heroes." Diaz said, "I agree with Drew. … These are women [who have] a good time being sexy and powerful."
Heroes are men, heroines are womin -- they are neither. They are Hollywood whores performing violent pornography, stripping away any respect or concern for women and leaving women in the real world powerless against a society of men with testosterone charged lusts to commit sexual violence against women.
The bitches may not have to wait for some man to attack them on the street, the violence they provoke may have already blown up in their faces. There were reports that real-life fights erupted on the set? Schaefer(2) reported that "Lucy Liu has repeatedly denied that she and co-star Bill Murray (who plays Angel cohort Bosley) came to blows, but Barrymore admits there was some tension." "Bill is just a rascal," Drew says. "Pure fun. He would show up for days on end when he wasn't working — and then come late when he was supposed to be working. He's a slippery bar of soap; you don't take it personally."
That's probably just marketing hype to get the sickos who get into this **** jacked up for the film -- a little fantasy foreplay before the sado-masochism in the movie. Besides, cowardly bitches like these only playact violence safely on screen while women in society are the victims of those who incite the lusts of men to commit violence against women.
Making a film of women using their bodies as weapons displays and increased hatred for the female body and an advance in the evil of a culture that is obsessed with destroying women as we know them.
Christian Spotlight on the Movies rated the film "Very Offensive" on its "Morality Rating", and said: "Furthermore, several choreographed fight scenes featuring the girls and a hired gun (Crispin Glover) are apparently aimed at exhibiting female empowerment but they instead might send mixed signals to young viewers about the call for violence - a fight producer/actor Barrymore claims to champion...It's hard to imagine who the target audience might be other than depraved teen boys because the film's subject matter and intelligence is so vapid - truly it's an equal opportunity abuser of intellect. And just when you think some wit might escape the lips of one of the lead actresses at some point during the film they instead open their mouths to spew more horrid idiocy written by screenwriters Ryan Rowe, Ed Solomon and John August...Unfortunately, womankind loses more moral ground than it takes with Charlie's Angels."

TMC, you have posted the most bigoted, overreactive, filthy, perverse, onesided, disgusting, flatulent garbage that I've ever seen on this board.

no one is ever going guess what movie I was watching today??? hey TMC wanna take a guess?

TMC,

Let me ask you a question. You've been a member of sitcoms for quite awhile. I considered you a cool person, but what has happened lately? All you do is copy rants from other boards and put them on this board.

Look at this thread. Please everybody just look at it. The same people are replying. Most of the other members are probably skipping through these things. We must be caught in a time warp or something, because the same ones keep replying. Hardly anyone new posts on this thread.

I don't like Julia Roberts, but you don't see me concentrating thread after thread on why I dislike her.

Originally posted by kittflynn
TMC, you have posted the most bigoted, overreactive, filthy, perverse, onesided, disgusting, flatulent garbage that I've ever seen on this board.

What exactly did I say here that was shamelessly "disgusting, filthy, bigoted, and perverse!" from my own words (i.e. without a link)!? Of course, I'm going to be one-sided if I'm going to address one's opinion. What, I'm being over-reactive when compared to the low-brow pot-shots that you and JanLady keep throwing at me the second that you see something from me that you don't like (get real)!?

:eek:

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jenny
TMC,

Let me ask you a question. You've been a member of sitcoms for quite awhile. I considered you a cool person, but what has happened lately? All you do is copy rants from other boards and put them on this board.

Look at this thread. Please everybody just look at it. The same people are replying. Most of the other members are probably skipping through these things. We must be caught in a time warp or something, because the same ones keep replying. Hardly anyone new posts on this thread.

I don't like Julia Roberts, but you don't see me concentrating thread after thread on why I dislike her.

I don't see anything around this site that boldly states that you can only post a specific amount of replies to one particular thead at a time!

Originally posted by TMC


What exactly did I say here that was shamelessly "disgusting, filthy, bigoted, and perverse!" from my own words (i.e. without a link)!? Of course, I'm going to be one-sided if I'm going to address one's opinion. What, I'm being over-reactive when compared to the low-brow pot-shots that you and JanLady keep throwing at me the second that you see something from me that you don't like (get real)!?

:eek:

:rolleyes: It makes no difference if you post a link or say the words yourself so long as you are posting links with words that express your views, which is what you've been doing, you are responsible for what you or your link postings say. Your chosen posts use words such as 'whore' to decribe your actress nemesises. Insults such as "lowbrow" coming from you are absurd after what you've been posting. Besides, I nor Janlady have thrown anything lowbrow at you anyway. We've been responding quite gently in comparison to your not at all gentle and voluminous insults. Janlady's jokes about your TMC handle were nothing to whine about as I told you after you did indeed whine about them. It astounds me that you put that stuff on the board and then come flying in with your red face icon and scream at anyone who doesn't like it.

A couple of summers during my teenage years I and many of my friends used to go to the beach practically everday. And everday around a certain time of the afternoon, this one man, who was always fully clothed including a tattered suit coat and black old worn out street shoes, would come around and begin shouting out is brand of hellfire bible preachings. Since he did that so often and since he was so apparently in his own world, everyone either ignored him, made fun of him or, out of curiosity, gave him a few moments of attention. But he was such a pitiful, pathetic character that most of us chose to ignore him. It was obvious that he would continue to come around and preach his weird brand of venom everday no matter what, so everyone instinctively chose to walk around him as if he were nothing more than a harmless barking dog on a leash waiting for his owner to come back and take him home for the day. Unfortunately, ignoring him never was a succesful method of getting him to stop coming around. Will history repeat itself with the TMC show?

Originally posted by kittflynn
It makes no difference if you post a link or say the words yourself so long as you are posting links with words that express your views, which is what you've been doing, you are responsible for what you or your link postings say. Your chosen posts use words such as 'whore' to decribe your actress nemesises.

Would you like for me to personally say that stuff about your family (don't be so naive and shallow-minded)!


Insults such as "lowbrow" coming from you are absurd after what you've been posting. Besides, I nor Janlady have thrown anything lowbrow at you anyway. We've been responding quite gently in comparison to your not at all gentle and voluminous insults.

Janlady's jokes about your TMC handle were nothing to whine about as I told you after you did indeed whine about them.

Come on, making fun of somebody's handle just because they don't agree w/ them is absolutely unfair to the conservation regardless!

It astounds me that you put that stuff on the board and then come flying in with your red face icon and scream at anyone who doesn't like it.

I'm keeping up w/ what ever is "relevent" the subjects at hand which you seem to want to look only at face-value since you have to believe that virtually any and/or every link that I provide also relfects my personal beliefs.

A couple of summers during my teenage years I and many of my friends used to go to the beach practically everday. And everday around a certain time of the afternoon, this one man, who was always fully clothed including a tattered suit coat and black old worn out street shoes, would come around and begin shouting out is brand of hellfire bible preachings. Since he did that so often and since he was so apparently in his own world, everyone either ignored him, made fun of him or, out of curiosity, gave him a few moments of attention. But he was such a pitiful, pathetic character that most of us chose to ignore him. It was obvious that he would continue to come around and preach his weird brand of venom everday no matter what, so everyone instinctively chose to walk around him as if he were nothing more than a harmless barking dog on a leash waiting for his owner to come back and take him home for the day. Unfortunately, ignoring him never was a succesful method of getting him to stop coming around. Will history repeat itself with the TMC show?

There are people in this world trying to blow us up w/ their terroristic methods yet, you want to paint the picture that I'm far more evil just because I using the right to adress an opinion concerning movies and what not!

ok i think ur obsessing too much. let it go, u dont have to freak out. fine if u feel that way, but i would like to see charlies angels. i think its harmless. its just a fun movie. fine if they do this or do that. Most people dont worry about if they like Gore or not. i read like 15 percent of what u posted and it repeats its self. we got it, ok. they are just doing their thing. if it was a normal person doing half those things, u wouldnt care, so what do they matter? let it go, u gotta just let it go and figure thats life, sucks for ur opinon.

Originally posted by LucyCompanyPhan
ok i think ur obsessing too much. let it go, u dont have to freak out. fine if u feel that way, but i would like to see charlies angels. i think its harmless. its just a fun movie. fine if they do this or do that. Most people dont worry about if they like Gore or not. i read like 15 percent of what u posted and it repeats its self. we got it, ok. they are just doing their thing. if it was a normal person doing half those things, u wouldnt care, so what do they matter? let it go, u gotta just let it go and figure thats life, sucks for ur opinon.

If all that I've done is "repeat myself" just because there's a dozen of replies for this thread, then frankly, you really ought to read more than 15% of what I post!:confused:

:talk:

I have nothing more to say to TMC on this sublject, I just came on to tell anyone who goes to the trouble to read the paragraphs that TMC quoted me in, be sure to dicipher where I leave off and where he begins. He mixed his replies to me all in bold lettering so it's hard to tell what the heck is going on there if you aren't paying attention. I wouldn't want anyone to mistake his red-faced scoldings for anything that I said.

So in conclusion, :D to all of you who should decide to catch the Charlies Angels II movie, have fun, enjoy, peace be with you. ;)
:cheers:

Originally posted by TMC


If all that I've done is "repeat myself" just because there's a dozen of replies for this thread, then frankly, you really ought to read more than 15% of what I post!:confused:

:talk:



u really ought to let it go, like i said. frankly i dont really care what ur opinon of charlies angels is. i read this thead cos i wanted to see why u hated it so much and now i that i have read it. i know im just wasting my time, just the same as what your doing. You realize your trying to change our opinons just the same as "charlies angels" has, so i dont really understand why its so important to u. too bad that u dont like it, tough luck, deal with it. most people arent going to worry about it and they are gonna go see the movie, enjoy it and the movie is gonna make 150 million and the cast are gonna be richer. thats all thats coming out of this and u know it. sorry if im coming off rude or cold or whatever, i dont mean to. im just expressing the way i feel just as well as any other person. famous or not.

Personally, I would prefer to see a movie so that I can be entertained without having to worry about having one of the star's politicial agendas thrown in as a tie-in. I seriously would like to know this question in terms of the double-standard point-of-view. Why is it wrong to put some sort of strong emphasis on guns yet it's okay to glamourize smoking, use the Lord's name in vain at one point, and shamelessly show disrespect towards women by using a term to describe female dogs all the while using various sexual motives (i.e. skimpy outfits) in order to get the job done!? I totally agree w/ what the one woman said at the bottom of the post featuring the "Hollywood Jesus" bulletin board. If Drew Barrymore & company were really doing our children a favor, then she would also condemn the rest of the stuff that I just mentioned besides the drug issue, rather than using her producer's credits to shove a one-sided liberal agenda down all of our throats:
ALL THE CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000
From: Joyce

Sorry, didn't see the movie. When the 3 actresses were on Mtv with their "We're not voting for the Bush' son" t-shirt on, I couldn't stomach spending my money on their movie. As usual, Hollywood wants to slander my political party and then ask me to go and spend my money on their films. I have limited myself to view Independent Films only where the "real" creative people are. I have lost any respect that was still lingering for Hollywood since this election. Their anti-gun politics is exactly that, POLITICS. Leave POLITICS out of films please, political correctness has no home in films. Drew said she was setting examples for our "daughters" w/the non-gun issue, really? What about the prancing around in the underwear and sleeping with the enemy whom you just met, yea, real positive role model for our "daughters". Read the previews, sorry, unrealistic, all the bad guys had guns, and these little women would be dead in a heart beat in real life. Which I guess speaks for the angels political affiliation, ALL THE CRIMINALS HAVE THE GUNS!!!

SHUT UUUPPP!!
:smash: :angryfire :livid: :nonono:
:mad: :argue: :boxing: :bash:
:nonono: :angryfire :livid: :smash:

Originally posted by LucyCompanyPhan




u really ought to let it go, like i said. frankly i dont really care what ur opinon of charlies angels is. i read this thead cos i wanted to see why u hated it so much and now i that i have read it. i know im just wasting my time, just the same as what your doing. You realize your trying to change our opinons just the same as "charlies angels" has, so i dont really understand why its so important to u. too bad that u dont like it, tough luck, deal with it. most people arent going to worry about it and they are gonna go see the movie, enjoy it and the movie is gonna make 150 million and the cast are gonna be richer. thats all thats coming out of this and u know it. sorry if im coming off rude or cold or whatever, i dont mean to. im just expressing the way i feel just as well as any other person. famous or not.

I'm simply not writing a prolonged and/or broken-up general review of the first movie (that's too easy). Virtually all of this time, I've been trying to focus more on the needless, hypocritical, and considerably self-righteous political undertones surround this movie like the gun issue and the "Son of a Bush" shirt stunt on MTV for example.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by JanLady617
SHUT UUUPPP!!
:smash: :angryfire :livid:
:mad: :argue: :boxing:

Oh that was a *very* clever rebuttal JanLady!!!:rolleyes:

:crazy:

Originally posted by TMC
I'm simply not writing a prolonged and/or broken-up general review
Promises, promises. :rolleyes2

Originally posted by kittflynn
I have nothing more to say to TMC on this sublject, I just came on to tell anyone who goes to the trouble to read the paragraphs that TMC quoted me in, be sure to dicipher where I leave off and where he begins. He mixed his replies to me all in bold lettering so it's hard to tell what the heck is going on there if you aren't paying attention. I wouldn't want anyone to mistake his red-faced scoldings for anything that I said.

So in conclusion, :D to all of you who should decide to catch the Charlies Angels II movie, have fun, enjoy, peace be with you. ;)
:cheers:

I'm going to agree with Kitt on this one. This will be my last reply to any of the basher posts.

You know, if you don't want to see any of these modernized tie in political throw ins as you've stated. I would recommmend you stick with the shows on TVLand and Cartoon Network.

Damn! I forgot. A bunch of shows throw in those little tie in. Little Beaver and Larry Mondello smoked a pipe. There goes someone's political ideas. Why are they telling us when we can and can't smoke? Maybe the day Beaver was born, Ward should've shoved a cigar between Beav's lips and told him to "Light it up boy!"

Avoid the Flintstones too. Fred thinks his mother in law is a battle- ax. There they go again. They are trying to shove it down the viewing publics throat again. It saddens me to think my future husband may think my mother is a battle-ax just because he watched the Flintstones.

Goooollllllyyyyyy! I guess the only solution to the problem is to turn the tv off or leave the room. Can we do that? Can we turn the tv off? It is so hard. All those commericials telling us not to turn the channel or turn the set off. Why have they gotta make it so complicated?

I'm outta here. By the way, TMC don't check out imdb.com for a few days. They have a quote from the Charlie's Angels movie down at the bottom. Don't want anybody flipping their lids or anything.

Originally posted by Jenny


I'm going to agree with Kitt on this one. This will be my last reply to any of the basher posts.

You know, if you don't want to see any of these modernized tie in political throw ins as you've stated. I would recommmend you stick with the shows on TVLand and Cartoon Network.

Damn! I forgot. A bunch of shows throw in those little tie in. Little Beaver and Larry Mondello smoked a pipe. There goes someone's political ideas. Why are they telling us when we can and can't smoke? Maybe the day Beaver was born, Ward should've shoved a cigar between Beav's lips and told him to "Light it up boy!"

Avoid the Flintstones too. Fred thinks his mother in law is a battle- ax. There they go again. They are trying to shove it down the viewing publics throat again. It saddens me to think my future husband may think my mother is a battle-ax just because he watched the Flintstones.

Goooollllllyyyyyy! I guess the only solution to the problem is to turn the tv off or leave the room. Can we do that? Can we turn the tv off? It is so hard. All those commericials telling us not to turn the channel or turn the set off. Why have they gotta make it so complicated?

I'm outta here. By the way, TMC don't check out imdb.com for a few days. They have a quote from the Charlie's Angels movie down at the bottom. Don't want anybody flipping their lids or anything.

Did those aford-mentioned TV programs also use and/or exploit the aspect of entertainment to promote one's particularly one-sided political agendas/propaganda like who we should and shouldn't vote for!? I guess that you also believed that people from the Stone Age really lived like we do in the present expect w/ different, more crude and manual forms of technology like on an *animated* program like "The Flintstones."

Originally posted by TMC


I'm simply not writing a prolonged and/or broken-up general review of the first movie (that's too easy). Virtually all of this time, I've been trying to focus more on the needless, hypocritical, and considerably self-righteous political undertones surround this movie like the gun issue and the "Son of a Bush" shirt stunt on MTV for example.

:rolleyes:


why is it so important to u? u know its gonna happen. its happened before and its always gonna happen & theres really nothing u can do about it. they are expressing theirselves freely. why are u so worried about it now, the political election was like 2 years ago. old ladies in your apartment building are going to be knocking on your door asking you to vote for Bush, whats the difference if Drew Barrymore does it. Whatever they do, doesnt effect anyone. You really shouldnt be worry about it. why dont u go support the aids fountain, at least you could be helping someone other than worrying about the cast of the charlies angels and annoying everyone. Look around to what your saying, this really isnt the place for it, and just listen to how stupid u sound. You have spent hours crying and complaining about Drew Barrymore and the world is full of other problems. Seriously, u gotta get some help or something.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LucyCompanyPhan
[B]


why is it so important to u? u know its gonna happen. its happened before and its always gonna happen & theres really nothing u can do about it. they are expressing theirselves freely. why are u so worried about it now, the political election was like 2 years ago. old ladies in your apartment building are going to be knocking on your door asking you to vote for Bush, whats the difference if Drew Barrymore does it.

The difference is that old ladies around my apartment don't make millions upon millions of dollars for a movie and go around fronting for the press about the *general* importance of voting only to be extremely two-faced and selfish about it when we finally get to th bottom-line!:happyface

I'm gonna see this movie because I liked the first one and I think it should be good since Jaclyn Smith is reprising her role from the original Charlie's Angels tv series in CA2.

NY DAILY NEWS/RUSH & MOLLOY...

Love Takes Time

Another Drew Barrymore romance is said to have flamed out.

The actress, whose marriages to Jeremy Thomas and Tom Green were so quick they
beg to be played back in slo-mo, has now split with Fabrizio Moretti, the
drummer for the Strokes, according to Britain's Daily Star.

The breakup happened minutes before the actress boarded a plane to London to
join Moretti at England's Carling Weekend Festival, according to the paper.

"Drew and Fabrizio ... are both very busy with their careers, which left them
little time for love," says a band insider. "They're still friends, but they
realize at the moment they don't have time for a relationship."

Barrymore's rep did not return calls.

NY Daily News / August 28, 2002:crazy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...es%26start%3D25

Drew Barrymore relaxes vegetarian lifestyle for fashion

Drew Barrymore has admitted she has given up her strict vegetarian lifestyle
in order to enjoy fashion.

The Charlie's Angels star says she's tired of having to shop at clothing
stores that don't stock leather.

But she says she still insists on buying products from cosmetics companies
that don't test on animals.

"I still don't eat a ton of meat, and I don't wear a ton of leather," she
told imdb.com.

"But I just don't put strict limitations on myself anymore. I don't beat
myself up. I didn't wear certain designers because I didn't want any animals
to suffer for beauty and stuff, and so I literally was dressed by Old Navy
at one point.

"I still shop there, happily. And Urban Outfitters and the Gap - I love
those stores. You need basics for stability, but eventually I got tired and
wanted to play again. Dressing is like an art form - it's so much fun."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2475 1
http://www.conservativex.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Hollywood;action=display;num=1029624310

My dad said the movie Charlies' Angels was bad. I don't know if he heard it somewhere or saw it with his girlfriend, but that's the review I got from him. I don't think a Charlies' Angels 2 should be
bothered with making. It's just a waste of time, and money, for the cast and crew.

Suddenly, I'm looking foward to seeing this movie.

Cameron Diaz's activist campaign to reduce U.S. oil dependence has come to a close for now.

Cameron's animated appeal generated hundreds of thousands of signatures on the petition urging automakers to put cleaner cars on the road.

To all of you who signed the petition, heartfelt thanks from Cameron Diaz and NRDC.

If you subscribed to Earth Action when you signed the petition, you'll receive updates from NRDC on other ways you can get involved.

If you didn't sign the petition you can still take environmental action by visiting NRDC's Earth Action center and subscribing to our Earth Action bulletin.

Thanks again!



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/618158/posts

Who Do You Know That Owns A Hybrid?

If fans would follow their lead, how about Cameron Diaz (Toyota Prius), so does Seinfeld creator Larry David, Leonardo DiCaprio - so much that he bought three more, for his mom, dad and stepmom!
"Until you own a hybrid, you don't realize how wasteful standard vehicles are."

Leonardo DiCaprio, owner of a Toyota Prius

http://www.worldnation.com/enviro/index.html

http://www.jade.dti.ne.jp/~hoflich/negi2.html

Charlie's Angels Not Realistic - Anyone who's seen the remake of Charlie's Angels with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu knows that there is plenty of action and eye-candy for anyone who wants some, but everybody seems to be forgetting how incredibly unrealistic it is - no Angel is ever seen using a gun! Whatever prompted producer Barrymore to adopt a "no guns" policy may be the kiss of death for this otherwise very good film, which would be a shame. Making a Hollywood action thriller without firearms is not only un-American, it is also totally un-Hollywood! What about protecting the fifth amendment, people?

:happyface

http://www.omnileonardo.com/globalgreen.html#hello

Leo DiCaprio calls on president Bush to join World Earth Summit
Posted by Lynlee - August 14, 2002

Hollywood heavyweight Leonardo DiCaprio and celebrity pals Tobey Maguire and Cameron Diaz have taken time out from their film-making chores to urge US President George Bush to take part in the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, later this month.

The actors held a press conference in Los Angeles organised by the American organisation Global Green USA, an affiliate of Green Cross International, to call on President Bush to join a crucial initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The US President has yet to say whether he’ll join some 100 leaders, including Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, at the high-level meeting.

“I’m here as a concerned citizen,” said Leo. “My purpose is quite simply to urge President Bush to attend the Johannesburg world summit. Mr Bush we are asking for your support to be the president that looks towards the future.

“Here is your opportunity to do the right thing for future generations,” an impassioned Leo continued. “I believe we need a new sense of shared destiny, a sense that we’re all in this together. Despite the fact that we’re the biggest economy, we’re the largest polluter. President Bush, please go prepared to join the vast majority of nations in constructing a concrete plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Following the press conference, Leo, Cameron and Tobey shot over to Hollywood for a “Rock The Earth Summit” awareness party, where the music was provided by Stone Temple Pilots singer Scott Weiland.

Leo Saves the Planet!
Posted by Jeggy - August 13, 2002

Leonardo DiCaprio took some time off to focus on an issue near and dear to his heart -- the environment. Monday afternoon Leo spoke out in support of a national environmental organization, Global Green USA, on a crucial initiative he and many others are urging president Bush to join.

With the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg just weeks away, a meeting with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet, the Hollywood heavyweight sent a message to the President, who has yet to join the conference or the organization.

"I'm here as a concerned citizen," Leo stated. "My purpose is quite simply to urge President Bush to attend the Johannesburg world summit. Mr. Bush, we're asking for your support to be the President that looks towards the future."

"Here is your opportunity to do the right thing for generations," an impassioned Leo continued. "I believe we need a new sense of shared destiny, a sense that we're all in this together. Despite the fact that we're the biggest economy, we're the largest polluter. President Bush, please go prepared to join the vast majority of nations in constructing a concrete plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Following the press conference, Leo and some concerned celebrity pals, including Cameron Diaz and Tobey Maguire, ventured over to Hollywood for a "Rock the Earth Summit" awareness party. Stone emple Pilots singer Scott Weiland gave a special performance, while the rest of the globally concerned toasted their achievement on bringing the issue to the forefront.

Don't miss tonight's ET, as Leo speaks out about his concerns!

Drew Barrymore was banned from PETA after one of the founders watched
"Freddy Got Fingered." The founder named Sharon Moore concluded that even
though they needed Drew's donations that they wouldn't want any from
someone who would marry a man who did such sick things in the movie. It
wasn't so much banning her for marrying him but for starring in a moive
like that. So as a matter of dignity, Drew is banned from all PETA
functions and supposedly Alicia Silverstone broke off their freindship
because of this. It is even said she and Christina Applegate are sort of
on rocky ground.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=15138-3C12936D-60%40storefull-622.iap.bryant.webtv.net&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dalt.fan.drew-barrymore%26start%3D100

:p

Yes please protest... 1 Charlie's Angels was bad enough

I almost have to get an absolute kick towards how absolutely
hypocritical Drew can get! It's funny how she rants and raves about
how "cowardly" folks (is she saying that the police and military are
"cowards" too just like your average, run of the mill thug) who use
guns are. This is the same Drew Barrymore, who was extremely going
neurotic over the idea of having to travel to New York via the
airplane (even if it was a month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) in
order to host "Saturday Night Live." Then, when she finally gets to
New York, Drew runs scared from the studio after reports of there
being anthrax started to spread (who's the coward now Drew).

Personally, it's rather interesting how Drew seems to be *so*
concerned about the level of violence in her movies like "Charlie's
Angels" that she vowed and even boasted about her having such a
disdain for firearms, that she decided to use her power as a producer
to keep them out of the hands of the main characters unlike in the old
TV show. Now, lets get back to the subject of violence in Drew
Barrymore's movies. Isn't this the same Drew Barrymore who agreed to
appear in an extremely violent (and not in the cartoonish fashion that
"Charlie's Angels" was) movie like "Scream!?" As an interesting
tidbit, Barrymore's character gets stabbed to death in like the first
10 minutes of "Scream." Hey Drew, I don't know about you, but I
certainly would have gotten my pistol in order to do away w/ a
psycopathic serial killer rather than stand around and cry while
hoping that the cops will make it on time!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=186c4d4a.0208222127.1625fa76%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcharlie%27s%2Bangels%2B2%2Bgroup:talk.politics.guns%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D186c4d4a.0208222127.1625fa76%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1

She wasn't violent in 'The Wedding Singer'. That's a pretty cool movie. So the acting wasn't all that great, but the songs were way out and of course Billy Idol was in it......

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01cmono.phtml


Drew Barrymore's Monologue

.....Drew Barrymore



Drew Barrymore: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am so excited to be back hosting
"Saturday Night Live". But I was so afraid to fly here - so I canceled my trip. And then I
saw Guiliani on television saying to be brave. So, the next day I got on an airplane. Then
we started rehearsing, and I got calm, I got really excited. And then, yesterday, they
discovered anthrax in the building! So, I immediately left. I went back to the hotel, and I
thought again about being brave. So I came back, and I'm here, and you're here, and
you're being brave, too! And I thank you for it! And I want to thank my husband, because
he's here and he's supporting me - Tom, thank you!

[ Tom Green is seen sitting in the audience, wearing a gas mask over his face ]

It's okay, you can take off the mask, be brave, it's okay, go ahead. Take it off, honey!

[ Tom removes the gas mask from his face ]

I love him! I love you guys! We have put together a great show for you - Macy Gray is
here, it's gonna rock! Stick around! Alright!

Originally posted by TMC
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01cmono.phtml


Drew Barrymore's Monologue

.....Drew Barrymore



Drew Barrymore: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am so excited to be back hosting
"Saturday Night Live". But I was so afraid to fly here - so I canceled my trip. And then I
saw Guiliani on television saying to be brave. So, the next day I got on an airplane. Then
we started rehearsing, and I got calm, I got really excited. And then, yesterday, they
discovered anthrax in the building! So, I immediately left. I went back to the hotel, and I
thought again about being brave. So I came back, and I'm here, and you're here, and
you're being brave, too! And I thank you for it! And I want to thank my husband, because
he's here and he's supporting me - Tom, thank you!

[ Tom Green is seen sitting in the audience, wearing a gas mask over his face ]

It's okay, you can take off the mask, be brave, it's okay, go ahead. Take it off, honey!

[ Tom removes the gas mask from his face ]

I love him! I love you guys! We have put together a great show for you - Macy Gray is
here, it's gonna rock! Stick around! Alright!

What is it with these quotes? They look all screwed up. Oh well. I used to like Tom Green, but now I can't stand him. I think it was right around the time he did that whole cancer special on his show. I don't find cancer funny and he's over there saying 'Check your balls so you won't get cancer.' He's just a jerk. Drew deserves a gold medal for putting up with him for so long.

jmo

http://www.efanguide.com/~dbarrymore/pics/movies/guncrazy/guncrazy04.jpg Unlike their TV counterparts, these Angels didn't have to take target practice at the police academy to earn their wings: In the movie, the good guys -- or women, we should say -- don't pack heat. "Guns are cowardly," says Drew. "With the flick of one finger, you can kill somebody. I always think about what the world would be like if people didn't have that ability."

http://www.efanguide.com/~dbarrymore/pics/movies/badgirls/badgirls03.jpg "People just sit behind their [expletive] weapon and they can kill somebody and it's just so cowardly."

:rolleyes:

http://www.efanguide.com/~dbarrymore/pics/movies/posters/p-guncrazy.jpg

Spielberg's retrofitting of "E.T." opens the door to an untapped revenue stream that promises a product placement bonanza!

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Chris Colin

Jan. 18, 2002 |
MEMO TO: Staff, R&D
FROM: Marty Abrams, Marketing
RE: Revisionism -- the good kind!


Hello!! Once again, digital technology makes the headlines: At a cost of about $100,000, and at the request of his godchild -- firestarter-turned-pacifist Drew Barrymore -- Steven Spielberg is retrofitting "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial":

"The brilliant director plans to re-release 'E.T.' in late March," Neal Travis reported in the New York Post last week, "but the guns that appear in the final scene as [FBI] agents surround the spaceship will be replaced with walkie-talkies."

Barrymore's plan is more than just a thoughtful attempt at curbing worldwide violence; it's an untapped revenue stream! The potential markets extend well beyond actresses, into the dollar-rich world of niche demographics. Get these groups' special message into a popular film and they'll finance 50 "E.T.s"! Think of it as retroactive product placement. I've highlighted a few obvious marriages:

Recyclers and "Platoon": Hopefully Barrymore hasn't seen this film! Almost all of the actors carry guns, and in many cases point them at one another. Lord knows how much those eco groups would pay us to replace the guns with soda bottles and beer cans. The final scene can be tweaked a bit, so that the soldiers make a dramatic deposit in strategically placed recycling bins. "Charlie" can pitch in, too!

The National Rifle Association and "The Wizard of Oz": Dorothy and friends remain profitable despite plodding -- and underrealized -- stretches between "We're Off to See the Wizard" and "If I Only Had a Brain." Why not insert a compelling riflery scene? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking the Cowardly Lion might look good with a handsome Remington 700 bolt action.

Al Gore and "The Manchurian Candidate": This film's a good "candidate" for enhanced earnings. Enter the former V.P. (minus beard) looking heroic. It can be a short scene, but the big lug needs some positive exposure and would probably pay for it at this point. Just because Gore's no political thriller doesn't mean he can't appear in one!

Referees and "Titanic": Millions of Americans saw this instant classic in the theaters, and still more continue to rent it in video stores. Significantly, the film fails to represent the referee lifestyle in any of its scenes. The referee community is powerful and organized, and reportedly anxious to expand. Cinematically, those striped shirts and whistles would really stand out in the midst of those older, drabber costumes. (You might say this idea is a "good call"!)

In addition, it makes sense to investigate the world of sequel films, going forward. I've run some preliminary numbers, and production studios could save a bundle with expanded digitalization strategies. Rather than hire all new actors for "Harry Potter II" -- not to mention stocking their trailers with fresh fruit and expensive lotions -- why not digitally alter the old actors in the original film? Most body types are similar enough, so it would just be a matter of pasting in new faces and dialogue.

Inevitably, whiney critics will raise so-called ethical issues, but this is a no-brainer. Revisionism has been given a bad name over the years, and it's time we take it back. This can be a turning point for our operation, and I believe we owe major kudos to Drew Barrymore. Amid the insipid romantic comedies and interchangeable buddy adventures, a rich young woman has the vision and Edisonian temerity to say the past is not what it was. Liberated from the obsolescence of linear temporality, we can now review history not shamefully, but with a film editor's keen eye for the fixable. The sky's the limit!

Lastly, we'll invariably encounter the familiar "logistical" concerns (our company has only two employees, historically we have only operated a hot dog stand, we don't entirely understand what "digital" means, we're tired of sleeping behind the ketchup bins, etc.). But I'm excited to inform you that these aren't obstacles, but rather challenges. What if Spielberg had listened to the naysayers who said he couldn't make a movie about a cute alien who learned to speak English? I'll tell you where he'd be: Stealing wieners from our truck like a common hobo ... and guess who'd edit those dogs right out of his grubby hands!

Company note: Please do not put the sauerkraut spoon in the relish tray, going forward. Thanx!

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9708/26/smoking.on.film/

Critics say young viewers paying the price
August 26, 1997
Web posted at: 5:33 a.m. EDT (0933 GMT)
From Correspondent Sherri Sylvester


LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- It's a habit that even Hollywood can't kick. Almost every actor and actress has been seen lighting up in the movies.

Worried about the continued popularity of smoking, the American Lung Association recently asked a group of teens to tally up the numbers by watching some 133 recent features. The results were astounding.

"Of 133 movies, they saw tobacco in some way in 77 percent of the movies," says Andrew Weisser of the ALA.

Washington believes that's sending the wrong signals to young viewers. Even Hillary Clinton has been critical of tobacco use in one of the summer's hottest hits, "My Best Friend's Wedding."

Actress Julia Roberts is not alone in her penchant for chain smoking. The aliens of "Men In Black" pack Marlboros and the character Hades in "Hercules" smokes, as do actors in "G.I. Jane," "Cop Land" and "Face/Off."

"They really should be ashamed of themselves. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Julia Roberts, Jeff Goldblum, Will Smith, making smoking look really cool. Teens look at our movie stars and they model themselves after them," says anti- smoking activist Patrick Reynolds.


Responsible for actions?

Some actors refuse to take the heat.

"I can't take moral responsibility when it comes to the character," says Matt Dillon. "If the character would, I would."

"If individuals are so gullible that if they see a celebrity smoking that they think that's cool, that's a problem with the individual. That's a problem with the way society reveres celebrities and puts them on an unwanted pedestal," adds Glenn Kenny, senior editor of Premiere magazine.

Not to be left out, Alicia Silverstone puffs on camera in her new movie, "Excess Baggage." Her director says art is imitating life, not the other way around.

"There's a lot of anger and a lot of frustration and anxiety towards authority, towards parents, towards relationships, and part of her is self-destructive, so her smoking and drinking are just natural ways of expressing herself," director Marco Bramilla says of Silverstone's angst-ridden character.

Cigarettes also seem the prop of choice for John Travolta, who's seen smoking on screen in several films.

"We need to tell our young people, 'Hey, smoking kills.' It is as addicting as heroin, and movie actors who smoke are being irresponsible," Reynolds argues.


'A bad example'

There are movie stars who agree.

"Unfortunately, it's becoming romantic in films again," says Brooke Shields.

"It gives you cancer; it kills you," adds Isabella Rossellini.

"I have played characters who smoke, and I don't want to consciously do it again," says actor Gabriel Byrne. "It's a bad example."

Movie studios insist they don't accept product placement money for cigarettes. But the Clinton administration is concerned about the proliferation of the product. Al Gore meets with movie-makers on the issue next month.

Meanwhile, 3,000 kids a day are lighting up for the first time.


Memo to Cameron Diaz! If you're going to proclaim to the press that you "quit smoking" then back it up damnit! If you're going to tell us this drivel then don't show up on "SNL" like a year later and puff away while putting on a faux British accent in one particular skit!!! Then again, I still don't believe that you're even close to having Drew Barrymore beat on the hypocrisy scale!

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew50.jpg

I guess Drew will next try to convince us that she never appeared in now infamous dreck like her ex-husband's "Freddy Got Fingered" or post-"ET" ultra B-movie classics like "Motorama", "No Place to Hide", "Dopplehanger", "Sketch Artist", "Poision Ivy", "Guncrazy", "The Amy Fisher Story", etc., etc.

http://www.celeb-server.com/valeria_mazza/i1.html

SHERRI SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): High-tech tools and high-heeled shoes do not an action hero make, although in the case of "Charlie's Angels," they're a good start. Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu bring a "Matrix"-style martial arts look to the feature. The trio trained six to eight hours a day with many members of the "Matrix" team. They were led by "The Master," an expert from China who made them sign a strict contract -- no smoking, no drinking, no cutting class.

DREW BARRYMORE, ACTRESS: It's very much about honor and discipline and pain.

(LAUGHTER)

BARRYMORE: Not in that order. CAMERON DIAZ, ACTRESS: Pain comes first.

BARRYMORE: Pain -- they used to always say pain is your best friend.

DIAZ: The first day we met him was like, we want to introduce you to your new best friend, get to know him, embrace him, love him. Who is he? Pain.

BARRYMORE: Pain.

(LAUGHTER)

DIAZ: All right.

BARRYMORE: You think it's funny at the time, until you're limping out of there.

SYLVESTER (on camera): So were you limping out there the first day?

DIAZ: Oh yeah.

BARRYMORE: Yeah.

LUCY LIU, ACTRESS: I couldn't walk. I had to lift my legs with my hands...

DIAZ: Yeah.

BARRYMORE: Yeah.

LIU: ... literally like...

DIAZ: Literally to do this.

BARRYMORE: No, you can't cross your legs.

LIU: But you could barely lift them cause your arms were so weak.

(LAUGHTER)

DIAZ: Yes, exactly.

SYLVESTER: You didn't want to have "The Angels" carry guns?

BARRYMORE: Well, if they can walk into a room and handle themselves physically instead of being cowardly and pulling a trigger and winning the fight, and if we had to fight each other sort of...

LIU: You earn that.

BARRYMORE: ... in this primal element of hand-to-hand, and how sexy that is. SYLVESTER (voice-over): While filming, Barrymore met and fell in love with comic actor Tom Green. They planned to marry and shared his proposal with her co-stars.

BARRYMORE: It was so amazing. It was the best night of my life, because, first of all, we had the best dinner, and it was so much fun. But it was like, I know that there are people out there who have sisters, and when something big happens in their life, they go and talk to their sisters about it. Those are my sisters, you know.

SYLVESTER (on camera): You guys went sky diving after you wrapped?

BARRYMORE: You know what's crazy is I have been so terrified of flying for the last few years of my life, I mean, take years off my life, heart in failing mode every time there's turbulence. And I am so much less fearful of flying now after doing this. You jump out of an airplane at 13,000 feet with some mesh on your back. It helps.

(LAUGHTER)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "CHARLIE'S ANGELS")

BARRYMORE: Damn, I hate to fly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SYLVESTER (voice-over): Sherri Sylvester, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Sherri Sylvester, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Originally posted by kittflynn
A couple of summers during my teenage years I and many of my friends used to go to the beach practically everday. And everday around a certain time of the afternoon, this one man, who was always fully clothed including a tattered suit coat and black old worn out street shoes, would come around and begin shouting out is brand of hellfire bible preachings. Since he did that so often and since he was so apparently in his own world, everyone either ignored him, made fun of him or, out of curiosity, gave him a few moments of attention. But he was such a pitiful, pathetic character that most of us chose to ignore him. It was obvious that he would continue to come around and preach his weird brand of venom everday no matter what, so everyone instinctively chose to walk around him as if he were nothing more than a harmless barking dog on a leash waiting for his owner to come back and take him home for the day. Unfortunately, ignoring him never was a succesful method of getting him to stop coming around. Will history repeat itself with the TMC show? Now that a few weeks have gone by, and ten or fifteen lonely posts have been posted on the same tired subject by TMC without neary a reply from anyone, I'll have to conclude that history has repeated itself. Where is the owner of this poor old pathetic dog? Please, take him home!

http://www.thegline.com/thought/2000/12-03-2000.htm

There's been a lot of talk about positive role models lately, most of it centering about role models for girls and women rather than men. Seems that there's been a dearth of same, according to some fairly well-paid public handwringers. I'm more of the opinion that role models, if you choose to look for them, are all in where you find them. Moreover, role models do not have a shelf life: if you're leery of one just because he or she is dead, then methinks you're looking for a celebrity, not a role model.

Strangely enough, a particularly vitriolic argument about role models got started the other day over, of all things, the movie Charlie's Angels. The film was bad enough to begin with, derived as it was from an idiotic TV show (and that's a trend that probably deserves an essay of its own, but somehow it just seems like way too easy a target). The movie, if anything, was even worse. The best description of it goes to Roger Ebert:

What is it? A satire? Of what? Of satires, I guess. It makes fun of movies that want to make fun of movies like this.

The lesson, of course, is that you can't kid a kidder. Given how drearily stupid the movie is, it's a lesson they didn't learn in time. What bothered me most about the movie was not how idiotic it was, nor how imbecilically self-referential it tried to be, but rather how people have been trying to spin the movie as an example of positive female role models.

Let me repeat that: Positive female role models.

Oh, come on.

In this film, we have Cameron Diaz as a bubbleheaded ditz who can't open her mouth without letting out a double-entendre. We have Lucy Liu as a revoltingly stereotypical Asian Dragon Lady -- and on that note, when are we going to see Miss Liu cast in something resembling a normal human role again? The last six or seven times I've seen her in something (Payback), she's been playing one of these whip-wielding harridans and embarrassing the **** out of herself. And Drew Barrymore -- well, she doesn't have much of a character to play in the first place, so the whole thing is kind of moot.

Where do people get the role-model angle from this movie? Is it because we have three girls who (allegedly) take no **** and kick acres of ass? Not as if they're "doing it for themselves," to borrow another shopworn FemLib cliché; they're in the service of Charlie, just like in the TV show. (Charlie apparently had better taste than to appear in either the TV show or the movie, at least in person. I guess they wrote the role for someone who wanted to phone it in from the git-go. How's that for insulting?)

What exactly is the role-model lesson from all this? That unless you're pretty, have a black belt and can team up with two others who are hardly less distinguishable from yourself, you're not worth it? That violence is a mandatory problem-solving tool and brains and savvy are optional (unless supplied by someone else)? The idea that something as empty-headed as Charlie's Angels could possibly be a role model is of the same school of thinking that could brand Pokemon "educational TV." Doesn't this strike you as just being the least bit desperate and bankrupt? No one really wants role models, the same way they really don't want to "fight the good fight." They want to have their cake and eat it too. The worst part, of course, is that we are surrounded by people dumb enough, or gullible enough, to validate them in their delusion. If you have enough people repeating deleterious nonsense, eventually it assumes a sort of gravity -- one which crumbles at the first touch of an outsider, of course, but in the time it remains standing, it's convincing enough.

The most incredible thing about the movie? The three lead talents made conscious decisions to be in it. Hell, Barrymore even came on board as one of the producers. In short, they volunteered for what is generally seen as a step down by other people. And are they suffering for it? Not in the slightest, as far as I can tell: the movie came out, made a ****load of money, and is now being fast-tracked for a sequel. Girlfight, on the other hand, also being released by Sony/Columbia/TriStar, is a movie about someone who's a lot more credible as a role model. It played in minimal engagements and now seems headed directly to video.

What I am to infer from this, then, is that positive role models -- people who mirror the parts of ourselves that need thought and attention -- are simply not good business. Gangster rappers who shoot each other at the slightest possible provocation; rock stars whose hotel-destroying exploits are snicker material for the morning after; movie stars; wrestlers-turned-politicians who debase both the sport and the profession about equally... The only conclusion I can draw from all this is the reason positive role models are in such short supply is because negative ones are far better for the pocketbook.

People wonder why I have such trepidations about capitalism being a least common denominator for a society. The answer is simple: because capitalism can't guarantee the quality of anything bought or sold. If the customer comes seeking **** and doesn't know there's anything better, there will always be someone sly enough to sell it to him. No one says to themselves that they're out to buy crap, but many people settle for crap out of a lack of knowledge of what else may be out there. And in the same way, we've settled, it seems, on pap-culture heroes as role models.

Speaking of role models, Rosa Parks recently celebrated her birthday. Didn't hear much about it, did you?

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew21.jpg
Somebody seriously needs to remind "Miss Self-Righteous" that just like those pesky and "cowardly" guns (I guess somebody is suffering from a severe case of amnesia based on this photo by the way), continuously inserting a "special little roll of paper" in your mouth will *kill* you too!!!

Hey still speaking of role models, I thought you were finally "clean & sober...Drew!!!":lol:
http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew48.jpg

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew114.jpg

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew122.jpg

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew139.jpg

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew145.jpg

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew169.jpg
That's right Drew, get all of the yummy cancer that your body (you must be "protecting it" 24/7 like Cameron Diaz proclaimed to stand for right) can handle!!!

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew195.jpg

http://www.celebrity-gallery.com/content/pictures/DrewBarrymore/drew240.jpg

Frankly, holding a gun (with self-defense on the mind by the way) when compared to holding a cigarette is far less dangerous to your well-being because at the very least, you're not suppose to point a gun inward in order to get it to its proper usage!

Oh my stars, I still can't believe this post has lasted so long. I don't even read half the crap you post. You are being kind of unfair to Drew by posting old pictures of her smoking and drinking. Maybe that was a movie role? *gasps* Can people smoke and drink in movies???!! *gasp again* Yes! Yes! I think they can.

Seperate them man. Drew Barrymore is Drew Barrymore. She lives her own life the way she wants to live it.

Drew Barrymore as a character: She does what the script says.

Originally posted by Jenny
Oh my stars, I still can't believe this post has lasted so long. I don't even read half the crap you post. You are being kind of unfair to Drew by posting old pictures of her smoking and drinking. Maybe that was a movie role? *gasps* Can people smoke and drink in movies???!! *gasp again* Yes! Yes! I think they can.

Hey, I didn't post everything in this thread all by myself if you catch my drift since you want to bring up half of the "crap" that I'm posting here!

Seperate them man. Drew Barrymore is Drew Barrymore. She lives her own life the way she wants to live it.

Drew Barrymore as a character: She does what the script says.

You may ask, why I'm bothering to post old photos of a supposedly post-rehab Drew drinking and smoking!? Let me get this straight, it isn't wrong to but your health at higher risk by smoking (especially allowing yourself to do such a vice), yet it's wrong to carry around a gun even if you're a law-abiding citizen w/ the intention of using it in self-defense. But of course, since people like the stars of "Charlie's Angels" have money and fame, I guess that automatically means that they're above the law and any proper morals & standards. Why else do you think that they Drew, Cameron, & Lucy managed to get away w/ that "I Won't Vote for a Son of a Bush!" stunt on MTV.

It absolutely ticks me off that this woman has the audicity to appear on Nickelodeon in front of legions of children to present at & accept their awards and then when you turn around, we find you guessed it...old photos of her drinking and smoking. Not to mention the fact that she appeared at Nickelodeon fuctions leading up to the production of the first "Charlie's Angels" in which she's among other things, flipping the bird, flaunting her cleavage, appear virtually nude, and um...smoke (but she still gets awards from all of the kiddies for this *real crap.* Frankly, when you're a celebrity (e.g. an actor, athlete, musician, etc.) you're supposed to show some backbone and take responbility and accountabilty for your actions. This is one reason why stuff like Drew's anti-gun stance & now "former" veggie status as well as the time that she fled the "SNL" set because there was supposedly anthrax in the building is absolutely laughable.

What the hell are we supposed to do about it? Buy up every bad picture of Drew and burn it? This is getting insane. And I'm sorry to say this, but anybody with half a brain ought to figure out that the stuff that Drew did in her past was dumb. Okay, whoa let me get up on a desk and flash my boobs at somebody. Whoa! Drew did it. I bet I can too! It's ********.

It's like that stuff with Marilyn Manson and Columbine. Marilyn Manson did not put that gun in those boys hands and tell them to shoot up the school. He did not. Marilyn writes music. It ought to be a person's responsibility to listen to it and figure out that the guy is just writing a song. If the person doesn't have a brain, then I hope that the parents look after the kid.

Probably everybody has something against them. What about Britney Spears? I've heard cases about her drinking and *gasp* swearing, and smoking. I agree that Britney is a role model and she ought to be more careful with what she does around a camera, but the girl is living life. Are we all supposed to be modest every single day of our lives? NO! Some people smoke (of their own free will, not because Britney Spears picks up a cigarette), some people do drink (of their own free will, not because Britney Spears got drunk), and some people do swear (remember this is of their own free will)

Frankly, I don't give a damn what any of these celebs do. As I've probably mentioned before, I look to these people for entertainment. I don't care what they do outside of their movies or outside of the cds. I do not care.

Don't judge a book by it's cover. That is one of the upmost important things about life. You may look at a person and you may swear that the person does drugs and all sorts of stuff, but maybe that's just the outside cover? Maybe the inside is entirely different?

Celebs give out their opinion to get their name in the paper. If Drew, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz did not give out opinions every once in awhile- people would think they were senseless idiots or something.

What about Carroll O' Connor? His big role was Archie Bunker. Archie Bunker was a bigot in All in the Family, do you honestly think Carroll was a bigot in real life?

What about Hal Smith? His big role was Otis Campbell. Do you think he was the town drunk in real life?

How about this one? How does this grab ya? Do you think Adam West and Burt Ward still put on the Batman and Robin suits and crimefight Gotham City in the year 2002??!!

What about Nancy McKeon? She plays a girl named Jinny on the Division. Jinny has a bit of a drinking problem. Do you think Nancy has a drinking problem in real life?

Originally posted by Jenny
What the hell are we supposed to do about it? Buy up every bad picture of Drew and burn it? This is getting insane. And I'm sorry to say this, but anybody with half a brain ought to figure out that the stuff that Drew did in her past was dumb. Okay, whoa let me get up on a desk and flash my boobs at somebody. Whoa! Drew did it. I bet I can too! It's ********.

It's like that stuff with Marilyn Manson and Columbine. Marilyn Manson did not put that gun in those boys hands and tell them to shoot up the school. He did not. Marilyn writes music. It ought to be a person's responsibility to listen to it and figure out that the guy is just writing a song. If the person doesn't have a brain, then I hope that the parents look after the kid.

Probably everybody has something against them. What about Britney Spears? I've heard cases about her drinking and *gasp* swearing, and smoking. I agree that Britney is a role model and she ought to be more careful with what she does around a camera, but the girl is living life. Are we all supposed to be modest every single day of our lives? NO! Some people smoke (of their own free will, not because Britney Spears picks up a cigarette), some people do drink (of their own free will, not because Britney Spears got drunk), and some people do swear (remember this is of their own free will)

Frankly, I don't give a damn what any of these celebs do. As I've probably mentioned before, I look to these people for entertainment. I don't care what they do outside of their movies or outside of the cds. I do not care.

Don't judge a book by it's cover. That is one of the upmost important things about life. You may look at a person and you may swear that the person does drugs and all sorts of stuff, but maybe that's just the outside cover? Maybe the inside is entirely different?

Celebs give out their opinion to get their name in the paper. If Drew, Lucy Liu, and Cameron Diaz did not give out opinions every once in awhile- people would think they were senseless idiots or something.

What about Carroll O' Connor? His big role was Archie Bunker. Archie Bunker was a bigot in All in the Family, do you honestly think Carroll was a bigot in real life?

What about Hal Smith? His big role was Otis Campbell. Do you think he was the town drunk in real life?

How about this one? How does this grab ya? Do you think Adam West and Burt Ward still put on the Batman and Robin suits and crimefight Gotham City in the year 2002??!!

What about Nancy McKeon? She plays a girl named Jinny on the Division. Jinny has a bit of a drinking problem. Do you think Nancy has a drinking problem in real life?

Okay, lets put it this way in terms of the idea of just "living your life." Take for example, what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office and God knows where else in the White House w/ Monica Lewinsky! Sure, Clinton lied to the public and committed adultery but he was simply doing what made me happy in life wasn't he. Or how about R. Kelly and his *alleged* sexual adventures w/ underage girls!? The point that I'm trying to make is that just because you do something of interest of hobby that keeps you satisified on a personal level in life doesn't necessarily mean that it's in the end morally or ethicially right.

And if Drew Barrymore wants to allow herself to be photographed doing such vices like smoking, then she shouldn't appear in front of innocent little kids on Nickelodeon (it's just common sense talking). There is absolutely no law in the books that states that if you live a straight-edged lifestyle than you're not living life to the fullest or taking everything for granted! As for Britney Spears, I'm not trying to give her a free pass because such like Drew, stuff like smoking *period* and showing up on Nickelodeon w/ a see-through shirt on was absolutely dumb. But when compared to what Drew has been doing at least, Britney didn't seem to be pretty aware that there were cameras in front of her while doing things like that. The truth of the matter is that, it seems like you're getting very bent out of shape because I'm here being as brutally honest w/ the hypocrisy and lack of fundation towards their opinions as possible. And personally, the whole MTV t-shirt stunt wasn't simply a cheesy act to get your name in the press like the time when Drew flashed David Letterman on his birthday or all of the nonsense that she did w/ Tom Green in terms of jerking everybody around about getting married. This was during a Presidential Election by the way which is why Cameron Diaz wrote that "Personal Statement" for Al Gore in the first place (they were deadly seriously about what they believed and were talking about)!

Jenny, why even bother wasting your breath with this guy/girl? The only reason this thread has lasted as long as it has is because he continually posts stuff that only he reads. Take a look for yourself, he posts stuff, then he comes back and talks about the stuff that he posts. He's been having a conversation with himself. Nobody cares!

All he's going to do is leave a long winded comment about why he's right and everybody else is wrong. The best thing you can do is ignore this thread and make Charlie's Angels 2 the #1 movie. As for you TMC, try dating once in awhile. Thank You.

Originally posted by briandamage
Jenny, why even bother wasting your breath with this guy/girl? The only reason this thread has lasted as long as it has is because he continually posts stuff that only he reads. Take a look for yourself, he posts stuff, then he comes back and talks about the stuff that he posts. He's been having a conversation with himself. Nobody cares!

All he's going to do is leave a long winded comment about why he's right and everybody else is wrong. The best thing you can do is ignore this thread and make Charlie's Angels 2 the #1 movie. As for you TMC, try dating once in awhile. Thank You.

Hey smart aleck, maybe the reason why you're making such a response is because you agree w/ virtually everything that's so-called "political" to come out of the actresses' mouths. You don't have to agree w/ me just like I don't agree w/ the gun standpoint for example, but the least thing that you folks around here can do is sit down and try to respect my point of view at the very least before you want to respond! Apparently, you don't understand that simply talking about how good or bad a movie is isn't the point what so ever. And frankly, I'll continue to make "long-winded comments" as long as I have something essential and important to share to you.:mad:

:eek:

OK I think we have seen enough discussion about this topic. I am closing this thread for the sake of keeping it peaceful. If anybody is looking to start trouble, do it somewhere else but not on these message boards. End of story.