Any where eco-terrorists in the rain forest are accurately depicted as polly anna types? Or manipulative journalists creating stories ala Network fame? Or PLO operatives in their wanton slaughter of innocents in the Middle East plotting to kill for the sheer thrill of killing and glory? Or maybe an ACLU or trial lawyer who’s “in it just for the press, noterity and bucks” shucking a case up to the SCOTUS while distancing themselves from the interests of their client?

I’d really like to know what films you think fit with the conservative worldview. Maybe a documentary showing Iraqi school kids interacting with Marines building a playground or school?

4-5 in the last 5 years –and any mainstream movies?

I think liberals tend to be art critics not because of some special empathetic feelings capacity or because they can speak with authority to intelligent, cultured elites (good God) –I think liberals tend to be film and art critics because it’s a profession that requires more litmus test passes via associations than merit… it’s all about being read by those who populate the leftside of the arts community.

Just like picking a bishop in the Catholic Church: they usually pick one from the bureaucrats toiling in the Chanceries because they beging the process of selecting candidates.

It would be just as easy — and just as mistaken — to say that art, movies, and theater demand a degree of empathy and intelligence from spectators that conservatives do not possess.

Art and theater critics tend to be liberals because the art and theater scenes are completely dominated by hardcore leftists. Still, you need more than a tolerance for extremist rhetoric to critique these forms responsibly. A solid knowledge of tradition, as well as an awareness of current styles and trends, is vital for anyone who wishes to write about the arts. Most newspapers, alas, skimp on the necessary expertise, which is why arts criticism in the US is so seldom worth reading.

I find cinema much less ideologically hidebound: You can find plenty of conservative films — or better still, true, thoughtful films that will accomodate a conservative worldview — but you have to seek them out. Most conservatives, alas, would rather carp than look.

Dan would be one of the few conservative ones around. He’s well read, writes well, can construct a cogent argument. Nawh, he can be an art critic… all he has to do is grab a matchbook cover, draw Floppy the Squirrel, send it in and presto, he’s an art critic.

While I wouldn’t say they all suck, I think you have to look really hard to find the good stuff amongst all the crap.

I just wish they would stop doing the remakes of old tv shows-I mean was a remake of Dukes of Hazard really neccessary?

Where was the outrage when the book came out? It’s been a blockbuster for a couple of years now. Was the Church waiting for the movie so they could get more press? It’s a fun book to read, and that’s about it. Maybe it’ll be a fun movie to see. At any rate, it’s only a book, and it’s only a movie. The more stink that people like Donahue, (not Phil, the other one) raise, the bigger the film is gonna get.

Don’t these fools ever learn anything? “Banned in Boston?” Surefire HIT!

Except GW. He doesn’t even notice you exist.

If you don’t like the material in Da Vinci, don’t read it, or do what some have already done, and write a book refuting some of the arguments presented for the sake of getting facts right (or at least clearly debated), but I think fiction should be appreciated for fiction (although I admit I haven’t read the book, I might get around to it eventually, but for now I would rather spend my reading time on books I know I want to read).

Read my post again, Calorato — I said Clooney’s career path was “less lucrative” than Hanks’s. Clooney is passing up $20 million lead roles in Hollywood blockbusters so that he can direct $8 million indie films. Hanks is taking those $20 million lead roles, and passing on low-budget indies. Ergo, Clooney is following a less lucrative career path than Hanks is. (Economic tradeoffs, opportunity costs, etc.)

So Hanks and Clooney are taking different career paths. Clooney’s is less lucrative and more prestigious, as one would expect from a bachelor; Hanks is more middle-of-the-road and profitable, which is what you’d expect from a married guy. All choices come with tradeoffs and opportunity costs, etc.

Huh?

Why am I supposed to not like Hanks for that? I love Ron Howard as a director, and while I didn’t read Da Vinci Code I always though Angels and Demons read far more like a screen play than a book (not to mention how much you had to suspend belief). I didn’t like Angels and Demons well enough to go out of my way to read Da Vinci. Give me a good Michael Connelly book anyday.