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

https://www.facebook.com/PrestosPizza/app_128953167177144

sal on July 6, 2012 at 8:45 pm

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

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

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

Skunky on July 6, 2012 at 9:37 pm

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

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

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

Statusmonkey on July 7, 2012 at 12:46 am

One thing that I learned to regret in my life…

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

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

Just sayin’. I’m off to Skyrim again.

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

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

ConcernedPatriot on July 7, 2012 at 1:25 am

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

ConcernedPatriot on July 7, 2012 at 1:28 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yossi on July 7, 2012 at 7:36 am

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

Kent on July 7, 2012 at 10:10 am

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

Dave on July 7, 2012 at 10:59 am

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

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

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

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

gmartinz on July 7, 2012 at 11:32 am

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

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

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

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

No thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohhh nooo… no Katie Perry review!?!?

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

Katie Perry is a skank!

OMG on July 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm

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

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

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

NormanF on July 7, 2012 at 11:36 pm

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

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

ConcernedPatriot on July 8, 2012 at 4:26 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pat on July 8, 2012 at 1:54 pm

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

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

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

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

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

samurai on July 8, 2012 at 10:55 pm

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

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

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

Ernie, RIP.

NormanF on July 9, 2012 at 12:14 am

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

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

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