It's generally not our style to shut things down once the 'question is answered' or the event has passed, we'd rather it fade away and be available should the need to bump it ever arise - so I'll leave it open.

But if Dafoo wants to talk about the political leanings of various celebrities from here on out, I'd ask that he send me a PM.

It's clear from earlier posts that Cory isn't into non-mainstreen Cinema

Looking at his DVD collection I'd say that Cory's probably more into mainstream cinema than most people - HOV is probably on the fringe of that category anyway.  This may or may not apply to Cory but I often run into people who either just plain old don't like it when (or feel compelled to disagree with) groups like the Academy who have a very large say about what goes into the history books as great film and what doesn't.  I like to think that a lot of the time groups like that who have worked in and been around film for decades know at least a little bit about what they're talking about.  They don't always get it right but the fact that they didn't pick Brokeback for best picture makes me think even moreso that this time around they pretty much did.

It wasn't hard at all - I spent the better part of four years in school composing simlar thoughts on a wide variety of film topics. 

One final note, Hulk was literally the biggest pile of **** ever put onto celluloid; relating A History of Violence to it in any way is about as far off base as one could be.

He's fairly overrated and forumlaic, IMHO. Granted, he's a great director, but art-house types tend to overpraise him whereas I see him as a hit or miss filmmaker, who pretty much peaked in the 80's, save "Naked Lunch".

I think the term "genius" is grossly overused, especially in entertainment. He's creative, and was once inventive, but using the same elements time and time again, and then applying them to a movie that they don't work in doesn't fly.

You seem to have edited out the part of your post where you said that "the difference here is that I share a basis for my opinion; others don't." but I'll just say that I don't really feel the need to sit here and defend David Cronenberg to you.  His talent and ability to make critically acclaimed films isn't on trial.  And for the record, however well you think you explained the basis for your opinion, you didn't say a whole heck of a lot beyond "fairly overrated and forumlaic" and "hit or miss."  A few buzz words for sure, but there wasn't any real substance to that declaration of his product as overhyped and deficient in the genius department.  You call him 'hit or miss,' I call him understated and unflinching.  More often than not, it's the viewership that's hit or miss.

Cronenberg has been at it for decades and is a master of his craft.  He possesses a unique sensibility, a keen eye, a deep understanding of subtlety (complimented by the ability to appropriately forego subtlety to acheive a desired effect), and while his films are often rooted in science fiction and/or horror, they almost always deal with far deeper themes that function on multiple levels.  He does about a million things right when it comes to filmmaking and story telling.  'A History of Violence' was vintage Cronenberg and dealt with many of humanity's less desireable traits in a gritty, entertaining, and meaningful way - while succeeding on a basic storytelling level as well. 

I'll agree with you that the label 'genius' is used too often when it comes to the entertainment industry - but for Cronenberg it is 100% applicable - he's spent 35 or so years earning it.  For me 'A History of Violence' only goes to show that he hasn't peaked yet.  I'm looking very forward two his next two projects 'London Fields' and 'I Kill.'  If 'A History of Violence' is any indication, they'll be fantastic.

A lot of those people are vocal with their campaign contributions - but either way, there are plenty more.  Sure it's less than half, but the fact remains that there are lots, while the perception is that there are none.  I should have used the word Celebrity, not actor - if you use the word celebrity, there are hundreds and hundreds to choose from.  Try googling Republican Celebrities or Conservative Celebrities and you'll find lots of websites with long long lists of people.

And it is very easy to classify Ron Silver as a Republican - he's a neo-conservative and is about as hawkish as they come.  Anyway, I've made my point, you've made yours, we should probably get off this train now.

James Woods. 

For those of you who have seen it, did you like it?

Most definitely.

We get it, republicans think hollywood is all liberal - just like that evil media. 

(Nevermind the dozens of conservative actors that I could name off of the top of my head who are plenty vocal in their own right.

Either way, let's keep this from getting political - since we all know it's not allowed.