Entertainment on HuffingtonPost.com

Allison Hope Weiner: Pellicano Trial: My Final Thoughts On The Guilty Verdict

2008-05-17T22:20:00Z

So, the jury found them all guilty--the former private eye, Anthony Pellicano, the former cop, Mark Arneson, the former phone guy, Ray Turner, the former computer consultant, Kevin Kachikian and one former client, Abner Nicherie.

I apologize to everyone for not writing about the guilty verdicts sooner, but I was in New York on other business when the jury came back.

Unfortunately, I missed the final act of the Pellicano courtroom drama. After speaking with some of the defense attorneys and others present in the courtroom when the verdicts came back, I heard that both prosecutors, Daniel Saunders and Kevin Lally were quite pleased with the jury's verdicts. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Lally were confident that justice had been done in this case. But I didn't need to be in the courtroom to know that both prosecutors felt that this was an important case and that Mr. Saunders, in particular, believed that he'd done a great service to the community by convicting Mr. Pellicano and friends. One needed only to listen to his final argument to understand that Mr. Saunders believed that his approach to this problem--his successful prosecution of Mr. Pellicano and several of the conspirators on trial--would finally keep Mr. Pellicano's wealthy and influential clients from using all the detective's very effective illegal tactics to defeat and often destroy their adversaries.

It's clear that many potential plaintiffs and defendants who in the future find themselves involved in litigation will benefit from Mr. Saunders' and Mr. Lally's hard work. The fact that Mr. Pellicano is no longer on the scene, ready and willing to sell his illegal services to the highest and most influential bidder, is definitely a plus for someone who decides to sue a rich and powerful member of our community.

At the very least, one has to admit that the government's conviction of Mr. Pellicano and friends has definitely made wiretapping services less available to the attorneys who handle high end divorces and to all those litigators who tend to service many of Hollywood's most powerful players. And of course, it's going to be harder for all of Mr. Pellicano's well known clients--those who relied on him in case and after case to help them win. Those people will definitely have to read just following these guilty verdicts. Those people are definitely going to have to find a new way of doing business. After all, Mr. Pellicano was around a long time and he had a lot of repeat business.

And worst of all, a lot of the people who used him, now find themselves facing a myriad of civil lawsuits and they're going to have to go it alone--without their favorite private eye on the job. Tough news for many of the town's most rich, famous and powerful citizens.

On the other hand, the clients and the lawyers who used Mr. Pellicano's wiretapping services shouldn't be too depressed about this verdict.

Rather, they might want to consider celebrating this verdict since these rich and powerful members of our community now know for a certainty what many of us already suspected, they are truly above the law. They got away with it--the wiretapping, the harassment, the threats--and the best part is that nobody really seems to care.

These former clients know that if they want to get another private detective to wiretap some annoying reporter's phone and threaten her with a dead fish, nothing will happen to them. They won't go to jail. And the rest of us now know that it's fine for some people--like Susan Maguire or Adam Maguire or Andrew Stevens--to pay someone to illegal wiretap, to listen to those wiretaps and to even admit it all as long as those people are wealthy and can afford at least one (or in some cases two or three) great defense lawyers. We've also now understand that it is definitely not fine for other people---poor people like Abner Nicherie--to break the law, pay someone else to wiretap and then listen to those wiretaps. Lesson learned.

But don't think that all these rich and powerful people totally got away with what they did.

Naturally, there was a bit of a downside to breaking the law for some of these rich and famous clients.

They did, after all, have to be interviewed by the F.B.I. And, they did, in some cases, have to pay lawyers to negotiate limited use immunity agreements. And some had to actually endure the indignity of coming downtown and testifying. (It was a special sort of hell for a lot of those Westside clients to have to go east of the 405. Probably worse than going to prison for some.) For some, it was also all terribly embarrassing. There were tapes of them leaked on the Internet and even though they tried to put a stop to that, there wasn't much they could do. And for others, who'd been promised that their ties to Anthony Pellicano would forever remain a secret and that their statements to the F.B.I. would never see the light of day, there was the unbearable indignity of having portions of those interviews either published in the paper and even posted on the internet in a blog---all very low brow and very humiliating. Finally, for a few of Mr. Pellicano's clients, they were forced to endure not only the humiliation of having the public find out they'd hired Mr. Pellicano, but also they had to watch as their private conversations with Mr. Pellicano about their most hated of enemies ended up being posted on the internet. And this time around, there wasn't much they could do besides trying to get the government to make it all stop.

But, the actual bottom line is that even with a few embarrassing and inconvenient moments, the rich and powerful citizens of Los Angeles (and a few other places) didn't have to go to jail. And, now they can stop worrying--if they ever really did-- about what the government is going to do next. From everything that's we've seen in the days following the verdict, the government seems more than satisfied that they got all the bad guys--all those really, really bad people involved who were involved in this conspiracy.

The government is satisfied with convicting Mr. Pellicano and then with dragging a few other names through the mud by producing hundreds of documents that "suggest" that those names hired Mr. Pellicano to engage in illegal wiretapping or at the very least, hired Mr. Pellicano and then turned the other way while he did what he used to do better than anyone else in town.

But there are still some important unanswered questions about this case.

One can't help but wonder about why in a case against just Mr. Pellicano and a former phone guy, computer guy, cop and client, three quarters of the documents turned over to the defense during the discovery process (including lots and lots of audiotapes), related to star attorney Bert Fields, Paramount head Brad Grey and former super agent, Michael Ovitz, despite the fact that none of these men were charged. Mr. Fields repeatedly and publicly denied knowing about Mr. Pellicano's illegal conduct. And, both Mr. Grey and Mr. Ovitz testified under oath that they had no knowledge of any kind about Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping or other illegal activities. So, if everyone denied knowledge of any illegal activity and the government declined to prosecute any of the aforementioned men, why then did the government turn over the documents that it did in this particular case?

Why did the government turn over audio recordings of one of Mr. Fields' young associates telling Mr. Pellicano that he didn't care at all about how Mr. Pellicano got his information as long as the detective was successful? Why did the government turn over to the defense attorneys in this case all of the business records relating to the litigation involving Brad Grey and former client, Garry Shandling? Why did the government turn over to the defense all of Mr. Ovitz's calendar for 2001-2000, which included all of his appointments for the year--except for the ones he made with Mr. Pellicano? And, why, if the government had no intention of ever prosecuting Mr. Fields, did the government force Greenberg Glusker to turn over file after file of cases in which either Mr. Fields or his partners hired Mr. Pellicano? What was the point of all that? Why didn't the F.B.I. care when Mr. Grey made contradictory statements to the F.B.I., but then turned around and prosecuted Mr. Nicherie for doing the same thing? And why, even after Mr. Ovitz admitted that he'd hired Mr. Pellicano to investigate at least four known victims in this case and admitted that he'd paid him at least $75,000 in cash for doing that and was heard on an audiotape setting up a meeting with the investigator, that Mr. Ovitz was required to merely testify briefly in court?

The fact that three quarters of the documents turned over by the government related to Mr. Fields, his client Brad Grey and matters involving Mr. Pellicano can be interpreted in two ways: a.) the government collected all these documents and then decided that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Mr. Fields , or b.) the government preferred to merely suggest that Mr. Fields and Mr. Grey were guilty through hundreds of documents without having to endure the messy and often difficult process of having to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (The government would argue, of course, that the public was never supposed to see the bulk of these documents. But when documents are produced during a legal proceeding--including F.B.I. interviews with some of the most famous and wealthy people in the country--it's a pretty safe assumption that at least a few of those documents will become public.)

But whatever the reason for producing these documents, the fact remains that there are hundreds of documents--including audio tapes--that show that members of the law firm of Greenberg Glusker worked closely with Mr. Pellicano for years--particularly on behalf of client and Paramount studio chief, Brad Grey--and these documents show that at least some of the lawyers at Greenberg Glusker knew that Mr. Pellicano was wiretapping. There are also documented F.B.I. interviews with more than one of Mr. Fields' clients that suggest that Mr. Fields, as well as other Greenberg attorneys, knew that Mr. Pellicano was obtaining some of his information through illegal means. (There are also documents that weren't turned over to the defense that also suggest that Mr. Fields knew about Mr. Pellicano's illegal wiretapping activities.) There was even testimony at the trial by one of Mr. Fields' clients that Mr. Fields told him through careful language that Mr. Pellicano used suspect investigative methods, but that those methods were effective. And, another one of Greenberg Glusker's clients testified at trial that when she found out that Mr. Pellicano was illegally recording her soon-to-be ex-husband, she tried to tell her lawyers at Greenberg, but they refused to listen. Naturally, the prosecutors didn't ask her why her lawyers refused to listen when she tried to tell them about the illegal recordings or what exactly they thought she was going to say. Did the lawyers put their fingers in their ears and sing when she started to talk about what Mr. Pellicano was up to in his office on Sunset or did they just push her out the door and pretend that she was never there? No one asked. The prosecution didn't need or want a witness on the stand talking about how her Greenberg Glusker lawyers either knew what she was about to say or that they went to great lengths to not listen to what she was about to say. They weren't interested in prosecuting Greenberg Glusker...at least not by the time the trial started.

I suppose, like any prosecutor with any political savvy at all, neither Mr. Saunders nor Mr. Lally relished the idea of going up against any of L.A.'s rich and powerful citizens who likely would have hired an army of incredible attorneys to defend them. The one thing that the prosecution would have known for sure is that none of these guys would have pulled a Pellicano and ended up defending themselves. The prosecution of a former cop, a former phone guy and a computer geek is one thing, but going after L.A.'s rich and powerful is quite another. It was probably the better decision to stick with a poor former client like Mr. Nicherie than to try and convict someone with the funds of an Adam Sender or even an Andrew Stevens, let alone a Michael Ovitz. And besides, Mr. Ovitz denied knowing about any of Mr. Pellicano's illegal activity. So, that always make it harder when someone won't just roll over and admit they did something illegal or when you don't have more than thirty audio recordings of them chatting about wiretapping like they do in the Terry Christensen case. So, absent at least thirty audio recordings of a client chatting about wiretapping, better to go after the little guys and get a big victory then actually have to prosecute someone who could make their lives a real living hell. If the government is expecting Mr. Christensen's trial to bear any resemblance to the one they just completed, they're in for a rude awakening. When Mr. Christensen allegedly agreed to wiretap Ms. Kerkorian and make her life a living hell, he was working for a client. So, if he'd go to that much trouble for Mr. Kerkorian, imagine how hard he'll be willing to fight in order to save his own career and to keep himself out of prison?

And so, as Mr. Saunders said in his closing arguments, prosecutors have effectively cut off Mr. Pellicano's supply of illegal services to many of his wealthy and powerful clients. But, although Mr. Pellicano is heading off to jail, no one should forget that his clients--all of those people who had no trouble paying big money for his services--are still around and more likely than ever to employ a strategy of total destruction against their adversaries. Even as the former victims emboldened by the verdict promise to bring these former clients to justice in civil court, they should proceed with extreme caution. Just in case these plaintiffs forgot, these former clients of Mr. Pellicano who they're preparing to take to court--these are the folks that now know for certain that they're above the law.

Read the complete coverage from inside the Pellicano courtroom.

"Grey's Anatomy" Star Brooke Smith Adopt Ethiopian Girl

2008-05-17T15:14:13Z

Grey's Anatomy actress Brooke Smith has adopted a baby girl from Ethiopia, her rep confirms to PEOPLE.

It is the second daughter for Smith, 40, who has a 5-year-old daughter, Fanny, with her cinematographer husband Stephen Lubensky.

Smith, who is best known for her role in Silence of the Lambs, told PEOPLE in October that she and her husband were considering adopting.

A Night Out With Poison's Bret Michaels

2008-05-17T14:41:44Z

THE beer was chilling inside Bret Michaels's dark wood-paneled tour bus just minutes after a recent set at the Meadowlands when word filtered back to Mr. Michaels, the lead singer of Poison and star of VH1's "Rock of Love," that there were two girls waiting outside (of course), and that they just had to meet him (of course).

The girls, it turns out, were actually girls. Emily Trock and Stephanie Kornfeld, both 14, were too young to remember Poison's reunion tour in the 1990s, let alone its '80s heyday. They were looking to gain entry into the moodily lighted lair of the hair-band lothario simply to pose for a photograph (with help from Stephanie's father, Adam, who is Poison's booking agent) after the singer's show at the Bamboozle festival, where he was promoting a new solo album, "Rock My World," to be released June 3.

"I had three generations of fans out there today," Mr. Michaels said, after the girls nervously posed for a few snapshots with their 45-year-old idol. Such a scene is now common, he said, since "Rock of Love" became a hit .

Karen Allen Goes From Knitting In The Berkshires To Indy 4

2008-05-17T14:35:21Z

SHE WAS Boone's girl Katy in "Animal House," and this was enough to cement her in the collective conscience of a certain kind of male. This male was 13 when the National Lampoon comedy was released, in 1978; what he has retained in his mind's eye about Karen Allen are the freckles and long brown hair and big eyes, at once inviting and a little cool.

So what happened to her? It as much to ask: What is the trajectory of a culture that has gone from Karen Allen to Jessica Alba?

Hers was a naturalistic beauty that seems synonymous with the 1970s and so missing these days, in what is advertised on screen as young and beautiful. She was simultaneously materially attractive and subtext: In "Animal House," when Boone catches her post-coitus with their English professor, it made sense; a girl like that would go off with older men, abandoning the boyfriend for needing his toga.

Did she quit Hollywood or did Hollywood quit her? We mean, after 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," and that nakedly classical opening salvo: "Indiana Jones. I always knew someday you'd come walking back through my door." There was, less remembered now, 1984's "Starman," in which she played another loner tough girl -- this one visited by an outer-space creature (Jeff Bridges).

But at some point she went to go knit in the Berkshire Mountains. There was also a marriage followed nine years later by divorce, and single motherhood that would, in concert with the dwindling Hollywood career and the shock of 9/11, prompt her to quit Manhattan permanently for the Berkshires.

Leslie Griffith: Lions for Lambs -- America in Need of Reporters

2008-05-17T00:51:46Z

Lions for Lambs and a velvet censorship exposed

The movie Lions for lambs damn near brought on the Post-Traumatic- stress that is someday inevitable for most reporters. Our eyes have to comprehend images that can never be erased and any sane person would never commit to a job that includes witnessing targets of tragedy and hate on a daily basis

We learn to cultivate ice in our veins until the PTS rolls in like fog. But Lions for Lambs doesn't drift, it jolts. As jolting as sticking a tongue into a light socket. My hair felt as if it was on fire, and the heartburn in my stomach moved into my throat. My daughter sitting next to me kept asking, "Mom is this the way it was, is this the way it is?" I bowed my head, felt the ice in my veins melt and began weeping.

Finally someone understood and put on record "America's velvet censorship."

Tear ducts aren't anatomy parts used much by reporters. Crying is debilitating, inconvenient and unprofessional. If one is unlucky enough to be an anchor as well as a reporter, it makes the eyes and nose red, and viewers are ruthless with rumors. "Could she be stoned, perhaps she's an alcoholic?" Cruelty is an epidemic in America today. You've read the tabloids, its ugly out in the open. Everyone's taking a shot.

Now that Lions for Lambs is on HBO, enough time has passed, and I believe I can write about it while avoiding too much sappy sentiment.

I don't always wait for credits after a movie, but when Lions for Lambs ended, sitting in a deserted theater in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I could not leave the chair. I was dumbfounded. Considering all that I had witnessed in the last seven years since 9/11, I sat with my mouth open in a catatonic cantaloupe stupor. I could not move from the chair if I had wanted to. I needed to honor Robert Redford, and I needed to see who wrote it. I had to commit the name to memory. "Fire!" my daughter said playfully trying to get me to move. I would not budge.

Lions for Lambs was written by Matthew Cornahan and produced and directed by Robert Redford who reaches into the depths of human nature and knows how to pan the fool's gold from the nuggets that are real. He is a keen observer of human nature, and he was brave to do this film. The Bush administration is vindictive. The older Redford gets, the deeper he is drawn into the heart of any matter. And this film matters.

When I got home, after a menopausal outburst in the shower(as not to frighten the kids,) I pulled it together and Googled Matthew Cornahan. I could not find out much about his personal background. Was he a politician? Was he a reporter? Was he a college Professor? Could he have been a soldier? How did Cornahan and Redford understand every nuance of what a velvet censorship is like? Had Carnahan lived under a dictatorship?

Meryl Streep played the part of the seasoned reporter who wakes up to find she has to chose between stenography and propaganda, and writing what she knows from her experience to be true. I will not tell give the ending away, but the reporter Streep plays has a choice to make. Does she do what she is trained to do, or does she regurgitate a press release and let the manipulators put more lives at risk?

Matthew Cornahan and Robert Redford 's knowledge of the events following the invasion of Iraq is nothing less than brilliant. "The Velvet Censorship" was a complicated erosion of values and the turning points are right there on screen to witness.

Now that the film is out on HBO, I took a deep breath and decided to watch it again.

As I did, I thought of the journalists who recognized the censorship and refused to play a role in it. I thought about the corporations running newsrooms today and how they censor by encouraging infotainment. I thought about today's reporters who don't know their history and are incapable of helping viewers put things in perspective. I thought about the corporations who now own once great newsrooms--corporations who curry favor with the White House to keep gobbling up more Television and Radio stations. I thought about the courage it took to speak up knowing it could cost careers.

Fear is a powerful sedative, but there are many town criers (reporters) who refused to report only what the White House told them to. This is for them. They are American heroes.

Helen Thomas: Who would have thought after all those soft ball questions all those years lobbed at every President since John f. Kennedy, she would turn out to be a pit-bull? I am ashamed I did not see it before. I want to thank her for insisting the President tell the American people what he was up to. She never did get many answers, and she certainly fell from grace at the White House, but she showed more gumption than anyone else in the White House Briefing" room. "Mr. President what is the mission?" "Mr. President how did Afghanistan turn into Iraq?" " Mr. President the military still hasn't captured Bin Laden." On she went with countless questions which turned the President's face crimson.

I will forever call her Mt. St. Helen now.

Dan Rather: The last of the big boys. He is one tough Texas SOB. CBS and Viacom needed to win favor with the White House and Rather, who breathed life into CBS for years, and earned---EARNED-- America's trust was thrown out like yesterday's garbage. He is now suing CBS. Rather refused to join the George W. Bush PomPom Brigade, he lost his job and now says he cannot get another one. We are talking about Dan Rather here folks. Then came the accusations against him. I cannot wait to hear his version of how CBS sabotaged his career after he criticized George Bush. I hope he has the fortitude to keep plugging. The world needs to understand what CBS did to him and how the "Tiffany" network is forever tarnished. Dan Rather is an American hero.

Paul Steiger was managing editor of The Wall Street Journal until Rupert Murdoch bought the paper. Steiger has formed an independent- non-profit- news organization called Propublica with some of the best reporters in the country on board. Steiger plans to deliver news to Americans without fear of retribution from commercial interests. He is a journalist in the true sense of the word. He is a stellar example of a man who still believes in the "Fourth Estate." Without it, citizens are uninformed and there is no democracy. Steiger is a patriot.

I thought of mark ash, the director of Truthout.Org. His on- line news service has been subjected to every shenanigan imaginable. His paper has been re-directed to subscriber's spam boxes with alarming consistency and his fortitude fighting to deliver alternative views to the American people is makes him a present day revolutionary. When this "velvet censorship" is over Mark Ash should be honored.

I also thought about the dozens of journalists from all over the country who have written me with stories such as this one: "There's a military base right across the street from our television station where soldier's bodies are brought home. We were told never to point our cameras in that direction or ask questions about what's going on there."

Lions for Lambs is for those journalists--not who tried to stop the war---but who tried and continue to try to get truth about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the public. There are many, many others. Perhaps you can make your own list. The names of those--many black listed today--who refused to become stenographers or spread propaganda--no matter how much we all want the lies to be true.

Seven years after 9/11, and a little more than two weeks before Memorial Day not much has changed. The mission in Iraq is still unclear. With few embedded journalists there, there is no way to know for sure who is telling the truth. PBS' Frontline recently did a story featuring one platoon who video-taped themselves doing their duty just in case the American people had forgotten them.

See: here

If only journalist would be allowed to do their jobs again, Hollywood, soldiers and others would not have to.

There are many journalists who have refused to cheer for the administration and read its press releases without checking for facts. But perhaps this film will help American citizens recognize manipulation and think twice before keeping quiet.

Leslie Griffith lesliegriffith.org

Matthew McConaughey Baby Pictures Up For Auction, Magazines Bid Over $1 Million

2008-05-17T00:04:34Z

TMZ has learned that McConaughey has hired "brand agent" Todd Shemarya -- who's already brokered deals for Brangelina and Xtina -- to help pull in some serious dough for photos of his child. So far, Mattyboy's gotten offers from three different publications -- EACH OVER A MILLION BUCKS! And the price is still climbing.

Oprah's Favorite Things For Summer: The Over-The-Top Crowd Reaction

2008-05-17T00:02:28Z

Despite Oprah's best efforts, her producers forced her to air an "Oprah's Favorite Things for Summer" episode, where she gave away things like bathing suits and grills and makeup. The giveaways were decidedly more low-key than her traditional pre-holiday "Oprah's Favorite Things" episode, but the crowd reactions were not. Below watch the screams, the hugs, the tears, and the freak-outs:

From ABC, 5/16

For a reminder of what the crowd's reaction was like last winter, watch the video here.

Cameron Diaz: "Sex Is The Best"

2008-05-16T23:01:28Z

Cameron Diaz graces the June 2008 issue of InStyle magazine and chats away in an interview on the inside.

On being single: "People think if you're single, you are incomplete. No. The thing is, I don't want to be in a relationship that makes me incomplete."

On sex: "Are you kidding? I love men. Sex is the best! ...You have to really enjoy [being sexy]. Not fake anything. Sexy is being in the moment, whether that means being coy or coming on hard. Faking is always lame and it never comes across the way you want it to."

On body hair: "I love chest hair. Mm-hmm. I'm not saying I want a huge amount, but the right amount is very sexy. I don't like the smooth, hairless body."

On her dating life: "I'm a woman. Of course I'm dating. And is that so surprising? Oh my god, she's dating!

On potential dates: I"'m not going to bring some idiot into my world, and if I'm not sure about him, I'm cautious... My list is all about balance. You can have smart but not funny. You can have funny but not very smart. You can have intellectual but not social. But... I want it all! I love big brains. I love to eat. I love to be outdoors. I love to have conversations! I love to make love. I live like arrrgh! I don't do anything half-assed, and I want somebody who can keep up with all that. And I want someone who can show me something, you know?"

Michael Moore: "Fahrenheit 9/11" Follow-Up Not A Sequel

2008-05-16T22:37:06Z

CANNES, France — With his follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore wants to examine America as an empire, study its standing since the Sept. 11 attacks and present revelations to surprise audiences as much as the first film did.

But he doesn't want to make a sequel.

"To just say it's a sequel is so wrong," Moore told The Associated Press on Friday at the Cannes Film Festival, where he met with potential international distributors for the film, due out in 2009.

The documentary announced this week at Cannes will be a broader chronicle than "Fahrenheit 9/11," which took President Bush to task over the terrorist attacks and the Iraq war.

"It would be easier and safer to make a sequel, if that's all it was, but this isn't about Bush. We all know this. Regardless of who the president is come November, we have a big mess, a big, big mess to be cleaned up, and I don't know whether it can be cleaned up," Moore said. "The toxicity of the spill may be so great that there's nothing we can do about it. If that's the case, where are we now as America and as Americans?"

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize at Cannes in 2004 and went on to top $100 million at the domestic box office, the only documentary to hit that mark.

Moore plans to keep details of the film to himself, saying he regretted talking too early about his health-care documentary "Sicko." Health insurers were able to mobilize against him, which "made it impossible for me to get in anywhere" for interviews, he said.

The new film, which doesn't yet have a title, is being financed by Overture Films, which is handling the U.S. release, and Paramount Vantage, which is overseeing international distribution.

Chris McGurk, chief executive officer of Overture, said the new film will be something of a culmination of Moore's previous work, which includes the General Motors tale "Roger & Me" and the Academy Award-winning gun-control documentary "Bowling for Columbine."

"The country has sort of been rotting from within, and the culprits are big business, big corporations, kind of the conservative government," McGurk said. "`Bowling for Columbine,' `Sicko,' `Roger and Me' all could have been episodes inside the context of this film."

While Moore said the new film would go beyond Bush, he dropped strong hints that the president would remain in his sights.

"Our biggest enemy that we should have been afraid of during these last eight years was perhaps an internal one, and I don't mean ourselves," Moore said. "I mean people that were up to absolutely no good when it came to what was best for this country and best for the world.

"It's my sincere hope that next Jan. 20, it's not just a transition taking place at the White House, where the U-Haul pulls up to take his stuff to Crawford (Texas). I think there should be a perp-walk coming out of the West Wing. The crimes that these people have committed go far beyond _ and I'm not saying it on any kind of an emotional level or what my feelings are about Bush or whatever. I think there are very specific things that need to be looked at in terms of what they've done."

Moore, 54, scolded Hollywood for shying away from the Iraq War early on. He said "Fahrenheit 9/11" was the only war film to become a hit because it came out at a time when it touched a nerve, prompting people to question U.S. military action.

A recent wave of Iraq-themed movies bombed because support for the war has dwindled and most Americans now oppose it, he said.

"Because they didn't have the courage to put these films out when they were needed, the public didn't get to see them, the war continued," Moore said.

"When they finally started putting them out really last year and into this year, 70 percent of the public was against the war. Seventy percent of the public already knew that the war was no good, and they didn't need to spend Friday night at a movie theater after they've been working hard all week to sit there and be told this war is really a bad idea."

___

On the Net:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/en.html

Erik Lundegaard: Why Is The New York Times Encouraging Hollywood's Myopia?

2008-05-16T21:43:04Z

When I began reading Michael Cieply's article in the May 15th New York Times, "For Movies, A Summer That's Shy on Sequels," my main thought was: "What's the point?"

A year ago, the headline would've read, "For Movies, A Summer That's Full of Sequels," which, it turns out, is exactly their point. Last summer, three sequels (Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates) and one movie based on a toy/TV show (Transformers) each took in over $300 million at the domestic box office, leading to one of Hollywood's best summers. This summer, insiders believe only Raiders can reach the $300 million mark. They're bracing for an off-summer.

Even so: What's the point? Or better: How is this news? It's prognostication. It's a kind of vague economic hand-wringing over something that hasn't occurred. Cieply uses the conditional or tentative form of "could" five times in a pretty short article. He uses "may" five times. With all the rules the New York Times has in its style guide, you'd think they'd have some limits on conditionals or hypotheticals in a non-Op-Ed article.

Still, if you're going to write about this kind of non-news, at least be imaginative with your use of stats. Cieply isn't. He writes: "As hot as Iron Man is, with domestic ticket sales of about $180 million in its first week and a half, it still trails last year's summer season kick-off movie, 'Spider Man 3,' by about 25 percent in the same time."

Well, of course. Spider-Man 3 set a box office record, grossing over $150 million in its opening weekend. But if you keep following the stats you'll find that Spider-Man 3's take the following weekend dropped by 61.5 percent while Iron Man's dropped by only 48.1 percent. You'll find that while no movie was faster than Spider-Man 3 to the $100 million mark, three movies were faster to the $200 million mark and five movies were faster to the $300 million mark. You'll also find that of all the Spider-Man movies, the third grossed the least. Even with inflation.

Similarly, of the other two big sequels last summer -- Shrek 3 and Pirates 3 -- each grossed $100 million less than their previous sequel.

In other words, for all of their supposed success last summer, these films really weren't that successful. It was summer, people went to see them, but... They didn't keep returning. On IMDb.com, each film has the lowest user rating in its series. In the long run, they probably weren't good for the business.

I know: "the long run." Something Hollywood doesn't pay much attention to. But why does the New York Times, the paper of record, have to share, even encourage, their myopia?

Alex Remington: Interview with David Pasquesi, Improviser, Actor, Comedian, Meat Man

2008-05-16T20:55:41Z

Odds are, you've seen David Pasquesi or heard his voice, though you may not realize it. Of the seventeen movies he's appeared in, six were directed by fellow Second City alums, including three by fellow Chicagoan Harold Ramis. He played Stew the Meat Man in the television show and movie Strangers with Candy, and Jeff Garlin's best friend in Garlin's recent I Want Someone To Eat Cheese With. With T.J. Jagodowski, he does an improv show called "TJ and Dave" at the ImprovOlympic, a venue co-founded by his teacher Del Close, one of the creators of modern long-form improv. (Among iO's many alums is Ali Davis and the Upright Citizens Brigade.) In addition, he works as a stage actor in Chicago, and he is one of the more prolific commercial and voiceover voices on television.

I consider myself an improviser, but do not mind when people call me a comedian or actor. I guess I like anything when it goes well. When people laugh, I like it. In regards to performing comedy versus more serious plays, I think there is comedy in all of it. When I am pretending that I am an actor... to me, that's funny.

I am a Chicago-area native. When I am not in Chicago I can't seem to get past the notion that there is a better place to live and it is Chicago. I have been tempted to live elsewhere, but then I look at my situation objectively and realize there is no better place for me to become a better improviser than here in Chicago.

However, the comedy scene in Chicago has changed quite a bit since I first got started. Back then, there was one stand-up club, Zanies, and the more alternative Chicago Comedy Showcase. Then the stand-up boom of the late 80's came, and there were at least a dozen stand-up clubs. Now there is only Zanies again.

I started in comedy back in... let's see... it was around 1981. My brother was in Law School and he went to an improv class. I had never been on stage but I tagged along. I was at once enamored with it and started to study about it. I lucked out to have a great teacher for my first class, a Second City alumna, Judy Morgan. Improvisation seemed to fit the ideas and hopes I had about the way things should be.

I decided to try to do this and nothing else around 1984. I had graduated college and was working in an office. One day I just quit, lived on a friend's floor and started doing stand-up and taking classes with Del Close. The only reason I wound up at Del's class is that I benefited from some advice given to my friend, Joel Murray, from one of his brothers. I admired Del for his intelligence, dedication to improvisation and well-masked generosity... very well-masked.

Comedic improvisation was not considered a good career move. There was one place that would pay you to do it, The Second City. So the people that were involved were people who were interested in improvisation as an end in itself. I think that is different now. I think there are more people who see it as a stepping-stone to a more commercial end. I'm not saying it is wrong or right, just that it is different. It used to be a stepping-stone to absolutely nothing else.

I suppose my dream is to do things I find rewarding and challenging with people I respect and enjoy. As an improviser, I currently love to do the show with TJ and am tickled that we perform regularly in New York in a 'legit' theater and are reviewed as theater and not as comedy or improv, but actual theater. I think that is a step forward for improvisation and I am honored to be a part of it.

As for people I admire... Harold Ramis is wonderful. I think he is a great example of someone who is extremely intelligent, talent, funny, generous and kind. He is a great director, performer, writer and filmmaker. Not bad, if you ask me.

Have the parts I have played in movies affected my career? ... gosh, now that you ask, I notice that I am not a big-shot movie star, so... not that much I guess. Sometimes people say something on the street. It doesn't happen often, so I still get a big kick out of it.

Favorites are tough to pick, but I'll try. Honestly, I truly enjoy doing the things I choose to do, so if I am working, I enjoy it. But that's not what you asked. As a comedian, I loved working at Second City. I had Del as my director and got to work with a great cast which included Joel Murray, who had been my roommate in college. As a stage actor, the best thing I got to do was to play Roma in Glengarry Glen Ross at the Steppenwolf. The cast, director, play, production, all of it was a blast. Other than that, the things I find most satisfying are the things I've done that I was in way over my head. Making a feature with Mitch Rouse, writing and making a TV pilot with Tracy Letts, improvising a TV show with Rouse, Jay Leggett, Michael Coleman and others from Second City and ImprovOlympic. It is a great thing to goof around with your friends doing things that make one another crack up.

The things that were unsatisfying were the things that didn't last long.

I honestly enjoy all of it for different reasons. Just by the nature of improvisation, one is constantly surprised.

Jay Glatfelter: On Lost: "There's No Place Like Home Part 1"

2008-05-16T20:00:40Z

Here we are at the beginning of the end of Season 4. "There's No Place Like Home Part 1" was a great start to a season finale and once we have all three parts, I think this episode will be even better. This may be just first act, but boy, what a first act it was! We had the arrival of the Oceanic 6 in the flash-forward, and holy crap -- their return was rather intense. If the great flash-forward wasn't enough, the island story was jammed packed as well. We had a mountain of C4 on the freighter, a journey to the fabled Orchid Station, "saving" the survivors by raft six at a time, Jack bleeding out of his gut, Keamy ready to kill them all, and Locke actually physically moving the Island?

Yeah, Part 1 definitely showcased the new breath of life the fourth season gave to the show. I was thinking to myself last night that not once have I sat and watched the show this season and said, "I'm bored." I couldn't say that about season 3 and definitely not about Season 2. The writers' and creators' demand for an end date to the show have saved Lost from mediocrity. THANK YOU the powers-that-be! I have the same wonderment and zeal that I had when I watched the first season of Lost, and that is no easy task.

They're Branding You "The Oceanic 6"

Wow, they pulled out the big guns for the flash-forward: what happened when the Oceanic 6 first got back home. I must say I got a little misty-eyed when our survivors got to meet their families again. It was also nice to see Jack's mom, who we haven't seen since his first flashback in Season 1. And how great was Sun's takeover of Paik Industries? How heavy was Jack finally learning that Claire was actually his half-sister? How creepy was the "Numbers" in Hurley's Camaro dashboard? And of course, how great was Sayid and Nadia's reunion (even though we know it will be short lived)?

Geeze! That's A Lot of C4

Well, I guess we found out what that device on Keamy's arm last week is for. If Keamy goes down, the freighter must blow up. This leads to a lot of questions; we know Sun and Aaron will survive safely, but what about Michael, Desmond, and Jin? Their fates seem to be in peril, and with Jin's possible impending death, it doesn't look too good. Also, would Michael get his death wish so soon? They better not even think of killing Desmond. I want one happy ending in this story, dammit!

"I Always Have a Plan"

So Ben has a plan. What is it? He seemed very courageous walking straight into Keamy's arms. We know that he will live past this moment from his flash-forward, but from what happens between now and his arrival in Tunisia? Ben is currently at the Orchid Station; in his flash-forward, he was wearing a jacket from the Orchid Station. In his FF, his arm was injured and he had his beating stick that he handed to John before he walked into Keamy's control. What is he going to do and whose side is he on? Is Ben going to screw over John in the end for his own benefit? Or is Ben actually going to be a team player?

Thoughts and Side Notes

What does Faraday not have in his notebook of wonders? Seriously, I wonder if Widmore or Ben would like to get their hands on that notebook.
I believe the Oceanic 6 cover up will be the big picture of next season. I don't think they can really cover it in the last 2 hours of this season, but with the seeds that were laid in this episode, there is a lot of story to cover on why The Oceanic 6 lied about the crash.
What is going to become of Jack's bleeding? Will his collapse from his bleeding wound result in his being part of the Oceanic 6?

Overall I really liked this episode, but I can't give it the full stamp of approval until I see all of the intended parts of the season finale. That said, Season 4 might go down as my favorite season of Lost so far, but that will all depend on how they close it up two weeks from now with the last 2 parts to "There's No Place Like Home."

What did you think? What are you thoughts, questions, comments, and/or theories? Let's open up the discussion in the comment section below.

Be sure to also check out my podcast "The Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack" or on iTunes by searching "Jay and Jack" or "Lost Podcast."

Secrecy Shrouds "Indiana Jones" In Advance Of Cannes Debut

2008-05-16T19:34:44Z

CANNES, France — Indiana Jones doesn't give up his secrets lightly, and neither does the man pulling his strings.

Director Steven Spielberg has tried to keep chapter four of the archaeologist's big-screen adventures, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," under wraps as tight as an ancient mummy's.

The stealth approach has whipped up a frenzy of expectation _ and doubts about the movie's quality _ as he prepares to unveil it in front of the world's toughest audience, critics at the Cannes Film Festival. The film premieres here Sunday, just four days before it opens in theaters worldwide.

In an era of Internet spoilers, fan blogging and online video diaries where filmmakers show off their tricks, Indy returns with the old-fashioned covertness Spielberg always has favored.

"He is the only one in the world who keeps his cards face down on the table until the 11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and nothing deters him from doing that," said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg's partner at DreamWorks.

Revealing their cards at Cannes, with its notoriously snooty press corps, is a critical risk for Spielberg, executive producer George Lucas and star Harrison Ford.

Hollywood trade paper Variety quipped that Indiana Jones was entering the "Kingdom of the Critical Knives," and reporters have joked that Cannes might prove a new Temple of Doom for Indy.

Two years ago, the first press screening of "The Da Vinci Code" drew open laughter from Cannes critics, whose harsh reviews spoiled the film's premiere a day later and set the stage for a worldwide critical drubbing.

Of course, "The Da Vinci Code" went on to gross $758 million globally. As the first movie in 19 years for one of cinema's biggest adventure series, "Crystal Skull" is virtually assured of blockbuster results, too.

Possibly to shield "Crystal Skull" from a similar critical backlash, Spielberg, Lucas and distributor Paramount weren't letting critics see the movie until hours before its Cannes premiere.

In an unusual move, the few cast and crew interviews at Cannes were scheduled Saturday, before reporters had even seen the film. The movie's profile is so high, the filmmakers figure it doesn't need the usual publicity.

Spielberg has been hush-hush from the start. Co-star Karen Allen, reprising her "Raiders of the Lost Ark" role as Indy's old flame Marion Ravenwood, said Spielberg initially wanted to keep it a secret that she was even in "Crystal Skull."

"Even after the film was announced, people would call me. `Oh, it's too bad you're not going to be in the film,'" Allen said. "I had to go along with it and say, `Yeah, it's a shame.' When it was finally announced I was in it, it was a huge relief. I was having to make up stories for why I wasn't in it, and I was finding it excruciating to have to do that."

In its earliest incarnation, Lucas proposed an all-out alien flick called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Spielberg and Ford didn't like that idea, and it took more than a decade of wrangling to come up with a story all three could live with.

A trailer showing a crate marked "Roswell, New Mexico, 1947" _ a mecca for UFO buffs _ hints that the movie retains traces of its extraterrestrial origins. Remarks by Lucas that the new film took its cue from 1950s sci-fi tales backs up that notion.

"The B-movies of the '50s were crazy science-fiction films, `It Came From Outer Space' and `Them!' and I said, `Well, gee, I could use that as the basis of the genre that I was using as my reference,'" Lucas said.

From the trailers and studio press materials, the basic story line is out there _ Indy and Soviet agents led by Cate Blanchett pursue a crystal skull that can bestow fantastic power on those returning it to a city of solid gold in the Amazon from where it was stolen.

Secrets remain, such as how Indy and Marion are reunited and whether co-star Shia LaBeouf is playing the love child of their "Raiders" romance.

Spielberg was incensed last year when an extra leaked plot details, and the filmmakers have scrambled to maintain the mystery.

"It's been insane," said Frank Marshall, producer on the "Indiana Jones" movies. "I've spent a great deal of time on this movie just trying to keep things off the Internet. That's totally new for us. There seems to be some kind of sport out there now to see who can put up a spoiler, which is not fair to the audience. We really tried to keep the lid on the story just for the audience's sake."

Accustomed to fan gripes from his "Star Wars" prequels, Lucas has downplayed expectations for "Crystal Skull," saying audiences will be disappointed if they're anticipating a cinematic Second Coming.

Such remarks could just be part of Lucas and Spielberg's strategy to keep fans guessing.

"There's a little P.T. Barnum in both of them. They know how to get you interested," said "Crystal Skull" screenwriter David Koepp. "There's nothing more interesting than saying, `You can't see what's under here. I'd love to show you what's behind there, but I just can't.'"

Even a short behind-the-scenes segment on the official "Indiana Jones" Web site doesn't show much from behind the scenes. It focuses mainly on Spielberg in generic filmmaking mode, revealing virtually nothing about the action, ending with a close-up of Spielberg finishing a shot.

"And cut," Spielberg says. "Very nice."

The tough crowd at Cannes will have something to say about that Sunday.

___

On the Net:

http://www.indianajones.com

Taylor Who? Former "American Idol" Winner Headed To Broadway

2008-05-16T19:22:45Z

NEW YORK — Taylor Hicks is going from "Idol" to "Angel."

The "American Idol" alum will join the Broadway cast of "Grease" on June 6, playing Teen Angel in the revival of the popular musical.

The gray-haired singer _ whose "Idol" fan base was called "The Soul Patrol" _ said he plans to add "soulful flavor" to his performance of "Beauty School Dropout." The flashy role, he said, is "a classic fit for a classic performer."

"It's a big number, and, you know, I've made some pretty grand entrances before," Hicks told The Associated Press on Thursday. "And this one is probably the grandest entrance I've had in my career."

Well, besides "Idol." Hicks, 31, took home the title in the fifth season of the top-rated Fox show _ the biggest stage on television.

He later lost his record deal with J Records, a label within Sony-BMG, which signs the show's singers, and had been looking for the perfect part to make his debut on The Great White Way.

"If you're gonna be a great entertainer and you're gonna be a great performer, than these are the things that you have to do to season yourself in that manner," said Hicks, who views this "opportunity of a lifetime" as a way to improve his "Idol"-tested skills.

The Alabama-born crooner's run ends Sept. 7. He'll be the latest "Idol" to hit Broadway, following runs by season-three winner Fantasia Barrino ("The Color Purple") and a host of also-rans including Clay Aiken ("Spamalot"), Diana DeGarmo ("Hairspray") and Constantine Maroulis ("The Wedding Singer").

Hicks' self-titled, post-"Idol" album, released in December 2006, has sold a respectable 702,000 copies, according to Nielsen Soundscan data. But it didn't reach the 1 million mark or register a hit song, unlike previous "Idol" winners.

This summer, Hicks intends to finish up a follow-up album _ on his own terms.

"I've had the creative freedom and the time to write some of the best music that I've ever written in my whole life. ... The options are unlimited and there has been some great interest now that I'm a free agent, so to speak," he said.

Jane McGivney: Top Chef: Sexy Sam & the Boys in Blue

2008-05-16T17:45:44Z

We open up with Spike having a serious heart to heart with himself. "Why would you want to be the outcast and act like the asshole? It's gonna follow you in your career!" Oh wait, he's talking about Dale.

Dale is vowing that he's just "gonna focus on the task at hand."

Andrew, meanwhile is saying, "Everybody's beat down! Except for me! Who's all crazy! Either I'm gonna stab somebody, or I'm gonna make some amazing food!"

Just another day at the Top Chef house.

QUICKFIRE:

Padma and Sam Talbot, from last season's Top Chef, are here. Or was it two season's ago? Anyway, they are both impossibly good looking. It's freakish.

Antonia is smitten: "He's talk, dark and handsome and he can cook. Sign me up." My roommate points out that Sam is doing a "sexy pose."

This quickfire is about salad. Sam says, "this is a chance to recreate and put a little sexy back into the salads."

I would say this quickfire is about Sexy...Mr. Sexy Sam.

Sexy Sam says, "Create this millennium's Caesar or Cobb or Waldorf salad. You have 45 minutes to bring salad's sexy back."

My goodness! This salad has to stand up until the year 3000? This is a tough challenge. Someone should make a salad like that astronaut ice-cream. Just a thought.

Spike says he's going to "make something that screams, let's have sex after we eat this salad." I am worried that Spike is apparently going to soak his salad in Peach Schnapps and offer you a massage while you eat it. Watch out ladies. Spike makes a "sensual" salad with pineapple and skirt steak.

Antonia loves "fattie salads." Me too! She decides have a poached egg over her wild mushroom salad.

Andrew makes a Thai fruit salad. I find fruit salad depressing. It also reminds me of the Cored Apple of Doom from last season.

Sexy Sam and whoever that lady is come around and taste the salads. Sexy Sam really loves Spike's and Antonia's. Antonia gazes at Sexy Sam. OMG she loves him, she wants to have his babies.

In the end it's between Dale, Spike and Antonia. Spike wins. He bobs his stupid fedora in joy. He doesn't get immunity but he does get an advantage in the elimination challenge.

ELIMINATION CHALLENGE

Sexy Sam and that lady Padma bring in trays of greasy fast food. They say this is what cops eat.

Sexy Sam is diabetic, so this challenge has a place in his heart. The Challenge is to create a gourmet, healthy boxed lunch for officers and cadets of Chicago Police Academy. The lunches must include an ingredient from five groups: whole grains, lean proteins, fruits and vegetables. "Protect their health and serve them something tasty."

Spike's advantage is that he gets an extra 10 minutes to shop and also he gets to pick a food from each group that the other chefs will then not be able to use. He glows and giggles with joy: "and now it's time to piss everybody off....my personal strategy is to make it very difficult for them." And he picks Chicken, tomatoes, bread and lettuce.

Lisa is making a shrimp stir fry, Richard is making a burrito with bok choi and tuna, Andrew is making a rice-less sushi roll with parsnip and pine nuts as sushi rice, Stephanie is making a mushroom soup with meatballs, Dale is making lettuce cups out of napa cabbage with marinated bison and Antonia is making curry beef with jasmine and brown rice and a fresh berry fruit salad.

Tom comes around to check everyone out - he seems nonplussed by Spike's lame clearly defensive strategy of chicken salad, and starts to sweat after trying Lisa's hot sauce. Richard says, "I think cops might like burritos. Just possibly." Get ready because you are going to hear about Burritos for the rest of the episode. Just think about whether or not you like burritos. Just a word of advice.

Lisa also finds that her rice is on high, not low, and it's burned on the outside and undercooked too. She howls sabotage, but no one is impressed - dale says, "that kind of shit happens in kitchens all the time." Stephanie thinks this also, so it must be true.

They all show up at the academy and start to set up and serve. And then Richard says for the first of a thousand times, "Do you like burritos? Question of the day, do you like burritos? I gotta ask you what I asked the other guy, DO YOU LIKE BURRITOS!"

It feels like torture. I finally crack, sobbing, "yes! yes i like burritos! leave me alone!" Seriously. This morning the first thing I said to Travis, after "I wish I had coffee" and "'I'm tired" and "isn't our cat adorable?" was "I've got to ask you something. DO YOU LIKE BURRITOS!!!???!"

The judges are unimpressed by Andrew's sushi roll and Spike's lame chicken salad with grapes and olives. Eww. Padma who I think is so dry and hilarious, says "It's a very pedestrian chicken salad to me." Tom actually throws down Andrew's roll in disgust.

There's an awful lot of patronizing talk about what cops like and don't like - because all cops are the same of course. Sam comes from a family of cops, and I pause to picture five identical Sexy Sams in cop outfits. IT'S AMAZING! YOU SHOULD PICTURE THIS!

Winners: It's between Dale and Stephanie for the winning dish, and Dale wins. He gets major credit for using Bison instead of beef. Dale points out, "I don't want to brag...but 5 for 20 wins..."

Losers: Spike, Lisa and Andrew.

Andrew is there because his dish wasn't hearty enough. I agree, it was 4 little pieces. Andrew points out that everything in that dish was designed to make one energized. I do think he put a lot of thought into this. He says that he made a small meal because you should eat small meals every few hours. The judges find this hilarious, because cops are of course five year olds and if they don't have a huge lunch apparently they will pig out on candy bars.

Eh. I think it was definitely a bad choice, but I don't think he should go home for this, I really don't. That said, Tom, who has a lot of zingers this episode, points out that it wasn't really good.

The judges ask Spike why he chose to do a chicken salad. He says that "I figured it wouldn't scare the police men." UGH. So patronizing.

After some prodding, Spike says "What was SO wrong about the way I used my ingredients! (re: the olives & grapes) "Salty & Sweet! What don't you understand about salty & sweet! For the common person, they thought it was amazing."

Tom: "Unfortunately for you, my opinion's what matters."

Then they move on to Lisa. She squeals about how someone was out to get her and messed up her rice. Yawn. Then, right before they go back to the holding pen, she tells the judges that Andrew didn't use a whole grain in his dish. Fine, fine, it's a competition, she can do that. But she says, in clear denial that she's pointing a finger, "Ahem, I don't want to be pointing fingers." You can't have it both ways, Lisa.

Andrew says something along the lines of, "C'mon, you called me out, finish what you started you surly finger pointer" and she says, "I'm not going to say anymore, I'm afraid I'll get punched." You're a little too deep in the mud to clamber back to the high road, Lisa.

Ultimately the judges kick out Andrew. I am upset by this. I really think it should have been Spike. He had an amazing advantage and he cooked the most uncreative dish of all time. At least Andrew tried!

Andrew, who actually really grew on me --seriously!-- as the season went on, says, graciously, "Thank you, no security necessary, thank you for this opportunity and I'd like to shake your hands." Andrew, I liked you. You are always welcome in my house. But please remember it's my house.

Then I chatted with Old Max:

Max: Great episode.

Me: I think it's a travesty that spike didn't go home over Andrew. Andrew at least took a risk,
even if it was dumb and arrogant.

Max: Also gross. Most importantly, gross.

Me: with if the best spike can do, with that advantage, is play defensively - lame

Max: Spike's dish was weird and unambitious, Andrew's was actually gross. And then he was a
total asshole to the judges.

Me: Ah, i didn't think andrew's was gross. Spike's seemed gross to me. Oh no wait, that is just
his hat and personality

Max: It looked pretty disgusting, and Tom thought it tasted bad. I mean, Lisa is the worst. What a
terrible person.

Me: OOF! Agreed

Max: She goes nuts about "sabotage" (sure) and how it's a travesty, then throws Andrew under a
bus and is like "Hey, it's a competition"

Me: oh totally.

Max: Well, if it's just a competition, it's cool if someone just constantly fucks with her stove. And
then being self righteous about the rules..,

Me: if spike makes it to the final three, I will wear an ugly hat and THEN eat it. ugly hats and
vicious back stabbing can only take you SO far in Reality TV. Call me a romantic.

Max: Haha, truth.