What the Hell Happened to Demi Moore?

Demi Moore

Demi Moore  was launched to stardom along with the rest of the Brat Pack.  But while her colleagues’ careers were cooling in the 90’s, Moore’s star kept rising.  By the middle of the decade, Moore was the highest-paid actress in Hollywood.  But soon after her career peaked, Moore walked away from it all to focus on her personal life.

So, what the hell happened?

moore - cross eyed

As a child, Demi was cross-eyed. She underwent two surgeries to correct her vision.

Demi Moore came from humble beginnings.  Her parents separated before she was born – a fact she did not discover until she was 13.  She was cross-eyed as a child and also suffered from a kidney dysfunction.  When Moore was 15, her mother left her husband and moved to Hollywood to work for a magazine-distribution company.  Two years later, Moore’s adopted father took his life.

Moore with her first husband, Freddy Moore.

Moore with her first husband, Freddy Moore.

At the age of 16, Moore moved out on her own.  She dropped out of high school during her junior year to pursue a career in entertainment.  Three weeks before her 17th birthday, she met rock musician, Freddy Moore who was married to another woman.  Six months later, at the age of 17, Demi Moore married the recently divorced rock star.

Freddy Moore was the lead singer for a band called the Nu-Kats.  Moore and her husband co-wrote three songs together.  The band is best known for one of those songs, It’s Not a Rumor.  Demi appeared in the video.

The song was not a hit, but it received a lot of play on MTV in the early 80s.

moore - oui

In 1981, Moore lied about her age in order to pose for the cover of the adult magazine, Oui.  According to Moore, “only posed for the cover of Oui—I was 16; I told them I was 18.”  There were pictures of Moore inside the magazine, but Moore claimed they were re-purposed from a European fashion shoot.

moore - oui2

That does look European if you ask me.

moore - general hospital

From 1982-1983, Moore appeared on the daytime soap opera, General Hospital.  Moore played investigative reporter, Jackie Templeton.

All of this was pre-Brat Pack.

Next: St. Elmo’s Fire

Posted on August 6, 2012, in Movies, What the Hell Happened?, WTHH Actress and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 196 Comments.

  1. Thanks for the catch.

    I realy wanted to emphasize the fact that she was married ;)

    Like

  2. Funny. As for Striptease, I had high hopes at the time. And not to see Demi’s sweater monkeys – but rather the movie was taken from one of my favorite writers – Carl Hiaassen. The book was very good, the movie was not. Besides, fake boobies are a turn-off.

    Anyhow, maybe soon you could remind readers who was in the Brat Pack. I grew up in the 80s and I have honestly forgotten.

    Like

    • I had relatively high hopes for Striptease as well. I was a fan of Andrew Bergman based on The Freshman. I liked several of the films he had written. Striptease was Bergman’s undoing as well.

      The exact membership of the Brat Pack is actually up for debate. A lot of actors who are considered to be members of the Brat Pack argue that they were not (Andrew McCarthy, for example). Others, such as Melissa Gilbert, who are not usually considered to be Brat Packers have tried to lay claim to the title.

      For my money, anyone who was in The Breakfast Club or St Elmo’s Fire (save for Mare Winningham) is a card-carrying member of the Brat Pack. I would also throw in James Spader and Robert Downey Jr. There are others who could arguably be included as well.

      The original New York magazine article that coined the term was more inclusive and included the cast of The Outsiders as well.

      Like

      • In the E! True Hollywood story about Demi, I recall seeing a clip of an old 80s interview where she said something like “I don’t belong in any ‘Brat Pack’!”. I would love to find this (apparently it was re-aired in January because of all the publicity surrounding Demi’s hospitalization, but I didn’t catch it then).

        Demi certainly was not flattered by the Brat Pack label, and rightfully so. She was so above the rest of those mediocre, unappealing actors in the group. Her career would have gone down the tubes if she stayed with Estevez (Why she ever agreed to do a piece of crap like “Wisdom” after the excellent “About Last Night” is baffling. Maybe she did it as a favor to him?).

        I’ve been reading a lot about Demi lately and found an interview where she (sort of) explained why she left Hollywood. She felt she did a good job in G.I. Jane, but it was in the midst of the Striptease backlash and the critics wouldn’t let her win. She lost her drive after being torn apart like that. It’s on record that she turned down a lot of movie offers during her semi-retirement.

        If you look at the box office numbers for her last 2 big-budget movies, they both actually did GOOD for movies toplined by females. Striptease made $113 million and G.I. Jane made $98 million. I mean Nicole Kidman’s vehicles made way less than that, yet she kept getting praise even with flop after flop. But she’s someone with a good reputation. Demi, not so much. She collected a lot of enemies with her diva-like behavior (like demanding 2 planes for her and her entourage) and made some really stupid career choices (like changing the ending of The Scarlet Letter and figuring that no one noticed. I guess since Demi was a high school dropout she wasn’t aware that the book was required reading in almost every school).

        Like

        • I agree, Demi was apart from the rest of the Brat Pack. I think her later success bore that out. I am sure she never would have made Wisdom if not for the fact she was engaged to Estevez at the time.

          Totally agree with your last two paragraphs. Nothing to add there other than to say that Kidman’s flops have finally caught up with her. WTHH to Nicole Kidman will be coming to a blog near you eventually.

          Like

      • I was working in theatres at the time that The Outsiders came out (1983) and the term was definitely being bandied around then. And the young girls came in droves. Cruise and Swayze and Dillon quickly left the core circle while Downey, Hall and Moore kept circling each other’s films. It seemed the appearance of Estevez, Lowe or Ringwald in any movie seemed to brand it a BP film (Fresh Horses, Youngblood) regardless of who else was in it.

        Like

        • Brat Pack started off meaning one thing – basically the young male stars of The Outsiders – and came to mean something completely different. The term still represented the youth stars of the 80’s. But instead of being a bunch of bad boys behaving badly, it became more associated with the stars of John Hughes’ teen comedies. In a few years when teens were sick of high school movies, the term definitely took on negative connotations (although it was always intended as an insult). The actors like Cruise and Swayze who got out from under the label were definitely the lucky ones. The actors like Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall who were the most successful in the Hughes movies paid for it dearly.

          Like

          • I suppose it’s overused. Or at least it was. I don’t think people talk too much about the Brat Pack anymore. It’s just one of those terms where the meaning changed. It was coined by an author who wanted to take down a bunch of stuck-up Hollywood kids a peg or too. He specifically seemed to be targeting Estevez and Sheen. It probably wasn’t his finest moment as a journalist. But it came to represent teen movie stars of that period. People say it represented the stars of the John Hughes movies. But really, the core group came from two movies; Breakfast Club and Saint Elmo’s Fire. The latter had nothing to do with John Hughes but it was marketed as a quasi-Breakfast Club sequel so most audiences associated the two. Some people take a broader interpretation and use the term to mean all the young actors who were partying it up in Hollywood at the time. Which is probably closer to the term’s original intent.

            In spite of the different uses, I think most people know what you mean when you say “Brat Pack” if they lived through the 80s.

            Like

    • Top Ten Terrible Decisions to Play Terrible Strippers:

      http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/top-ten-terrible-decisions-to-play-terrible-strippers.php

      8. Demi Moore in Striptease

      The age old debate as to whether you prefer fake breasts to real can pretty much be summed up by watching this film. Once the subject of an Indecent Proposal, we can see exactly how the money was spent. She comes bursting on to the stage with her manufactured mammaries exploding from her chest to the shock and awe of the audience. I thank God the movie was not in 3D, else people would have been killed. If those guns were on G.I. Jane, we would have won the war. But big jugs automatically a stripper do not make. At least Ashton will have something to play with during naptime.

      Like

      • 10 Awful Movies You Only Watched For The Nude Scenes:

        http://whatculture.com/film/10-awful-movies-you-only-watched-for-the-nude-scenes.php/7

        5. Striptease

        Who? Demi Moore

        Way back in 1996, Demi Moore accepted a gigantic pay cheque to play Erin Grant, the stripper star of Andrew Bergman’s infamously terrible comedic drama, a role which obviously required certain amounts of nudity.

        Sadly for Moore, not even the long awaited sight of her cavorting naked in front of Burt Reynolds was enough to make the film a success, because it’s so disjointed and never quite knows what it’s supposed to be. Even more sadly for the star, most of the blame lies with her: both Burt Reynolds and co-star Ving Rhames are very good, but her Erin feels like she’s been taken from a completely different, far more serious film.

        They can blame the toxic precedent set by Showgirls, which came out the year before, but frankly, Striptease did fine work on its own making sure it won that year’s Razzie for the Worst Film Of The Year.

        Oddly, Striptease was actually the sixth time Moore had gone topless for a film, but everyone now seems to forget as much because of how awful Striptease was, and how oddly unsexual her nude scenes were.

        Like

  3. The photo you used in your article – I only recognized Demi and Judd. And I’m sorry – who the hell is Mare Winningham?

    Like

    • “Who the hell is Mare Winningham?” Exactly!

      Basically, Mare Winningham was the one member of the St Elmo’s Fire cast not to go on and do more Brat Pack movies.

      From the picture, the cast consisted of Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Aly Sheedy (those 3 all Breakfast Club cast members), Andrew McCarthy, Demi Moore and the often overlooked Mare Winningham.

      Like

  4. Umm…talked to Mare. She said that she hasn’t had a decent role since St. Elmo’s Fire because you dislike her so much. Time to let that go.

    Two suggestions for your ‘what the hell happened’…Aly Sheedy (nutty girl) and Lori Petty (used to be hot, looks like a meth-head now)

    Like

  5. Never been on the Demi bandwagon. That raspy, whiny voice just rubs me the wrong way I guess. Can’t think of a single movie I’ve seen with her in it that was enhanced by her role. It doesn’t surprise me at all she was nominated for so many rasberries and was in so many flops. GI Jane actually had some potential but it was too preachy and she wasn’t right for the role. Viggo Mortensen made that movie watchable with his small role. Nope, can’t say I miss Demi.

    My recollection of the Brat Pack in addition to Demi is: Rob Lowe, Andrew McCarthy, Ally Sheedy, Emilio Estevez, Anthony Michael Hall, Judd Nelson and Molly Ringwald with honorable mentions for John Cusack and Robert Downey Jr. Pleny of others were on the fringes but this was the core group as the 80’s media defined them.

    Like

    • It’s actually been a long time since I have watched a Demi Moore movie. Any Demi Moore movie.

      I remember I liked About Last Night… I can’t remember how much Demi’s performance contributed to that. But it was kind of a two-person show. So, she must have brought something to the table.

      I’m no Ghost fan. But I thought she definitely contributed to that film by looking fabulous and crying a lot.

      I actually hate Indecent Proposal. But she helped make that movie a sensation. Granted, a lot of other hot actresses could have done the same. Same goes for Disclosure.

      She was good in Margin Call although it was a small role.

      That’s all I got.

      Like

  6. I’m surprised that Demi’s relationship with Ashton Kutcher was only one sentence here because that, I felt, became as famous as her Vanity Fair cover

    Like

    • I don’t know that I would put Moore’s relationship with Kutcher on the same level as the Vanity Fair cover. That was a pop culture event. But I will admit to glossing over Kutcher. It’s a tabloid story that’s covered everywhere else. I am just not interested in that stuff.

      Like

  7. You mentioned Whoopi Goldberg here, one of my favourite actress qhen I was a kid. Will you ever write a WTHH about her?
    Wonderful article and wonderful blog :)
    Personally I always liked Demi Moore, but she made a string of very bad choices after “Ghost”

    Like

  8. It’s hard to pinpoint where Demi went wrong. Maybe she was badly advised. Her best movies in my opinion were “About Last Night” and “Ghost.” In both movies she came off as very sweet, innocent and vulnerable. She should have stuck to those kinds of roles, instead of trying to become some feminist icon.

    She has had a piss poor career since 2000, with the exception of the arthouse independent “Flawless.” There’s no denying that her career was going in decline after Striptease, but I really think that her lengthy retirement after “G.I. Jane” is what hurt her career the most. We saw this happen with Winona Ryder and Michelle Pfeiffer. All of these actresses were still stars when they left the business, then 5-6 years later they resurfaced in projects that were beneath them.

    Like

    • Rene Russo (whom I suggested to Lebeau on his Facebook page to do a “WTHHT” on eventually) is another high profile actress (who ironically, made her breakout role in “Lethal Weapon 3″ when she was almost 40) of recent times who arguably made the mistake of disappearing from films (after she made “Yours, Mine and Ours”) for 5-6 years before resurfacing in “Thor” (which was really more or less, a glorified cameo appearance as Thor’s stepmother, Frigga).

      Like

      • Russo is definitely a candidate. Not sure when I’ll get to her, but I will get to her eventually.

        Like

      • Yeah, she had a good career. I’m not aware of any juicy drama yet so I hope it doesn’t result in a dry article.

        Like

      • I think that’s the difference. Cage went from Oscar winner to the king of action schlock. How the hell does that happen?

        When I’m considering someone for WTHH, one of the things I look at is the failure to get movies released in theaters. Cage still gets a lot of theatrical releases. But he’s also had several movies released direct-to-video. That’s WTHH territory.

        I used to be stricter with who I would or would not write-up. Originally, I would only write-up A-list talent that was MIA. These days, I’ll do just about anyone who has had a marked rise and fall as long as they aren’t currently A-list.

        Like

      • I do agree w/ the assessment that what “killed” Rene Russo’s career as a major, A-list star was in part her age. She kind of fell into the Sharon Stone (who like Rene, became a household name/major star relatively late in their lives)/Kim Basinger category of being sex symbols, who arguably hit their supposed expiration dates after reaching certain age.

        Obviously, the lengthy hiatus from movies hurt also. I never really thought or considered Rene Russo to be a major box office star on her own like you can easily say that Demi Moore was at her peak. It seemed she benefited a lot from being in movies w/ huge male stars (or tent-pole franchises like “Lethal Weapon” and “Thor”) on their own.

        Like

      • Rene Russo

        What happened to her career?

        http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=10559408#page:showThread,10559408

        She’s 57, OP. You know what that means in Hollywood. I saw her a few months ago on ACCESS HOLLYWOOD and she looked great. She said that when the offers slowed down, she decided to take time out to raise her daughter. Her daughter is now 18, so she was ready to work again.

        Rene Russo was the go-to actress when producers needed a solid, attractive, talented name actress who was affordable. You will notice that she co-starred with the biggest most highly paid actors of the ’90s – Travolta, Costner, Gibson. Her salary offset the sky high salaries of her male co-stars. I read an interview with her in which she readily admitted this adding she was very happy with the situation. Seemed liked a very level-leaded, likable lady.

        Like

      • Whatever happened to Rene Russo?

        http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120426082121AAEa7Bg

        She doesn’t act much anymore, she’s in her 50s and probably aged past the roles she was once known for – the femme fatale. There are younger actresses who can do those roles. Sad but that’s Hollywood.

        Like

        • Rene Russo, Where Have You Gone?

          http://news.moviefone.com/2009/08/07/rene-russo-where-have-you-gone/

          Actors and actresses drop out of the limelight all the time, and such is the nature of Hollywood that no one ever really stops, notices, and thinks to hire them. It’s depressing and terrifying, to say the least.

          The reason I started worrying about Rene Russo is actually quite bizarre. It was thanks to Jennifer Aniston, who didn’t pacify my feelings on Pumas by hiring Michael Sucsy to direct her in Goree Girls. Yes, I’m a hypocrite — one minute I’m railing against her persistent lonely girl rom-coms, and the next I’m all “Aniston as a singing Texas inmate? That’s so ridiculous. Who would I cast, though? I don’t know. Probably Rene Russo or something.” And then it hit me … what the heck happened to Ms. Russo? I went to IMDB expecting that she had things in pre-production, or had several films languishing in direct-to-DVD land, only to discover she hasn’t appeared in a film since 2005. If IMDB is to be believed, she has nothing on her slate. Her message board is full of “Did she retire?” queries. The most recent story on her newsfeed that’s actually about her is from January 2009 when she told some red carpet reporters that Jessica Simpson looked pretty.

          My imagination tells me that she’s left the big screen because there aren’t enough parts for women “of a certain age,” and she’s dissatisfied with the scripts that are sent her way. I really hope it’s a personal choice and not that filmmakers have simply stopped hiring her. The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle didn’t stop anyone from hiring Robert De Niro ever again.

          I really wish she would come back. If there was a kickass chick of the 1990s, it was Russo. She occupied that last golden period where actresses were still hired to play Secret Service agents instead of man-hungry pumas — and damn, did she get the choice picks.

          While she was a softer, more feminine action hero than what Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton played (a sign of the changing times), she was an action heroine nonetheless. She played scientists, Secret Service agents, doctors, insurance agents and cops — and she wasn’t just any cop, she was the female Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon 3. Was that ridiculous? A little bit, yeah. But watching Lethal Weapon 3 today is like seeing some archaeological artifact thanks to her stuntwork and her scar stories. You never doubt that she’s earned every one of her asphalt or shotgun scars, and while the scene is coy and sexy, it wasn’t just so the audience could see her breasts. In fact, Mel Gibson strips off further than she does. What a concept!

          In the Line of Fire is a similar relic. First she’s snubbed by Clint Eastwood’s Frank Horrigan for being a woman, then she earns his grudging respect and his romantic interest, but she’s never simply The Love Interest. She’s a Secret Service agent all the way and while she might stop to make out with him, she never goes off-duty, and she never defers to him. I especially like how she keeps a cool head throughout the movie, whereas Horrigan ends up reassigned because he keeps throwing himself in front of popped balloons. (Yes, I’m being flippant — of course he ends up being right, but he still needs her help.)

          Nowadays, I don’t think you’d see these characters in an action film, let alone a “mature” actress like Russo playing them. Secret Service Agent Lilly Raines would be re-imagined into a press secretary, played by a 23-year-old, and be easy romantic pickings for a Secret Service Agent old enough to be her grandfather. Lorna Cole would also be too young to be working in Internal Affairs, and would be stripped to a G-string before anyone could say “No interdepartmental dating!” She would end up kidnapped by the organized criminals instead of roundhouse kicking them. The Thomas Crown Affair would be even more about the make-up and clothes, and less about outwitting an art thief.

          So, I don’t know if you’re still out there, Ms. Russo, but I wish you’d come back. Along with Sigourney Weaver, you were the chick I most wanted to be like when I grew up — and not just because Martin Riggs fell for you, but because you actually could shoot guns and speak smartly without scaring everyone off. I hope someone out there has got a script that’ll pair you with Hamilton and Weaver and involve you all kicking some kind of ass, or curing cancer, or doing something worthy. But hey, if you’ve chosen to ride into the sunset because you’d rather play a secret service agent than a cougar or a puma, well, that’s a statement worthy of thanks all on its own.

          Like

    • Demi Moore and Meg Ryan’s careers:

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000193/board/flat/211684136?d=211872581&p=1#211872581

      At that time Demi’s choices were about the money regardless of the film’s quality.

      Fox did want her for The English Patient, and she was going to do it. The director was an ass and refused to give in on this casting choice, so Fox withdrew their backing for the film. Obviously it got made, but only when the smaller, indie studio Miramax picked it up with a cast of largely unknown quantities.

      While You Were Sleeping is kind of a goofy movie, like almost everything Bullock has done. The papers said Demi backed out because the studio refused to meet her salary demands. Bullock was paid $1.2 million, which was nothing compared to what Demi was getting at that time.

      As for Forrest Gump, not starring says she was considered but I don’t buy it. She was too big a star for a below-the-title supporting role like that, as was Nicole Kidman who is also mentioned on that site.

      One movie never killed anyone’s career. It was her semi-retirement that killed her career. She basically took a decade off. Between 1996 and 2006, she only filmed 2 movies: Passion of Mind and Charlie’s Angels, which don’t really count since the former was a limited release and the latter was just a cameo. It wasn’t until 2006 that she actually got back into the business and was actively working. Ten years is way too much time to take off. At least Meg was still getting major roles in that time-frame (Kate & Leopold, In the Cut).

      Like

  9. Also, notice that Demi didn’t get any Razzie nominations until she did the naked pregnant magazine cover? I think that’s what made so many people want to see her fail. Prior to that, she’d been in some truly horrible movies like Wisdom and Parasite. The Razzies never nominated her for those, yet they nominated her as worst actresss for The Butcher’s Wife, The Juror and Passion of Mind — all of these are solid, great performances. The Razzies lost all credibility with me when they nominated her for those movies. I don’t think she’s a bad actress, and I’m sad that her career is so over. And her appearance in the Charlie’s Angels sequel was just depressing, I’d prefer that she stayed retired rather than degrade herself to appearing in such junk.

    Like

    • I agree that Moore’s status as a feminist icon (rightly or wrongly) created a huge backlash against her. Prior to that, Moore was just an actress made good. But once she became “Demi” people were actively rooting for her to fail. When she became the highest paid actress in the world, a fall was unavoidable. Critics and audiences were sharpening their knived.

      As for the Razzies, they are fun, but like any institution they have an agenda. I love that the piled on Adam Sandler last year, but they do that partially to make headlines for themselves. Otherwise, people would forget they existed. The Razzies need to take on big targets.

      I was honestly surprised how many times they nominated Moore. In a way, it’s flattering. It just shows what a big target she was.

      Like

      • Chick Flicks: 10 Feminist Friendly Blockbuster Movies:

        http://whatculture.com/film/chick-flicks-10-feminist-friendly-blockbuster-movies.php/10

        2. GI Jane

        GI Jane is the only film on this list that overtly deals with sexism. While I love a movie where a woman doesn’t have to prove herself to men and she is respected just as well as they are, I realize that is an idealized view and real life is not like that. GI Jane tells the story of Lieutenant Jordan O’Neil, played by a bulked up Demi Moore as a woman attempting to make it in Navy SEAL training and struggling to overcome the sexism present in the Navy.

        GI Jane brilliantly outlines the sexism present in society in an empowering way. It shows the double standards imposed on women; how they have to act twice as strong to be considered half as tough. This was done in a way that showed how ridiculous that standard is. The audience was aware of that even if the characters were not. This made it empowering instead of having it come off as a negative thing where women should not even try. Instead, GI Jane puts forth a message of perseverance and strength for women. GI Jane is a rare movie that does not glorify patriarchy but shows how negative and hurtful it can be. Also it’s still a better movie than GI Joe. Score one for the women.

        Like

    • COMMENTARY TRACKS OF THE DAMNED:

      http://www.avclub.com/articles/charlies-angels-full-throttle,22286/

      Crimes
      Assuming Charlie’s Angels somehow justified a sequel

      Trotting out the name “Helen Zaas” as the pretext for a punishing gauntlet of posterior-themed quips

      Ratcheting up to headache-inducing levels everything that was obnoxious about the first film

      Replacing a wasted Bill Murray with a wasted Bernie Mac

      Sadistically attempting to resurrect the career of Demi Moore

      Like

  10. I think her getting breast implants was what led to her downfall…even today and moreso then…women in general dislike other females with big fake boobs. Since most of her audience was female and she started off with a girl next door image the fake boobs and the becoming a sexual predator turned off a lot of her target demographic.

    Like

    • *Meant to say “becoming a sexual predator in dicslosure”

      Like

      • I definitely think that was a contributing factor. A lot of women – Moore’s core audience – turned on her around that time. The funny thing is, I don’t remember hearing anybody ever talk about Moore’s implants back in the day. Maybe I just wasn’t included in the Demi boob conversations or maybe people resented them secretly. I dunno.

        I do know that Demi Moore was a promising actress at one point. And then she became this cultural icon of feminism and blatant sexuality. And then there was a massive backlash. The fake boobs and nude magazine covers definitely contributed to the backlash rightly or wrongly.

        As it turns out, About Last Night… was on TV last night and I caught the last hour or so of it. It was cheesier than I remembered. And very dated, but that’s to be expected for a movie that was timely a long time ago. But what struck me was how good Moore was in it. Say what you will about her, she was not a bad actress. She made some bad movies and arguably gave some bad performances. But she also gave some good ones.

        Like

      • For anyone who was aware of the Mamet play “Sexual Perversity in Chicago,” which “About Last Night” was based on, the movie was a little disappointing. It wasn’t nearly as dark as it should’ve been.

        Like

        • I wondered. I haven’t seen or read the play. But the movie didn’t feel very Mamet.

          What I found hysterical about the movie is how edgy and topical it clearly thought it was about issues like “casual sex” and “living together”.

          Care to shed some light on where the movie differed from the source material?

          Like

      • A lot of the source material is actually in the film, but the original play was not in a full-length 2 act form and had to be “fleshed out” to make a whole movie. In doing this, they also extended the relationship between the two leads from about 9 weeks to around a year long.

        Most significantly, in the film Danny and Debra get back together at the end, creating a “happy ending” that runs completely counter to the whole concept of the original play. While Danny is a little disgusted by his friend Bernie by the end of the play, he has definitely left Debra behind and is still playing along with Bernie’s mysoginist behavior.

        The play is a tragedy of manners full of people who are not particularly nice. Joan’s scene at the school in which she reprimands two kids playing “doctor” is played a little too responsibly in the film, not hinting as much that she is titillated by it.

        As far as the film not being as edgy on sexual politics as you might hope, I’d keep in mind that 1) the play was first performed in 1973-74, so whether or not the dialogue is shocking would naturally have changed in the intervening 40 years. 2) The film was made in the very conservative and corporate 1980s. 3) The happy ending of the film absolutely undercuts the cynical nature of the script.

        While the final scene of the film is this reconciliation, the final scene of the play has Danny and Bernie at the beach stuck in their old hostile patterns. The final line of the play is uttered by Bernie to an unseen female on the beach who is clearly trying to ignore him. “Deaf Bitch.”

        Like

        • Thanks for clarifying!

          I figured that “happy ending” had to be tacked on. I didn’t think there was anything happy about that reconciliation at all. Moore’s character should have never given Lowe a second look. I actually found the ending to be depressing. She’s just going to live a life of disappointment as long as she is with this chump.

          I didn’t realize the play was so old! But the movie smacks of the 80’s. I am sure the play was quite ahead of its time. I remember About Last Night being considered timely when it was released in ’86. And some of the dialogue is still pretty shocking today. In some ways, probably moreso than it was back then.

          But the movie treats “living together” like it’s some kind of radical notion. Today, I think it’s relatively common place.

          Like

  11. I caught About Last Night on cable recently too. I’d go as far as to say she deserved an Academy Award nomination for that performance. Surprisingly enough, Ebert gave the movie 4 out of 4 stars in his review.

    One title that wasn’t mentioned was “If These Walls Could Talk,” the HBO movie that she produced and acted in. I think the whole thing is on YouTube unless it’s been taken down. Really powerful, disturbing and thought-provoking, and contains her best performance.

    Like

    • I didn’t realize Ebert liked About Last Night… that much. I don’t fault him. It’s a tad dated, but it still holds up for the most part. I don’t know that I would give Demi an Oscar nom for her performance, but she was quite good in it. I would go so far as to say she carries the movie. After rewatching it, it’s no wonder she became a star.

      I have a tendency to skip over non-theatrical features. Also, I pick up the pace a little once the star has fallen from the top of the A-list. So, I passed by If These Walls Could Talk. I haven’t seen it, but I have heard mostly positive things about it.

      Like

  12. You more or less ofrgot to mention she plays opposite John cryer in the movie No Small Affair.Which also contain a few now famous actors and actress= Tim Robbins JEnnnifeffer tilley and the fat guy from cheers
    I think charlie sheen was sort of a member of the brat pack.”My first line on ferris bueller was:Drugs?I thought they asked me how i wanted to get payed” Considering its charlie,thats probably closer to the truth than we realize.
    I also found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpmADbaNrE on the tube.Interview with all the stars of breakfast club excapt for Emilio Who seem to never be on any reuinon neither for the club nor outsiders.Wonder why? Probably wouldn’t hurt he’s career considering he havn’t made a good movie since young guns 2

    Like

    • I recently saw that movie for the first time. It was much better than I expected. The whole movie is a fun ride. I was surprised how good it was, really. Demi shows a range of abilities in her performance, and yes, she cries in it. Robbins and Tilly have tiny parts as Cryer’s classmates, which is ironic because they are both several years older than Demi, who’s playing the “older woman” in this film.

      Like

      • Me too. And I had the same reaction. It’s a bit of a soap opera and a relic of the 80s. It’s uneven, but really enjoyable. And Moore is really good in it. The more I have seen of her lesser-known work, the more I am convinced that she can act. She just got bogged down in the image of being “Demi” and the backlash that followed that.

        Like

  13. Demi Moore was fabulous in General Hospital. Home with a newborn at the time, I began watching of all things a soap opera and it was because of her. It seems when Moore hit the big screen, she became very full of herself. Moore lost the vulnerability in her acting style that I had admired so much. Moore also did way too much publicity, and all of it self-serving. As far as the fake boobs accusations, Moore once said that after having and breastfeeding three children, her breast size increased. Having done the same and going from a B cup to a D cup, I agree.

    Like

  14. Laughing my ass off!!!! You are too funny

    Like

  15. She was only in her mid-30s when her career tanked. Too soon. I’m probably one of the few people who has actually seen Passion of Mind. If you’re a fan of hers, you’ll love it. In the end, at least she can say she was in one of the most successful movies of all time. People will still be watching Ghost 50 years from now.

    Like

    • I haven’t seen Passion of Mind. But I am on the look-out for it. I’m sure I’ll catch it eventually.

      I will actually be surprised if people are still watching Ghost in 50 years. But it has had a lasting cultural impact few films have.

      Like

  16. I have to agree about Striptease being a lousy film. It was tonally uneven. I haven’t read the book, but it is said to be good. They tried to make it funny, why? No one goes to see a movie called “Striptease” for laughs. The poster had her posing naked with a serious face. That’s misleading. I, as a fan of hers, was disappointed. It could have been a good film. It wasn’t sexy at all. The first dance she did was very, very hot, but the context of the film just ruins it. Ving Rhames is in the movie, why? They put so much unnecessary crap in it. No wonder Hollywood turned their back on her after that. Nothing about her performance was worth $12.5 million. Striptease is the reason for the pathetic state her career has been in for the past decade. It was that disappointing.

    There’s really not much else to say, other than I agree with the commenter who said she should have stuck to playing innocent/vulnerable women. She was so fucking beautiful in those roles. Her character in Ghost is my ideal woman, I wanted to protect her (lol). Have you actually seen The Seventh Sign? While not a great film, this is the Demi I like to remember: nice, innocent, and vulnerable. The ‘empowering’ women she started playing in Disclosure was a huge turnoff for me. Btw, Michael Biehn (Reese in the Terminator, ‘memba him?) has a boring role as her husband. He’d be a good subject for your next WTHHT.

    Like

    • I think Striptease could have worked as a comedy if it had been funny. But it’s hard to get comedy out of a desperate single mom driven to strip to take care of her daughter. That’s a national tragedy. The comedy was supposed to come from a stripper outsmarting men in power like Burt Reynolds’ character. And some of that works. But there was way too much of her idiotic hillbilly husband played by Robert Patrick. How is a stripper outsmarting a redneck funny?

      As you pointed out, the uneven tone sunk the movie. I blame writer/director Andrew Bergman who seemed to be on a slow downward spiral ever since The Freshman. He made a few good movies after that, but each one was a small drop off from the one before it until finally… Striptease.

      I saw Seventh Sign way back in high school and I’m embarassed to say, I really enjoyed it. I reread the summary for the article and it sounds absurd. I barely remember it now, but I’m kind of afraid to revisit it.

      I have actually been watching a lot of Demi Moore movies in preparation for the article and since. And I have to say, she gets a bad rap. She is talented. I agree that her best roles were her early roles where she showed more vulnerability. But even in her super woman phase, she did a good job. She was never the biggest problem with a movie she was in. Those roles just rubbed some people the wrong way. Especially when taken with her role as a feminist icon in the media.

      Like

    • Hollywood Career Killers: 15 Movies That Helped Do Away With Major Tinseltown Players:

      http://styleblazer.com/141888/hollywood-career-killers-15-movies-that-helped-do-away-with-major-tinseltown-players/8/

      Demi Moore’s shot at sex-symbol status drove Striptease. The 1996 satire–about an FBI accountant (Moore) turned stripper who gets involved in a child custody battle and corrupt politics—had two major problems. First, the film was supposed to be a hot vehicle for Moore, but wound up being more trashy and weird than sen-sual. Secondly, the film’s satire was undermined by a studio’s request for a more frothy comedy. This turned what was supposed to be a dark satire into a sleazy sex comedy. Even worse, Moore roped her daughter (Rumer Willis) into co-starring in the film. Striptease marked the beginning of Moore’s declining period in Hollywood, though films like 2011’s Margin Call have marked a return to a more serious approach to acting for the one-time starlet.

      Like

      • The Top 10 Career Killing Movies:

        http://www.zimbio.com/The+Top+10+Career+Killing+Movies/articles/BQcssfK2Pcp/8+Demi+Moore+Striptease

        #8: Demi Moore, ‘Striptease’
        By Jake on July 23, 2009

        Striptease (1996)

        Year of Release: 1996

        Budget: $50 million

        Domestic Box Office: $36 million

        What the Critics Said: “Who told Demi Moore she can act? She can’t. End of discussion.” – Eric Brace, The Washington Post

        Coroner’s Report: Demi Moore had become one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood after the smash hit Ghost, earning a reported $10 million in flicks such as Indecent Proposal, A Few Good Men, and Disclosure, when she signed on to star in 1996’s Striptease. Pre-release publicity hyped up Moore’s impressively-toned physique, including a memorable appearance on 20/20 in which she taught Barbara Walters how to pole dance. The marketing ensured that teenage boys were interested, but few others seemed to care. The end result ended up turning off critics and becoming box office poison. It was also the beginning of the end of Moore’s run on top, as her follow-up film, as a female Marine in G.I. Jane, barely manged to pull itself up to profitability. Shortly after, Moore took a long hiatus from acting, with some rumors saying that producers were no longer willing to meet her price point. While she returned to the big screen in 2003 with a high-profile role in Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, she has struggled to find leading roles since, with her latest being a supporting turn in Kevin Costner’s Mr. Brooks.

        See Her Now In: The upcoming indie flick Happy Tears, about sisters returning home to care for their ailing father, will see limited release in the first quarter of 2010.

        Like

    • They Didn’t Quite Make It Big, But Made Good Nevertheless: 15 Actors Who Barely Missed The A-List:

      http://styleblazer.com/132765/they-didnt-quite-make-it-big-but-made-good-nevertheless-15-actors-who-barely-missed-the-a-list/5/

      Michael Biehn got his first major role in 1981 in The Fan, a slasher that had him as a stalking aging starlet Lauren Bacall. The film tanked, but Biehn got a second stab at leading man with James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator. Biehn played Kyle Reese, a soldier from the future and the hero of the film. Despite his leading role, Biehn’s performance was overshadowed by a career defining turn from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the title role. Luckily, Biehn got a third shot at Hollywood gold by playing the male lead of Cameron’s follow-up, Aliens. Biehn’s role of Corporal Hicks was a fan favorite and his character survived the film alongside star Sigourney Weaver, seemingly promising a prominent role in the follow-up, Alien 3. Then the unthinkable happened—the film’s producers had Biehn’s character killed offscreen and made the film without him. After seeing his characters killed off in two of the biggest franchises of the era, Biehn never quite found mainstream success as a leading man, but continued a string of noteworthy character roles throughout his career. He’s currently gaining acclaim for his directorial debut, The Victim, a low-budget horror film that once again puts Biehn in the lead.

      Like

  17. Ah, Blame It On Rio..I actually liked this film, not sure why the critics didn’t. Of course, I’m a big Michael Caine fan, and he was absolutely great in this. Demi had a pretty insignificant part, as I remember, not much screen time at all.

    Like

  18. “The original New York magazine article that coined the term was more inclusive and included the cast of The Outsiders as well.”

    As I recall, EVERYONE was in The Outsiders, so I think that may be too wide of a filter to use for determining Brat Pack membership. I mean, you would then have to include people like Ralph Macchio, Tom Cruise, Patrick Swayze and even Leif Garrett(!)

    Like

    • That was the original intent of the author who coined the phrase. But over time, it came to take on a different meaning. I think most people consider the casts of Breakfast Club and St Elmo’s Fire to be the core Brat Pack.

      Like

      • I think Brat Pack became shorthand for the teen heartthrobs who didn’t quite make it- Lowe, Nelson, and Estevez.

        Cruise and Swayze escaped because of their success- as did Charlie Sheen.

        I mean- how is Sheen not a Brat Packer(?)- his brother was one and he went to high school with Lowe. He certainly partied with them.

        He isn’t because he only had a cameo in Ferris- and Platoon and Wall Street made him big.

        Like

        • When I think Brat Pack, I’m thinking John Hughes movies. (Also including St. Elmo’s Fire which had nothing to do with Hughes but felt like a Hughes movie.) Sheen was a Brat Packer in that he hung out with that group socially. But most people in the 80s didn’t know that. They didn’t have the 24-7 tabloid culture that tracks celebrity’s movements like they do today. Not to mention social media. So people lumped together the actors they saw on screen together. The original intent of the term (“Boy, these young Hollywood punks sure do have a sense of entitlement/are behaving badly) was lost on most. It became shorthand for the kind of actors who appeared in coming of age movies in the 80s. Sheen, Cruise and Swayze mostly avoided that genre.

          Like

  19. I think the Vanity Fair cover provided a boost to her career, at first. Ultimately, it was more of a detriment. Also, choosing the implants (the massive size and showing them off) at a time when she was already established was a poor move. It deflated the boost her career had received up to that point. The fact that she lied about the implants (later admitting to having them removed) and blaming the new size on her children didn’t sit well with women.

    Like

    • Yeah, she created a backlash. She was annointed as this figure of female empowerment which pissed off a lot of people. But then she also made herself a sex symbol which pissed off the other half.

      Like

      • I think to some extent, Moore was just being herself and being heaped with praise for it. So she never anticipated that even her fans would turn on her as viciously as they did. She saw herself as a sex symbol, a feminist icon and a trend setter. And she was all of those things to some extent. What she didn’t realize is that audiences don’t like their sex symbols spouting “girl power” or their feminist icons getting boob jobs. Both sets of fans were upset for opposite reasons. Eventually, she went from appealing to everyone to appealing to no one.

        I haven’t yet seen Passion of Mind, but I have watched some of her late-career performances on direct-to-video movies. And she is still doing good work. She does still have that thing where she comes across as too cold. I like her better when she shows her vulnerable side which is really what she built her early career on.

        Charlies Angels, in a way, was kind of like Moore purging all the glam that ruined her in the first place. I don’t think that was her intent. I think she wanted to celebrate herself as a feminist icon and sex symbol. But when that movie bombed, she finally got over that nonesense and started acting again.

        Like

      • Also, from what I’ve gathered, Demi at the peak of her notoriety, gained a bit of a reputation for being a diva. For instance, she became known for demanding ridiculous sums of money for films, resulting in the nickname ‘Gimme’ Moore.

        Also, there’s an infamous story about her demanding two private jets when on a shoot. One to carry her and her entourage and the other her luggage. In one case, she threw a tantrum because the plane was too small and her luggage would have to be stacked rather than fit next to each other and refused to continue with the shoot until a new jet was provided.

        Like

      • I do think Moore was bigger than her box office. At the time, she was arguably the biggest actress in the world. Only Julia Roberts was bigger. But I think Moore had a bigger cultural impact than even Roberts at the time.

        Did she let it go to her head? Clearly.

        Like

      • I think that after looking further into stuff like this, Demi kind of “Debra Wingered” (I’m sure that Winger’s “self-imposed exile” was due in part to filmmakers tiring of putting up w/ her BS) herself out of the game (i.e., he didn’t simply remove herself from the spotlight to raise her kids in Idaho).

        Like

        • I don’t think there’s any doubt Moore’s exile was self-imposed. Even after Striptease and GI Jane, she was A-list. she could have kept plugging away and may have had another Ghost-sized hit. But I think she took some of her bad press personally.

          Like

        • Re: Demi Moore’s kids cut off ties with their mother:

          http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11737075#page:showThread,11737075,3

          The only reason she moved to Idaho was because she’d had so many MASSIVE box-office bombs in a row (“Striptease,” “G.I. Jane,” “The Scarlet Letter,” etc.) that she had the good sense to realize she’d become box-office poison and decided to live the easy life on Bruce Willis’s nickel (and at the time he was still pulling in $20 million a film). As for her kids, you seriously believe they grew up in f*ing Idaho?! They were all schooled in L.A., so Idaho was at most a family retreat spot during winter and summer break. As soon as Bruce dumped her a for a younger model, she hightailed it back to L.A. to “jump-start” her career, looking amazingly “refreshed” from all that mountain air (and hundreds of thousands of dollars of plastic surgery).

          by: Anonymous reply 60 07/10/2012 @ 07:41PM

          Like

      • Re: Demi Moore plot thickens: Pursuing Zac Efron, fountain of youth?

        http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11261694#page:showThread,11261694,2

        She has always been insecure about her body and now aging. Remember just about every movie she did after a Few Good Men was related to sex and her body. Horrible actress but about the best looking 50 year old around. Plenty of older dudes in Hollywood would die to date her. But I bet her insecurities would ruin any relationship. She needs to see a psychiatrist.

        by: Anonymous reply 33 02/02/2012 @ 06:19AM

        Like

  20. I think that another one of Demi’s problems during her ’90s heyday was that she arguably repeatedly made the mistake of doing films with scripts that were already in bad shape (e.g. “Striptease”). Perhaps, Demi also put a bad taste in the public’s mouth by exposing too much and oversaturating herself with provocative fare like “The Scarlet Letter”, “Striptease”, “If These Walls Could Talk”, and “G.I. Jane” (and to a lesser extent, “Disclosure” and “Indecent Proposal”).

    Unfortunately, people more than likely weren’t flocking to theaters solely for her. In movies where she was the only well known name (when compared to her early ’90s films like “Ghost”, “A Few Good Men”, and “Indecent Proposal”), the movie drew average or mediocre attendance or even bombed. Perhaps in the end, Hollywood expected much more revenue from “Striptease” than was realized, after the $12 mill payout to Demi, and didn’t want to bank on her after the supposed “G.I. Jane” debacle.

    Like

    • I will put that on my to-do list. Next update, I’ll include it.

      Like

    • Another way to look at this is that you can argue that Demi perhaps, made the mistake of relying on her looks more than actually trying to develop her acting abilities by stretching her skills. In the process, Demi often played the “butch” testosterone laden type of woman (or what others have said, she decided to make her out to be some sort of “feminist icon” for the ’90s).

      Maybe, there also wasn’t really a (sometimes, what would be considered “iconic”) role that Demi made “her own”. Come to think of it, the biggest hits in Demi’s career (i.e. “Ghost”, “A Few Good Men”, “Indecent Proposal”, and “Disclosure”) featured co-stars who were already considered box office draws on their own (e.g. Whoopi Goldberg and to a lesser extent, Patrick Swayze, Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Robert Redford, and Michael Douglas).

      In the movies following these, in which Demi was the main star (i.e. “The Scarlet Letter”, “The Juror”, “Striptease”, and “G.I. Jane”), they more than often, weren’t as big despite her huge salary. So to put things into proper perspective, it seemed more or less like Demi kind of lucked into roles early on, where she didn’t have to do much or the sole carrying to draw people in.

      I also think or believe, that Demi’s marriage to Bruce Willis kind of helped make her profile. Ever notice that their divorce coincided w/ Demi going into her self-imposed excel from Hollywood for like half a decade.

      Like

      • Moore was the star of Ghost. Neither she nor Swayze was a huge box office draw at the time, but Moore was the main draw. A Few Good Men was just a supporting role in a good movie. Even with Indecent Proposal, I think Moore was the main draw. Redford was just there to make it so audiences didn’t feel dirty going to see the film. On Disclosure, I think Moore and Douglas were on pretty equal footing. I really can’t say she rode coattails at all.

        Other than GI Jane, when did Moore play “butch”? Certainly not Ghost, Indecent Proposal or Striptease. Arguably A Few Good Men, but that wasn’t so much butch as it was a movie with very little sexuality. In Disclosure, she was a villain. But I wouldn’t say she was “butch”.

        Moore tried to be all things to all audiences. Sex object and feminist icon. The sexual fantasy part pissed off the feminists and the feminism pissed off the people who paid to see her take off her clothes. So instead of pleasing everybody, she pleased no one.

        Like

        • Movies that destroyed careers:

          http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=590162

          Posted – 02/13/2013 : 5:23:26 PM

          Demi did it to herself. Her movie “G.I. Jane” was in males’ faces with the whole “We can do what we want!” BS. I therefore, think that she ruffled a lot guys’ feathers with her attitude. But she also reinforced that role with Michael Douglas when she played his boss, who basically owned and destroyed men at will in “Disclosure” (which came before “G.I. Jane”).

          If your movies are designed to make a point to a group that not many people may believe or support, then I am off your bandwagon. I don’t think all guys approve of the way she portrays herself, in either of the movies.

          I do not like libtards or feminists.

          Like

          • I’ve also heard the argument that “The Scarlet Letter” was way more damaging to Demi’s career than “Striptease” and/or “G.I. Jane” because it showed that Demi was really unable to do intense drama.

            http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?s=d09ea62a7b7b166fdb1c673112b2f0e1&p=65029401&postcount=16

            Like

            • Top 10: Career Killing Films:

              http://themediahole.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/top-10-career-killing-films.html

              9) Striptease (Demi Moore)

              Following 1990’s Ghost, Demi Moore found herself as both the highest paid and highest sought after actresses in Hollywood, following her appearance in roles in the critically acclaimed films Indecent Proposal, A Few Good Men, and Disclosure, however Moore’s star has since taken a wane from the high days, and her role in this 1996 drama being seen as one of the major reasons for that.

              Striptease sees Moore as a former FBI secretary whom after losing a custody battle takes up the role as a stripper as a means of earning the money to fund a retrial. For the role Moore was paid a record fee of $12.5 million and garnered controversy during her publicity of the film including appearing on the show 20/20 pole dancing. Whilst the promotion of the film was memorable and infamous it proved to have little to no effect on the film’s commercial success, as Striptease failed to justify Moore’s massive salary and was met with negative praise from critics, including it’s victory at the Golden Raspberry Awards for the worst picture of the year. Moore would soon find herself priced out of other roles within Hollywood due to her huge salary and an appearance in Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle aside has become more noted for her off screen relationship to former other-half Ashton Kutcher.

              Like

          • I think that at the end of the day, Demi for various reasons became “box office poison”. The people who fell in love w/ her in stuff like “Ghost” and what not ultimately turned on her. It really all started once she decided to perhaps become the “Madonna of acting” (I know that Madonna has acted too, but you know what I mean) in terms of being trying to come off as edgy and controversial. The problem was that Demi for all intents and purposes, had a knack for poorly choosing scripts (it really went downhill for her w/ “The Scarlet Letter”).

            Like

            • I really don’t think that Michelle Pfeiffer is a fair enough of a comparison or contrast because most of the comments that I’ve read on this site regarding why Michelle landed her own WTHHT was her own self-imposed hiatus from films (from 2002-2007 if I’m not mistaken). I posted elsewhere, that maybe another factor in why Demi hasn’t been able to really maintain a truly respectable career in her older years is her much public relationship w/ Ashton Kutcher as well as her overall “cougar image” (Demi ironically, seems to be hurting herself more by not accepting that she’s getting older and therefore should consider more “age appropriate roles”), not to mention her recent stint in rehab. Those sort of issues really makes it hard or harder for the general public to take a woman her age (w/ three children no less) seriously. When Demi reemerged in 2003, she shouldn’t have started shoving her personal life in our faces.

              Like

            • Re: Is it true that Striptease ended Demi Moore’s career ??? !!! ???

              http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000193/board/flat/216813453?d=216840849#216840849

              It was oversaturation. The general public was sick of Demi. After Disclosure she could have had any role, but she chose poorly. It all started with the terrible Scarlet Letter and how she couldn’t live down the comment she made regarding the film’s bastardized ending, “Not many people have read the book…” The Juror and Now and Then were fairly successful, but throwaway fare. When Demi got paid a record sum to essentially go topless in Striptease, plus “stripping” on the David Letterman and Barbara Walters show for publicity it left a sour taste in audiences’ mouths imo and by the time G.I. Jane came out audiences rejected her and the film wasn’t as successful as it should have been. Had Striptease never existed, Demi’s star would have reached new heights with G.I. Jane alone. I think Demi knew this, as well as the others behind G.I. Jane and considering what she put herself through for that role, only to be panned was the biggest upset. Due to the criticism, a string of box office “failures” and divorce, Demi decided to bow out and raise her daughters.

              Demi’s got street cred and 30 years in the business and she is definitely respected, but as far as roles go, she can’t prove to be a box office draw therefore I wonder if she isn’t being offered much. And lately I wouldn’t be surprised if she cares at all to act…I hope for a Demi Redux, part 3! Her return with Charlie’s Angels was well received but her roles were overshadowed by her romance with Ashton. If Demi cares to, I’d like to see her jump head first into her craft and take on intense dramatic fare, thrillers, even horror! Demi has a screen presence like no other and she is greatly missed in movies imo!

              Like

        • I didn’t realize until this post that GI Jane only broke even. It seemed to get a lot of attention- but I guess it annoyed men into not seeing it in the theaters.

          More proof to me that Moore was bigger than her movies and that publicity doesn’t always translate to success.

          Like

          • I saw it before it opened. I didn’t think it was bad at all. And as you said, it had a lot of buzz. But by then, a lot of people were sick of Moore. There was a huge backlash. Men who saw her as a sex symbol were tired of her feminism. Feminists who saw her as an icon were sick of her objectifying herself. Basically, she had alienated everybody by trying to be all things to all people.

            GI Jane was expected to be a huge hit. But it was called a turkey by the media. The truth is, it was a major disappointment but not a flop. It’s a pretty formulaic Office and a Gentleman type movie with a gender reversal. But it’s not as bad as its reputation.

            Like

    • I wonder if Demi kind of regretted turning down Sharon Stone’s “star making” role in “Basic Instinct” and tried to make up for that by making all of those highly sexual or provocative type of movies (one of them incidentally featured Michael Douglas):

      http://styleblazer.com/100782/14-actressess-who-declined-a-leading-role-in-a-blockbuster-movie/9/

      Like

  21. Can Demi Moore Rescue Her Career In 2012:

    http://www.contactmusic.com/news/can-demi-moore-rescue-her-career-in-2012_1280835

    At her peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Demi Moore’s career seemed to be unstoppable. After appearing in a string of globally successful blockbuster movies from 1990’s Ghost to 1994’s Disclosure, Moore was one of Hollywood’s most respected and highly-paid actresses. However, after the much-derided Striptease, released in 1996, her star began to wane somewhat. Marred by problems in her personal life, Moore recently announced that she intended to divorce Ashton Kutcher, her husband of six years. However, with a part in the all-star cast of Margin Call, Moore could well be on the right path to getting her career back to its former glory.

    Just a couple of years later, though, the trajectory of Demi’s acting career hit a stumbling block. In Hollywood, it can only take one poorly-received film to turn a career on its head and it seems that could be what happened when Moore decided to take the lead role in Striptease. The ‘sex-comedy’ was largely panned by film critics, despite its respectable cast list, which included Ving Rhames and Burt Reynolds. With the benefit of hindsight and 15 years after its release, Striptease is widely believed as the film that ruined Demi Moore’s career.

    Casting a glance over the actress’ CV from 1996 onwards, it looks bleak. It was hoped that G.I. Jane would rejuvenate her credibility and although the film was a financial success at the time of its release, its reputation has not fared well over time and certainly hasn’t retained the popularity of her earlier work, such as Ghost.

    Moore may not have slipped from view to such a dramatic extent as some of her fellow Brat Pack actors – her marriage to Ashton Kutcher ensured that she retained a place in the tabloid headlines, if nothing else – but she has struggled to claw back even a fraction of the credibility and Hollywood pulling power that she once had. In recent years, her personal life has overshadowed her professional one. Her directorial debut, Streak, came and went in 2008 without the merest flutter of mainstream interest, whilst her young husband maintained a life in the public eye both behind and in front of the camera.

    Like

    • In regards to the movie “LOL”:

      http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Horrible/Film

      The American remake of LOL. It took a highly-acclaimed, Cesar-winning French film and turned it into little more than a star vehicle for Miley Cyrus. All the funny moments of the original have the humor sucked clean out and replaced with gratuitous obscenity — which is odd, as other parts of the script were Bowdlerised. It’s loaded with padding, and panders nonstop. The plot is mangled, and the dialogue, in terms of quality, never goes beyond trite aphorisms passed off as profound. Its total box office from its first week of release didn’t even match The Avengers’ first-week per-cinema average. It’s considered an Old Shame by the gents at Lionsgate, who couldn’t even be bothered to promote it properly, and together with So Undercover (which didn’t receive quite as bad a reception) marked the beginning of the end for Miley Cyrus’ acting career.

      Like

    • http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/GIJane

      The film performed rather disappointingly in the box office. It earned $48,169,156 in the United States market, the 39th most successful film of its year. But this was still below its overblown budget. Critics felt a major problem was its failure to regard the subject matter sincerely. In a film supposed to “explore the implications of females in the US Military”, there is actually very little exploration of the matter. It mainly serves as an excuse for Moore’s character to defy gender roles and prove being a badass. Not unlike any other action film. There isn’t even mention of other women following in her footsteps or anyone else actually undergoing similar tests in another branch (however, see Executive Meddling on the Trivia page). Others pointed there are exactly three characters with any depth to them O’ Neil, Urgayle and De Haven. Anyone else is scenery. It remains an entertaining action film, but not a deep one.

      Like

    • I’m kind of surprised that LeBeau hasn’t updated Demi Moore’s WTHHT article in light of her recent problems. It’s very sad that Demi has for all intents and purposes, because this seriously pathetic figure. It’s very obvious in my eyes, that Demi’s troubled upbringing got the best out of her so to speak.

      And it’s not just her drug overdose (I really don’t know what she was taking right from the top of my head), but her asking Ashton Kutcher for spousal support (ironic coming from the former highest paid actress in Hollywood), and her recent appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel show, where it seemed apparent that Demi had some unflattering work done on her face. Also, there was that god awful “LOL” movie that Demi did w/ Miley Cyrus (before Miley turned into an absolute train-wreck in hopes of coming off as an “adult”).

      Like

  22. I found this article which argues that Demi Moore’s relationship w/ Ashton Kutcher actually had an adverse effect on her attempts at making a comeback (beginning w/ “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle”):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/demi-moore-divorce-ashton-kutcher-salvage-brand_n_1102066.html

    “Demi’s mistake in tangling her brand with Ashton’s was that, instead of being considered a gracefully-maturing movie star, she became known first and foremost as a cougar,” explained divorce attorney, Stacy Schneider, the author of He Had It Coming: How to Outsmart Your Husband and Win Your Divorce. “Every role she took after that marriage made it difficult to separate the image of the older woman marrying a much younger man from the characters she played. I think this divorce will be good for Demi Moore’s career. Ashton diminished Demi’s brand as a sophisticated movie star. Most of the recent paparazzi shots were of Demi and Ashton dressed in matching hipster outfits. Now Demi can start dressing and acting her age.”

    Having Ashton as arm candy did make Demi seem significantly younger than her 49 years, and that had a deleterious affect on the kinds of roles she was offered. While most actresses her age are being cast in age-appropriate roles as mothers — sometimes to a child Ashton’s age — in Hollywood blockbusters, it is hard to imagine Moore in that role when she has a man as young as Ashton by her side and dresses like a teenager.

    Like

    • I think that may have been a factor. But to a very small extent. The fact of the matter is that Moore was no longer relevant. Kutcher put her in the tabloids which probably wasn’t where she wanted to be. But at least it was a spotlight. I don’t think she would have been in the spotlight at all without a relationship like this.

      Truth is, I don’t think it mattered much. People had moved on and weren’t really all that interested in Moore as a major movie star anymore.

      Like

      • Demi Moore strikes me as the type of woman who is trying so desperately hard to prove to people that she’s hip and “young” (it didn’t help that the movie that she choose for her big comeback was from a hack director like McG), but it just comes across as a woman going through a series midlife crisis. Demi also has fallen in the same trap that Melanie Griffith fell into in that being a nearly 50 year old woman and going into rehab for drugs is extremely embarrassing.

        I do agree that Ashton Kutcher made her relevant again, but is wasn’t necessarily for the right reasons (i.e. her acting). Even before the “Charlie’s Angels” sequel (I’ve never gotten around to actually seeing it, but I do recall a much press Demi got for looking sexy in a two-piece black bikini for a woman her age w/ three children) it seemed like on the surface, Demi’s choice of roles (namely stuff that supposedly ruined her career initially like “Striptease” and “G.I. Jane”) seemed like a rather exploitive excuse to show off her toned body. People who don’t remember Demi Moore during her ’90s prime (and even during her Brat Pack days) more than likely just see her as that relatively hot older woman who’s into younger guys like Ashton Kutcher and Zac Efron.

        Like

      • Jordanna Brewster (from the “Fast & the Furious” movies and the “Dallas” revival) has kind of taken over for Demi Moore anyway (since she looks like a younger, perhaps more slender, brown eyed version of her) along the way.

        Like

        • Every Hollywood star has to deal with the “younger, cheaper version” of them. It keeps (or should) them all on their toes.

          Frankly- Moore is 49- she’s not getting the young hot wife roles- nor is she such a good actress that she can follow Glen Close’s path.

          She can work- but the roles will be supporting ones- at best she can get lucky and win a supporting actress Oscar (very unlikely) – worst- pay off a few bills and not worry about getting Ashton’s investment millions.

          Like

          • I don’t think money will ever be a motivating factor. She’s set. Or at least she should be. I think she’s working now because she wants to. And in a way, I think she might be a little relieved to be able to work without the harsh spotlight that temporarily drove her out of the business.

            Like

            • Right after I wrote this I read here that she is still getting a cut of Willis’s movie salary- so yeah- money is not an issue.

              She can just pick her spots and do work that makes her look good-

              Like

      • I’m not here or trying to compare Demi Moore’s substance abuse history w/ Melanie Griffith’s. My exact point or bottom-line to said point was that both wound up into rehab when they were roughly around the same age (50). And have you ever noticed that since Demi had her most recent incident w/ drugs (and her break-up w/ Ashton Kutcher) that she went back into hiding? I hardly ever see Demi post anything on Twitter (and Demi used to be very prolific on Twitter) since her breakdown.

        Like

    • http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/DemiMoore

      •Hollywood Hype Machine: It really got behind her after her stretch in the early nineties — she was appearing on every Entertainment Tonight, and was constantly talked-about in magazines. It eventually switched itself off for her once Striptease and The Scarlet Letter bombed, ruining her credibility.
      ◦The same thing happened after Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. It really tried to push her as the archetype of “Hot Older Woman.” It kinda sputtered again and she was much more known as “Tabloid Magnet” instead of “Actress.”

      Like

    • Report: Demi Moore Is Worried Her Career Is Over:

      http://www.hollyscoop.com/demi-moore/report-demi-moore-is-worried-her-career-is-over.html

      The cool thing about being really rich is that after you’re like, 40 or so, you don’t have to work. Celebrities, for some reason, don’t understand that, and they want to keep working well into their fifties. Ridiculous.

      Add Demi Moore to that list, because the 49 year-old actress has reportedly been worried for a while now that her career is winding down.

      Moore “is very, very unhappy with her acting career,” a source told RadarOnline.com.

      “Demi is despondent because she feels that her career has stalled. It’s been a very long time since Demi was the marquee star that would open a movie.”

      The source adds that Demi’s partying is actually not partying, but auditioning.

      “One of the reasons that Demi is obsessed with being young is that she feels if she is seen out with her daughter and Rumer’s friends that might help increase her chances of being offered a role that might go to a younger actress.”

      So don’t be surprised if you see Demi getting a Bob Marley cake for her birthday and dating Wilmer Valderrama. It’s job-related. Keep it professional.

      Moore’s next movie, and the only one she officially has lined up and by officially I mean IMDB told me, is LOL which stars Miley Cyrus. Demi plays Miley’s mom in the movie. So she’s playing second fiddle to Miley. Miley Cyrus. That’s a blow that can only be remedied with K2 spice and Red Bull.

      Like

  23. 25 A-List Hollywood Actors Who Fell the F Off:

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/02/25-a-list-hollywood-actors-who-fell-the-f-off/demi-moore

    Demi Moore
    Best Known For: Ghost (1990), A Few Good Men (1992)
    Most Recent Project: Very Good Girls (2013)

    There’s a reason that Hollywood’s leading ladies often hesitate when asked to bare it all. After a promising start to her career, with hits including Ghost and A Few Good Men, Moore became Hollywood’s highest paid actress after signing on for Striptease. We’d wager that she’d give it all back if she could wipe that film from our collective memory.

    Universally reviled, Striptease sunk Moore’s career. What damage was left undone was taken care of with G.I. Jane. After these flops, Moore entered a long down period that’s been periodically interrupted with indies and advertising campaigns. But hey, Margin Call was pretty good.

    Like

  24. Here’s a clip from the “Biography” episode on Demi Moore from 2007:

    It’s kind of interesting that they said that Demi’s big comeback in “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle” (despite what LeBeau said) was a smash hit even though it got I believe, even worse reviews than the first once and made even less money domestically (it barely crossed the $100 million mark) than the first one.

    Like

    • Those Biography shows are simply awful.

      Like

    • Nice pic.

      I sit through those A&E shows just in case they have something of interest that I missed. But more often than not, that is not the case. I can barely stomach the way they fit history into a convenient narrative that bares little resemblence to the truth. Plus, most of them are years out of date.

      Like

  25. Q: Since we’ve been having fun with the A-D list lately, what about some of these people:

    http://www.411mania.com/movies/columns/41014/Ask-411-Movies-for-5.22.06:-Heres-to-You-Marion-Michael-Morrison!.htm

    Q: Since we’ve been having fun with the A-D list lately, what about some of these people.

    I think someone who definitely fell from the A-List pretty darn fast was Geena Davis. She was an Oscar-Winning actress until that pirate movie sunk her. She was making a comeback with Commander-In-Chief until ABC screwed with it and basically killed it.

    Where would Sharon Stone and Alicia Silverstone fit? You’re talking about two people who’ve been coasting on their one big movie (Basic Instinct and Clueless). If it wasn’t for last year’s Pacifier, Vin Diesel would fit here also.

    Speaking of Davis, what about the trend of ex-movie stars now going to tv, sometimes successfully (Both Sheens, Rob Lowe before leaving West Wing, Whoopi Goldberg, Freddie Prinze Jr., etc.)

    Keep up your great work.
    -JLAJRC
    PS-I forgot to add Demi Moore to the list in the last letter. After her career tanked after GI Jane, she has since become nothing more than Ashton Kutcher’s girlfriend. Charlie Angels 2 was supposed to be her comeback, but that didn’t happen.

    A: Geena Davis is a good one. She was one of the top actresses in Hollywood in the early nineties, even though she’s only had a handful of successful films with Thelma and Louise, A League of Their Own, The Fly, Beetle Juice and The Accidental Tourist for which she won an Oscar. Alicia Silverstone dropped off the A-list fast and falls into the category I mentioned last week of basically being a one hit wonder. Sharon Stone has somehow managed to cling to the A-list since Basic Instinct. Only Casino is really notable of her films since, although Quick and the Dead and The Specialist were intriguing blips on the Hollywood radar. Demi Moore has pretty much been A-list based on who she was screwing, but she did have a nice string of high profile films in the early nineties. She took a few years off and that’s fine, but she hasn’t done anything since Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, which was indeed supposed to have been her comeback vehicle. The truth of the matter is that there are very few women considered in the upper echelon of Hollywood A-listers, so a woman who has proven herself any kind of draw will be given a lot more opportunities and maintain a certain star status past a man’s. Until she becomes old and ugly, but actresses over 40 are working more steady in Hollywood now more than ever.

    Former film stars finding a refuge in television is nothing new. Ronald Reagan, Donna Reed, Groucho Marx, Lucille Ball, a score of singing cowboys among others all found homes on television in the fifties and early sixties when their film careers fizzled out. I can go decade by decade and point people out. Sometimes it’s finding a project that interests them, or a want for steady work, or the want of a schedule that allows them time with their family. Most of the time it’s capitalizing on what name value they have to be a selling point for a show. A supporting player or a star past their prime can come to television and make more money than slugging through low budget movies while still being in the public eye prominently. However, these shows still need to be quality and marketed properly to succeed just like any show as name value alone will only get you so far.

    Like

    • I don’t know what was going on in her head. Maybe she was grabbing a paycheck. But the way it was presented at the time was “Demi is BACK!” That might have been PR spin. Based on what was presented at the time, it sure seemed like this was genuinely intended as her comeback vehicle.

      I do think that makes sense. The first movie was a big hit and helped elevate all three actresses who played the “angels”. If the second one had been as successful, it could have set Moore up for more mainstream movies. When it failed to live up to expectations, she wasn’t out anything.

      Like

    • A lot of sequels used to get made to movies nobody liked because the first one made a lot of money before word of mouth killed it. Charlie’s Angels and Tomb Raider were both examples that came out at about the same time. No one wanted to see sequels to those movies. But they made a lot of money, so sequels were made and flopped.

      These days, that happens a lot less frequently because word of mouth is so much faster.

      Like

      • I can’t speak for everybody and in fairness, I haven’t actually gotten around to seeing the second “Charlie’s Angels” movie yet, but I think that the fundamental problem w/ those movies is that for one, they don’t age very well. The “Charlie’s Angels” movies were pretty much products of their time (i.e. the early 2000s), in that they were obviously influenced by “The Matrix” and they fell into the genre of “idiotic, but EXTREME, youth-oriented action movies from this period.

        Also, when you get right down to it, the “Charlie’s Angels” movies are really a collection of goofy, would be tounge-in-cheek skits (that often fetishizes the otherwise “Mary Sue” Angel characters)/hyper-kinectic music videos w/ a very cookie-cutter plot. That gimmick only really has a short self-life before you actually have to create a real story.

        Like

        • I do not remember one single thing about CA2 except that they replaced Bill Murray with Bernie Mac. Not a fair trade at all in my book. Bill Murray got me through the first film. No Murray, no dice.

          Like

        • The “Charlie’s Angels” movies on their own terms really (when I think about it more) struck me as indulgent vanity projects for Drew Barrymore and to a lesser extent, Cameron Diaz, who was coaxed into the project by Barrymore, who was one of the producers. Drew thought that the Angels were “so bad ass” that they didn’t need guns like the Angels did on the old TV show (Drew was quoted in interviews that such a thing was “cowardly”, especially in a post-Columbine America). Drew and maybe Cameron Diaz (I don’t know for sure) also seemed to want to play up the Angels’ “sex appeal”. There’s a scene in which Drew Barrymore’s character falls down a into a patio naked in near the house that just so happens to be same one from “ET”.

          Drew was also influential in getting her future ex-husband Tom Green to appear in the first movie as “The Chad”, since she was a fan of his MTV show. She also pestered Bill Murray for months to appear in the movie as Bosley (the Angels’ middle-man between them and Charlie). On the live 25th anniversary special of “Saturday Night Live”, Bill Murray is singing TLC’s “Waterfalls” and goes to Drew Barrymore in the audience. When Murray sings to Drew “Don’t go chasing waterfalls…” that was apparently an inside joke about her wanting him to appear in “Charlie’s Angels” against his reluctance.

          I think Drew also pushed hard to get Demi Moore to appear in the sequel.

          Like

          • This is true. CA was Barrymore flexing her muscle as a producer. And she was successful in that respect.

            The Bill Murray story is a classic. As was his fued with Lucy Lui.

            Like

          • While I don’t necessarily think that Drew Barrymore herself is really a good “What the Hell Happened to…” candidate just yet, it’s hard to overlook that she was once labeled as “Hollywood’s Most Overpaid Actor/Actress”:

            http://www.hollywood.com/news/celebrities/8105485/drew-barrymore-is-hollywood-s-most-overpaid-actor

            Like

            • I will probably cover both Barrymore and Diaz relatively soon.

              Like

            • Bad Luck or Bad Choices: 10 movie stars who can’t buy a hit:

              http://www.hitfix.com/galleries/overlay/bad-luck-or-bad-choices-10-movie-stars-who-cant-buy-a-hit#5

              Drew Barrymore

              “Big Miracle”: worst choice

              “Whip It”: bad luck

              “Going the Distance”: bad choice and bad luck

              Our advice: Whatever happened to sweet ole comedies like “Never Been Kissed”?

              Like

            • One thing to take for account regarding Drew Barrymore is that she hasn’t had a box office hit film since “He’s Not That Into You” (which, technically, is I think more of an ensemble film than a “Drew Barrymore Movie”), which has been out for over four years now. Just about everything that she has done afterwards has pretty much flopped at the box office. Take for instance, her most recent film, “Big Miracle”, which was from what I’ve read, budgeted at $40 million but wound up only making about $24.7 at the box office. Another film that she was in called “Lucky You” was budgeted for about $55 million but wound up only making about $8,382,477 at the box office (in fairness, it opened up around the same time as “Spider-Man 3″). For all intents and purposes, Drew Barrymore at this phase in her career is arguably, “box office poison”:

              http://omg.yahoo.com/news/3-ways-box-office-poison-drew-barrymore-could-211500567.html

              Like

            • Drew Barrymore — Queen of the Hangover Theater:

              http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/drew-barrymore-americas-sweetheart.php

              10 Actors Who Felt Totally Out Of Place In Famous Movies (WhatCulture):
              10. Drew Barrymore – Donnie Darko

              Drew Barrymore is the kind of actress who makes it hard for you to accept her as individual characters in general, so when she suddenly appears about 20 minutes into Richard Kelly’s seminal sci-fi flick Donnie Darko as a sardonic English teacher (and was the only star in the whole movie with any name recognition at this point in time), it just seems really, really weird to see her there. Granted, she helped get the movie made in the first place, but do we need to see her?

              I don’t know whether it’s because Barrymore only really has a singular “acting setting,” one that is perhaps best-described as “playing Drew Barrymore again in this movie as well,” or the fact that she’s the only Hollywood superstar admist a cast of relatively unknown and obscure actors (nobody really knew the Gyllenhaals back in 2001, remember), but she’s the only actor in the movie who doesn’t like a natural addition to Kelly’s world. Her scenes are the only ones that pull you right outta the story, in fact.

              Like

          • I did’t hate the Charlie’s Angels movies. They were what they were. Empty cinematic calories? Sure. But you knew going in what you were getting. I remember seeing the first one with an audience and it was a party-like atmosphere. People were less interested in the movie than the party. Young people seemed to have an especially good time. The problem is, even they weren’t especially interested in going back to the same party a couple years later. Bill Murray and Tim Curry got me through the first one.

            I watched Mr. Brooks for the first time a few months ago. It is stupid, but it was not boring. I actually enjoyed it way more than I thought I would. The highlight was William Hurt as an evil Jiminey Cricket. I can’t hate a movie where Hurt is the embodiment of insanity.

            Like

            • Perhaps another problem w/ the “Charlie’s Angels” movies is that they seem too on the nose or self-aware (I think campiness works better when the actors mostly play it straight and non-ironically) to the point in which it comes across as smug and self-satisfying. And if you’re going to make a high-octane, high-stakes action film, you really can’t have your cake and eat it too so to speak. I had the same sort of problem w/ Joel Schumacher’s “Batman & Robin”.

              Like

              • I have to confess, the first Charlies Angels movie worked for me. Just barely. Bill Murray and Tim Curry (and to a lesser extent Crispin Glover) provided enough of a diversion. I enjoyed the hyper-kinetic action sequences and the overt, tongue-in-cheek cheesecake. I even kind of liked Tom Green as “the Chad” although I’m not sure why. It’s not a good movie. But it was a guilty pleasure when it was released. I don’t think I’d ever go back and revisit it though.

                Like

          • 10 Incredibly Smug Movie References You Might Have Missed:

            http://whatculture.com/film/10-incredibly-smug-movie-references-you-might-have-missed.php/10

            2. Charlie’s Angels – ET

            Of all the problems and missteps associated with McG’s big screen take on the Charlie’s Angels property, the decision to hurtle a naked Drew Barrymore down a hillside was probably one of the least complained about.

            And in a rather self-satisfied move, the room that Barrymore is forced to break into after her fall, with just an inflatable flower to cover her modesty, is in fact the same living room that appears in her most famous (and far less naked) early performance, in Steven Spielberg’s ET.

            The set is the same house used for ET, and if you look closely, the boys she interrupts when she enters have a bowl of Reeses Pieces between them on the floor, as another nod to the location and Barrymore’s early career.

            And if that wasn’t enough, there’s a poster of the same film carefully placed just in view to hammer home the message.

            10 Sneaky Movie In-Jokes You Might Have Missed

            6. Charlie’s Angels

            Perhaps this list should’ve showcased cinema’s top ten defenestrations? Having being shot out of a window, private investigator Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore) rolls downhill and makes a rather ungainly crash landing in a garden. Her towel is still caught on the jagged glass, and so, naked, she quickly covers herself with a plastic flower decoration before seeking help from the residents. Inside the house, two boys are playing Final Fantasy while arguing over which of them has seen the most boobs (but of course).

            As Dylan stumbles to the sliding doors, we can see that above the TV hangs a poster for E.T. It’s a nice touch but director McG then goes one better.On the DVD commentary, he claims that the house is the exact same one as the one used in E.T. It seems that Gertie has gone home, too.

            Like

        • The “Charlie’s Angels” movies themselves under McG seemed to be aiming for (besides the basic concept of the “Charlie’s Angels” TV series of course) a cross between “Spice World”, “Mission: Impossible”, and “The Matrix”. I think that’s another issue w/ those movies is that they really when you get right down to it, didn’t really have a clear idea whom they were supposed to be marketed to or for.

          Like

        • Charlie’s Angels 2 Sexual Innuendos:

          Like

        • 12 Movies So Bad That They Are Actually Funny:

          http://www.mensmagazine.com/12-movies-so-bad-that-they-are-actually-funny/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_162402

          Charlie’s Angels 2: Full Throttle

          A sequel to the reboot of the classic television show, “Charlie’s Angel’s 2: Full Throttle” appeared to have a lot going for it.

          The presence of Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore gave the film strong appeal with audiences, but it was a mess of a movie that failed to deliver.

          The dialogue often appears to have been made up on the spot, and the plot is little more than a device to connect action sequences. Sadly, the action also failed to deliver.

          Use of innovative wirework techniques are what really make Full Throttle laughable. The girls are made to run up walls, leap incredible distances and defy gravity at every opportunity.

          The movie’s one redeeming feature is the soundtrack, but in the end it looks like an extended music video. The movie also featured an all-star supporting cast of incredibly talented actors including John Cleese, Matt LeBlanc, Bernie Mac and Shia LaBeouf. Demi Moore stars as a fallen angel intent on causing trouble for Charlie and his band of Kung Fu angels.

          The film relies more on its enormous budget and special effects than a solid plot or even convincing performances from its lead actors. “Full Throttle” was nominated for seven different awards at the 24th Golden Raspberry Awards including “Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie (All Concept/No Content).”

          Like

      • 20 Worst Trailers That Secretly Ruined The Movie:

        http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2013/20-worst-trailers-that-secretly-ruined-the-movie/4/

        7. Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle

        The Spoilers: Demi Moore’s the baddie. Fair enough, until you see the film and realize that’s supposed to be a twist.

        How They Should’ve Sold It: Again, plot’s not exactly top of the agenda for this film’s target audience. Stick to the cleavage and kickboxing.

        Like

    • At this point, I don’t think she cares anymore. She knows her career in mainstream movies is over. She doesn’t need to be a proper movie star. Heck, she might even like the spotlight she gets in the tabloids for her bad behavior.

      Like

    • Best Career Comebacks:

      http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-bestcomebacks/4/

      Demi Moore

      Moore dropped off the Hollywood radar after her 1998 divorce from Bruce Willis, heading to her family compound in Idaho. Five years later, she made a splash on the big screen in “Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle,” wowing audiences with her killer bod and over-40 foxyness. Her love life made a comeback as well, when she married the much younger actor Ashton Kutcher, making her an inspiration to aspiring cougars everywhere.

      Like

      • I agree that I don’t see a comeback in the cards for Moore. But I do think you are greatly over-stating her fall from grace. I would say Ryan had a much bigger fall from grace than Moore and is far less likely to stage a comeback.

        Like

        • They both had pretty dramatic falls from Grace. But I think Ryan was a bigger star (despite Moore’s higher paycheck) and had farther to fall. Plus, Moore’s exile was self-imposed. Ryan faced a scandal and a huge backlash that more or less ended her career for her. An argument can probably be made either way. But in my mind, there are very few people who had a bigger fall from grace than Meg Ryan. Mel Gibson comes to mind.

          I do agree with you about Moore’s recent works. She is generally doing good work in lousy projects. Although Margin Call was good. She’s barely in it, but it’s good.

          Like

          • Both Meg and Demi got a dramatic fall from grace, but I think that Meg Ryan’s fall was more surprising.

            Demi Moore was the highest paid actress, but she was hated by critics. After “Ghost” almost all Moore’s film were heavily panned by critics, and Moore was aways nominated for Razzies. Even some of her hits like “Indicent Proposal” and “Disclosure” were heavily panned. It is the typical situation were, at the first big mistake, you’re out.

            Meg Ryan contrarily was never panned by critics. Most of her movies got positive or mixed reviews and she never got a Razzie nomination before “The Women”. Before the Proof of Life scandal probabily no one would have imagined such a fall.

            However, at the moment, it seems to me that Demi Moore is at least trying to come back. “Margin Call” was a pretty good movie that got good reviews and even turn out to be profitable at the box-office.

            Like

            • Agreed. I don’t see Moore returning to the A-list any time soon. But she could conceivably get supporting work. Ryan is just so far gone at this point.

              Like

              • For a long time, Ryan was trying to transition to producing and directing. But then came The Women. For whatever reason, Ryan Hasn’t been able to catch a break. Moore is not a power player. But she is a working actress as you pointed out. That is a life long dream for most.

                Like

    • I would like to believe (and I think LeBeau has already said this) that had “Charlie’s Angels 2″ been better received (I think that it barely broke even domestically despite all of the pre-release hype), then Demi would’ve been given a better “second lease on life” so to speak in her career. Ever notice that she really been in the forefront of a truly mainstream film since.

      I seriously think that the whole thing w/ her and Ashton Kutcher hurt her brand more than it helped. It seemed like a bit of a “look at me” PR stunt (just like the naked pregnancy photo, “Striptease in general”, or shaving her head for “G.I. Jane”) to coincide w/ the release of “Charlie’s Angels 2″. The viewing public would respect and relate to Demi Moore I feel, if she would try to accept and embrace her age/mortality. Instead, Demi has for better or for worse, become a laughing stock (she was already reaching that point during her ’90s prime due to her putting out crappy movie after crappy movie).

      I do agree w/ the assumption that Demi (even 10 years ago when that movie came out) is no longer an A-list, bankable star but more of a tabloid magnet. That ship sailed the moment that she went on a five-six year hiatus from mainstream movies after “G.I. Jane”. Her recent drug issues certainly doesn’t help in terms making her more marketable or reliable. A 50 year old mother of three being photographed partying hard is extremely embarrassing.

      Like

    • OK let’s go with that. Would people think it’s so bad if a 50 year old MAN was out partying? It would prob be seen as cool. Part of me wants to say, girl, go for it. if I looked like her in shorts I’d love to be photographed doing shots with Lenny Kravitz. But, there is no denying, you guys are most definitely right. The Cougar image didn’t help her career, it seems to have helped her fall from A list. She could definitely benefit from some image overhaul. If she wants to work I bet she can, although not the roles she used to play.

      Like

    • Nostalgia Chick: Charlie’s Angels:

      I think it’s pretty much time to throw in the towel on feminism, you guys. We had a pretty good run after all, right?

      Like

      • As shorter version of the Nostalgia Chick’s review:

        Like

        • Sam Rockwell: 5 Awesome Performances & 5 You Won’t Remember:

          http://whatculture.com/film/sam-rockwell-5-awesome-performances-5-you-wont-remember.php/8

          3. Forgettable- Charlie’s Angels

          In the bloated action comedy Charlie’s Angels Rockwell plays Eric Knox, a genius computer programmer hell-bent on revenge against Charlie and his lovely angels.

          Rockwell seems like he’s having fun playing the double crossing villain, dancing around and sucking back on Marlboros like nobody’s business, but once again he is given two dimensional material to work with overall. Any characterization that Rockwell tries to achieve is weighted down from the overall tone of the film, which is a fast paced in your face collection of action set pieces and over-used wire-work from director McG.

          Like

          • 10 Directors Who Should Never Be Trusted With Giant Budgets:

            http://whatculture.com/film/10-directors-never-trusted-giant-budgets.php/11

            McG

            As well as having quite possibly the most pretentious moniker in the entire industry, the former producer and music video director turned big-budget film-maker is also responsible for some of the most vapid, lifeless studio fare to hit multiplexes in recent years. Ironically considering the title of this article, his most recent directorial effort, Taken-lite 3 Days To Kill, is both his cheapest and least commercially successful endeavor.

            Awarded a $93m budget for his directorial debut, McG bestowed the world with Charlie’s Angels. Although the cast seem to be enjoying themselves, no plot, no drama, no tension and poorly-written characters are the order of the day in this slice of slickly directed high-camp that made almost $265m at the box office. The $120m sequel made almost as much money, but was a great deal worse, an exercise in style over substance that landed seven Razzie nominations in the process.

            Trying his hand at drama with We Are Marshall, inspired by a true story and featuring a talented ensemble cast, the movie failed to even recoup its $65m budget at the box office. So naturally someone decided he was the right man for directing the $200m Terminator Salvation. A couple of good set-pieces and impressive effects fail to cover up the fact that this was the worst entry in the franchise by far, and one that saw disappointing box office returns of $371.4m. McG’s next effort was This Means War, an awful $65m spy caper that wasted the talents of Tom Hardy, Chris Pine and Reese Witherspoon but alarmingly did solid box office business. After 14 years, six features and over $570m in production costs, the troubling fact remains that McG is still yet to make a good movie.

            Like

            • McG is a second rate director to be sure. I’ll admit I walked out of the first Charlie’s Angels having enjoyed it, but it was fluff, pure camp, a guilty pleasure, nothing more. The game cast helped make the film watchable.

              How anybody at the executive level thought McG would be a great fit for Terminator 4 is beyond me, however. Here I had waited years, decades even to finally see a movie based in the future world of John Connor, the Resistance vs. Skynet in the post apocalyptic future, with a premise like that I was sure the sequel would kick ass; instead it was a complete disappointment. McG was way out of his league on that film, he made a Terminator film completely devoid of any entertainment or joy. Similiar to the way Batman & Robin killed the Batman franchise for several years, the same seemed to have happened to the Terminator franchise due to McG’s tepid sequel. Only now are they finally moving forward with the next film, with Schwarzenegger returning. I now actively avoid any movie directed by McG.

              Like

              • Terminator Salvation was a turkey. But the reason WB never made a sequel had more to do with legal issues than the film’s performance. So I can’t say it killed the franchise Batman & Robin-style.

                Following Charlie’s Angels, Hollywood was high on McG. I think it’s understandable. That movie taken on its own was hyperkinetic fun. The cast helped. But you couldn’t help notice McG’s style. Was he a one-trick pony or was this the first salvo of a talented director? I can see why studios wanted to take a chance on him. And then he had some success as a TV producer. I don’t really fault anyone for giving him a franchise.

                Terminator: Salvation had a difficult production. After the script was leaked online, they had to do rewrites that probably hurt the movie. But the main problem was that McG seemed intent on making the bleakest most depressing action movie ever made. I think it was his bid to be taken seriously after being the Charlie’s Angels guy. But instead of showcasing his talents (and he is talented), it showed his limitations.

                Like

  26. Here’s the thing about celeb plastic surgery. Like other examples, Demi could have just accepted a few wrinkles or whatnot. Why not? Lines on men’s faces are SEX-AY! There’s no reason why women can’t aspire to the same. Instead, Moore has sort of killed herself with the results of endless surgery especially when it’s so obvious everything below her forehead has been operated on… yes, we all fear those aging jowls, but is the solution really to get human faces pulled into something alien and scary?? Worse, the cheek implants. They are clearly visible and even more scary looking. Not youthful, sadly. Just weird. Of course now Hollywood men are going this route too.

    Like

  27. The 50 Hottest Bad Actresses Of All Time:

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/10/50-hottest-bad-actresses-of-all-time/demi-moore

    10. Demi Moore
    Worst Performances: Nothing but Trouble (1991), Striptease (1996), Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003), Mr. Brooks (2007)

    As Jay-Z once said, “Men lie, women lie, [but] numbers don’t lie.” And, as much as people want to think that she’s a solid actress, Demi Moore’s nine Golden Raspberry Award nominations (which includes four wins) speaks volumes. She’s remained in the public eye thanks to her marriage to Ashton Kutcher, but, outside of TMZ fodder, Ms. Moore hasn’t been able to prove naysayers who charge her with riding high on gorgeous looks wrong.

    Like

    • I think it’s silly to label someone a “bad actress”. I’m not sure what that even means. Especially when we’re talking about movie stars. Moore was in plenty of bad movies and gave some leaden or one-note performances. But she also gave some very compelling performances and had an undeniable star power on the screen. To my mind, you can not say those things about a “bad actress”.

      Like

    • Maybe part of Demi’s problem like Kim Basinger (as LeBeau speculated in her own WTHHT article) is that Demi pretty much built much of her career towards being a sex symbol until she eventually “good old”. You can argue that like Kim breaking up w/ Alec Baldwin sometime after winning her Oscar (I’ve suggested in the past, that maybe Kim Basinger didn’t have a much better career after that because her not releasing another film for three years after “L.A. Confidential” really sapped her post-Oscar buzz/momentum), Demi breaking up w/ Bruce Willis around the time that she went on hiatus, actually hurt her career-wise more than helped.

      Like

  28. Someone made another comment about Disclosure, which I was looking for so i could reply directly to the comment, and I can’t locate the post, dang it. Anyway the point was about Michael Douglas being miscast opposite Demi Moore. I agree a thousand percent with that statement especially after having re-read the book. I don’t even agree that Demi was the perfect choice to play Meredith, simply due to being the wrong physical type. However, she fulfilled the requirement of being young, slender and attractive. And she was certainly a capable enough actress. The real problem was having Michael Douglas play Tom. In the book, Meredith and Tom are both in their middle 30s. I’d picture Tom as having the appearance and mannerisms of that guy who used to be in WKRP in Cincinnatti. Gary somebody. I mean, someone LIKE him because by the time Disclosure was filmed, he’d have been too old. Anyway. The movie was OK but didn’t do the book justice, which really is an excellent book. The film Disclosure could have been so much better. Not to mention it would have made a difference to Demi’s career.

    Like

    • I haven’t read the book, so I can’t really speak to the source material.

      I can see why people balk at Douglas and Moore. It is pretty silly. But they made a silly movie. At the time, Douglas was the king of these kind of smarmy movies. Audiences couldn’t get enough of Douglas in these kids of roles. They expected him to be cast against modern femme fatales like Stone and Moore. It was a recipe for success. And Disclosure succeeded even if it’s not a very good movie.

      Watching it today, it’s sillier than ever before. But at the time, the studio was just giving audiences Moore of what it wanted. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

      Like

    • If nothing else, the cyber-thriller relic Disclosure is better than its source:

      http://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/92-forgotbusters-disclosure/

      In the early 1990s, Michael Crichton accomplished the writer/creator equivalent of an EGOT, an acronym for winning the Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards, coined by Philip Michael Thomas and made famous by 30 Rock. Crichton scored a No. 1 movie (Jurassic Park), a top-rated television show (ER), and a novel that topped the New York Times bestseller list (Disclosure) within the span of a couple years. Yet despite his success, the prolific author still felt obligated to document the heroic struggle of rich, white, heterosexual males like himself, noble figures besieged on all sides by their natural enemies: Japanese businessmen (the subject of his incendiary thriller Rising Sun, adapted into a film that will serve as the next Forgotbuster), sexually aggressive businesswomen with perfect breasts (Disclosure), tree-huggers whining about how some nonsense called “global warming” will imperil the future of the globe (State Of Fear), and, to a lesser extent, velociraptors.

      Crichton’s loathsome, borderline-unreadable 1994 bestseller Disclosure exemplifies the reactionary paranoia that characterized the author’s later career. The novel has the strange quality of being at once sanctimonious and unrelentingly sleazy, self-righteous and smutty. Crichton really seems to have deluded himself into thinking that he was writing a serious, relevant novel about sexual harassment, one that soberly explores the issue from multiple sides and highlights the advancements and complications of women in business and technology. What he really wrote is a rancid little potboiler overflowing with contempt for powerful, sexually aggressive women.

      Crichton’s lucrative twist was to write a cyber-thriller about sexual harassment in which the aggressor isn’t the expected male predator chasing his freaked-out secretary around his desk (best exemplified by General Halftrack and his buxom assistant in the Beetle Bailey comic strip), but rather a 35-year-old ex-beauty queen with “perfect breasts.” (Those are Crichton’s words, not mine, and pretty much the extent of the antagonist’s characterization.) Her beauty is referenced so extensively over the course of the book that “beautiful” practically doubles as her first name.

      This twist affords readers an opportunity to enjoy the personal and professional humiliation of a sexually aggressive businesswoman, while at the same time deriving seedy voyeuristic delight in her transgressive sexual encounters. In Meredith Johnson, the sex and power-crazed possessor of the aforementioned perfect breasts, Crichton created an antagonist that makes Darth Vader’s look subtle by comparison. She’s a sneering villain wholly devoid of redeeming characteristics, a misogynistic nightmare of female power run amok.

      “It helps that film is a visual medium: We don’t need Crichton stacking the deck by having Meredith’s staggering good looks referenced on damn near every other page…”
      Meredith Johnson is neither flawed nor complicated: She’s f***ing evil. Crichton doesn’t see fit to give her a single moment of humanity, not a single scene where her mask slips to reveal someone vulnerable and sad, someone to whom readers might relate or sympathize. For all Disclosure’s talk of the swampy, complicated nature of gender politics in corporate America, the novel is largely devoid of moral ambiguity. Johnson is unrelentingly evil from start to finish, while the book’s white-bread hero, Tom Sanders, is all good. If Tom lets his guard down and briefly contemplates consenting to his boss’ sexual advances, well, dammit, that’s just because he’s a real man and that’s what real men do: They drink beer and play softball and solve problems and talk shit with their bros and at least contemplate having sex with beautiful women with perfect breasts when given the opportunity.

      Not since Atlas Shrugged has a novelist strayed so egregiously from plausible human behavior in dogged pursuit of making a muddled ideological point. For example, when Meredith calls Tom to her office on her first day as his new boss, Tom attempts to keep things strictly business while she lasciviously discusses his “nice hard tush.” Now, I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that the phrase “tush” has ever been used by anyone other than heavily bearded blues-rockers from Texas and Eastern European Jewish grandmothers describing their grandson’s posterior. It certainly has no place in foreplay. It would be tempting to say that the unexpected and glaring appearance of “tush” in the novel’s big semi-sex scene took me out of it, but that would imply that I read the novel with anything other than morbid fascination, a grim sense of obligation, and a mounting sense of rage.

      Disclosure is so poorly conceived that a prominent plot point involves Tom lurking outside a room in time to overhear a crucial piece of information relating to his future (coincidences are the lazy writer’s best friend/crutch), and the climax involves Tom walking down a virtual corridor in search of important files. That’s right. The man behind Jurassic Park tried to generate suspense from his protagonist strapping on a silly virtual-reality helmet before embarking on a hunt for relevant data. Is it any wonder the novel’s incredibly successful advertising campaign focused on sex?

      The upside to Disclosure being a seemingly unpublishable mess is that it leaves the inevitable film adaptation nowhere to go but up. Sure enough, Academy Award-winning director Barry Levinson’s version of Disclosure, written by Quiz Show and Donnie Brasco screenwriter Paul Attanasio, represents a massive improvement over its source material, in the sense that it did not make me want to projectile vomit in rage, unlike the novel that inspired it. Smart people solved some of the book’s myriad problems, streamlining the plot and eliminating unnecessary characters, like an angry caricature of a feminist op-ed writer and a wheelchair-bound guru who speaks in meaningful riddles.

      Levinson’s Disclosure opens with the adorable young daughter of hard-charging technology executive Tom Sanders (Michael Douglas) reading his email aloud, as her harried dad tries to get his house in order before heading out to work for a big day. This opening serves multiple purposes, unpacking a relevant piece of information and establishing its protagonist as a good husband, father, homeowner, businessman, and all-around exceptional citizen devoted to protecting his family against any and all threats, especially those involving sexually voracious women with perfect breasts.

      Tom expects to be promoted to vice president at the technology corporation DigiCom following more than a decade of loyal service, and is horrified to discover that the promotion has instead been given to his ex-girlfriend, Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore). Levinson creates a sense of anticipation by having Tom (and by extension, the audience) leer at Meredith’s sexy stilettos and shapely, stocking-clad legs before we ever see her face. Like Tom, we’re supposed to be both turned on and vaguely threatened by these phantom legs of doom, even before we’re properly introduced to their owners.

      Their first day working together, Meredith attempts to boozily seduce Tom during a late-night meeting with raunchy recollections of their past sexual history. Tom is not immune to his new boss’ charms, but he finds the strength to resist before their furtive fling can be consummated. In retaliation, and in pursuit of a sinister secret agenda, Meredith tells her bosses at DigicCom that Tom nearly raped her, but that she’s willing to overlook his transgression for the sake of a merger/spin-off that promises to make the higher-ups at DigiCom rich beyond their wildest dreams. Super-rich. Crazy rich. Michael Crichton rich.

      Attanasio’s screenplay largely eschews the shrill sermonizing and smug posturing that hobbles Crichton’s novel. But it still makes the mistake of trying to pass off a line like, “All I know is any woman has to be twice as good as a man, work twice as hard to get the same job for less pay” as a tossed-off conversational aside, rather than as a bumper-sticker platitude. The screenwriter puts those words in the mouth of one of the film’s “good” women, hard-working professionals who don’t go around trying to distract menfolk from important, manly business with their perfect breasts and incredible beauty. Crichton surrounds Tom with women who are strong—his lawyer, his wife, and ultimately the executive who anonymously aids his quest for justice—but not too strong, and certainly not brazenly sexual like Meredith. It’s telling that the woman who ends up triumphing professionally at the end of the book and movie is a female executive named Stephanie Kaplan, also known as the “Stealth Bomber,” because she is so quietly capable. Kaplan (played by Rosemary Forsyth) is pointedly associated with quiet competency and family, in sharp contrast to the showy and childless Meredith. To make things even clearer, these “good” women loudly broadcast their contempt for Meredith and her scheming, backhanded, sexed-up way of doing business.

      Despite the deck-stacking, it helps the film that Levinson assembled a vastly overqualified ensemble, though even a character actor as brilliant as Happiness star Dylan Baker—who plays Philip Blackburn, the head lawyer of DigiCom—can’t deliver a line like, “I’ve never even heard of such a thing, a woman harassing a man!” with anything resembling conviction. The smart casting ends with Dennis Miller, however, as executive Mark Lewyn. Miller is on hand largely to provide an excuse for salty quips like, “Tommy, you’ve seen more ass than a rental car,” and, “Ten years from now you’re going to need a forklift to get a hard-on.” The filmmakers apparently found such comments amusing enough to keep in the film, ostensibly as what can generously be deemed “comic relief.”

      In the novel, Tom is paper-thin, a straight arrow trying to solve a series of seemingly impossible problems. Douglas excels at giving his characters rich inner lives, however, and he lends Tom an intriguingly unhinged air that makes it seem possible that he really did harass Meredith, whereas in the novel he is forever above reproach. The film version of Tom is darker, creepier, angrier, and more predatory. He’s a guy who thinks nothing of patting his female assistant on the ass or yelling at Meredith in a fit of rage, “You take those two champagne bottles in your refrigerator and you fuck them.” Tom veritably trembles with barely suppressed rage. In other words, he’s less like the bland hero of the book and more like the morally conflicted assholes Michael Douglas usually plays. That represents a substantial and important improvement.

      Similarly, the book’s Meredith is such a deranged, one-dimensional monster that it’s easy to see why Tom could resist her, but Moore invests the character with a smoky, whiskey-voiced sexuality and tenacity that makes an impossible character strangely palatable. It helps that film is a visual medium: We don’t need Crichton stacking the deck by having Meredith’s staggering good looks referenced on damn near every other page when we can actually see that, yes, Demi Moore is a fine-looking woman. (I’m similarly appreciative that the phrase “tush” does not appear at all in the film version of Disclosure, in the big sex scene or elsewhere.)

      Still, there’s only so much Levinson and Attanasio can do with the material that they’ve been given, so their Disclosure still prominently involves Tom strapping on the virtual-reality helmet and embarking on a rivetingly cinematic quest to retrieve relevant data in that fantastical virtual corridor, a sequence that must have already felt dated back in 1994 and looks like high camp today. For all of its talk about exploring the complexities of gender and sexuality, the sexual harassment plot of Disclosure turns out to be little more than a sexy sideshow meant to distract Tom from uncovering irregularities in the manufacturing of CD-ROM drives in Malaysia. Seriously. That’s what Disclosure is ultimately really about: a scheming woman who concocts the world’s most elaborate scheme to prevent an underling from uncovering irregularities in the manufacturing of CD-ROM drives.

      Tom figures out what Meredith is really up to just in time, albeit with some assistance from an anonymous helper (that would be the quiet, deadly Kaplan) and the information he gleaned from some convenient eavesdropping. He then publicly humiliates and exposes Meredith and her schemes in a development handled with all the subtlety and sophistication of the unmasking of a villain on Scooby Doo.

      Disclosure is probably the best film that could have been made from its source material. If there were an Academy Award for Best Screen Adaptation Of A Screamingly Awful, Viciously Sexist Novel, Disclosure would triumph. The film takes a preachy, disingenuous, and poorly written jeremiad against sexually aggressive women and turns it into a sleek, sexy, and only moderately sexist piece of Hollywood entertainment. It’s easy to see why Disclosure made more than $80 million dollars domestically and more than $200 million internationally: It’s the attention-grabbing, propulsive thriller Crichton’s novel should have been, even if the filmmakers and cast’s best efforts can only elevate the film to the level of sleek mediocrity.

      Disclosure was a film of the moment, though its regressive attitudes and amusingly misguided conception of technology’s future sometimes lend it the air of a period piece. Technology has improved immeasurably since the weird old days of Disclosure. (Spoiler!) The CD-ROM did not turn out to be the future of computer technology, just as railroads did not turn out to the be the future of transportation, as Ayn Rand boldly predicted. But when it comes to the treatment of women in mainstream movies, Disclosure remains distressingly contemporary.

      Like

      • Well, the book review was interesting before-work reading. The writer is so consumed with hatred for the subject that his or her credibility is shot from the first few sentences. Ok so they hated Disclosure, the novel. But a book review has to consist of something other than emotion. Crichton did seem to have occaisonal issues with some of his women characters at times. So what? It can make for a more textured novel, and women writers having issues with men has created some of the best movies and books around. And Disclosure is not a one note novel as the writer keeps carping. In fact, the writer completely ignores all of the other female characters in the book, who are pivotal to the plot: Tom’s wife, the articulate and intelligent attorney; Tom’s coworkers Beth and Stephanie, the attorney who ended up representing Tom, another intriguing character. It makes me wonder if the writer even read the book. I’m guessing not, even with how much they complained about being forced to read it with a gun held to their head. If they did read it, their comprehension is lacking.
        And yes, Meredith in the book is categorically evil and calculating. The writer finds this incomprehensible. I’ve got news for that writer: Welcome to Corporate America if you think there aren’t a million Merediths out there.

        Like

        • I just looked again and found the paragraph where the writer finally does mention the other female characters in the movie.. Numerous browser crashes earlier did not display the entire article. Having read all of it, though, I’m not changing my original assessment. Honestly it was so poorly written I regret wasting the time reading it.

          Like

  29. Demi Moore, Queen of Flops:

    http://gawker.com/5931334/demi-moore-queen-of-flops

    This week’s home-video release of LOL marks Demi Moore’s tenth straight bomb. The film, which Lionsgate virtually buried during its miniscule theatrical run, took in a reported $46,500 at the domestic box office — about $10.95 million less than its budget. The movie is bad, the reason the Razzies exist.

    After 1997’s G.I. Jane (which grossed $48 million domestically) and Deconstructing Harry ($10.6 million), Moore evaporated from pop culture for a few years. Between 1998 and 2005, she appeared in just two movies: the widely mocked Passion of Mind ($769,272) and the sequel Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. Though the latter was the first (and only) Moore movie since 1993’s Indecent Proposal to gross over $100 million at the U.S. box office, its $100.8 million haul was less than its budget ($120 million). It was a disappointment, as well.

    Then, with 2006’s Bobby ($11.2 million), Moore seemed to attempt a conscious comeback. She started appearing regularly in movies again, turning out unremarkable performances in a string of unremarkable films. Moore’s charisma — her greatest strength that made adequate acting so watchable — had dimmed. She was, as Tyra Banks might say, resting on pretty.

    Of this new wave of Moore films, almost all of them were panned, none of them were particularly successful. They included 2007’s Mr. Brooks ($28.5 million), and last year’s Margin Call ($5.4 million) and Another Happy Day, which grossed a jaw-droppingly low $8,464. Jules just can’t pull it together.

    It’s a hell of a thing to come back and realized how much nobody missed you. Hollywood gets really rough for women of Demi Moore’s age, and she’s making it harder for herself by picking such lousy material. Only Margin Call received overwhelmingly positive praise — it has an 89 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. The only thing she did last decade that ranks “fresh” on the Tomatometer is The Joneses (61 percent of its reviews were positive).

    Up next for Moore is a role in Very Good Girls. She’ll reportedly play a hippie mom to Elizabeth Olsen, who has much better taste in material (but probably many more options and Silent House was weak). This will be her first post-hospitalization role, the first thing she’s filmed after splitting with Ashton Kutcher. This will be the first time Moore’s appearance on screen will immediately conjure images of whip-its for her audience.

    It would seem to be a dark time for Moore’s career and life. Things can only get better from here, right?

    Like

  30. I’m starting to wonder if Demi’s ex-husband Bruce Willis, if he’s “not careful” will become a future candidate for a “What the Hell Happened to…”? Maybe I’m bringing this up in light of the recent news that Bruce will not be invited back for the third “Expendables” movie (he presumably had a fallen out w/ Sly Stallone). There was also the underperformance (both critically and commercially) of the fifth “Die Hard” movie, in which Willis, by most accounts, seemed to be phoning it in.

    There have been growing stories about how much of a pain in the ass that Bruce is to work with:

    http://whatculture.com/film/10-famous-actors-who-are-notoriously-difficult-to-work-with.php/2

    I guess because unlike somebody like say Val Kilmer, Bruce Willis has still been enough of a box office draw to get away w/ such stuff.

    Hell, I’m surprised that early ’90s stuff like “Bonfire of the Vanities” and his vanity project “Hudson Hawk” didn’t totally derail Bruce Willis’ career.

    Like

    • Bruce Willis is made of Teflon. Nothing sticks to that guy. I’m sure I’ll get to him eventually. I believe Red 2 under-performed. Whenever I get to him, that’s going to be one massive article. He’s made a ton of movies and ruffled a lot of feathers.

      Like

      • Bruce Willis still is a box office draw, though to be honest his drawing ability is gradually dwindling, due to being an aging action hero (he is in his late 50’s now), developing a reputation as being difficult, and more frequently appearing to just be phoning in his performances. He still can occasionally actually show up to work and give an actual performance (Looper and Moonrise Kingdom seem to have genuine performances involved), but increasingly it comes off like he doesn’t much care anymore and is just showing up for the paycheck (shades of Eddie Murphy), with more of his movies going direct-to-DVD. I’m a fan of the Die Hard series, but even I avoided the last one because it looked generic and the word of mouth was awful. It’s a shame, because he has many good and even great films to his lengthy career (Die Hard, Pulp Fiction, Sixth Sense, 12 Monkeys, etc.).

        It’s too soon yet for Willis to be a candidate for WTTH, arguably, since he’s still appearing in high profile films and still a box office draw to an extent, but the way he’s running his career into the ground I think we may be seeing Lebeau giving him a write up sooner rather than later. He would be an interesting write-up though, I’ll readily admit that.

        Like

        • I have heard a theory that part of the secret to Willis’ longevity is that he often appears not to give a shit about the movie he;s in. Like’s he’s winking at the audience and saying “Can you believe how bad this shit is?” That allows him to be above it all. So when the movie is terrible – and for all the great or good movies he’s made, he’s made at least three terrible ones – teh audience gives him a pass.

          Before Willis was even a movie star, there were all kinds of stories about what an asshole he was. As he grew rich and famous, those stories only got worse. I don’t know that we’re in Steven Segal territory here. But right about on par with Chevy Chase.

          It will probably be a while before I get around to Willis. But I’ll get to him eventually. I get to everyone eventually.

          Like

        • MOVIE JAIL: THIS WEEK’S DEFENDANT IS…BRUCE WILLIS!

          http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/movie-jail-this-weeks-defendant-isbruce-willis

          The Case

          The Prosecution: Red 2, A Good Day to Die Hard, Fire with Fire, The Cold Light of Day, Lay the Favorites, Catch .44, Set Up, Red, Cop Out, Surrogates, Live Free or Die Hard, Perfect Stranger, Over the Hedge, The Whole Ten Yards

          Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Walter Bruce Willis isn’t on trial today because of recent events surrounding The Expendables 3. No, Mr. Willis is here because for the last decade he has starred in some terrible films. Even worse, many times it just seems like the actor doesn’t care about his performance in the movies he stars in.

          The prosecution doesn’t enjoy putting someone on trial who starred in Die Hard, Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys and Unbreakable, but those films were released years ago. If we are only looking at what Mr. Willis has done lately, it isn’t pretty and the films he has appeared in absolutely pale in comparison to the actor’s previous efforts. If you want a perfect example, look no further than the actor’s Die Hard franchise. Do the last two films come close to the awesomeness of the first three movies, even if we compare them to the weakest film (Die Hard 2) from the original trilogy? No way in hell.

          Of course not all the blame can be placed on Mr. Willis since it’s not like he wrote and directed those films as well, but he did agree to be in them. And since these movies wouldn’t happen without the actor, the prosecution would like to know just what the hell Mr. Willis saw in the scripts (besides dollar signs) that made him think, “This is exactly what fans want to see in a new Die Hard movie!”

          Besides his last two outings as John McClane, Mr. Willis has also appeared in Red and Red 2. The prosecution isn’t a fan of these films, but that isn’t why they are being used against Mr. Willis. It’s because the actor put little to no effort in those films, and it’s painfully obvious in Red 2 that the actor just didn’t want to be there. If the actor doesn’t care about the movie why should we (the movie goers) give a shit? The same can also be said for most of the direct-to-video crap he has starred in like The Cold Light of Day, Catch .44 and Set Up. But why in the f is Mr. Willis appearing in direct-to-video films in the first place?

          So what else has Mr. Willis done these past ten years? A completely unnecessary sequel to a sleeper hit (The Whole Ten Yards), the vomit inducing Cop Out and Surrogates, which is just plain boring. His appearances in The Expendables films have pretty much been cameos and although G.I. Joe: Retribution was fun, the prosecution feels that Mr. Willis really didn’t add much to the movie in general. The prosecution isn’t looking at a lengthy sentence for Mr. Willis, just one long enough so the actor can get his shit together. Underwhelming Die Hard sequels? Direct-to-video slop? A cameo in Nancy Drew!? We expect more from you Mr. Willis, and hopefully some time in Movie Jail will help.

          The Defense: G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Looper, Moonrise Kingdom, Assassination of a High School President, Grindhouse: Planet Terror, Lucky Number Slevin, 16 Blocks, Hostage, Tears of the Sun

          Ladies and gentlemen, my client doesn’t care. That’s right: Mr. Willis doesn’t give a shit what you think. Isn’t that obvious by now? Don’t like The Expendables 3 news? Pffft, jog on. My client doesn’t need that series and he certainly doesn’t care about online film nerds bitching about him not appearing in the third movie because guess what: he’s Bruce f*cking Willis.

          My client’s filmography the past decade might be a mixed bag, but the defense argues that the good far outweigh the bad. The last two Die Hards might not have been great, but because the series attracts more attention than some of his other films, people only seem to only remember the negative things about those films and forget the good he’s done in other movies like 16 Blocks, Hostage and Lucky Number Slevin.

          People also seem to forget that Mr. Willis has gone through rough patches like this before. Between Die Hard 2 and Pulp Fiction he starred in films like Hudson Hawk, North and Color Purple, and he also appeared in some awful movies in the late 90s like Mercury Rising and Breakfast of Champions. The point the prosecution is trying to make: don’t ever give up on Bruce Willis. He might star in some bad films and might even be guilty of mailing in a performance or two, but then he’ll dazzle us like in Moonrise Kingdom or Looper.

          In all honesty, the defense feels like Mr. Willis doesn’t needed to be…well, defended. His filmography speaks for itself (recent works and older films), and the actor has proven time and time again that he is one talented bastard that is capable of playing many roles. He gets lumped in with other action stars, but Mr. Willis can do drama and comedy much better than most of those actors. He even manages to star in independent films like Assassination of a High School President. Seriously, what more do you want from the actor? His gruff personality might turn some people off, but that has nothing to do with how well he does in movies and it shouldn’t be used against him. The defense believes Mr. Willis is not guilty of these charges, and should serve no time in Movie Jail.

          IN CLOSING…

          Should we send Bruno to Movie Jail? How much should he blamed for A Good Day to Die Hard and Live Free or Die Hard? Does the good really outweigh the bad? Is Bruce Willis GUILTY or NOT GUILTY?

          Like

          • 10 Huge Hollywood Actors We All Loved (But Now Hate):

            http://whatculture.com/film/10-huge-hollywood-actors-loved-now-hate.php/2

            Bruce Willis

            We Love You Moment: Die Hard (1988)

            Bruce Willis initially found fame as private eye David Addison in hit TV show Moonlighting but it wasn’t long before he found super-stardom with his signature role; Det. John McClane in Die Hard. Bruce’s laconic humour and vulnerability made him the antithesis to the musclebound hulks of eighties action films as he offered cinema goers something different; a relatable hero who actually got hurt.

            This wise cracking everyman went on to star in some huge blockbusters like Armageddon and The Sixth Sense as well as showing off his dramatic acting chops in films like Pulp Fiction and Twelve Monkeys which all helped the smirk who worked become one of the most popular film stars in recent memory.

            We Want A Divorce Moment: A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

            Following such cinematic highs like Cop Out, Setup and Surrogates, Walter Bruce Willis was still capable of collecting a $25 million pay check (plus 20% of ticket sales) for dusting off the vest and reprising the role of John McClane. Unfortunately, it appears the last reservoirs of his enthusiasm for acting ran dry after this latest Die Hard. The horrible and benign fifth instalment saw the character of John McClane change from everyman cop into indestructible wise-ass and, worst of all, Bruce himself change from charming and engaging interviewee on the promotional tour to a monosyllabic and apathetic tool.

            With news that Sly Stallone dumped him from The Expendables sequel because of his diva-like demands and selling out for lame commercials, is now the time for him to hang up the vest for good and go quietly into the night? He now exhibits all the enthusiasm of Edward Snowden being told he’s won a free trip to Washington DC when promoting his films which begs the question; if he doesn’t care anymore then why should we?

            Like

      • The Expendables 3 – Bruce Willis Out And Harrison Ford Is In:

        http://haphazard-stuff.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-expendables-3-bruce-willis-out-and.html

        Not that I’m a fan of The Expendable flicks, but this recent news has really caught my attention – including everyone else’s. People love fun Hollywood drama.

        So Sylvester Stallone is gearing up for a third Expendables movie. Everyone knows the big gimmick to these are cramming in as many big time action stars as the poster will hold. That’s the big draw. Fans are always anxious to see what new faces Sly has lined up for the latest entry.

        Bruce Willis has been in both one and two and it seemed like a natural he was going do number three. Now word has gotten out that Willis declined the offer of $3 million for four days work on the movie. The price for his services for that length of time is apparently four million bucks. Stallone and/or whoever is in charge of the production refused to meet that salary demand. so Willis walked.

        A few days after the Willis walkout Sly tweeted – “WILLIS OUT…HARRISON FORD IN !!! GREAT NEWS!!!!! Been waiting years for this!!!!”

        He then added this parting shot aimed at Willis – “GREEDY AND LAZY……A SURE FORMULA FOR CAREER FAILURE”.

        I guess these two aren’t buddies anymore.

        This incident doesn’t do any favors for Willis’ reputation. Lately he’s been getting some pretty bad press. A recent interview for Red 2 has been trending on youtube with viewers disgusted by his arrogant attitude. Granted the questions asked by the interviewer are pretty stupid too, but Willis isn’t even pretending to care. His comment about “being nice” to people is awfully ironic in it. By the way I love how in that clip they use that very cheesy, upbeat radio station ID to open and close the interview. It’s just such a contrast to the awkwardness of this sitdown with Willis and Mary Louise Parker. I find that part hysterical.

        Kevin Smith is constantly dishing juicy stories about the nightmare of working with him. And of course let’s not forget the abysmal A Good Day To Die Hard. What a cruel joke that was to fans. Nope, I’m not anywhere close to forgiving him for that.

        This Expendables 3 melodrama kind of reminds me of a warped version of all those stories back in ’88 where everyone was shocked that Willis, then only known mainly as a TV actor, was being paid five million bucks to star in this action film with the odd title – Die Hard. People couldn’t get over he was getting paid so much loot for that one movie. Man how times have changed.

        Afterwards audiences changed their minds and thought he earned it on that movie and it was not such an unreasonable payday. Does anyone think his appearance in an Expendables movie warrants four million bucks? Or even three???

        I don’t know what’s going on here. If all this is true Willis is coming off as a greedy shallow movie star. I still find it hard to believe that they were willing to pay him three million bucks for another extended cameo in one of these movies. It’s not like he does much in them. He says a few lines, shoots a gun here and there then calls it a day.

        Plus, Willis and Stallone have known each other since the days of their Planet Hollywood partnership. So I would assume they’re friendly with each other – or at the very least politely cordial. Why not just do the movie for my old pal, help him out, it should be fun to hang around the guys for a few days and then give my salary to charity. What the heck it’s only four days worth of work!

        Then there’s Stallone who now took to Twitter and started the name calling game and is not hiding that money was an issue with Willis. I’m not sure that was a great way to go about this. I would have just not addressed it or simply said he was sorry that he and Willis couldn’t agree to terms or whatever and he’ll be missed in the third movie. You know, take the higher road.

        I love how I’m talking about this like I can relate to the amounts of money that’s coming between these two. Like I’ve encountered this problem before. Oh sure what’s a million bucks between friends! I still have a grudge against my one friend who still owes me twenty bucks!

        On the upside Expendables fans can welcome Ford into the fold. I’m sure that will delight fans to see him do a little old school action stuff for a few minutes. I personally don’t expect the film to ultimately be any better or worse if Willis or Ford were in it or not in it. I think it will be the same quality as the previous two either way.

        The novelty for most action fans is to see some old time action stars do their stuff for a few scenes. For me the idea is great, but the execution is sorely lacking with these movies.

        For as many ‘action stars’ Stallone recruits for each installment, if the movie ends up being a lousy movie overall it makes little difference to me what big name action stars are sharing the screen with each other or popping up here and there. Yeah it’s cool to see them for a minute or two, but then when the thrill of those casting coups wear themselves out I need something else besides them to hold my attention. A chorus line of stars doesn’t make up for a lame movie no matter how big of stars they are. For all the big name actors in these flicks the movies should be much more entertaining.

        Let’s put it this way, if The Expendable movies were just Sly starring with a bunch of no-name extras, would they be as popular as they’ve become with audiences? Probably not.

        It should be fun to see when the movie comes out all the questions Sly will get about the Willis fiasco. Hey, he’s already begun to start dishing about it on Twitter, so he better be willing to answer all those questions in the interviews when he’s promoting Expendables 3.

        Like

    • The Battle For Relevancy: 15 Stars Struggling To Stay Popular:

      http://styleblazer.com/170465/the-battle-for-relevancy-15-stars-struggling-to-stay-popular/12/

      While Arnold Schwarzenegger may be getting a little worse for wear as an action hero, he at least seems to care about the films he’s been making. We can’t say the same for Bruce Willis, an actor who has been sleepwalking through his projects since Cop Out in 2010. Fans haven’t been blind to the attitude– RED 2 recently tanked in the U.S. box office, likely thanks to Willis recent spate of half-hearted efforts. The jump in quality between A Good Day To Die Hard and the original Die Hard is strong evidence of the Willis’ creative and financial decline. Thankfully last year’s Looper gave fans a bit of the Willis of old– charismatic, invested, and committed– though more mindless upcoming action projects suggests the actor won’t be changing his ways anytime soon. Fingers crossed John McTiernan gets released from prison before Die Hardest makes its way into production, or else Willis’ relevance may be doomed.

      Like

  31. you know, it’s kind of funny. Willis has had the reputation of being a jerk for quite some years, hasn’t he? If memory serves his image softened somewhat while he was married to Demi, but that didn’t last. I have to conclude that he really is one of the better actors around in the sense that he manages to convey a screen persence, that is not innate in his personality. He brings a certain humanity to any role he is in and connects with the audience in a way that apparently has nothing to do with who he is.
    Sort of the embodiment of the acting paradox.

    Like

    • A lot of people don’t think much of Willis as an actor. Which leads me to believe he is under-rated. However, I can see what they mean. Willis basically gives 3 performances. He has his gruff action hero, his wacky guy (used less and less since Moonlighting) and his sensitive Sixth Sense act which basically consists of underselling everything. I give Willis lots of credit for having tons of charisma. So much charisma that audiences love him no matter what he does. I give him credit for being a good actor. But not a very good person to have to work with.

      Like

  32. Don’t waste your time with “Bobby” — it wasn’t so much about the assassination of RFK as it was about all the human high drama and “quirky” [eww] hi-jinx at the hotel (workers and guests) where it happened…it was one of those “maybe if we fill the film with many cool and/or recognizable actors, maybe no one will notice it’s not very good.” And it was NOT very good.

    “Margin Call” is a very good movie but Demi had but a supporting role therein and she came off as bland and/or on autopilot. And that to me is Demi in a nutshell — she’s made some decent movies but since she’s not a great actress (tho a pal said she was great in “A Few Good Men”) she NEEDS to be in a “great movie” — and she hasn’t been for some time.

    Give Demi a few years (or months?) and she’ll do a “Geena Davis” and try for a TV show…best of luck to her and I hope she stays away from booze and drugs.

    Like

    • My expectations for Bobby have been set reasonably low. I feel at least a little compelled to watch it due to the cast. I recently sat through Can’t Stop the Music because Guttenberg was in it. This is a tough gig sometimes.

      I liked Margin Call. I agree that Moore didn’t really shine in that movie. She has two modes. In her early movies, she was an expert at conveying vulnerability. No one cried on camera better than Moore. But at a certain point she switched to “tough bitch” roles. Margin Call was more of the later.

      She made a movie with David Duchovney called The Joneses. It’s not a great movie. But I gound it interesting because she starts off playing her tough girl image and slowly eases into vulernability. I have decided I mush prefer Moore in vulnerable mode.

      If you haven’t seen About Last Night, check it out. I think it shows that Moore could act before she got all caught up in the fame machine.

      Like

  33. PS: Willis was excellent in “Moonrise Kingdom.” When he really wants to, he can give a fine performance (as opposed to most of his action roles wherein he just mugs and grimaces and coasts).

    Like

    • I have Moonrise Kingdom sitting on my DVR. I need to find some time to check it out.

      I’m actually a Willis fan. Not as much today as I once was. But I usually find him engaging. Sometimes he’s clearly phonining it in, but he’s capable of more when he likes the material.

      Like

      • Bruce Willis Burnt Out?

        http://newwrestlecrap.proboards.com/thread/21508/bruce-willis-burnt-out

        Post by conquistador3 on Aug 10, 2014 at 2:37am

        From what I’ve heard Bruce Willis has always been a dick to work with. But back in the days he put asses in seats so directors and actors were ready to put up with his shenanigans due to the money he brought in.

        The big problem is Bruce Willis was a one trick one pony: he worked well in ’80s-’90s action movies such as Die Hard because he was a perfect counterbalance to huge mountains of men such as Schwarzenegger and Stallone. He was Joe Ordinary beating impossible odds with senseless violence and copious amounts of firepower and cigarettes.

        Once that trend was over, all went downhill.

        Schwarzenegger at least bowed out gracefully by parodying himself in the much underrated and very funny Last Action Hero… Willis gave us Hudson Hawk.

        Since then, Bruce Willis has done little of note. He knows times have passed him by and hasn’t even attempted to catch up.

        Like

        • Whatever Happened to Bruce Willis?

          http://frettsonfilm.com/2014/08/24/whatever-happened-to-bruce-willis/

          August 24, 2014

          I don’t want to say I wished Bruce Willis ill after I had a contentious interview with him last year. After all, the guy did semi-apologize. But I do find it karmically apt that Willis had not one, but two movies, bomb at the box office this weekend: the sequel Sin City: A Dame to Kill For only earned roughly 10% of its $60-$70 million budget back, and the B-movie The Prince was released simultaneously in theaters (where it apparently made so little money it didn’t even report grosses) and on VOD.

          To be fair, Willis isn’t the star of either movie. He has only a few scenes in the new Sin City, since his character, Detective John Hartigan, was killed off in the 2005 original. He returns to haunt Jessica Alba’s stripper, Nancy, and Powers Boothe’s big bad guy, Rourke (not to be confused with Mickey Rourke, who once again steals the movie as Marv, Nancy’s disfigured protector). It’s somehow fitting that Willis plays a ghost, because he seems like a shadow of his former self. But why did Willis’ Looper costar Joseph Gordon-Levitt sign on for a small, thankless role as Rourke’s (the character’s, not the actor’s) doomed gambler son?

          Willis and JGL get upstaged by the more-often-naked-than-not Eva Green (as a femme fatale named Ava) but Ray Liotta (as a murderous adulterer), Christopher Lloyd (wittily cast as a doctor much madder than Back to the Future‘s Doc Brown) and SVU vet Chris Meloni (as a pervy cop). On the whole, A Dame to Kill For is much more enjoyable than its predecessor, as it doesn’t take itself so seriously and revels in its own trashiness. But its miserable box-office performance means it will probably just be another proverbial nail in the coffin of Willis’ career.

          The Prince won’t do as much damage to Willis’ star status, because most people will never hear of it. It’s more of a vehicle for Jason “Why am I not a star yet?” Patric, cast as a former assassin who comes out of retirement to rescue his drug-addicted daughter. Willis enters more than half an hour into the 90-minute time-killer as a crime boss whose wife and daughter were accidentally blown to bits by Patric’s “Prince.” Even later in the movie, John Cusack (who’s long overdue for his own “Whatever Happened To…” column) appears as a former co-hort of Patric’s. Even later than that, Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson (who co-starred with Willis in another direct-to-VOD clinker, 2011’s The Setup) turns up as a drug lord named The Pharmacy. But Willis is the big villain, and he gets to chew the scenery by doing the talking-killer routine while holding Patric’s daughter at gunpoint before he eats hot lead.

          Willis seemed like he was on the verge of a comeback a few years ago with the acclaimed sleepers Looper and Moonrise Kingdom, but a string of dud sequels (A Good Day to Die Hard, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, RED 2) and obscure potboilers (The Cold Light of Day, anyone?) have dragged him back into a morass of creative malaise. Somehow he avoided reprising his role in The Expendables 3, so at least he’s got that going for him. Or not against him.

          And it doesn’t look like he’s going to pull out of his tailspin anytime soon: Rock the Casbah, which reunites him with Bandits‘ Barry Levinson (and we all know how that turned out) has been bumped until next year. The sci-fi drama Vice reunites him with The Prince director Brian A. Miller, who might be better suited to being a miller than a director. And Labor of Love reunites him with The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable director M. Night Shyamalan, whose last six movies (Signs, The Village, Lady in the Water, The Happening and After Earth) have been much more laborious than lovable.

          Oh well, at least Bruno’s got his music career to fall back on…

          Like

  34. Movie Jail: This week’s defendant is…Demi Moore!

    http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/movie-jail-this-weeks-defendant-isdemi-moore

    The Case

    The Prosecution: Very Good Girls, LOL, Bunraku, Happy Tears, Mr. Brooks, Bobby, Half Light, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, Passion of Mind, Striptease, The Juror, The Scarlet Letter, Indecent Proposal, The Seventh Sign

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Demi Moore was without a doubt one of the most recognizable and popular actresses in the 1980s and 1990s. Many of her performances and films were well received during that time, however two films seriously damaged her career towards the end of the 90s, and the actress really hasn’t been able to recover since. Talent doesn’t just disappear though, so you’d think Miss Moore would still be able to find decent work. You’d be wrong.

    But even before Miss Moore’s hiatus from acting in 1997 there were signs her career was heading in the wrong direction. The Scarlet Letter, The Juror and Striptease were all box office bombs, and reviews were largely negative from critics. Miss Moore was also nominated for (and won) back-to-back Razzie awards. She returned to the big screen six years later, but it was in Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. The film was destroyed by critics, and in the prosecution’s opinion, Miss Moore’s performance was off. It was like someone forgot to tell the actress it wasn’t a serious movie, and the prosecution feels she had the same issue in Striptease, as well as Bunraku. Does Miss Moore not know when it’s OK to ham it up a bit?

    In the past 10 years Miss Moore’s movies have mostly been forgettable (Bobby, Happy Tears) or just plain bad (Half Light, LOL). There are many who love Mr. Brooks, but Miss Moore didn’t do much in the film, and the prosecution doesn’t believe her turn is the reason why people enjoyed the thriller.

    Miss Moore is also known for being kind of a diva (there’s a reason why her nickname at one point was “Gimme Moore”), which some may argue is one of the reasons why she hasn’t been offered many great roles as of late. But there are plenty of other actors and actresses who are famous for being prima donnas, yet they still manage to find great parts and movies. Is she not worth the headache anymore? And don’t try to use the fact that she’s older as an excuse. You don’t see Tilda Swinton or Cate Blanchett appearing in garbage like LOL.

    There was a time when Miss Moore was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, but the prosecution believes it’s time we sent her ass (regardless of how sexy it still is) to Movie Jail.

    The Defense: Another Happy Day, Margin Call, The Joneses, Flawless, Deconstructing Harry, G.I. Jane, If These Walls Could Talk, Disclosure, A Few Good Men, Ghost, About Last Night, St. Elmo’s Fire, No Small Affair, Blame It On Rio

    Ladies and gentlemen, like most actors or actresses Miss Moore has had her ups and downs, however she’s still very talented, and has done some excellent (if little seen) recent work. Just because she hasn’t appeared in blockbusters or award winning films lately doesn’t mean my client is any less of an actress.

    Part of the problem with Miss Moore is she has occasionally appeared in smaller films recently with ensemble casts, and sometimes her performances have been overlooked. The prosecution lists Bobby as one of her failures, but the defense thought she was actually quite good in that film, and she was also excellent in Margin Call. Very few people saw Another Happy Day, The Joneses or Flawless, but all three feature great work from my client, and are solid films. She’s been in a few stinkers, however the defense doesn’t feel Miss Moore has appeared in as many awful films as other actresses who have been brought up on similar charges. There are very few paycheck films in my client’s filmography, and she doesn’t mail in her performances either.

    Miss Moore’s break from acting (or her negative reputation) probably didn’t help her career, however she also set the bar incredibly high for herself with her movies from the 80s and 90s. Ghost features one of the most memorable movie scenes ever, and A Few Good Men was a huge film at the time. G.I. Jane received mixed reviews when it was released, but it still has a very strong performance from my client, and was obviously a very physically demanding role for Miss Moore.

    Miss Moore might not get the parts like she use to during her heyday, but does that mean she should go to Movie Jail? The defense doesn’t believe so, and is confident that the jury will agree.

    IN CLOSING…

    Does Miss Moore deserve Movie Jail? Do you think her recent films have been just as good as her older ones, or do you feel she’s working on projects far below her talents? And why in the f*ck would she star in something like LOL with Miley Cyrus? Is Demi Moore GUILTY or NOT GUILTY?

    Like

  35. Before I forget to mention, I loved reading this blog and agree with you and the other folks who have left comments here. I became a Demi Moore fan when she portrayed Jackie Templeton on General Hospital. Despite her young age at that time, Moore brought a maturity to the role and I gained much respect for her. I agree that About Last Night and Ghost were her best films, particularly Ghost where she showed such raw emotion. As a woman and mother, I absolutely loved Moore’s Vanity Fair Cover which pictured her pregnant but after this point, Moore became full of herself, and acted so conceited that she lost me as a fan. It was her uppity demeanor during the Planet Hollywood appearances, for example, that turned me off. I did tune in to watch Indecent Proposal, The Butcher’s Wife (loved this one), Disclosure and A Few Good Men. But Scarlet Letter was so awful, I began losing interest. Add to that the fact that I was shocked at the announcement that she and Bruce Willis were divorcing..and after that and a few “all about me” films such as Striptease and G.I. Jane, I stopped caring to see her. Hopefully, in future films, she will elect to take supporting roles and not demand the attention Moore seems to think she deserves. I, and many others, are over her.

    Like

    • Why is Demi Moore so hated?

      http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=9647824#page:showThread,9647824

      I really dislike her. Let me count the ways. Her pseudo-intellectual defense of her dumb movies as feminist art makes me giggle. Her superior, Madonnaesque attitude leaves me cold. Her reported plastic surgery (on her knees, mind you) is excessive. Don’t mention her dumber-than-a-bag-of-rocks husband. She gave birth to Rumer Willis, who didn’t make it in Hollywood after all. Hmm. That’s why, op.

      by: Demi es muy yucky reply 1 09/19/2010 @ 03:14AM

      Too much ego, not enough talent.

      by: Anonymous reply 4 09/19/2010 @ 03:29AM

      I don’t hate her. But I am tired of her.

      It’s like she feels she’s owed a spot on the A list regardless, and instead of just accepting the fact that her time has come and past, and try acting and doing decent work in small movies, she has to resort to pathetic publicity stunts because she is “a star”.

      And, yeah, the denying of plastic surgery is ridiculous.

      by: Anonymous reply 10 09/19/2010 @ 11:30AM

      She is a terrible actress and watching her is like chewing on sandpaper. She is so desperate to be lauded as the most beautiful woman in Hollywood that she has spent millions on buying herself that image (PS, toots, that didn’t work.) She is a fame-whore in excelsis. There is nothing likable about her. That generally leads to “dislike”, OP. I don’t think anyone really cares enough to hate her.

      by: Anonymous reply 12 09/19/2010 @ 11:41AM

      Her performances and life always seemed to be more about one note brute force determination and pure driving ambition than any other emotion.

      It’s like she was always auditioning in every performance.

      by: Anonymous reply 17 09/19/2010 @ 12:06PM

      I don’t hate her but think she is a complete loser fame-whore of epic proportions. She showed signs of real talent in About Last Night, and Mortal Thoughts, maybe even Ghost but at some point she went for the fame rather than trying to be a better actress. Hence she became a tabloid joke instead of a real star.

      by: Anonymous reply 19 09/19/2010 @ 12:27PM

      I see her as nothing more than a crappy soap actress who got lucky. She’s not even that attractive and she certainly doesn’t have any charisma to cover up her other flaws. I’ve seen several of her movies that I thought would have been better with another lead, e.g. GI Jane. I guess she looks waif-like and projects a sense of vulnerability which appealed to some directors.

      I tend to think most famous people have personality disorders, [R13]. At least Jolie has some talent.

      by: Anonymous reply 26 09/19/2010 @ 01:23PM

      As already noted, she’s boring and dim and pushy in an unfun way. Her mutton-headed way with publicity has been of a type that hasn’t entertained me (the nudies, the prego nudies, the young bf, the nutsy dancing, the drinking on the boardwalk like a youngster, the hair).

      I don’t hate her. I just avoid looking at her, hearing about her, and certainly watching any kind of TV show or movie she may appear in (the odds have grown in my favor over the years).

      by: Anonymous reply 27 09/19/2010 @ 01:29PM

      She isn’t hated, she just isn’t respected.

      Nobody respects someone who clings to their youth so hard, and devotes their entire life to fame-whoring.

      by: Anonymous reply 35 09/20/2010 @ 08:26AM

      I don’t hate her, either, and like OP, thought “The Jones” was decent enough for a rental. What I’ve always disliked about her, though, was that she obviously came from trailer trash but at the height of her fame would give these incredibly convoluted “interviews” trying to appear intelligent that were obviously the creation of her publicists, of which she and Bruce had many.

      And I also call bullshit on her insistence that her youthful appearance is solely because she lives a healthy lifestyle and is in love. Yeah, right.

      by: Anonymous reply 36 09/20/2010 @ 09:26AM

      Like

  36. “Very Good Girls”: Very Bad Movie:

    http://frettsonfilm.com/2014/07/27/very-good-girls-very-bad-movie/

    I’m not going to waste much time writing about Very Good Girls, since the chances aren’t very good that you’ll ever see it: It’s been available On Demand for weeks and received a cursory theatrical release over the weekend. The only reason you might be tempted to go see it, or more likely order it, is the cast: Dakota Fanning and Elizabeth Olsen star as New York City high-school seniors who resolve to lose their virginity before they go off to college. While that may sound like a 21st century version of Little Darlings, the result is far less fun.

    The belated directorial debut of screenwriter Naomi Foner (better known as Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal’s mom than for her scripts to Running on Empty, Bee Season, etc.), Very Good Girls wavers uneasily between romantic comedy, as both young women fall for the same pretentious creep (Boyd Holbrook, Olsen’s real-life fiance), and feminist melodrama, as both women fall for the same… you get the picture.

    In Foner’s overly schematic screenplay, Fanning and Olsen come from polar-opposite families: Fanning’s uptight-shrink mother (Ellen Barkin) and father (Clark Gregg) don’t want to talk about anything, even after they separate due to his infidelity; Olsen’s hippie-dippie parents (Richard Drefyuss and Demi Moore, an odd couple if ever there were one) never shut up. All the characters are paradoxically both overcooked and underdone, and you’re left feeling unsatisfied, like you didn’t have a full meal.

    Or at least that’s how I felt. The woman I watched it with, herself a psychologist, enjoyed it more than I did and understood why these two attractive, intelligent young woman would jeopardize their friendship by pursuing the same very bad boy. So maybe I’m just not the target audience for this chick-shtick flick.

    It would take a team of psychologists, however, to determine why Foner would cast her own son-in-law, Peter Sarsgaard, as a pervy tour-boat operator who hits on—and ultimately makes out with—Fanning’s teenager. Also, to determine why Sarsgaard’s character was by far my favorite one in the film. Maybe I just like Peter Sarsgaard? Sometimes a Sarsgaard is just a Sarsgaard.

    Like

  37. In 1993 Indecent Proposal made sleazy sex look boring:

    http://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/708-in-1993-indecent-proposal-made-sleazy-sex-look-bor/

    by Nathan Rabin

    Forgotbusters re-examines movies that were among the top 25 grossing films the year of their release, but have receded culturally, in order to explore what originally attracted audiences to them, and why they failed to endure.

    In the 1990s, Demi Moore became highest-paid female movie star in the world playing aggressive, strong-willed women who trade on their sexuality to get ahead. She lucratively played a stripper in 1996’s Striptease, a voracious sexual harasser in previous Forgotbusters entry Disclosure, and most notably for the purposes of this article, Diana Murphy, a real-estate agent turned prostitute-for-a-night in the Adrian Lyne-directed Indecent Proposal. Released in 1993, Indecent Proposal was an instant pop-cultural conversation piece, becoming the sixth highest-grossing film of the year on the strength of a Cinemax-ready title, with a Cinemax-ready premise to match: A cash-strapped couple accepts a lascivious billionaire’s offer to pay them $1 million for a single night of erotic bliss with the wife, then must deal with the consequences.

    It was a killer hook. As the jacket of the Jack Engelhard novel that inspired the film asked, “What would you do for a million dollars?” In the novel, that question involves an Arab billionaire named Ibrahim Hassan, who offers Joshua Cantor, a Jewish corporate speechwriter and the son of Holocaust survivors, $1 million to have sex with Cantor’s well-bred, cash-strapped wife. In a bid to make this provocative premise palatable for a mainstream audience, the Amy Holden Jones-scripted film abandons the religious and ethnic angles: If David Murphy (Woody Harrelson) keeps a kosher kitchen, the film doesn’t acknowledge it. In the Hollywood version of Indecent Proposal, the male lead isn’t even a corporate speechwriter anymore; that would be entirely too mercenary for a guy we’re supposed to root for. In the film David’s an architect, and not just any old architect: We’re told over and over again that he’s a brilliant artist, a poet of the form. The billionaire is no longer an Arab, either, but rather the most seductive American figure imaginable, a Trump-like icon of worldliness and suave sophistication: billionaire John Gage, played by Robert Redford. Gage is impossibly perfect, but also blessed and cursed to inhabit a world where perfection is ubiquitous to the point where it stops being special.

    Take the perfect love shared by David and his perfect wife, Diana (Moore). Before Gage slithers his way into their Garden Of Eden, clutching an apple in the form of a check for $1 million he hopes will split them apart, David and Diana divide their time between saying how much they love each other and making sweet, passionate love to the sultry sounds of Sade and Seal. (“Have I ever told you that I love you?” is their line, the gag being that they tell each other often enough to make audiences turn against not only them and their perfect love, but the concept of love all together.) And rest assured, these two perfect lovers do not engage in anything as sleazy and base as fucking. These two make love, with such sweetness and passion that even God himself might be moved to give the couple an ovation after each session. It does not work in the film’s favor that the leads have a love so cloying and excessive that it makes it easy to root for its destruction by any means necessary, whether it takes the form of a charming billionaire or a lunatic with an electric chainsaw.

    Of course, things weren’t always totally perfect in the Murphy household. As Diana concedes in the 10-minute-plus marathon of cliché-spewing narration and clumsy exposition that opens the film, “We had our differences. He used to take his clothes off and leave them on the floor. It made me crazy!” This painful disclosure is accompanied by images of Diana storming about the house in a mock-fury as she picks up shoes and clothes before revealing that she wasn’t angry after all, and these two perfect lovers’ non-existent disagreement about him sometimes leaving laundry outside the hamper melts into sweet, sweet love-making.

    Diana’s perfect, selfless love for David is rooted partially in her deep reverence for David’s perfect, selfless love for architecture. She goes on to explain, “We never had much money, so for entertainment David would show me architecture that moved him. Sometimes I’d have to ask, ‘Why are we looking at a stupid car wash?’ and he’d just say, ‘No, not stupid. Don’t just use your eyes.’” (At that point in the film, I started wishing David had the same profession he did in the book, so Diana’s monologue would go something like, “We never had much money, so for entertainment David would show me corporate speeches that moved him. Sometimes I’d have to ask, ‘Why are you reciting a stupid speech about third-quarter earning projections at Hewlett-Packard?’ and he’d just say, ‘No, not stupid. Don’t just use your eyes.’”)

    Indecent Proposal begins near the end, with David and Diana in a state of separation. Apart, these perfect lovers stare contemplatively into the distance as they ponder the steps that led to this uncertain place. The clichés begin almost immediately: Diana’s first lines are, “Someone once said, if you want something very badly set it free. If it comes back to you, it’s yours forever. If it doesn’t, it was never yours to begin with. I knew one thing: I was David’s to begin with.” We then shift from the uncertain present to the past, with the aforementioned marathon recounting of how the couple met in high school, got engaged as teenagers, and pursued their shared goal of David being able to live out his architectural dreams, even after he got laid off and Diana went through a six-month stretch of not selling any houses due to a steep downturn in the market. This economic slide threatens the couple’s plans to build David’s ultimate dream house on a lovely piece of land in Santa Monica.

    With everything on the line, the couple makes a crazy gamble and travels to Las Vegas in hopes of winning enough money to get them through their current cash-flow crisis. There, Diana attracts the attention of Gage when he notices her helping herself to complimentary chocolates at an upscale boutique. Gage shoots Diana a look that unmistakably says, “I would pay $1 million to have sex with you,” but he has to be more subtle with his words, so instead he offers to buy a sexy dress she tried on but could not afford. From the beginning, the dialogue between Diana and Gage focuses on his desire to buy her body and her stern insistence that it’s not on the market— or, as Diana herself indignantly spits out, “The dress is for sale. I’m not.”

    Gage is not so convinced. He keeps seeing Diana around Vegas and shooting her lascivious grins even when she’s with David. Indecent Proposal is shameless enough in its foreshadowing that Gage’s first line to David is actually, “Excuse me. Would you mind lending me your wife?” He’s talking specifically about wanting Diana to kiss the dice for good luck, but it doesn’t take a dirty mind to figure out what Gage would really like Diana to kiss. Because while Gage might have everything, he does not, and cannot, have the perfect love Diana and David share. But after treating the couple to dinner, he makes what can only be deemed a provocative proposition. Diana, no doubt noticing the “I will pay $1 million for sex with you” look she’s been getting all night long, insists that people and their emotions can’t be bought, but Gage insists they can, and to test his thesis, proposes paying $1 million for a night of sex with Diana. At first David and Diana are a little offended, but then decide that their perfect love can survive anything, even a night of paid sexual bliss with a dashing billionaire. So they acquiesce, and Gage whisks Diana away on a helicopter en route to his private yacht.

    Indecent Proposal goes overboard trying to make a tawdry plot tediously respectable, but only succeeds in making it tedious. The film goes to great lengths to illustrate that, while sleazy and disreputable, what Gage is doing is perfectly above-board. This is Nevada, after all, where prostitution is legal; David and Diana have their lawyer go over the contracts and everything. We don’t even see Diana have sex with this charming older billionaire; it’s merely implied, as the film skips from Diana being fiery and defiant, and then yielding, to her coming home to David. But all is not well. The transaction transforms David from Mr. Perfect to Mr. Jealousy. He becomes cold and accusatory, and his moods push his wife into Gage’s waiting arms, even after she discovers he’s scooped in and purchased the property David was planning to use for their dream house.

    In Indecent Proposal, David and Diana’s love boils down to soft-focus love-making and continuous declarations of love. It’s a grade-school conception of romance, as is Gage’s seduction strategy, which involves popping up unexpectedly where Diana is teaching English as a second language, complimenting her with an Eddie Haskell-like effusiveness, buying her lots of stuff, and taking her to rich-people parties. Ultimately, however, even Gage must respect the perfection of Diana and David’s love. He loves Diana so he lets her go by pretending that she’s just one of a slew of “million-dollar girls” he’s loved and left, rather than the love of his life. She returns to David at the end of the film, and their perfect love is perfectly restored.

    Indecent Proposal isn’t entirely lifeless, but its intermittent sparks of energy come not from its main cast but from character actors around the periphery, most notably Oliver Platt as the couple’s lawyer, the only character in the film with a sense of humor, Seymour Cassel as Gage’s enigmatic right-hand man, and a pre-stardom Billy Bob Thornton, who shows up out of nowhere at the casino to talk to David about Gage’s reputation as a womanizer. Platt, Cassell, and Thornton lend personality, specificity, and verisimilitude to a film otherwise devoid of those qualities, a movie so painfully generic that its leads might as well be named The Husband, The Wife, and The Handsome Billionaire. They’re abstractions, whereas guys like Cassel, Platt, and Thornton bring decades of lived-in experience to their roles. No matter how dumb the project—and Indecent Proposal is plenty dumb—we believe them. Harrelson is a character actor of similar caliber, but he’s wasted here in leading role that plays against his enormous gifts.

    Perversely, Indecent Proposal suffers from a distinct lack of stakes. The second Diana has sex with Gage, the million dollars that just moments ago was going to change her and her husband’s lives ceases to matter. Diana doesn’t want it. David doesn’t want it. It’s tainted by Gage’s involvement, and the couple clearly would rather forget about the night in question than have a million dollars. Money ultimately doesn’t matter in the sleazy fairy-tale world of Indecent Proposal, only love, and when money threatens to soil that love, then it must be openly rejected.

    Indecent Proposal feels like a movie where everyone involved was on powerful tranquilizers that caused them to do everything at half speed, while John Barry’s hypnotic, dull score dares audiences to stay awake as the film moves with molasses-like momentum. It mistakes drowsy for languid and dull for restrained. It’s as if they decided to shoot a 60-page script under the understanding that if everyone moved and talked slow enough, and there were enough shots of David and Diana staring moodily off into the distance, then they could stretch half a script to feature-length.

    Lyne has a reputation as a sensualist thanks to his lurid work on sex-saturated films like Flashdance, 9 1/2 Weeks, and Lolita. Here, he presents sex as something simulated by models in magazines and perfume commercials, not something sweaty, passionate, and real. Lyne aestheticizes the act of love-making to the point where it no longer feels human. It’s creative death by tastefulness. Indecent Proposal is a sexy film that isn’t sexy, and a classy film with no class. This glossy nothing of a movie about a perfect couple whose perfect love is tested by a perfect stranger of a billionaire is perfectly boring. That helps explain why one of the top-grossing films of 1993, a huge cultural event at the time of its release, has been all but forgotten except for its ingenious hook—which it goes out of its way to render inoffensive to the point of offensiveness.

    Like

  38. Even though Demi Moore’s WTHHT article has gotten updated somewhat, I’ve noticed that at the end of the article, we still don’t get a concrete answer regarding what exactly the hell happened to Demi Moore’s career and why it ultimately tailed off. It just ends w/ covering her divorce from Ashton Kutcher.

    Like

    • Yep, that one isn’t 100% done yet.

      Just between you, me and anyone else who happens to read this, I have been doing a lot of these updates at work. That limits a lot of what I can do. Updating pictures and videos is quick and easy. But adding new material is harder to do. So even some of the articles that recently got beefed up are still going to get at least one more coat of paint. This article needed a lot of work. So more to come.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,236 other followers

%d bloggers like this: