Ok....granted...I'm REALLY drunk at the moment... (A good, happy drunk, rather than a mean bitter "I hate the world" drunk)...but I simply fell off my chair at reason number 1 why you are bummed about The Day After Tomorrow.

That is the funniest fucking thing I've read in a long while. (Are you SURE there's not a zombie in there somewhere?)

Reason number 2 isn't bad either. . .

What cracks me up most about that movie is that the previews display absolutely no discernable plot. They show lots of stuff being destroyed, and then that's it. The first time I saw a preview, I just thought it was ninety minutes of shit getting blowed up.

It took an IMDB review of the film to figure out that it was a dad looking for his kid.

Also, I will be quite pissed off if they have a "tsunami" that is caused by something other than an earthquake.

*cries, bitches, moans, and posts about a stupid shit movie*

(psst.. Shaun of the Dead)

Oh, c'mon Kierin. Stupid shit movies are fun to talk about.

Remember Junk? That was horrifying, and not because of the zombies. And didn't you watch Pirahna 2? It's not as though shit movies don't have some entertainment value beyond simply bitching and moaning.

OmarG -- a writer for TWoP -- wrote this about Jake Gyllenhaal in this movie:

There's been some ire raised... about Jake Gyllenhaal soiling his precious indie cred by appearing in a big-budget Hollywood film... Jake is dating Kirsten Dunst. He lost his indie cred the minute he got into her expensive underpants. Homeboy's gots to get paid!

By that logic I'd also have to give up on another favorite actor of mine: Edward Norton.

Dating Salma Hayek (as far as I can tell, another dim star in the universe of celebrity) certainly killed off any notions I might have had about him being a more evolved person—and dating a woman with an IQ greater than or equal to her weight—but that doesn't make him a bad actor. It just means that whenever he waltzes on the set of "Saturday Night Live" during her hosting session, I can groan and roll my eyes in disgust, fondly remembering how much easier it was to like him before he caught some arm candy of his very own.

Coincidentally, did anyone see Kirsten Dunst's appearance on celebrity "Jeopardy" a few years back? If not, I'll recap:

Alex: Of these three, Mercury, Mars and Saturn, which planet is furthest from the sun?
Kirsten?

Kirsten: Pluto!

In her defense, did Kirsten ever go to a regular school? I mean, she was nine-ish when she did Interview With a Vampire, so I doubt her education is top-notch.

Besides, which came first: dating Salma or Keeping the Faith? I'd say co-starring with Jenna Elfman is the greater indie-cred deduction.

Taken from the From Parts Unknown message board:

"Anyone who saw the rather spectacular "Day After
Tomorrow" flick in any part of the country other than Southern California missed out on the best audience reaction I've ever seen. When the president of Mexico closes the Tijuana border to the masses of American refugees flowing south, the largely Latino crowd in the theater I was in absolutely ERUPTED in applause. It was like a wrestling crowd popping for an end move, amazing... a real treat."

Sounds awesome.

-P.D.

Yeah, but Edward Norton never had much indie cred to speak of. Yes, Keeping the Faith sucked it big time—and for that matter so did The Italian Job, no matter how much I like looking at Jason Statham—but Norton has turned in some outstanding performances: Primal Fear, American History X, Rounders, Fight Club, The Score. Despite the fact that the last two films on the list weren't necessarily great overall, he was great in them.

Further, since no one could claim that any of the films Ed Norton has been in are particularly indie in either production or content, I can't base my opinions solely on how DIY the movies are. What I'm getting at is dramatic credibility in a broader sense, not just the clique-ish fanbase dissing Jake Gyllenhaal for not making 87 more Donnie Darkos.

Granted, actors have to get paid and an easy way to do that is to take a job in a blockbuster. Being in such a film doesn't make anyone a bad actor per se. It just puts the talented ones on my shit list for whoring themselves out for a paycheck.

It just puts the talented ones on my shit list for whoring themselves out for a paycheck.

If a talented actor whores out for a paycheck, but then uses that financial security to do some daring roles that won't bring a lot of money, I'm completely fine with the whoring. That's a good cause. That's why I don't understand the uproar about Jake -- let's see what his next few movies are and what he does with the money.

Also, he was all set to step in as Spider-Man if Tobey Maguire's back was too bad for the role, and I love the Spider-Man franchise.

Arguably, to some extent we all whore ourselves out for a paycheck. I have no particular investment in my work—though I do enjoy my place of employ—and I only do it because I have to pay rent and eat from time to time. However, I am not in a line of work that rests primarily upon my creative abilities (at the moment), while actors are.

I can agree with you that it does depend where he goes from here (since what you proposed is exactly what John Malkovich and Johnny Depp do in their careers), but the fact that he was willing to pick up Spidey's mask doesn't give me much hope for his potentially lofty aims. Not to say that I won't still like him as an actor, but I will wonder what could have happened if he didn't stray from the primrose path.

Aside: Perhaps Kirsten Dunst did not go to regular school, but I've known plenty of child actors who were schooled on the set and there were receiving educations comparable to my own public school drudgery, if not much better because they had smaller student-to-teacher ratios.