<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trailer Park: Oh &#8220;Brothers&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.threedonia.com/archives/15710/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/15710</link>
	<description>These are our principles.  If you don&#039;t like them, we have others...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:43:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JohnFN</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/15710/comment-page-1#comment-55683</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnFN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:58:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=15710#comment-55683</guid>
		<description>Portman is exhibit A in Hollywood&#039;s bad template for developing actresses. Oddly, she gave her best performances as a child - running solid beside Jean Reno and Gary Oldman, and then a star-making turn in the always excellent &quot;Beautiful Girls.&quot; Her rising star got her the Star Wars gig, where she turned into a wooden plank. Lucas deserves blame for that, as does Portman, who failed to deliver in capturing the spirit of Carrie Fisher. If one wants evidence of the lack of charisma in Hollywood, check out the original Star Wars cast versus the prequel version.

ScarJo has hit the same wall. She was better as a young actress. She was good (not great, and not nearly as great as Portman in &quot;Beautiful Girls) in the &quot;Horse Whisperer.&quot; Once she got her curves and became a sex symbol, she started mailing it in more than FedEx.

She can try and hide in &quot;important&quot; roles, but those roles are box office poison. Unless she makes a buck or turns those roles into award winners, she&#039;ll eventually be toast. I don&#039;t see her aging well either given her prepubescent appearance.

Portman gets the hype, but give me Anna Faris. She&#039;s done absolute crap at times, but she&#039;s almost always good in it, sells her self and doesn&#039;t take herself too seriously. She&#039;s one role away from being the most important actress in Hollywood.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Portman is exhibit A in Hollywood&#8217;s bad template for developing actresses. Oddly, she gave her best performances as a child &#8211; running solid beside Jean Reno and Gary Oldman, and then a star-making turn in the always excellent &#8220;Beautiful Girls.&#8221; Her rising star got her the Star Wars gig, where she turned into a wooden plank. Lucas deserves blame for that, as does Portman, who failed to deliver in capturing the spirit of Carrie Fisher. If one wants evidence of the lack of charisma in Hollywood, check out the original Star Wars cast versus the prequel version.</p>
<p>ScarJo has hit the same wall. She was better as a young actress. She was good (not great, and not nearly as great as Portman in &#8220;Beautiful Girls) in the &#8220;Horse Whisperer.&#8221; Once she got her curves and became a sex symbol, she started mailing it in more than FedEx.</p>
<p>She can try and hide in &#8220;important&#8221; roles, but those roles are box office poison. Unless she makes a buck or turns those roles into award winners, she&#8217;ll eventually be toast. I don&#8217;t see her aging well either given her prepubescent appearance.</p>
<p>Portman gets the hype, but give me Anna Faris. She&#8217;s done absolute crap at times, but she&#8217;s almost always good in it, sells her self and doesn&#8217;t take herself too seriously. She&#8217;s one role away from being the most important actress in Hollywood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Sideous</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/15710/comment-page-1#comment-55656</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Sideous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=15710#comment-55656</guid>
		<description>Never got Portman. Bad actress. So shes turning into a female Sean Penn - she only does &quot;important movies&quot;. All I need to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never got Portman. Bad actress. So shes turning into a female Sean Penn &#8211; she only does &#8220;important movies&#8221;. All I need to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://www.threedonia.com/archives/15710/comment-page-1#comment-55654</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threedonia.com/?p=15710#comment-55654</guid>
		<description>The first time I saw that trailer it actually started to lure me in. Then it went typical Hollywood turning the veteran into a gun-wielding, home-smashing psycho. I could look past the fact that it uses other Hollywood cliches such as the lower middle class family (whose son probably goes into the military because he has no other options) and the setting of a bleak winter&#039;s stark, frozen landscapes in middle America. 

This trailer screams America hating, military bashing tripe. Oh, and by the way, the Gyllenhaal character, whom the trailer makes out to be the noble one? He&#039;s an ex-convict. While the veteran is the one who goes all psycho-violent. Given Hollywood&#039;s current gutless stance toward events in the real world, it would not surprise me in the least if Gyllenhaal&#039;s character is so calm and well-adjusted because he converted to Islam during his time behind bars.

If they wanted to be original they would have made it a couple of upper middle brother&#039;s living in New York, one brother is a lawyer compensating for his guilt about not having the guts to serve in the military, while the other brother became a Marine Corp officer after getting a degree in literature &amp; history from Harvard. And instead of taking the typical route of psycho-violence meant to shock our sensibilities, the movie would stay &quot;small&quot; by focusing on the human drama created by these two very different worldviews. 

Instead it&#039;s cliche after cliche after cliche.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first time I saw that trailer it actually started to lure me in. Then it went typical Hollywood turning the veteran into a gun-wielding, home-smashing psycho. I could look past the fact that it uses other Hollywood cliches such as the lower middle class family (whose son probably goes into the military because he has no other options) and the setting of a bleak winter&#8217;s stark, frozen landscapes in middle America. </p>
<p>This trailer screams America hating, military bashing tripe. Oh, and by the way, the Gyllenhaal character, whom the trailer makes out to be the noble one? He&#8217;s an ex-convict. While the veteran is the one who goes all psycho-violent. Given Hollywood&#8217;s current gutless stance toward events in the real world, it would not surprise me in the least if Gyllenhaal&#8217;s character is so calm and well-adjusted because he converted to Islam during his time behind bars.</p>
<p>If they wanted to be original they would have made it a couple of upper middle brother&#8217;s living in New York, one brother is a lawyer compensating for his guilt about not having the guts to serve in the military, while the other brother became a Marine Corp officer after getting a degree in literature &amp; history from Harvard. And instead of taking the typical route of psycho-violence meant to shock our sensibilities, the movie would stay &#8220;small&#8221; by focusing on the human drama created by these two very different worldviews. </p>
<p>Instead it&#8217;s cliche after cliche after cliche.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
