March 2010

Maybe it was an oversight, or maybe just a terrible editorial decision.  Or maybe it’s just how they do it.

The March cover of Vanity Fair looks beautiful, doesn’t it?  It’s their annual “Hollywood Issue” featuring all of “the fresh faces of 2010″; Abbie Cornish, Kristen Stewart, Carey Mulligan, Amanda Seyfried, Rebecca Hall, Mia Wasikowska, Emma Stone, Evan Rachel Wood, and Anna Kendrick.

Vanity Fair writer Evgenia Peretz found the most accurate words to describe these beauties: with their “button nose[s]“, “downy-soft cheeks,” “patrician looks and celebrated pedigree,” their “dewy, wide-eyed loveliness,” and “Ivory-soap-girl features.”  All very beautiful girls and all very….white!  Actually, this very cover is being heavily scrutinized for its lack of color, and we don’t mean that drab, boring wardrobe either.

Not sure what happened with this years cover, but Vanity Fair has done alright in the past with their “New Hollywood” covers.  Take a look for example at 2008’s cover:

This is not an all white cover!….Oh whoops! That wasn’t the picture!

How about this one:

March 2008 Spread

Yes, that’s more like it.

Actually, this years “Hollywood” cover looks a lot like every other years.  I’m not saying that VF isn’t a good magazine.  It has great writers, stories and fashion pages, everything that makes up a good base for readership.  It’s just when it comes to their covers they are a little skewed and rarely pick celebrities that are not white or not slender.

Annie Liebovitz has done the photography for these “Hollywood” covers since it debuted in 1995.  Take a look at VF’s past spreads.  As you do, ask yourself: Is it really all VF’s fault? Or does Hollywood maybe have something to do with the selection of its leading ladies?  You make the decision yourself and tell us what you think in that handy comment box below, because, well that’s what it’s their for.

And while you’re at it…who do you think should have made this years cover?

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

Leap Year poster and plot summary.

Ah, the first train wreck of the year. January is famously the dumping grounds for crappy movies although I watched Daybreakers yesterday and was surprised to find it quite impressive. But thankfully the passing thought that 2010 might start off with a few good movies was thoroughly cured by this intolerably moronic love story. In fact, I’m not sure I should call it a love story. If you see, for example, a couple of 13-year-olds holding hands on the playground, do you call it love? Nah, I wouldn’t either. Nor should you really call Leap Year a love story, because it’s about a woman who’s marrying a man, not for love, but because of the same desperate need to get engaged ASAFP that we saw in last year’s equally crappy Bride Wars. Oh, and the rest of the movie is about how she tries to decide if she should marry her long-time boyfriend or leave him for, I kid you not, an Irish bartender that she met yesterday.

Look closely at the poster. The tagline says, “Anna planned to propose to her boyfriend on February 29^th. This is not her boyfriend.” Often a movie’s preview will give the entire thing away, but this is an even rarer form of flagrant predictability. Ladies and gentlemen, you can clearly see the entire plot of this movie simply by looking at the poster. A wispy, negligible shred of interest might have survived had they used the word “plans” instead of “planned,” but this movie has little interest in spontaneity. Indeed, it is much more interested in telling the story of a wildly incompetent, arrogant American girl and her childish views of love.

So here’s the story. Anna wants to get married. Little else matters to her except for getting into an uppity, yuppy apartment in some ultra-trendy cliche of an apartment building. Her boyfriend doesn’t propose when he’s supposed to and then gets called off to Dublin on some business trip. This is not an uncommon occurrence for a cardiologist. She follows, intending to ask him to marry her on February 29^th (this is the only day every four years that a woman is allowed to propose to a man, you see), but some random problems along the way result in her getting stuck at some tiny pub in the Irish countryside and without any transportation whatsoever to get her to Dublin. So the rest of the movie consists of her getting a ride to Dublin and, oops! falling in love with Declan, the bartender giving her a lift. Ultimately she ends up with this guy, by the way. Did I ruin it for you? No, I didn’t. Look at the poster, remember? You already knew this would happen. There’s a feeble attempt at an unexpected means of arriving at a thoroughly expected ending, but it’s just not enough to make up for an entire movie of nonsense.

More than anything else, the movie is a 95-minute exercise in tired, talentless screen-writing. In a carefully manufactured scene, for example, Anna’s boyfriend takes her out to a super-fancy restaurant, they talk about their future, and he brings out a little box and says, “This is for you…”

See the guy in the far background? He seems to understand very clearly the kind of movie that he's appearing in.

Anna takes a deep breath, gives her highly rehearsed look of surprise as she gazes deep into his eyes, and opens the box to find….earrings. Her face falls and her boyfriend breaks out his cell phone and starts talking about work, entirely unaware of what an oblivious ass he is. This is one of the most ancient and useless scenes in the entire romantic comedy cookbook, but sadly only one in a horizonless stream of equally deadpan forehead-smackers.

And then there’s the crappy writing! Hack screen-writers Deborah Kaplan and Harry Elfont, graduates from NYU, have clearly developed a thorough and intense hatred of American people. They portray Anna not as a young woman head-over-heels in love, but as a moronic, overgrown 12-year-old without a single thought rattling around in her head. It wouldn’t be enough to just show her as a lost tourist. Elfont and Kaplan think better to have her get a hotel room above the seedy bar and then, in the process of trying to charge her cell-phone, completely destroy her hotel room and cut the power for the entire town, for good measure.

Anna showing Ireland who's boss.

This is the incompetence of two low rent screenwriters, ladies and gentlemen, not the American people.

Later, when forced to pose as a married couple with Declan in order to stay the night in the home of a charming, elderly Irish couple, they decide to flip a coin to see who gets the bed. “Heads I win, tails you lose,” Declan says. Anna flips the coin, gets heads, and as Declan hops on the bed victorious, she’s still standing there with a blank expression on her face, trying to figure out what just happened. I defy anyone reading this to find any American person over the age of, say, eight years old, who wouldn’t catch on to “heads I win, tails you lose.” I think we get that Anna is out of her element, but that’s not enough for Kaplan and Elfont. Their Anna is spectacularly stupid.

Anna tries to conjure a way to use her feeble intellect to secure the rights to the bed.

Later, the old-fashioned, elderly couple and their friends pressure Anna and Declan to make out at the dinner table and I start rummaging for the Tylenol.

But does it stop there? Not even close. I don’t want to go into the details of any more of the prodigious clichés with which the movie overflows, but it’s truly sad to see a couple of American writers portraying an American woman in Europe as so utterly helpless. Her childish palette is deeply offended when she’s offered tripe with her home-made Irish dinner, she calls her suitcase by its first name, Louis (I guess because Mr. Vuitton is just too formal), and when asked what’s special about her future fiancé, all she can blurt out is, “He’s a…cardiologist.” She has grown up in a bubble, and once out of it, Kaplan and Elfont simply have her compensate for her stupendous incompetence with “substantial amounts of money.”

There’s a scene midway through the movie where Declan and Anna are at a beautiful, traditional Irish wedding. Who’s getting married? No one. Someone that neither of them (and none of us) meet before or after the thing. And how do they end up there? Why, they wander into some random church to get out of a hailstorm, how else? I only mention this because I can perfectly see the writing session from which it resulted, just as clearly as if I was there watching.

Kaplan: “We need, like, a really cute scene where we can show Anna and Declan in some kind of romantic environment.”

Elfont: “Like what? Isn’t the dazzlingly beautiful Irish countryside romantic enough?”

Kaplan: “No, I mean something, you know, that our non-cultured, superficial American audience will understand. Like, ah……oh, I don’t know. How about a wedding or something?”

Elfont: “Yeah! Oh, wait though. Who’s wedding? They’re still in the middle of Irish nowhere, remember?”

Kaplan: “That’s ok, we can just have them wander into some random church and some random people will be having some random wedding in there.”

Elfont: “But why would they just wander into some random church?”

Kaplan: “Who cares? Ok, well where are they right now?”

Elfont: “Uh, let me check the script. Ah yes. Anna just finished destroying Declan’s car, and they’re wandering aimlessly down some random country road again.”

Kaplan: “Oh yeah. Uh, let’s see.” (leans back in her chair, thinking deeply) “Hmm, this is tough. Well, what do we have left over from when we thought up that random storm to make her plane land in the wrong city?” (picks up a crumpled piece of paper from the floor) “Oh yeah! A random hailstorm! Of course!”

Elfont: “Brilliant! Your best idea since Surviving Christmas!”

Note: In the end of the movie, there’s a scene where Anna has left her long-time boyfriend and then thinks that Declan has turned her down. She walks to the edge of a cliff and contemplates suicide. Can you guess if Declan overlooks this and decides that she’s stable enough to bring into his life?

Fail.

The Bean Meter

One Bean. And just for the beautiful scenery.

Still wandering...

Mark Wahlberg was rushed to the hospital Friday morning after suffering smoke inhalation on the set of his new movie Fighter.

A source tells Radar, “Mark was working on a scene where a smoke machine was being used for atmosphere and apparently he breathed in too much smoke.”

“When he woke up Friday morning he was gasping for breath so he was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital where he was put on a breathing device that helped clear his lungs.”

Mark was released from the hospital on Friday and like a true champ returned to the movie set.

The Fighter costars Christian Bale and Amy Adams.

Julie & Julia is an absolute culinary delight of a film. It’s a celebration of fine food and the simple joy of cooking, punctuated by the thrill of cooking something really spectacular. I’ve done this a few times myself, but only about 5-7% of the time that I attempt to cook real, full meals. But I’m telling you, it’s a powerful feeling when you cook something that really turns out right. Julie Powell and Julia Child lived half a century apart, but both are similar in all of the most important ways, including a lack of direction in their lives and deep, powerful love of food, and of cooking.

Julia Child (portrayed in the movie by Meryl Streep) was the wife of an American ambassador who, at the age of 40, developed her intense love of food with her interest and natural skill in cooking, enrolled in an advanced French cooking class, ultimately becoming one of the most influential American chefs of the 20th century. 20 years later, Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a young woman newly married and living with her husband above a pizza parlor in Queens, finds Child’s cookbook and, literally just for something to do, decides to attempt to cook all 524 of Child’s recipes in 365 days and maintain a blog about it.

So here’s the plot in 100 words – Julie sets herself to the task of cooking all of Julia Child’s recipes, and as she does this, we cut back and forth between her efforts in modern day Queens and Julia’s initial entrance into the culinary world in mid-century Paris. Julia meets three other women and spends years trying to write and publish the book that eventually made her famous, while Julie works her way through that book, attempting to meet her own deadline and deal with the strains that the project puts on her young marriage. Interestingly, we know the ending of both stories, but neither feels predictable.

The characterization will never let you forget who the stars of the movie are. It’s very much about Julie and Julia, and their husbands, the main supporting actors, are there for little more reason than to dote on their wives and provide moments of strain in key scenes. Meryl Streep delivers yet another joy of a performance that will surely bring in her annual Best Actress nomination, and Amy Adams, I understand, encompasses the look and behavior of the real Julie Powell with astonishing accuracy, but unfortunately her character is still totally two-dimensional and stale. The movie is based on her book, but she still comes across as an opportunist building upon the real work of someone else, which may be why the two never meet, and why Mrs. Child was so disgusted with Powell’s work. Stanley Tucci plays Julia’s doting husband wonderfully, despite having not a scrap of chemistry with Streep, but the real problem is Chris Messina as Julie’s husband Eric.

I can imagine Nora Ephron directing his early scenes in the movie, where he and Julie converse about what she should do with her life over a dinner that she cooked. “It’s gotta look like you really really love the food,” Ephron must have said. In a stark display of undeveloped acting skills, Messina doesn’t seem to know better than to slovenly shove food in his face and then sloppily attempt to talk around it to his wife. Maybe he hadn’t read the whole script yet and so didn’t realize that this movie would have a sophisticated, educated and, ahem, elderly audience, most of whom would be thoroughly unimpressed with watching the brilliant success story of a woman married to a total slob.

However, it is for other reasons that I worry that Julie & Julia will not be fully appreciated, or have the full effect that it really should have. Even with a more mature audience, I worry that people who are not at least a little but into cooking themselves won’t be able to relate to it, and won’t be able to appreciate the life lessons that it entails. The movie isn’t about Julie Powell or Julia Child, and it’s not about getting your book published or your blog turned into a movie, it’s about cooking amazing food and eating it at home with your family which, I understand, is a something of a healthy social habit.

But most of all, I just hope that people will see it and become infused with a sudden interest to learn their way around their own kitchens. That’s what this country really needs, I’m telling you. If everyone in America, at least a few times a week, cooked a real, complex meal from a recipe book like Julia Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” I believe it would change the whole mentality of the country. The war would end, unemployment would plummet, the health care issue would solve itself after a sharp decrease in heart attacks, strokes, and diabetes, a period of unmatched economic prosperity would ensue, and all partisan bickering in Washington would turn into vast, gleeful banquets that last for days and days where thousands upon thousands of people of all races and demographics and political alignments would come together to share their magnificent culinary creations. Also, global warming would disappear, along with all of the world’s pollution.

Okay, maybe that’s a little optimistic, but consider this. You know that hollandaise sauce that you get at restaurants that just about blows your mind every time you taste it? Did you know it’s mostly just melted butter, egg yolks and a little lemon juice and salt? You would be shocked at how easy it is to make. So get your loved one(s) together, whip up some of that stuff and pour it over a piece of tenderloin grilled to your taste, sprinkle a little cayenne pepper over it, and let the healing begin.

Note: In 1996 Stanley Tucci co-starred in a film called Big Night, the plot of which almost exactly mirrors one scene in Julie & Julia, where Julie goes to tremendous lengths to cook a special meal for a famous guest. I haven’t seen that movie in more than a decade and my mouth still waters every time I think about it. I highly recommend both!

The Bean Meter

4 Beans out of 5.

And then there were three!

We are getting down to the wire and the competition is the fiercest it has ever been! Our three finalists: Jeffrey, Melissa and Debbie are still in Miami at the Eden Roc where they are in for a few culinary surprises! After being greeted by Emeril Lagasse, the trio is assigned their main challenge.

They have been allowed to see an advanced screening of the movie “Julie and Julia,” starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams, based on Julia Child’s culinary journey and one woman, Julie, whose life is inspired by it.

In the spirit of the movie the finalists are to asked to bring their passion for food to life and put it on a plate.  They are to cook their ultimate three-course meal for a private dinner party made up of the culinary elite!  We’re talking Food Network personalities, judges, and world-renowned chefs.  The pressure is SO on!

Challenge: V.I.P Party In Miami  – The group has each been given $1,000 to prepare their three-course meal for a group of about 20.  They will each be assigned their own sous chef to assist in the preparation but what they don’t know is that their sous chefs are actually their co-finalists! Jamika, Micheal and Katie!

Preparation Time: 3 Hours

Presentation: They must present to the dinner party as well as demo a portion of their meal live to the camera and crowd.

Melissa D'Arabian

After seeing the movie, Melissa decided to draw on her and Julia Child’s shared experience of living in Paris, and make a French three-course meal.

1st Course – Ratatouille and Potato Torte

2nd Course – Brick Herb Chicken with Orzo

3rd Course – Cheese Trio, Salad and Chocolate Orange “Pochette” (pastry pocket)

Melissa is paired with Jamika and the cooking goes pretty well, until she learns that her orzo is way too salty and the torte is not cooked to the brownness she was wanting.  The orzo thankfully was cooked in two separate batches and so the two are melded together to outweigh the saltiness.  Being the first presenter, she has decided to swap her torte for the orzo in the first course and serve the torte in her second course so that it has a chance to brown up more.

Melissa’s presentation to the dinner party literally brought the house down!  But in a really good way! She reveals a touching story about how she and her mom would cook together, and how she sadly took her own life when she was in college. Melissa told the crowd that though she found success in life afterward, her soul was undernourished.  She explained that though she may fail at the contest, she would be failing at the right thing this time! Everyone was fighting back the tears!

But Melissa seriously delivered! The only complaint was that her brick chicken was cooked a little too much and there was not enough crust.

Debbie Lee

Debbie was inspired by Amy Adams’ character, Julie.  Both were at dead-end jobs that weren’t doing much for them.  Staying consistent with her Korean cooking Debbie planned a Korean menu.

1st Course -  Chili Rubbed Prawns and Savory Corn Salad

2nd Course – Korean Short Ribs and Crispy Grit Cake

3rd Course – Asian Pear Egg Roll With Rum Butterscotch

Debbie is paired with Micheal and the cooking seems to go well for them.  There were no pitfalls but there was some hesitation from Micheal about the short ribs being served on the bone which would make the meat a little tough, but because it would go against the Korean tradition the meat is left on the bone.

Debbie’s presentation is great, the crowd found her exremely captivating, and her demo went over well too.  The crowd however, was not raving about her food.

They found the first course to be missing that Korean aspect she promised and found the corn salad to be overpowering, more like a southwestern dish, and something they have tasted before.  Her second course was “missing something” and was described as blande.  The meat was not tender enough (just as Micheal had predicted) but Debbie defended it saying that Koreans eat their short ribs like that.  Her third course was overall pretty good but some of the crowd had undercooked dough! Oh no!

Jeffrey Saad

For Jeffrey the movie was a reminder of the passion he felt his first days of culinary school.  He has planned a seafood inspired meal and is cooking out of his comfort zone by taking on a very fragile second course.

1st Course – Seared Scallops and Green Chili Chutney

2nd Course – Seafood Risotto

3rd Course – Chocolate Mousse wtih Biscotti

Jeffrey is paired with sous chef Katie and while his three courses sound pricey, he has found himself seriously under budget! He only spent $317.14 out of a possible $1,000! While cooking the risotto Jeffrey realizes just how risky this second dish is going to be…once the risotto starts too cool (like dishes are apt to do in the challenges) it can seize up, turning very dry, or under cook it and it could be too soupy.

It’s presentation time and Jeffrey just nails it! The crowd loves him, and finds his demo flawless!  The first course is just as uplifting…but then it’s time for the second course.  Jeffrey planned his risotto so that he would stop cooking it at a certain point so that it would be presentable and edible.  Sadly, his timing was way off! With the harshest of food critics in the room Jeffrey gets reamed a new one!

His risotto was described as the worst ever and a disrespect to Italy!  It’s here that you see Jeffrey completely loses all confidence and he just prays that his third course is good enough to get him back on track.  Thankfully, his dessert is a crowd pleaser….but that doesn’t mean a thing until it comes to the evaluation room.

The Evaluation Room

With such fierce competition, it was really hard to predict who would be going home this week.  And with what I hear has been quite the upset Debbie was asked to leave the show.  Her last challenge left the judges still wanting to see more of that Korean flair she has promised week after week, and though her personality and three courses were received mostly well, her meal was described as a mixed bag of food.  I believed in Debbie. And like Bob Tuschman, I found her to be very camera-ready, but what I didn’t see was the Korean aspect being such a success. I felt throughout the show that she just didn’t deliver what she promised.

I am really excited about the final two contestants! I would hate to be in the judges seat next week because it will be one tough elimination round!

Stay tuned for next weeks Finale Recap of The Next Food Network Star!

Want to watch The Next Food Network Star? Click HERE to catch all previous episodes!

The new issue of InStyle, hitting newsstands tomorrow, May 22nd, unveils the twelve sexiest stars of 2009.  Here’s who they chose for their list:

• Chace Crawford
• Joe Jonas
• Amy Adams
• Helen Mirren
• Christina Applegate
• Liev Schreiber
• Katy Perry
• Simon Baker
• Christina Hendricks
• Taraji P. Henson
• Scott Speedman
• Tyrese Gibson

The issue features interviews with and portraits of the twelve stars, including the first nude photoshoot of Academy Award-nominated actress Taraji P. Henson.

Also in the issue, Joe Jonas admits his mancrush on Daniel Craig, while Liev Schreiber says he’s crushing on Helen Mirren, and the stars reveal what they find sexy.

Chace Crawford

Katy Perry

Joe Jonas

Check out the InStyle website for photos and quotes from some of the twelve sexiest, or you can pick up the magazine to read more about these sexy stars.

What do you think about the list?  Did InStyle get it right?  Who would be your picks for the Sexy Dozen?

Every year we get to see photographer Annie Leibovit’s vision of hollywood’s “it” celebs in Vanity Fair’s hollywood issue. This year the theme is fresh faces of hollywood featuring 10 young, beautiful talented women.

In March’s 2008 issue of Vanity Fair which hits stands nation wide Feb. 12, the 10 young stars gracing the cover are Ellen Page (Juno),20; America Ferrera (Ugly Betty), 23; Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada), 24; Amy Adams (Enchanted), 33; Jessica Biel (I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry), 25; Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada), 25; Alice Braga (I Am Legend), 24; Zoe Saldana (Vantage Point), 29; Elizabeth Banks (The 40 Year Old Virgin), 33; and Ginnifer Goodwin (Big Love), 29.

This cover, was shot in two settings: the four on the cover with the Vanity Fair logo together, and then the remaining six. Clothing from Dior by John Galliano was designed exclusively for the shoot.Every year we get to see photographer Annie Leibovit’s vision of hollywood’s “it” celebs in Vanity Fair’s hollywood issue. This year the theme is fresh faces of hollywood featuring 10 young, beautiful talented women.

There are a couple of kids in Talladega Nights who I imagine are meant to be a hilarious representation of typical, smart-ass redneck kids, but most people will probably find them to be the most tasteless thing in a largely tasteless comedy. Of course, the movie is pretty honest in the kind of mindless slapstick that it delivers, but whose idea were those kids? There’s a scene mid-way through the movie where they viciously berate an old man, their grandfather, while their idiot father, Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell) loudly agrees with them, like any proud father would.

Of course, we all know not to take the movie seriously, but it is definitely a problem when we meet these two little bastards who arouse an intense desire to see them on the receiving end of a series of good smacks, only to have our heroes shower them with praise.

But of course, first and foremost Talladega Nights is a spoof film about American Nascar culture and rednecks in general. I have heard some people offended by the term “redneck,” but some of my closest friends proudly call themselves rednecks, and the term is just a little too descriptive and useful (not to mention accurate) to give it up. This premise provides for endless comedic opportunities, although you may find yourself wondering through much of the movie’s parade of slapstick gags who the intended audience is. Ferrell has developed a very unique style of humor, but there are a lot of scenes in the movie that it’s hard to imagine anyone laughing at.

Unless, of course, they’re having an all-night Will Ferrell movie marathon and are still drunk or stoned or both from watching Old School, a much better and funnier movie.

Ricky Bobby flashing his favorite number.

Will Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby, a Nascar driver without a thought in his head and a name that pokes hilarious fun at other celebrities with two first names, like Tom Arnold, Ron Howard, Larry David, Shannon Elizabeth, and M. Night Shyamalan. It also reminds me of some other surnameless celebs, like the unfortunate Tommy Lee Jones, Seann William Scott, and arguably Sarah Jessica Parker and Neil Patrick Harris, who not only were tragically born without last names, but freighted with three first ones. Who would do such a thing to a child?

Then again, can you think of any un-famous people with two or more first names? I can’t. Maybe that’s the secret to show business success! Multiple first names! Could it be so simple? If it’s true, it’s bad news for me!

Anyway, sorry for the digression, although it is telling that that particular digression is more interesting than this movie. And by the way, what would you call someone with a name like Ricky Bobby? Should he be called by his first name or his second first name? I’ll stick with the first first one.

Ricky Bobby has had an obsession with speed since childhood, when his father raced out the door and out of his life with all possible speed. Combine his love of speed with a competitive nature and the next logical step is Nascar, where he becomes a house-hold name. His best friend and teammate Carl Naughton Jr. (John C. Reilly) runs interference on the track for him, always helping to propel Ricky across the finish line first and then bundling up all his jealousy and bitterness in a hard little ball in the back of his mind.

Carl Naughton Jr. and his best friend Ricky Bobby, along with Ricky's (and Carl's future) wife Carley.

Everything is going great for Ricky. He’s the best driver on the Nascar circuit, he has a sexy, trashy blonde wife, he’s making tons and tons of money and is blissfully unaware of the muted jealousy of his best friend and teammate and he’s absolutely relishing the total lack of uppity homosexual French drivers tearing up the all-American Nascar track.

Soon, however, who should arrive but an uppity, homosexual French driver, Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen who, I’m sorry, may never have been less funny in all his life), with the European audacity to tear up the all-American Nascar track. It is one of the movie’s surest moments of opportunity for good comedy by poking fun at Ricky’s intolerance for a Frechman on the Nascar track, coupled with his paralyzing inability to accept the concept of homosexuality, but unfortunately Ricky’s potentially hilarious reaction takes second billing to the scenes of belligerent, cartoonish outwardness on the parts of Gerard and his husband, Gregory.

Unfortunately, Talladega Nights was released a full-half decade into the 21st century, which is turning out to be the century where people are developing the opinion that homosexuality is as natural as skin color, and this ironically does some real damage to the movie’s comedic gay-bashing. A man who’s intolerance for homosexuality nearly renders him unconscious is pretty funny, but two movie characters pushing the boundaries of public displays of homosexual affection has never been funny and probably never will be. Someone should have told the writers that.

As it turns out, Ricky Bobby can actually count to two, and possibly even four!

More than anything else the movie is an opportunity for Will Ferrell to give us a lot of his traditional Will Ferrell comedy, and sometimes it is amusing and sometimes the skits are flatly stupid, but certainly the movie is entertaining. It’s not a classic comedy by any stretch of the imagination and there are more flops than hits in the laugh department, but this is one of Ferrell’s lesser comedies, like the disappointing Step Brothers, in which he also starred alongside John C. Reilly.

Will Ferrell fans understand what kind of comedy to expect from him, and those in the audience who really understand and appreicate his humor are likely to have a great time with this movie. But unfortunately it’s populated with paper-thin characters who are never meant to be even the slightest bit realistic, which makes any plot development that asks us to care about them seem inconsequential and ridiculous. It’s hard not to laugh when Ricky is running around the Nascar track in his underwear thinking he’s on fire and pleading Tom Cruise to save him with his witchcraft, but too much of the movie is too easy not to laugh at…

2.5 Beans out of 5.