Cloning...Gone Wrong! (part 2)

He's not scaly... He's my brother.

Black-Footed Cougar Squirrel of Northern Montana
...the most blood-thirsty beast on the artic tundra!
If a lion and a tiger make a liger, do a lion and a bear make a library?
Pooch on a Perch
The Gold-Footed Cougar Squirrel of Southern Montana

Beware... the MONKEY CAT!Alligatoad
Ducodile
Hippogriff

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton

Dear Ms. Clinton:

I'm afraid I have some terrible news for you.  You will not be the next president of the United States.  I'm sorry-- I really am.  I know you wanted it, but the dream is over.  Let it go.  It would, at this point, take an act of God for you to gain the needed numbers of delegates.  And I think the Lord usually votes Independent.

Hillary, I see this clearly.  And I believe that you are a brilliant woman, and simply must see it, too.  Yet, you go on and on and on.  You are making decisions that cause me to question your character.

Everyday I log on to news websites and see your newest attempts to besmirch Barack Obama's character.  I will not begin to speculate on whether these things you say are true or not.  It doesn't matter one way or the other.  What does matter, Hillary, is why you are so successfully trying to sabotage your fellow Democrat long after it is clear you no longer have a chance?

You believe that the Democrats are the only hope for America. You must...it's your party.  You are obligated to feel that way.  So why are you only adding fuel to a smear campaign that the Republicans will utilize to their full advantage?  Every time you say something negative about Obama, those headlines will be seared across the minds of America's undecided voters.  They will look at their ballots and think... "Obama plagiarizes his speeches!", "Obama is a liar because Hillary said so!", and they will not vote for him.

And the Republicans will win.

Is that what you want, Hillary?  Are you so selfish that you want America plunged into four more years of right wing radical rule?  It would be different, dear, if you were still even slightly in the running, but you are not.  

So, Hillary... do what's right for the country.  Consider yourself a martyr.  Step down for the greater good.  Stop with the dirty, pandering politics you claim to be against and come out in support of Senator Obama.  It's time.  Otherwise, you just look selfish, petty, and unpleasant.  

Stop, Hillary.  Your cunt is showing.  

Sincerely,

Joshua Haywood

Some Thoughts on the Academy Award Telecast

I don't think anyone could look any better...

I thought that No Country for Old Men was the best film of the year-- the best directed, the best written. So, why do I resent it winning awards for all those things? Let me tell you. I hate Joel and Ethan Coen. I hate them as people-- their personalities, their demeanors, their stupid faces. No Country for Old Men was the first of their films that rose above the smarmy detached irony of their other work, and it was a masterpiece. But when they got on stage and accepted their awards all that self-effacing apathy that I detest about them was on full display.
Up until now, I had No Country for Old Men completely separated from my hatred for it's directors. Seeing them accepting awards for it brought that all back home. It is certainly a great film...directed by assholes. I wish Daniel Day-Lewis had leapt on stage and bludgeoned them to death with his Oscar.

Marion Cotillard is smoking, Amy Adams is delightful, Katherine Heigl is a hyperventilating fool, and Kristen Chenowith is, despite her vagina, the man.

Hey, you... You're a joy!

I enjoyed how, after he nearly fell, Colin Farrell told everyone they should make the floor less slippery, and they ignored him. Then John Travolta nearly fell in the exact same spot. It sure is a good thing that Irishmen are so used to being drunk they never, ever fall and Scientologists don't believe in gravity.

And way to go, Jon Stewart, for bringing Marketa Irglova back on stage to finish her acceptance speech for Once, after she was rudely cut off. And way to go, Marketa, for delivering a good speech and not blowing the opportunity.

I enjoy the way everyone is insanely jealous of George Clooney, so they make fun of him to make themselves feel better. I also enjoyed the way he and Daniel Day-Lewis made out after DDL won. Speaking of DDL... "This is a golden sapling that has grown out of the mind of Paul Thomas Anderson." WTF?

What a strange and wonderful man...

I'm totally over Jack Nicholson and Harrison Ford. Please retreat gracefully into obscurity now.


Best Dressed: Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman. Worst Dressed: Tilda Swinton, Diablo Cody, and Kristen Chenoweth (the dress she performed in, not the red carpet gown). And, really...can we all agree that four sexier, sultrier, more blood-lettingly attractive people have never won the four acting awards in the same year?

Sex Personified

I'll have some of this, too. And finally... shame on you, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for not including Brad Renfro in "In Memorium". I can't think of a single acceptable reason for this slight. I think an apology should be issued immediately.

Academy Awards 2008: Final Predictions

If there are any sure things to bet on come Sunday night, it will be the categories for male acting.  

BEST ACTOR
Johnny Depp - SWEENEY TODD
Tommy Lee Jones - IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
Daniel Day Lewis - THERE WILL BE BLOOD
George Clooney - MICHAEL CLAYTON
Viggo Mortensen - EASTERN PROMISES

Daniel Day-Lewis will win for sure, because he carried the long, unusual There Will Be Blood solo, on his shoulders, for almost three hours.  And did a helluva job doing so.  His performance in P.T. Anderson's character study will be talked about for years to come.  I do not think he can or will be beaten.

Even the most ardent fans of Johnny Depp concede that his performance in the lackluster Sweeney Todd was one-note and dull.  George Clooney did admirable work in a genre flick, Michael Clayton, but he himself concedes that "there's a ceiling on that genre."  

Tommy Lee Jones gave a stupendous performance in the grotesque In the Valley of Elah, but that film thankfully sank like a stone at the box-office.  The only person I would want to beat Day-Lewis would be Mortensen, so very good in Eastern Promises, but the film has no momentum.

Will Win: Day-Lewis

Should Win: Day-Lewis

Dark Horse: None

I can't believe Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) wasn't nominated.

I would have liked to have seen Ryan Gosling (Lars and the Real Girl) nominated, for carrying a film that on paper seems unfilmable, bringing pathos and power to a comedic role.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Javier Bardem - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Tom Wilkinson - MICHAEL CLAYTON
Hal Holbrook - INTO THE WILD
Casey Affleck - THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD 
Philip Seymour Hoffman - CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR

Javier Bardem has the same, if not more, unstoppable momentum as DDL in the lead actor category.  As Anton Chigurh he created a monster, and it was a great performance.  He will win the Academy Award.

I could sleep soundly if Casey Affleck won, but The Assassination... was little seen.  His performance was a revelation.  Same goes for Hal Holbrook in Sean Penn's Into the Wild.  If it weren't for Bardem, I imagine he'd be going home with a trophy.  This was the first real standout on-screen performance in a career long respected, and the Academy loves to hand out those 'Lifetime Achievement' trophies to an old timer in a showboat role.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was fine in Charlie Wilson's War, and he had a good year starring in two other well-respected films.  But he won for Capote two years ago and has done better work.  Tom Wilkinson, respected by the Academy, has also done better work, and will win an Oscar eventually.  But not for Michael Clayton.

Will Win: Bardem

Should Win: Bardem

Dark Horse: Holbrook

This nominees for this category were easy to predict.  I can't think of any likely performance slighted by the Academy.

I would, however, liked to have seen Steve Zahn, so well known as a zany comedian, nominated for his serious role as an emaciated POW in Rescue Dawn.

BEST ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett - ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE
Laura Linney - THE SAVAGES
Marion Cotillard - LA VIE EN ROSE
Ellen Page - JUNO
Julie Christie - AWAY FROM HER

Cate Blanchett's nomination for the god-awful Elizabeth sequel proves that she's an Academy darling, but if she wins a statue it definitely won't be for this movie.  Maybe her other nomination.  Laura Linney can also count herself out.  Her Savages nomination came out of left-field.  The movie was fine and she gave an admirable performance of an uneven character, but nothing worthy of any awards.

Marion Cotillard did good work in La Vie en Rose, but subtitles distract voters from the fine points of a performance.  Foreign films seldom win in acting categories (exception include Sophia Loren and Roberto 'chair-hopper' Benigni).  This is an acknowledgement by the Academy-- you're alright kid.  Now learn English, come back in a few years and we'll see what we can do for you.

So, the race is down to screen veteran Julie Christie and breakout ingenue Ellen Page.  This was a big year for Ellen-- she became a star and helped propel Juno to more than 100 million dollars.  And it's an admired performance.  But..it's in a comedy, and while she did the best with Diablo Cody's screenplay, she was given some lines that even an old pro couldn't pull of convincingly.  And she's up against Christie.  Julie Christie, beautiful and fragile, was wonderful in Away From Her. She'll win not only because she deserves too, but because she has had a long and admirable career. 

Will Win: Julie Christie

Should Win: Julie Christie

Dark Horse: Ellen Page

I can't believe Helena Bonham Carter wasn't nominated for Sweeney Todd.  She was the best thing in a film that was respected enough to earn Johnny Depp an unnecessary nod.  Never underestimate the Academy's devotion to Cate Blanchett.

I would have liked to see Nicole Kidman nominated (obviously) for Margot at the Wedding.  It was her best work in years.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Ryan - GONE BABY GONE
Cate Blanchett - I'M NOT THERE
Ruby Dee - AMERICAN GANGSTER
Saoirse Ronan - ATONEMENT
Tilda Swinton - MICHAEL CLAYTON

This is the hardest category to predict.  First, let's discount Saorise Ronan as the wicked little sister in Atonement.  The Academy loves to nominate precocious youngsters (Abigail Breslin, Haley Joel Osment, Keisha Castle Hughes), but no child has won any award since Anna Paquin for The Piano in 1994.  That won't change this year, because Ronan wasn't precocious at all in her film (she was good, but the Academy prefers cute), and she's overshadowed by the competition.

Many people will say that the showdown is between Cate Blanchett and Ruby Dee.  Yes, Blanchett gave the best performance in any category as Bob Dylan, but I'm Not There was little seen, and she won this category in 2004 for The Aviator.  There's no rush to award her another supporting trophy.  Dee seems not to be a front runner because she was any good (American Gangster was an awful film and her performance was slight), but because she is old, has had a long career without ever being nominated, and her husband (Ossie Davis) died a few years back after a long and happy marriage.  I reject all those reasons as grounds for receiving an Oscar.  Respect, maybe, but not an Academy Award.

And, in years past, the Academy has shown a preference for both surprises in the supporting actor categories and for overlooking veterans in favor of fresh faces.  I think the category will go to Amy Ryan.  She has received universal accolades for her great performance in Gone Baby Gone, and was also very good in Before the Devil Knows Your Dead.  Voters unfamiliar with I'm Not There and disenchanted by Ruby Dee will vote for Ryan, and she will win.

It is, however, possible that voters will feel bad for Michael Clayton, a film that received a shit load of major nominations and doesn't seem poised to win any of them.  Tilda Swinton could receive some sympathy votes here, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

Will Win: Amy Ryan

Should Win: Cate Blanchett

Dark Horse: Tilda Swinton

I can't believe Jennifer Garner wasn't nominated for her heart-tugging in Juno.  A sign that the film isn't as beloved as it claims to be.

I would have liked to have seen Marisa Tomei nominated for her sex-kitten portrayal in the otherwise lackluster Before the Devil Knows Your Dead.

BEST DIRECTOR

Paul Thomas Anderson- THERE WILL BE BLOOD

the Coen brothers- NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

Tony Gilroy- MICHAEL CLAYTON

Jason Reitman- JUNO

Julian Schnabel- THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY

Julian Schnabel won't win because his film doesn't have a best picture nomination.  No director has won this award without one in more than 75 years.  And besides, if you really did the best job at directing in any given year, wouldn't your film be among the top five?

For Tony Gilroy and Jason Reitman, the nominations are the awards in themselves.  Both are relative newcomers, and to have their films and their directing achievements nominated is about the best they can hope for, especially when faced off against the monstrous talents of the other nominees.  Their films, while nicely directed, are nothing compared to the scope and vision of NCFOM or TWWB.

So, the award is narrowed down to the Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson.  I think the Coen brothers will win, because while they have a long and storied career as Hollywood outsiders, the Academy will not be able to deny No Country for Old Men.  It was clearly the best directed (and best) film of the year.  Every shot, every cut, every performance was perfect.   Paul Thomas Anderson, hailed as a golden child, will win this award eventually, but not this year.  His film was loose, and long and lacked the headlong driving energy of it's main competitor.

Will Win: the Coen brothers

Should Win: the Coen brothers

Dark Horse: PTA

I can't believe that Joe Wright wasn't nominated for Atonement...you think that incredible tracking shot filmed itself?  That unrelenting tragedies like that just fall from the skies?  Shmucks.

I would have liked to have seen Todd Haynes nominated for I'm Not There.  His Bob Dylan biopic, which used six different actors to portray it's subject, was a difficult project to pull off.  And he did so...brilliantly.    

BEST PICTURE

Atonement

Juno

Michael Clayton

No Country for Old Men

There Will Be Blood

While Atonement is great and Michael Clayton is good, there's no energy, no buzz, no passion behind these films.  Atonement didn't even get a directing nod for Joe Wright, and while Michael Clayton got a slew of acting nods, they seem more like safe pics, chosen by default.  These films don't have a chance.

But what about Juno?  Some people really think this is the best film of the year.  I don't think there are enough of those people for the film to win, though.  The film has too much of a 'What's the big-deal?' vibe.  It's a fine comedy, but it is not a great film.  Most years the Academy likes to nominate something funny, and feel-good, to show it has a sense of humor.  Juno is this years default comedy.  That film almost never wins.

This is a two horse race between No Country for Old Men, a bleak existential thriller about evil personified with an aggressively anticlimactic ending that many people hated and There Will Be Blood, an epic character study about one man's descent into madness with an aggressively strange ending that many people hated.  I think TWBB will win.

First, I think it's ending is less frustrating to traditional views.  I think that NCFOM has a core of cool apathy that the Academy will reject for the subtle liberal politics and overblown dramatics of TWBB.  I do not think that the Coen brothers have enough support among Hollywood insiders to win the main prize--they'll get Best Director.  Second place.  I think that the academy will be drawn to the scope of TWBB, to the virtuoso turn by Daniel Day-Lewis.  

It is possible to say I am making a grave error, casting my vote in two different directions for the best director and best picture prize.  Traditionally, whichever film has won one has won the other.  But in recent years, the Academy has been far more liberal in it's distribution of the prizes to separate films.   I think it'll happen again tomorrow night.

 

Will Win: There Will Be Blood

Should Win: No Country for Old Men

Dark Horse: Juno

I can't believe Into the Wild wasn't nominated.  I would have predicted it over Michael Clayton any day.

David Fincher's Zodiac, released last spring, was one of the years best films.  A masterpiece criminally overlooked.  I would have enjoyed seeing it get a nomination and the recognition it deserves.

In some of the lesser categories:

'Falling Slowly', from Once, will win best song.  The Academy shan't make August Rush an Oscar winning film and the Enchanted songs will cancel each other out.

Transformers will win best special effects because, not only was it's CGI better than Pirates 3 and The Golden Compass, it was the better film.

Juno will be named the year's best original screenplay, because voters admire it's construction and some apparently find it's dialogue to be clever.  They also will want to reward the film for being the most financially successful of all the best picture nominees, and this is the best place to do it.  Plus, there will be some added entertainment value in getting the writer, Diablo Cody, a former stripper (and no, that isn't her real name) up to the podium.

No Country for Old Men will win for best adapted screenplay because, of the nominees, it was the best.  End of story.

Current Obsession: Colin Farrell

Colin Farrell is grossly underrated.  He proved that (again) earlier today.

 
In Bruges is jut another of those little-seen independent films, like A Home at the End of the World, or Tigerland, or The New World, or Intermission that Colin Farrell makes about every other year and proves, without doubt, that he is a damn fine actor.  Unfortunately, hardly anyone sees these movies, which is a disappointment in itself because they're great. 

 

Everyone does, however, see things like Miami Vice, SWAT, and Daredevil.  He's much, much better than that, people!

I say, for all to hear, that it is time to stop ripping on Colin.  He makes terrific movies.  And he is delicious.

Sometimes, perhaps, his offscreen behavior makes him seem like a cad.  I proclaim "Who cares?".  What has he done that is so bad?  Who among us would not have made out with Britney Spears back when she was attractive and 'sane'?  Who among us do not have  home-made pornography lying around that we hope is never put online?  Is someone does upload a copy, are we to blame?  I think not.  And, finally, who among us does not like to drink a lot and tell jerk-offs to fuck off and go to hell?  I do, and I'm sure I know of several others who feel the same.

He has a curse, it seems, of oftentimes being the very best thing in very bad movies.  And of being in wonderful films that are denied popularity for the same reasons that most good things are under loved.  So, if you think he's a bad actor, expand your horizons.  See his independent films and become enlightened.  If you think he's an asshole, well... it's superfluous to film your sex acts when you live in a glass house.

Cloning...Gone Wrong! (part 1)

It's a slow day at work and I'm taking advantage of the high-speed internet in the office. It's difficult to upload pictures on the wireless I usually use. Anyway, LOOK AT THE FREAKY ANIMALS. These are pictures taken of real specimens found in laboratories operated by the lackeys of Saddam Hussein. He was planning on using them to confuse and frighten American children after he took over our country. But that didn't happen. HaHa, Saddam! You lose!

the Elephantang
Leader of the Pac
the Koalephant
Alli McCaw

Sad Eyed Elephant of the Lowlands a bird dog
Chupacabra
Cock Russell Terrier

The Price of Freedom: Thoughts on Persepolis and Theatre Etiquette

Persepolis is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen.  And it is a massive achievement-- a 90-minute animated coming-of-age tale set against a backdrop of political turmoil and religious oppression.  It is filled with life, and humor, and darkness, and sadness.  It is a film about free-spirits and freedom, and what those things mean.

And sitting in front of me during the screening were two free people, who illustrated their freedoms by making out and checking message boards with an I-Phone.  And I had to suffer them, because if I ripped off their stupid, ridiculous heads I would have been almost immediately sent to OPP.  The price of freedom is high-- I wanted to kill them, but I couldn't.

There is nothing so loathsome as a cell phone that rings in a movie theatre.  But in a close second place is a cell phone that is endlessly fiddled with in a movie theatre.  Do you not think we can see that stupid, distracting little light?  Do you think we want to see that stupid, distracting little light?  This is a subtitled film, you asstard!  If I keep glancing at your phone, I'm going to miss the dialogue.  I hate you.  And you're not even doing something relevant, like checking the time or sending a text message.  You're surfing the fucking internet!  I wanted nothing more than to take their goddamned I-Phone and fling it as hard as I could at the screen.
When they started making out, well, that didn't help matters either.  There's nothing wrong with fucking around at the movies, but for Christ's sake, sit in the back if your going to do so.  Do not sit in the middle if the theatre with half the audience behind you and start slurping on your ugly whore bitch.  Dumb ass.

In conclusion:

Persepolis- very good (A-)

freedom- good

not being able to kill people- bad

cell phones in a theatre- very bad

...but perhaps that's just the price we pay.

Man's Best Friend

I can think of no sadder thing than a dog.  They're all stupid loyalty and unabashed adoration rolled up into a package of cute with a big red guilt ribbon tied around their necks.  They cause heartbreak and issue.  And they smell.

Tonight I was at the Bridge Lounge, enjoying a scotch with some work associates, and in walked a man with the most adorable canine ever attached to a string.  It hopped and played and rolled around on the ground.  It ran to people and savored each new smell and experience like a welfare child at the Magic Kingdom. 

  Then the man went to the bathroom, and left the dog with his friends for just a moment.  And the dog mourned.  It stared sadly at the bathroom, waiting for him to return.  It yelped in a pathetic way, and rolled on the ground in agony.  But, the man came back, and the dog became ecstatic.  It jumped up on him and licked his face and leapt into the air and did tricks and was generally the happiest creature in the entire world.

 

Pets are like small children, without the abbreviated reasoning skills.  If left, abandoned, hurt a child will come up with some way to justify this incredible pain.  Dogs (and cats) don't have that luxury.  When caused pain, they just feel an unending sense of sadness.  To be unbearably sad and not be able to reason the emotions away, to put anything into context?  I can't imagine how terrible that must feel.

I can think of no sadder thing than a dog, because they love their owner unconditionally without the ability to understand what that means.  And if there is one thing people do not deserve, it's unconditional love.

There Will Be Mixed Feelings

I do not think There Will Be Blood is one of the best films of the year, but I do not think it is a bad film.  I would have to give the film a B, nothing more, and yet... that feels inadequate.  It creates a mood in us that rises above grades and imperfections, but rising above imperfection and having none are two separate things.

Of some things, however, I am sure:  Daniel Day-Lewis is extraordinary as Daniel Plainview, and Paul Thomas Andersen is a great director who, here, has not made his best film.   Day-Lewis, who gets better with age, may have never been any better, but TWBB pales in comparison to the high-energy epic that is Boogie Nights, and nothing in this film matches even the lowest moments in Andersen's Magnolia.  It, perhaps, is as good, but not better, than Punch-Drunk Love.

What did I not like about the film?  Well, the first thing I noticed is that the film was overwhelmingly ugly.  Set in the sun-drenched, rocky deserts of southern California, this is appropriate-- that is gruesomely ugly country. Yet, No Country for Old Men was shot in the same areas, and that film is beautiful.  Who's to say?  

The second thing I noticed was that the first half of the film drags on and on, and the second half moves far too quickly.  Pacing is an issue throughout.  With a running time reaching almost three hours, things shouldn't ever feel tedious, and the first half does.  However, things should never feel rushed, and the second half of the film, which condenses several decades into about an hour, does.  Tightening and rearranging in the editing room could create a better product. 

And is Paul Dano a good actor?  Maybe...I have no idea.  I've seen him in this, and in Little Miss Sunshine and I can't tell.  What I can deduce from these films is that he must be a very hungry boy, because on screen all he seems to do is chew the scenery.  Day-Lewis matches him in scenes, but he adds a level of pathos and insanity to the proceedings that make it alright--Dano doesn't.  There's a scene in a church in TWBB where, in all honesty, I'm surprised any set was left after these actors were through.  

So, no, There Will Be Blood is not perfect.  During the film, I felt little desire to see it again-- yet, there's something else there.  The Howard Hughes ending stuns.  Earlier scenes and images linger in your mind long after the credits roll.  There's something attached to the film I can't quite put my finger on.  A feeling of loss?  The dawning of the realization that the American dream has never really existed, only been skillfully marketed?  That a country founded on and ruled by greed and God will eventually end in bloody chaos?

That Andersen has made a 'message movie' of surprising subtlety disguised as a Kane-esque character study is undeniable.  The film is a worthy achievement, ambitious as hell.  But it is in story alone that the film resembles Citizen Kane, one of the greatest of American films.  In finished product, however, There Will Be Blood most resembles another Welles' film, The Magnificent Ambersons.  Here are two directors reaching for greatness, and seeing it narrowly slip through their fingers.  But reaching itself is a rewarding experience.

*Next Saturday I'm going to re-screen all five of the Best Picture nominees (TWBB, NCFOM, Atonement, Juno, and Michael Clayton).  It's very possible my opinions on TWBB could become clearer.  I'll post some new thoughts on it and the other films, and who I see as most likely to win Oscars, then.  As of now, however, none of my previously published predictions have changed.

Walking Hard: An Afternoon Stroll

Yesterday was absolutely wonderful.  

The weather was splendid-- it was neither too warm nor too cool, the humidity was in check, the sun was shining.  After  getting off of work (we only slave until noon on Saturdays), I went for a long walk in the French Quarter.  

I wandered aimlessly down Decatur Street, stopping in a bar to try a Granny Smith apple and brie sandwich.  I strolled along the river and watched barges heading south towards the Gulf.  I stepped across Esplanade into the Marigny, stopping at Cafe Rose Nicaud for an iced coffee.

As I was walking down Chartres, crossing Esplanade to get back into the Quarter, happily sipping my iced coffee, I noticed two women walking with a man in a silly hat.  It was the type you would expect to see Mark Twain, or Colonel Sanders wearing to a plantation picnic.  "Goodness," I thought to myself.  "Who would wear such a silly hat?"  

I'll tell you who would do such a thing!  John C. Reilly!  John C. Reilly would stroll down Esplanade with two women while wearing a silly plantation picnic hat.

I thought for a moment about stalling my aimless wandering and following John C. Reilly, to see where a funny and talented man walks when he walks in the French Quarter.  But I decided not to do so.  

"Joshua...Joshua," I spoke to myself in a commanding way.  "If you were John C. Reilly, and you were walking down Esplanade Avenue, would you want to be followed by a stranger with an iced coffee?  Would you?"  I conceded to myself that I, indeed, would not.  So I walked on.

Matt Damon went to Harvard

Things like this are why Matt is the best (and biggest) movie star in America...

Video One: "I just want to promote my movie!"

Video Two: "Fuck you, Jimmy Kimmel! You'll pay for these indiscretions!"

"She's fucking Matt Damon!  On the bed, on the floor...on a towel by the door!  In the tub, in the car...up against the minibar!"