Tag Archives: book

Mushrooms + 40,000 Discarded Books = 1 Garden of Knowledge

Image: Thilo Folkerts With electronic reader gadgets like the Kindle changing the way we read, could good ol’ fashioned books become an endangered species of sorts? Either way, there’s still nothing quite like the living and tactile experience of seeing, touching and smelling the pages of real book. “Long live the book,” we say — a sentiment that’s reflected in this amazing library garden and art installation made of 40,… Read the full story on TreeHugger

See the rest here:
Mushrooms + 40,000 Discarded Books = 1 Garden of Knowledge

Jim Carrey To Bring Classic ‘Mr. Popper’s Penguins’ To Big Screen

Film will be upscale adaptation of popular children’s book. By Kara Warner Jim Carrey Photo: Todd Brown/ MTV News The last time Jim Carrey lit up the big screen, he did so as four different CGI characters in Disney’s animated “A Christmas Carol” reboot. Now, in addition to the recently announced project “Pierre, Pierre,” with “Bruno” director Larry Charles, Deadline reports that 20th Century Fox has lined up the funnyman to star in “Mr. Popper’s Penguins,” based on the classic children’s book of the same name. The film adaptation is said to be an upscale spin on the book, with Carrey in the role of the titular Mr. Popper, now a high-powered businessman who suddenly inherits six penguins. As Popper becomes increasingly attached to his feathered friends, his life unravels and you guessed it wackiness ensues. According to the script synopsis, Popper’s swanky apartment turns into a winter wonderland, and he almost lands in jail. “But thanks to his new charges,” the logline reads, “Popper comes to understand the importance of family human and otherwise.” Fans of the book, written by Richard and Florence Atwater, will note that this proposed film version is a departure from the 1938 original, in which Popper is a poor housepainter who receives the surprise gift of a penguin by mail after writing into a radio broadcast hosted by Antarctic explorer Admiral Drake. Eventually, one penguin turns into 12, and in order to support their expansive brood, the Poppers train the penguins to perform. Perhaps Carrey can convince the filmmakers to reintroduce the painter aspect of Popper’s character, given the actor’s newfound passion for painting, which he has been chronicling via his Twitter account. No word on when production is scheduled to begin, but Mark Waters (“Mean Girls” and “The Spiderwick Chronicles”) is set to direct. For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com . Related Artists Jim Carrey

Read more:
Jim Carrey To Bring Classic ‘Mr. Popper’s Penguins’ To Big Screen

Former Majority Leader Dick Armey Credits CNBC’s Santelli for Sparking Tea Party

February 2009 was a pretty dark time for the conservative movement. The arguably most liberal president in the history of the United States has been sworn in to office just weeks early. The Congress had solid Democratic majorities in both chambers. And there were overtures that only way to save the nation from suffering the worst of a downtrodden economy was through an avalanche of costly legislation that would create huge budget deficits and ever-expanding bureaucracy. But in the midst of that dark spell, CNBC’s Rick Santelli lit the spark that ignited the conservative pushback. On CNBC’s Feb. 19, 2009 “Squawk Box,” Santelli called for a “tea party” in Lake Michigan to protest the idea the Obama administration was preparing to enact a massive housing bailout to reward people who took part in risky behavior by purchasing a home they couldn’t afford. According to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now the chairman of FreedomWorks , often portrayed as a Tea Party villain by the American left , Santelli really is a father of the movement. Armey, along with Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, credit Santelli in an Aug. 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed and more extensively in their book “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.” And on CNBC’s Aug. 19 “Squawk Box,” Armey explained the importance of Santelli. “The Santelli rant, which we talk about with great affection in our book, immediately went to the Internet and the Internet is so important to this movement, in terms of the baffled liberals who can’t understand what’s going on without a George Soros,” Armey said. “It’s the Internet, because that went viral. And everybody said – and that’s where the term ‘tea party’ comes in.” Armey explained that his organization served as a mechanism for the activists to coordinate the Tea Party movement. “So what we found happening very soon is with people who had found us because they said, ‘I like that guy on TV. I want to have a tea party. How do you do it? Well, let’s go see who does it.’ That’s how they found FreedomWorks and they asked us, ‘Give us some, you know, advice how to do this, how to put it together,’ and so forth. And we developed this mentoring relationship.” Despite accusations of opportunism , Armey explained his organization predated the Santelli rant and the entire movement. “We’ve been doing this since 1984, and we are the best there is at,” he added. Later in the program, Santelli responded Armey’s appearance on “Squawk Box.” “[T]he rant was a year and a half ago,” Santelli said. “The Tea Party movement is really moving along. It’s pretty cool after a year and a half.”

Read this article:
Former Majority Leader Dick Armey Credits CNBC’s Santelli for Sparking Tea Party

Ex-Dem Aide Stephanopoulos and Ex-Dem Congressman Discuss Impact NY Mosque Will Have on Democrats

Rather than focus on the rightness of building a mosque near Ground Zero, or investigating the potential funding of the construction, Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday spent an entire interview with Harold Ford Jr. focusing on how it could damage the Democratic Party. Stephanopoulos began the segment by asserting, “They really hope this goes away at the White House. ” Talking to the former Democratic Congressman, the GMA co-host highlighted Barack Obama’s comments on the issue and speculated, “But, is this something that’s going to linger through November or go away with- once everyone’s back from Labor Day break?” Stephanopoulos zeroed in on the political ramifications, wondering, “And, Harold, I know you think that the President did the right thing on this issue, has the right position. But did he do it in the right way?” Highlighting the mosque and other potential problems for the Democrats, Stephanopoulos closed by quizzing, “Put the campaign hat back on. How do you run as a Democrat in this environment?” To recap, Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic operative, interviewed a former Democratic Congressman about the impact this issue could have on the Democratic Party. A transcript of the August 17 segment, which aired at 7:07am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: They really hope this goes away at the White House . Thank you, John. For more on this, we’re joined by former Congressman Harold Ford, now chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council and the author of a new book, More Davids Than Goliaths: A Political Education. Excellent title. Thanks for joining us this morning. HAROLD FORD JR.: Thanks for having me. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Harold, I know you think that the President did the right thing on this issue, has the right position. But did he do it in the right way? FORD: He probably could have spoke more artfully the first day and more clearly. STEPHANOPOULOS: How so? FORD: I think that- Well, if he believed that there’s a right to build, but perhaps it should not build in that location, he probably should have just said that. I think the follow-up has created some confusion. And probably will create some consternation in political circles within the party. Harry Reid announcing his opposition to building the cultural center- it’s interesting. The terms of the debate has been defined by the other side- It’s not a mosque, but a cultural center that’s going to be built- has now said that he’s opposed to building it there. What looks like could happen, George, is a consensus could build around maybe building it a few blocks away- moving the construction of the cultural center or the locating of the locating of the center, a few blocks from where they have planned it now. It might be- STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, there was a rumor yesterday, that that came up. That the leaders of the Senate were thinking about that. It was first reported in Israeli press, but they came out and said no way. Would that take the issue off the table for Democrats now? FORD: Well, it might. If you take Reid at the core of what he’s saying. He saying, “I support it, but just not there.” So, you might be able to find some agreement around it. I think Mayor Bloomberg will obviously play a lead role in brokering this. He’s been such a staunch- and I think had the right position on this. Not only for New York, and for the country. If you can’t build this in Manhattan and New York City, if we can’t foster a center, build a center that fosters conversation about tolerance and understanding, here, where else can you do it? What better place to do it? But, it may be that the politics have gotten so intense, that you may have to consider moving this, just a few blocks away. Perhaps you can find Democrat, Republican, liberal support for this. STEPHANOPOULOS: How big a deal do you think this issue is? I mean, obviously, you saw the President’s opponents pounce hard over the weekend, which is part of the reason he seemed to backtrack on Saturday. You see Reid breaking away from it. But, is this something that’s going to linger through November or go away with- once everyone’s back from Labor Day break? FORD: Well, jobs and the economy are foremost in people’s minds. This is, in lot of ways, a distraction. Not that it’s not an important issue. But it’s a distraction in that regard. But, as you and I know in politics, these kind of distractions can define campaigns in the last eight weeks. New York City, we are approaching the anniversary of 9/11. Obviously, from what I hear, Newt Gingrich and others plan to speak that day at the sight, where the cultural center is planned to be built or plan to be located. It certainly will- Politics will certainly be around this until election day. I think Reid’s comments yesterday opened the door for all Senate candidates to be asked about this- STEPHANOPOULOS: And break with the President most likely. FORD: Exactly. Reid has given his colleagues and those running for office covert in saying that we sport the right to build. But this may not be the place to build. STEPHANOPOULOS: Put your old campaign hat back on. You ran for Senate back 2006 and write about it in More Davids Than Goliaths. This is a tough, tough environment for Democrats right now. You’ve got this job situation, high unemployment. You’ve got ethics problems. You’ve got the former chairman of the Ways and Means committee, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters facing trial in the House. Now you’ve got this issue. Put the campaign hat back on. How do you run as a Democrat in this environment? FORD: I think Democrats, when they return in the fall, and I talk about this in the book, when I ran for leader in 2002, about how the message has got to lead. I think the tax cuts should be extended. Make the middle-class ones permanent. Phase in the top level. I think, two, I think you- STEPHANOPOULOS: So, break with the President on that? FORD: Well, the President’s given some wiggle room there. He has indicated that he’d like to make these middle-class rates permanent. But, I do- I have some different opinions about some of the other rates, particularly the business rates.  I don’t think you out to add more uncertainty to the marketplace now, particularly for any size business. Two, take some of the unused stimulus and apply it to deficit reduction, to apply projects, infrastructure projects that are read to be moved on. And, finally, I think you have got to come out with some of the deficit reductions of that commission right away. If raising the retirement age is on the table, if there’s consensus with Simpson Bowles, you got to be willing to do that for people under 45, including myself STEPHANOPOULOS: So, get spending- Okay, Harold Ford. Thanks very much.

More here:
Ex-Dem Aide Stephanopoulos and Ex-Dem Congressman Discuss Impact NY Mosque Will Have on Democrats

Conservative Commentator James J. Kilpatrick Dies at 89

James J. Kilpatrick, best known as the conservative-curmudgeon commentator on “60 Minutes” in its “Point-Counterpoint” segment in the 1970s, has died at the age of 89. Washingtonians also remember his years as a panelist on the local weekly political talk show “Agronsky & Company.” His column “A Conservative View” was syndicated in hundreds of newspapers. The Washington Post obituary on Tuesday focused heavily on his role in promoting segregationism in the 1960s at the Richmond News-Leader and concluded with his story that he was asked to “take the side of ‘The Conservative’s View of Watergate.’ And I asked myself, ‘Just what is a conservative’s view of burglary?'” Kilpatrick’s “Point-Counterpoint” commentaries were satirized by “Saturday Night Live” in which Dan Aykroyd began his rebuttal of Jane Curtin with the phrase “Jane, you ignorant slut.” Kilpatrick was also parodied in the movie “Airplane” where a balding, crusty conservative claims that people knew what they were getting into when they bought their plane tickets: “I say let ’em crash.” In his book Tell Me A Story, Don Hewitt wrote that Saturday Night Live only prolonged the segment’s tenure. He added that liberal Shana Alexander was preceded by the left-wing columnist Nicholas von Hoffman, “who I reluctantly had to let go when he insisted on referring to the president of the United States, Richard Nixon, as ‘a dead mouse on the kitchen floor that everyone was afraid to touch and throw in the garbage.’ Granted, it was a difficult time and the description was not that far off target, but it wasn’t the kind of thing I wanted someone to say about the president of the United States on 60 Minutes.” In his book on “60 Minutes” titled “Tick…Tick…Tick,” author David Blum wrote that it was Shana Alexander asking for a big raise from their $600 a week salary that prompted the segment’s end in 1979. The dueling politicos were replaced by Andy Rooney, who’s still on the air at 91.

Continued here:
Conservative Commentator James J. Kilpatrick Dies at 89

2 largest liars/skeptics on climate change admit it’s happening and human caused

“Stu Ostro, Senior Meteorologist at the Weather Channel: “I changed my point of view from what it was in the days of the Fred Singer article, and would do so again if that’s what the evidence shows. But it does not. As I wrote back in 2006, global warming is not a religion. The chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics involved are science, not religion, nor are they liberal or conservative.”” http://current.com/1b9jn4c And from a different article: “CNN's long time climate change skeptic and purveyor of every wingnut talking point on global warming in the book, Chad Myers, finally admits the truth: “Is it caused by man? Yes. Is it 100% caused by man? No.”” http://current.com/179jn4c added by: TopScruffy

Author Richard Epstein Renounces Gray Lady: ‘She’s Become a Bit…of a Slut’

Richard Epstein disowned the New York Times today. ” Adios, Gray Lady ,” he proclaimed at the Weekly Standard’s website. “She’s become a bit – perhaps more than a bit – of a slut,” Epstein claimed, “whoring after youth through pretending to be with-it.” Epstein, a prominent libertarian author and law school professor, hysterically decried the Times’s ongoing descent into pomposity and cultural irrelevance. And Epstein would know – he claims he’s been a subscriber for 50 years. Chief among Epstein’s grievances was the contents of the Times’s opinion pages. Though he praised David Brooks, longtime token conservative of the Times’s commentators (and by many measures hardly a conservative at all), as not being “locked into a Pavlovian political response,” Epstein claimed that “I find no need to read any of the Times’s regular columnists.” Every so often I check to remind myself that Maureen Dowd isn’t amusing, though she is an improvement, I suppose, over the termagantial Anna Quindlen, whom I used to read with the trepidation of a drunken husband mounting the stairs knowing his wife awaits with a rolling pin. I’d sooner read the fine print in my insurance policies than the paper’s perfectly predictable editorials. Laughter, an elegant phrase, a surprising sentiment-the New York Times op-ed and editorial pages are the last place to look for any of these things…. I could go on about the artificial rage of Frank Rich-the liberals’ Glenn Beck-or the forced gaiety of “Sunday Styles,” but the main feeling I have as I rise from having wasted an hour or so with the Sunday New York Times is of what wretched shape the country is in if it is engaged in such boringly trivial pursuits, elevating to eminence such dim cultural and political figures, writing so muddledly about ostensibly significant subjects. Ouch. Epstein’s grievances, though, went far beyond the paper’s columnists, to other, less ostensibly political sections. I sometimes glimpse the Arts section to see which wrong people are being praised or have been awarded large cash prizes or recognized for years of mediocre achievement by election to the American Academy of Arts & Letters. Arts, of course, are no longer quite The Arts, at least in the New York Times, which features hard rock and rap music and video games and graphic novels under the rubric The Arts. Only the photographs of dancers lend an aesthetic dimension to the shabby section. I lift the Sunday New York Times from the hallway outside our apartment with a heart twice the weight of the hefty paper itself. From it I extract the Book Review, the magazine, “Sunday Styles,” the “Week in Review.” For decades now the New York Times Book Review has been devoted to reinforcing received (and mostly wrong) literary opinions and doing so in impressively undistinguished prose. The New York Times Magazine has always been dull, but earlier it erred on the side of seriousness. Now it is dull on the side of ersatz hipness. The other Sunday I put myself through a long article on the dangers of leaving a record of one’s minor misdeeds on the Internet. The article’s last sentence instructed that “we need to learn new forms of empathy, new ways of defining ourselves without reference to what others say about us and new ways of forgiving one another for the digital trails that will follow us forever.” Yes, I thought, and wet birds never fly at night. Epstein ends his jeremiad with a simple request: “Cancel my subscription, please.”

Link:
Author Richard Epstein Renounces Gray Lady: ‘She’s Become a Bit…of a Slut’

Civil Discourse is Overrated

So Matt Lewis writes a column decrying, I think,  the Political climate’s nastiness . I say, I think, because after reading it, I’m not quite sure what he’s saying. Matt brings up two pieces of evidence: Matt Yglesias saying that lying is okay was one distressing example. Well, duh. Yglesias is a liberal and I have yet to read a liberal blogger who doesn’t believe the ends justify the means. There is no true objective truth, after all. And, really, lying is fine, if a greater truth is served yada yada. This is not new. Nor is it shocking. Everything from science (Al Gore and global warming) to social science (single mothering is as good as dual-parent families) to religion (Christianists!) to media coverage is manipulated to serve the statist i.e. Democratic good . And to make the arguments, lying isn’t just recommended, it’s necessary. Matt then notes a poll by  John Hawkins at Right Wing News  about the worst Americans in history. Well, that’s rather vague, right? Full disclosure: John invited me to participate and talked to me about the poll. Two things prevented me from answering: my internet went out for two days. Also, upon consideration, I was thinking about all the evil Americans and realized my scope and grasp of American history wasn’t broad enough. Who, for example, was the dumbass who convinced people that DDT was worse than dying from malaria and by extension participated in the deaths of over 25 million African children? That’s pretty evil (good intentions be damned) in my book. I don’t know the answer off-hand and immediately. Ugh, I’d have to go look. Also, is a dude who buried grandma and 20 bodies in the backyard more evil? How about Will Duranty who facilitated Stalin? And on and on. Well, this is how my mind works, which is why I fatigue myself and I realized I didn’t have the time or lack of laziness to do the poll. As it turns out, most of the people taking the poll,  Ed Morrissey included (though he didn’t participate), figured it was worst  American politicians  in history. Okay. Well fine. I looked at the list of what everyone came up with and rolled my eyes (with all do respect to the fine people who answered). It was just too modern-heavy. History and evil did not begin in the 1930s. But again, I had no desire to go sifting through American’s past and taking the time to consider measuring evil acts against one another. I suspect that my fellow busy bloggers felt the same way so went with what they knew. Fine. Ultimately, the poll was not some serious scholarly exercise, anyway. It was a fun diversion and interesting-inevitably, I wonder who chose whom and why. Sure, there were a lot of Democrats on there. I figure that conservative bloggers weren’t paying attention to the intention, but to the outcome of the actions taken. Thus, some beloved Democrat sacred cows made the list. Whatever. I don’t see either of the examples as evidence pointing to devastation of political discourse. I’m also not someone who has over-emphasized civility either. Civility ultimately serves the Left because they play by nasty dirty rules. They’ve got less game and so they only survive by cheap shots. I’ve played basketball with guys like these. And there’s two ways to go: Be so skilled that you annihilate them with pure awesome skill; and/or, elbow them in the mouth, hard, and let them know they will suffer pain if they try to hurt you. Think I’m base and crass? Well, I’ve been blind-picked and nearly knocked out. I’ve nearly had my nose broken. I’ve been clothes-lined. Nice does not always win. Some opponents only understand direct, hard, physical contact. And there are times when a foul is not only warranted but absolutely necessary. Sometimes fouls are required to win the game. And, by definition, a foul is breaking a rule. Ack! We’re conservatives. We should be goody goodies! My land! My heavens! A hard foul would be, why, it would be wrong! Not to mention uncivilized. Eek! And the political discourse! It will degrade. Oh phooey! As long as it’s legal and it’s the truth, a good punch can be extremely productive. Hard hits just must be used with intelligence and not serve as the whole game. The best players have great game. They win with skill and finesse and strength. They also know how to send a message-both psychologically and physically-and aren’t afraid to do it when necessary. Since when did opponents speak in honey hues and debate melodiously? Please. And as for  sounding  more moderate, I give you Christopher Hitchens who, with his acerbic wit and fierce intelligence can sound positively delightful while he’s eviscerating his opponent. The guy on the other side doesn’t even realize he’s holding his own entrails until he feels the last of his life drain out of him. Too many on my own side emphasize form over substance. They’ll watch a game that is played technically perfectly and then be astonished when a less skilled, but more fierce team wins. To make this post even unnecessarily longer, I’ll extend the basketball metaphor. Back in the day, Michael Jordan’s Bulls did not win the NBA championship. Jordan, without question, was incredibly skilled. He didn’t quite grasp teamwork. He also suffered a weakness: Dennis Rodman could get inside his head. Easily. The Pistons had a great team, to be sure. Great shooting. Great teamwork. Incredible defense. But their skill wasn’t their only weapon. Bill Lambeer talked more smack than anyone, used cheap shots effectively, and was a flopper-drawing phantom fouls that enraged opponents. Combine Lambeer with Dennis Rodman, and Michael Jordan was overwhelmed and non-stop frustrated. As a Detroit fan, it was beautiful to behold. As Jordan matured, he recognized that the game was more than spectacular, individual talent and gravity-defying finesse. Here’s another thing: In basketball, there is a winner and a loser. There are two teams. Some politicians and pundits get all mushed up and confused. They act as though we’re in a system where getting along means winning. No, it doesn’t. Getting along means Democrats winning, because getting along means compromising on government programs which, by definition, expands the size, scope and reach of the government. When compromise wins, government wins. People lose. So no. Time for decisive victory…for the American people. And I have bad news for those decrying the civility in the political discourse. Wait until the Democrats have obviously and completely lost. They will get crazier. These last two years have been the apex, the absolute zenith of big-government policies. When they lose, there will be a great gnashing of teeth. And in their impotence, there will be rage. Also, another warning. The Republicans have not quite found their soul yet. Time may demonstrate that they do not, in fact have a soul. As the Republicans fight for core values-you know, crazy, edgy stuff like fiscal discipline in contrast to “refining” programs-it will get nastier rhetorically. These primaries have been brutal. And memories are long. And there are those who will want revenge. Let’s hope the terror of unfettered Democrats keeps the Republicans focused. But I doubt it will. So expect more incivility on our own side. Politics ain’t beanbag. It’s a bloodsport. And it ain’t civilized. All the way back, I don’t see any evidence that Democracy has ever been a chummy process. It’s adversarial. Why? Because the debate is over ideas and the ideas drive policies and the policies do affect us. It’s  personal . Sometimes, that means it’s uncivilized. Crossposted at Liberty Pundits  

Visit link:
Civil Discourse is Overrated

‘Eat Pray Love’: The Reviews Are In!

Before you head to the theaters, find out what critics had to say about Julia Roberts’ globe-trotting flick. By Eric Ditzian Julia Roberts in “Eat Pray Love” Photo: Sony Earlier today, we took a look at what the critics are saying about “The Expendables,” Sylvester Stallone’s bullet-riddled action flick that should reel in around $30 million this weekend. Likely coming in second at the box office — a film that couldn’t be more different than Sly’s shoot-’em-up popcorn adventure — will be “Eat Pray Love,” Julia Roberts’ globe-trotting journey of nonstop noshing, sexual awakening and inner peace. Not that the two films have nothing in common. They both take place in exotic locals, see their main characters reprioritize their personal lives and have received decidedly mixed reviews. Here’s what critics are saying about “Eat Pray Love”: The Story “Based on the memoir by Elizabeth Gilbert, it’s the story of a successful writer (Roberts) who, like Dante, finds herself in her mid-thirties feeling lost and without direction. She ends her marriage to her sweet but hapless husband (Billy Crudup) and, after the obligatory affair with a sensitive young hunk (James Franco, of course), she decides to renew herself through travel. First she’ll go to Italy and enjoy good food. Then to India, to pray in an ashram. And then to Bali, to find love.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle Julia “Roberts doesn’t look much like Liz Gilbert — although she has indeed absorbed some of her mannerisms — after all she gets paid to look like Julia Roberts. She gives a nice performance here, ranging from brassy to vulnerable to drunkenly flirtatious. It isn’t her fault that the script tries to jam a memoir into the romantic-comedy template, spiced liberally with New Age nostrums, and can’t quite get it right.” — Andrew O’Hehir, Salon The Adaptation From Book to Screen “The film’s most crucial constituency — the book’s rabid fans — are likely to feel well served by Murphy’s adaptation, which hews pretty faithfully to Gilbert’s story. (He veers off the path most wildly in India, where he was stuck filming Roberts meditating, or trying to meditate, for hours on end, full stop.) And even newcomers, men included, can enjoy being swept up in the film’s lavish third chapter, where Gilbert meets a seductive Brazilian named Felipe (Javier Bardem) and embarks on a luscious love affair amid the verdant terraces and soft beaches of Bali.” — Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post The Look “Shot in burnished magic-hour light (the crew must have toiled feverishly over a hundred dawns and dusks), with rapturous attention paid to dishes of prosciutto and melon, and to the dishy men in Liz’s life (Billy Crudup as the husband she leaves, James Franco as the rebound beau and finally, Javier Bardem, as the hopelessly sensitive, sensual soul mate), the film is a glorious travelogue, a charmer.” — Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer The Final Word “For a film about a woman whose motto is ‘I’m through with the guilt,’ Roberts and [director Ryan] Murphy & Co. have delivered a guilty pleasure. It’s great to see her in something this light again, looking much as she did 10 years ago. ‘Eat Pray Love’ allows Roberts’ longtime fans to travel the world, and back in time with her. If only we all could eat until we pop and age in reverse and still have the glow of amber backlighting.” — Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel Check out everything we’ve got on “Eat Pray Love.” For young Hollywood news, fashion and “Twilight” updates around the clock, visit HollywoodCrush.MTV.com . Related Photos Evolution Of: Julia Roberts

Read the rest here:
‘Eat Pray Love’: The Reviews Are In!

‘The Expendables’: Blasts From The Past, By Kurt Loder

Sylvester Stallone, back in action. Dolph Lundgren and Sylvester Stallone in “The Expendables” Photo: Millennium Films “The Expendables” isn’t a parody of an ’80s action movie, you’ll be relieved to hear. No, “The Expendables” actually is an ’80s action movie, its cast groaning with back-in-the-day authenticity. Sylvester Stallone, who also directed, leads a team of mercenaries that includes such vintage marquee names as Dolph Lundgren and Jet Li, with Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger passing through in don’t-blink cameos, Jason Statham adding whippersnapper appeal, and a real-life action man — ex-wrestler Steve Austin — playing a stone-cold character called (inevitably) Paine. The picture opens with an appetizer of modern-day-pirate carnage in the Gulf of Aden before zipping back to the States for a quick breather at the team’s headquarters, a seedy tattoo shop run by retired teammate Mickey Rourke (peekabooing beneath stringy streaked hair, as usual, but also smoking a thoughtful pipe). After receiving a new assignment from a tight-lipped CIA agent (Willis), the boys relocate to Vilena, an island country so remote we never quite figure out where it’s supposed to be. (The sequences were shot in Brazil.) Here we meet the plot: A corrupt general (David Zayas) is oppressing his people at the behest of a rogue, coke-dealing CIA agent (Eric Roberts, heavily armed with smirks and snarls), and their only opposition is the general’s rebellious daughter (Giselle Iti