I'm not a Cruise fan really, but I liked this one.
In the Hive was remarkable, i can't stop talking about it. How can i get the movie. Is it on DVd?
buena. buena. buena
Love this FILM!!! I'm bringing my Family to the March 31st Screening!
Queen of the Lot is set in modern-day Hollywood and stars Tanna Frederick, Noah Wyle and Christopher Rydell. In this sequel to Hollywood Dreams, Margie Chizek has achieved B movie success with her action hero films under her new name, Maggie Chase. But she's also gotten into trouble having had a few DUIs and now she's under house arrest - ankle bracelet and all. She's driven in her quest for A-list fame as evidenced by her obsession with her Google points. She's got more points than her home state of Iowa but far less than Angelina Jolie and that's got to change. She has to be Queen of the Lot - just like Norma Shearer.
Zack Norman and David Proval reprise their Hollywood Dreams roles as Kaz and Caesar, the hotshot gay Hollywood producers who discovered Maggie. They are still "married" (to each other) and funnier than ever. Maggie asks them if she can stay at their mansion for a while because she can't stand being stuck in her apartment on house arrest with the press dogging her. They agree and she gets police permission to stay with them.
Maggie asks Kaz and Caesar if her boyfriend (an already established star) Dov Lambert (Christopher Rydell), can stay, too. Dov is a half-wit who hails from Hollywood royalty. Enter Aaron Lambert (Noah Wyle), Dov's brother, a failed writer and black sheep of the family, who is sent to fetch Dov to help with a family crisis.
Is there really such a thing as a functional family? I don't think I've ever met one. Dov takes Maggie home to meet the family, headed by charismatic patriarch Louis Lambert (played with great depth by Jack Heller). At dinner, Dov introduces Maggie to everyone, including his sort-of estranged wife (Daisy White). What happens at large dysfunctional family dinners (as in Jaglom's Last Summer in the Hamptons)? Fur flies between various factions and, of course, Margie is right in there trying to fit in and help out and maybe make a connection that will propel her to megastardom. Aaron is in the fray maintaining his role as the family scapegoat and helping Maggie feel comfortable amidst the family bickering while Dov plays with his wife and other more important things - like his poker buddies. Maggie and Aaron reluctantly fall for each other and the way their relationship develops is one of the most irresistible aspects of the film.
Frederick and Wyle together make the silver screen simmer with vintage Tinseltown charm reminiscent of Tracy and Hepburn. Frederick plays Maggie Chase as down-to-earth, believable and loveable. Maggie is driven, insecure, and slightly conniving but she's also smart, forceful and can take care of business. This is Frederick’s best performance as she infuses Maggie with her uncanny combination of star and girl-next-door. Wyle is at the top of his game as Aaron, an insecure good guy whose wife has just left him. He's a wreck but his inner strength comes through in emergencies.
As often occurs in Jaglom films, his brother Michael Emil appears, this time as a curmudgeonly interloper in a therapy group. Jaglom's daughter Sabrina is absolutely stunning. Remember her as Zoe Lambert, the young filmmaker in Hollywood Dreams who rejects Margie Chizek? Well, Zoe's turned into quite a formidable, sometimes calculating young woman. Simon Orson Jaglom, is just adorable as Michael Lambert. Love him!
There is an outstanding supporting cast including great performances by Kelly DeSarla, Ron Vignone and Diane Salinger as Maggie's "handlers." Salinger is frighteningly believable as Maggie's "life coach." Mary Crosby, Peter Bogdanovich, Dennis Christopher, Paul Sand and Beege Barkette shine as various family members and associates. Tommy Garrett is delightful as a reporter who empathizes with Maggie's quest for fame and the fact that she only gets attention from the press when she’s been bad.
You’ve got to see this movie. There are some very funny lines and Queen of the Lot has heart and soul. When I saw Jaglom’s Hollywood Dreams I thought, "This is the REAL Hollywood." Queen of the Lot has reinforced that. I'd like to poll some Hollywood types to see if they agree. In any event, I am confident that Tanna Frederick is going to achieve her dreams in Hollywood and if there were still a lot, she would be queen of it!
Saw the movie today and was very impressed. Stallone at his best. The young Creed (Michael B. Jordan) was excellent in his role also, and the movie was relatively devoid of gratuitous sex and bad language.
What a great movie about women taking their lives back. Congrats Noami for such a fabulous film.
One can clearly see that film reviewing is a corrupt industry. Just like the film and publishing industry. They go hand and hand with all these lies. http://timothybtyson.com/page0.html
@Chris - "Conservatives have an identity problem. It's called their identity."
This is perhaps the laziest non sequitur that I've seen you publish in a long time.
What, pray tell, is a 'conservative' exactly? Anybody who supports the Trumpster? Like tons of dues paying Union workers in the Rust Belt? Boy howdy, those racist, xenophobic liberal Teamsters and UAW workers sure do have a problem with their 'conservative identity', don't they? They can't be 'liberal' because they're racist and xenophobic, right?
Knocking down straw men seems to be your stock in trade lately, Chris.
And I ain't buying.
HA! As an example of me, myself and I, it seems very fitting in Trump's case.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend... this is getting confusing.
I think we can agree on everything you said.
Trump is his own worst enemy and is likely to continue to be so.
I agree regarding the use of the popular vote to delegitimize Trump in part and thank you for using an applicable precedent as a comparison (Bush).
I would hope we can also agree that Trump is partially to blame for the extended shelf life of the topic. Had he made a statement or two in the immediate aftermath of the election regarding how elections work (electoral college vs popular vote) and moved on, this issue would be dead or at least on its deathbed. But man-oh-man, is he never the kind of person to move on as the uncontested winner. The need to project a very particular self-image (brand) continues to bite him in the ass. His need to be seen as a winner, which resulted in his claim that many millions committed voter fraud while he nor his staff have produced one single shred of evidence in support, has done more than any Democrat to keep the results of the popular vote fresh in the mind of the public and the media. If he is going to insist on discussing an issue, it makes it fair game for everyone else (including his opposition) to talk about it too. Those who are still talking about it 6 months after Trumps last mention of the topic will be the test for those who are interested in the issue and those who are using it as a club to beat over Trumps head. After all, if the aforementioned ass-hattery were acceptable, then all the Dems have to do is point to Trump's insistence on the birth certificate issue as an similar attempt to delegitimize Obama's presidency and thus karma is seen for the b!tch it can be.
Just to state the obvious, maybe that's what this election and Trump's term has done less to conceal than any other election cycle and president to date. It is not about doing the right thing for the country, your constituents or your party (no one has been that naive for a long time), but nor is it about being seen as right anymoreits about tit-for-tat, getting revenge for being brushed up against, not being praised enough (let alone derided), getting even and maybe cutting just a little bit deeper as a down payment for the next round. Its become so petty that it cant last foreverbut as a nation, I can say that I have faith we will deserve whatever we get in the mid and long term.
When I go to the zoo and see a man arguing with a masturbating monkey, which one am I more likely to remember.
Duh, but the examples of past elections were not being used in the context you mentioned above and are still irrelevant to the earlier conversation. For example, Apop used a relevant example in context to a point being made in his last post instead of Quest's example of just blurting out a random historic piece of info with no point to be made whatsoever.
Speaking of which, don't answer for Quest. (Rude. Sad.) The question was directed to that author and that author alone. Otherwise I would have said Quest and Bric. I was trying to understand what that person was thinking, not what you were thinking about what they wroteunless this is just another example of one man, two names.
Also, thanks for agreeing with my point regarding redistricting. That's exactly what I said.
I think that is a good question you directed my way.
I am happy to admit the obvious and trust you are happy to admit the obvious also.
To wit: Trump did not receive a majority of the popular votes cast in the 2016 presidential election. He did not get my vote, either. It just does not matter one way or the other, the election is not determined by popular vote. Or as one of our other Presidents accurately said (was it George Bush, maybe? ) " I may have won only 48% of the popular vote, but I won 100% of the presidency"
Could we also agree that the constant harping on the results of he popular vote is just an attempt to delegitimize Trump as President?
Grove, again it's you who are missing the point -- I'm not calling anybody names they haven't called themselves. That's not name calling, it's the soul of political correctness. And again, I'm sorry it's embarrassing being driven around by your hindquarters. But tell me again why the opposition shouldn't dig their heels against the party of white nationalism, bigotry, contempt for the poor, corporate immunity, environmental destruction, rigid unequal gender roles, homophobia, xenophobia etc.? Also the party not remotely serious about national security.
They (past elections) are are applicable because they were all run by the same rules. It. Is. That. Simple.
The same goes for redistricting. Whomever rules the roost gets to draw the district when it is supposed to be done. It. Is. In. The. Constitution. It. Is. That. Simple.
And the dems did do just that.
By Flyer Staff
download this issue
click here to see more »