I got a surprise yesterday. Watching my "I Spy" Second Season DVDs yesterday, there was an episode called "Mainly on the Plain" about an old Spanish scientist being courted by American and Russian agents for his discovery. The old gent is a fan of Don Quixote, and several scenes turn on this. And the scientist was played by...Boris Karloff, in one of his final performances. And it was a beautiful performance, nuanced and passionate, even though he was obviously weak and frail. Karloff was my very favorite actor as a child, and to find a performance I never knew about...wow. I had tears in my eyes. Wonderful stuff. # For those who insist on believing "It's just Hollywood" about the racial image thing: all right, the ball's in your court. Can one of you PLEASE suggest a mechanism for this? How is it that executives, actors, directors, and writers coming from all over the country, all over the world, apparently united in nothing other than the urge to make money and art happen to be more bigoted than the average citizen? They tend to have more black friends, neighbors, and co-workers than the average citizen at their income level, do more interracial dating and marrying than people in most parts of the country (as far as I can see) and I just have no idea how they would somehow be more bigoted than the average citizen. I can understand why it would be painful to grasp that racism might be as intractable as I suggest. I can understand why it would be nice to think that just "not seeing race" would be enough to deal with the problem. Of course, it is disturbing to grasp that I'm saying that "not seeing race" is playing directly into the racist filter of our Amygdalas, that the only answer is to remain conscious and alert and aware. I can't swear to being correct about what I think here, but at least I've suggested a mechanism by which a hug amount of our nation's (and the world's) problems make sense. But if I'm wrong--please explain how this happens. How does the entertainment industry "just happen" to collect a higher than average percentage of bigots? I'm dying to hear that one. ## I read a couple of articles on the recent research on the "exercise pill." IF it had been tested for a generation, yes, I think I'd take it. But I have an aversion to prescription medications (or OTC, for that matter) even pain killers. I avoid them, and always have. Just my nature. But if there was something I was certain of which provided benefits comparable to exercise, I'd take it! But what would those benefits have to be? Let's see: 1) Bone Density 2) Muscle mass 3) flexibility and ease of motion 4) Energy 5) Coordination and grace 6) Aerobic and muscular endurance 7) Detoxification (through sweating) 8) Proprioceptive sense (also known as "Point" or capacity to know where you are in three-dimensional space) 9)Physical Flow ﾠ There are others. Then, of course, there are the specific benefits of martial arts, both physical (protective) and psychological. ﾠ My health and longevity are my responsibility, and I would be loathe to place them in the safe-keeping of strangers, unless I absolutely had to. My honest sense is that people who don't exercise are not "busy" any more than marriages stop being sexual because people are "busy"--that's the excuse. Animals stretch, and run, and jump, and climb--instinctively. A distortion in the natural urge to use the mind and body to their fullest is, to me, a symptom of dysfunction. Something is wrong, like, for instance...being chosen last for sports in Jr. High, being awkward in childhood, having had an accident, being programmed by overly protective parents, etc. IF YOU DON'T "HAVE" FIFTEEN MINUTES A DAY TO EXERCISE, SOMETHING IS WRONG. There are, in my way of thinking, emotional issues blocking you, a sense of disgust or disappointment with your body that stands between you and the natural joy of motion. ﾠ No pill will fix that. Now, that's my belief pattern, and it would have to change for me to change in this aspect. So...pills are interesting. But I'd have to ask those who want it: if there was a pill that gave you orgasms, would you stop making love to your partner? ﾠ To me, there is no difference.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Exercise Pills--and an unexpected gift
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I'm going to throw the ball back. Personally I thinks it's Hollywood and people. Nether can solely be blamed.
Any way ball toss:
Is American Gangster better than The Godfather?
Why?
Bennett wrote: "reportedly the TV show 'Heroes' has interracial coupling without it being cast as some huge no-no."
Well, let's see. D.L. is the black man married to Niki, a hot blonde. There were scenes showing the two being intimate and loving as one would expect a married couple to be.
The character died, shot in the chest at point blank range by a white guy with no super powers. The scene is depressing from a symbolic perspective: black guy takes white female away from white male; white male shoots him dead and gets away with it (no negative consequences, legal or otherwise, were shown for the shooter).
The other interracial coupling would be Hiro and Charlie. The outcome is that Charlie died, alternatively from brain tumor and from having her head sliced open by Sylar. And, for all of Hiro's power, he could not save her. It's may be a little too easy to read "impotence" into this particular set of symbology.
So perhaps we have a smidgen of progress in the romance being shown at all. However, the horrific consequences conform to Steve's theory of massive pain association with such transgressions.
"I swear I'm not just trying to be contrarian, more looking for the one gem that'll give some hope in amongst the fairly crushing hill of evidence that shows Steve's file-drawer is immeasurably well stocked."
On this I absolutely agree with you 100%.
American Gangster is inferior to Godfather. Not Denzel's fault, either -- he's the greatest American actor since Robert Duvall. I believe I've seen everything meaningful he's ever done -- at least since leaving St. Elsewhere. But the movie has pacing and payoff problems -- its core problem is that it's based on a real guy. Lawrence of Arabia aside, the real world doesn't tend to produce clean story arcs.
Steve,
If it were safe, I'd take the exercise pill in a second. I don't enjoy the gym -- I enjoy playing basketball; this last Saturday I guarded a guy 6'4 for about an hour, who was 20 years younger than me, 40 pounds heavier, and much faster. When I got done I felt like I'd been had my ass kicked by serious men ... but boy, was I happy. That boy outplayed me, but not by a whole lot. I blocked two of his shots, threw little hooks over his head and saw about half of them go in ... he was amused at first, and then frustrated, and finally resigned. Great day of basketball.
I work out the way I wash dishes -- as a sort of zen exercise. I don't like doing it and I'm aware of my mind's tendency to wander, so I use it as an opportunity to practice being present.
That moment playing basketball (or in the gym for that matter) where everything's humming along, you're breathing hard but are not out of breath, you feel strong and fit and quick ... that's irreplaceable. No pill can give you that. But if the pill makes it easier to get to that place, you bet I'd take it.
> For those who insist on believing "It's just Hollywood" about the racial image thing:<
It doesn't have to be a binary thing. I think a good point was made that Hollywood is willing to risk huge amounts of money on anti-Iraq war films, time after time, despite them all being financial bombs, but that they are not willing to make similar risks over racial images. To me the conclusion would be that Hollywood, collectivly, cares far more about being anti-Iraq-War than it does about racial images. Money talks, and if Hollywood has been shown to be willing to risks lots of money in financial loosers that supports a certain viewpoint, but is not willing to do similar things for another cause, what is the obvious conclusion?
The obvious conclusion, IMO, is not that Hollywood is racist, but instead it would be that they are indifferent over racial images in comparison to other cuases, causes that "they" _really_ cares about.
>I read a couple of articles on the recent research on the "exercise pill."<
Yesterday I jogged to the bank to deposit a check, then descided to job to the gym, then worked our my upper body with weights, then jogged home. I felt good doing this, and I had genuine fun doing it, and that is something I would have never guessed I would say two or three years ago.
But man, there are days when I just do _not_ want to go out there and exercise just as there are days I do _not_ want to go to work. But I usually drag myself to both because it's what I have to do.
But if you gave me $5,000,000, or a pill that could give me _most_ of the benefits of exercise? I'd be tempted to not go to work on those days or not work out on those days. Very tempted.
- Mike R.
I wonder if a chief difference on people's thought on an exercise pill is the way they experience exercise?
My favorite / least anoying times when I exercise are when I get really wrapped up in listening to a book on audio (did that yesterday and it's one reason I worked out so long), or reading an article on the treadmill. Something to take my mind _off_ the exercise itself.
- Mike R.
I think you are almost certainly right, Steve, but I will throw out another possibility. All systerms, societies, businesses, etc, have a lot of simple inertia. It could easily be that the fact that "the rules are different when the star is black," as I think you said someone in the business told you recently could have been true say 20 years ago, and people in Hollywood are not willing to risk big bucks betting that it has changed, even if maybe it has.
As to how much it has, who knows? My mother is 86 years old, white, southern, and plans to vote for Obama. (She never did like HRC.) Some of her friends say they just could not vote for a black person. Which is more common, her attitude, or the one held by some of her friends? You have to do the experiment (hold the election) to know for sure.
And if the experiment is really expensive, as in making a big budget movie, you naturally think twice.
If you believe that the sun will always return when there is an eclipse if you play a particular tune on a particular instrument while facing due north, are you willing to risk not doing it? What if you are wrong?
Sorry to have split this up int two comments.
Exercise in a pill sounds to me a bit too much like courage in a bottle. Proper nutrition to enhance and facilitate physical development is one thing, and if a pill helps that (I mean, I take my vitamin pill every morning) then great. But if it's being sold as some replacement for getting off your duff, that's ludicrous. I mean, would you trust someone who tells you there's water in the Waterless Desert? So why trust someone who says there's exercise in the exerciseless pill?
Mike, you missed it, and I've said it over and over again: Hollywood HAS taken risks with black stars, in television and film. The audiences reject them. There is NOTHING Hollywood can do to guarantee a hit: God knows they've tried: sequels, casting stars, doing re-makes. It's still a crap shoot. For decades, individual film-makers have risked careers and capital to make movies that express their personal positions. My stats aren't looking at overall movies made or released. It's looking at the movies that were SUCCESSFUL. Do you catch the difference? These are the movies America loves, not the movies Hollywood made. Individuals actors and directors have politics and positions. "Hollywood" is just a place to work, a money machine, making whatever it collectively prays will make a buck. There ARE films in which black men are sexual. Hollywood studios do make them. America doesn't go see them. Seriously. But anyone who thinks there is no light hasn't been watching. Things have changed MASSIVELY since my childhood. But there are still social scars. Scars heal slowly, as we get to know each other better, and America browns. Slowly, but I have no sense that progress has ever stopped. I think my constant prodding most annoys those who want to feel the playing field is "finally level" or that (for instance) Obama stands to gain something by having people notice the color of his skin.
#
The Godfather is much better than "American Gangster" and likely would have been even if Denzel had been allowed to be sexual (although that would have made it better). Godfather is simply one of the best movies ever made, by one of our greatest directors, featuring some of our greatest actors. It was a miracle, a classic among classics. "American Gangster" was good, and maybe it would have been great, but it's too much to try to predict when or how or why a film will become what "Godfather" is.
#
Still would have been better, though.
Here's a question that goes one better: why stop at an "exercise pill"? Presumably there's a physical mechanism to explain why you can build strength and endurance thru exercise but when you stop exercising, you gradually lose those gains. From an evolutionary POV that makes sense. If you're not _using_ that capacity, maintaining that additional muscle mass and aerobic ability is a waste of resources that might be needed to tide you over during a period of famine. Better to let them fade away and reduce your calorie requirements.
But is there any practical reason* why, given the knowledge to do so, we couldn't figure out how to eliminate that tendency? Engineer ourselves (or our offspring) so that if they build up muscle or aerobic capacity it DOESN'T fade with disuse?
*Sure, they might require far more calories per day than an unmodified human (at least, one who isn't training to be in top form), but that isn't necessarily a bad thing in a wealthy civilization like ours.
Fair enough point Steve, it's an important distinction.
Quick question for you though; In your opinion, what have been some of the best big budget Hollywood movies of the last 10 years in which black men have been sexual?
- Mike R.
OK Steven.
The mechanism in liberal Hollywood is the aroma adaption mechanism.
They think their shit don't stink.
They go through the overt and superficial motions when it comes to race, but fail to deal with their own deep seated issues.
They give lip service but no action to speak of.
At one time Hollywood knew it's shit stank and mad movies like guess who's coming to dinner. A black man with a white woman. Look at what they did to the remake.
As has been mentioned, they spend big money and get big stars for anti-war films they know they can't sell to middle America with no problem, so why don't they addess this issue.
I think they tell themselves " I'm a liberal, I can't be racist in any way. It's those nasty conservatives, they're all racist, not me". The problem is- talking the talk, isn't the same as walking the walk.
When I was in the army they used to say " If you think you don't have a race problem, you've definitely got one"
Bottom lie. When Hollywood makes one big budget movie that works at all levels yet fails at the box office just because a black man had sex with a white woman (and survives), I'll consede your point, but that ain't happen yet in my opinion.
So why will they lose money on anti-war films they know from experience will bomb, and not take a chance on a type movie they only think will bomb? I'd say it's because they don't smell their own shit.
Sorry for the language.
John M
When I was in the army they used to say " If you think you don't have a race problem, you've definitely got one"
"If you think you're not fat, you're fat."
Nope....
"If you think you're not ugly, you're ugly."
Well, not in my case ...
"If you think your son doesn't have ADD, he has ADD."
As a general construction that one particular glib approach has never worked for me. Denial is not really the Answer to Everything: sometimes peoplee think they don't have Problem X because they don't have that problem.
A "mental health professional" once talked to my now 12 year old son for about 15 minutes and diagnosed him as ADD and in need of medication.
I diagnosed the "mental health professional" as someone in need of some time staked out on an anthill, but he wasn't amused by that.
"If you think you don't need time on the anthill, you need time on the anthill."
There's still a lot that goes on in the human body which we don't understand. In today's (8/1) NYT there is an article about the two muscle building drugs and how they work. It appears that the two drugs can mimic some of the effects of exercise and tell the body to build a certain protein which helps burn fat.
This could also help treat people with diabetes and help older people who are unable to exercise.
So although these pills could be used by otherwise healthy people who just don't want to spend the time exercising on their own, I see the primary focus being people with actual chronic medical issues, such as type 2 diabetes.
Exercise helps most people with type 2 diabetes but every case is different. It's something which can not normally be "cured" and normally worsens over time, regardless of the activity level.
Diabetes (Type 1 and Type 2) is a growing problem in the US with ugly complications and often fatal results, so anything (diet, exercise, medication, education) that will help us to better understand, treat and one day cure this disease is something I'm in favor of.
Other than supporting movies/books/art in which Black men get to be fully human, I'm not sure what people can do to change the successful movies or art that comes out of Hollywood. I remember being really upset that in the Sci-Fi version of Earthsea they made the hero white, over Ursula LeGuin's vociferous objections. So this stuff is deep.
I don't think it's "just" Hollywood. Yes, there are racists outside of La-La Land, too. And, in other big news, dog bites man.
I do think that Hollywood is pretty feeble about what they choose to support and create. It's one thing if somebody of no particular talents is contentedly unconscious of racism; another thing entirely if a self-designated media elite shows that, in practice, they're fantastically clueless on the issue.
And I still think the profit motive isn't much of an excuse, because looking at the movies that get churned out, it's hard for me to believe than more than about 30% are actually aimed at being big successes. A lot of them are DOA: so ineptly designed that their straight-to-video trajectory is predictable in the previews.
To put it another way: if Hollywood actually cared about making profits, why wouldn't it be to their advantage to have Jet Li have a love life in Mummy 3, or have Will Smith have a love life in Hancock? Playing it "safe" made Hancock a money-wasting dud and will probably do the same to Sexless Asian Mummy 3. Having the guts to make a real movie that broke out of stereotypical thinking would have risked some market share, but might have also let them have a huge surprise win, of the sort that Casablanca was.
Yes, I know that it is easy for me to write this -- but I have been watching movie after movie turn in mediocre audiences for a long time now. I find it really hard to believe that there would be no upside to the first Hollywood studio to break with the robotically predictable "no sex or romance for nonwhites" rule, especially in 2008 A.D.
The last I heard, Eisenhower hadn't been president for 49 years now. Would it be too brain-breaking an effort for Hollywood to start reflecting that in how it shows the emotional lives of black or Asian men?
--Erich Schwarz
Dan
The purpose of the saying is to remind us that racism is hardwired into ALL of us (unlike fat or ugly), and requires a little circumspection on a regular basis.
You have to keep it in context.
John M
If Hollywood actually cared about making profits, why wouldn't it be to their advantage to have Jet Li have a love life in Mummy 3, or have Will Smith have a love life in Hancock?
You're completely missing Steve's point. They don't make movies with Jet Li or Will Smith "gettin' some" because those movies don't perform well. They're not refusing to give the audience what they want; they ARE giving the audience what they want--movies in which non-white characters don't get laid (or alternatively, might get laid, but suffer for it).
From Hollywood's perspective a movie in which Hancock has pointless fights with Charlize Theron and the plot gets nonsensical can still be a financial success, even if it isn't as big as they'd like it to be. A film in which Hancock gets it on with Charlize Theron is box office poison. Given that, even if you're the most non-racist guy in Hollywood, which one are YOU going to produce? (Even if you're willing to take a bath to make a point, your investors aren't going to trust you with their money if you keep it up.)
if there was a pill that gave you orgasms, would you stop making love to your partner?ﾠ
Nope. Sex for me is not about my orgasm. It's about mutual pleasure that probably leads to orgasm for both of participants thought joint efforts.
What you're asking is like asking if I could take a fast taxi ride through what is usually a beautiful walk, would I still take that walk?
A pill that helps you keep whatever exercise gains you've made? I have to admit--that's a more attractive idea.
#
Yes, liberals think their shit doesn't stink. And so do conservatives. That makes the folks in Hollywood just like everyone else.
#
Remember: Denzel and Will Smith COULD make movies with sexual content if they wanted. Denzel only does in his "little" films. He's said point blank that he knows the movies will bomb if he does. I fail to see how we can accuse them of racism.
Big budget movies and small budget movies (or television shows) are different beasts. There are plenty of the latter two in which non-white guys get laid.
"Blockbuster" is the not the same as "box office poison."
Blockbusters get seen by the most people, and the idea of a would-be blockbuster doing anything to curb ticket or DVD sales is last on anybody's list. In Hollywood, it is not about white, black, yellow, or brown, it is about green. Soon as somebody breaks the line and makes a movie with Wesley, Denzel, Keenan, Morgan or Will getting laid big-time that makes a buncha moolah? End of problem.
In Hollywood, everybody loves to be first to be second.
Not about pink, either. Blockbusters aren't notable for their sexual content.
Have a look: Here are the top ten worldwide all time box office grossing pictures, courtesy of Box Office Mojo:
1 Titanic
2 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
3 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
4 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
5 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
6 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
7 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
8 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
9 Shrek 2
10 Jurassic Park
The new Bats will probably make the list soon. Anybody get laid in that one? Bruce had arm-candy, but -- not to spoil it for anybody -- the Girl didn't fare all that well ...
Save for Titanic, which is a love story, the rest are all total fantasies, and nobody gets laid in any of them onscreen. (They wouldn't let Jack Johnson on board/ they said this ship don't haul no coal/ fare-the-well Titanic, fare-the-well ... Fun song, but the ship did run on coal ...)
#
As for the magic pill, don't hold your breath. It's a ways between making a skinny mouse and a fit human. Anabolic steroids have been around since the 1930's, and they can do wonders vis a vis helping to produce muscle mass. You still have to do the work, and the side-effects can be horrendous. Look at serious woman bodybuilders and how masculine they look.
A researcher saying that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of side-effects at the dosage they are using on mice is being disingenuous. When you start mucking around in the human hormone system, you can open a nasty can of worms in a big hurry -- the balance there can be most delicate.
Mike R.--I'm not sure why you added "big budget" to your list of qualifications for the "sexual black men in cinema" sweepstakes. That was never part of mine, really. And I'll stretch it to a bit more than a decade just to look at films off the top of my head. Remember--there's hardly a film that topped 100 million that we couldn't find people who, had they failed, would say: "well, of course it failed, and X was the reason." Nobody knows why anything works, and no film is loved by everyone. Here's a list of films that COULD have gone over 100 million: Devil In a Blue Dress, Out of Time, Ali, and Miami Vice.
#
Yeah, I'm saying that the average person has a 10% disconnect that results in racial preferences, and that audience acceptance of movie images is a way to measure it. THERE IS NO WAY TO DIRECTLY CHANGE THIS. We can indirectly change it by consciousness and honest discourse. I mostly get irritated by people who pull the "all that is behind us" routine. To me, there is a subtle racism at work in that attitude. Since blacks are demonstrably behind whites in many categories, if the playing field is level, the obvious answer is that there is something basically wrong with blacks. I suggest that the problem is one of universal human perception, combined with that "my shit don't stink" attitude we spoke of. OTHER countries are hateful, but not us. OTHER religions are bigoted, not mine. OTHER political parties are hypocritcal, not mine. OTHER racial groups are racist, not mine. OTHER people are flawed, not me.
No. All human flaws are within each of us. The day you stop working is the day you are either enlightened, or start sliding backwards. And 99% of the time, it ain't door number one.
"I mostly get irritated by people who pull the 'all that is behind us' routine. To me, there is a subtle racism at work in that attitude."
While I don't doubt the 10% disconnect isn't behind us, I do think that there is a real difference between growing up white as somebody born in the mid-1960s (let alone the mid-1970s, or even later) and growing up white as somebody born before 1950.
And as a white in the former group, I can't completely mask the existence of that difference without, in fact, being dishonest!
On a somewhat unrelated point: I agree that Denzel isn't racist when he deliberately keeps sexuality out of his big movies. If Hollywood counterfactually consisted of a majority of Denzels, and they collectively made that decision, though, I would start to think that there was something seriously skewed about their decision-making.
But since Hollywood's in fact majority white-male in its leadership, I have no problem at all flaming them. When I see them work as hard at losing money on black sexuality as they've already proven willing to do on anti-Iraq-war movies, I'll stop.
--Erich Schwarz
William Goldman, a screenwriter of some note -- Butch & Sundance, All the President's Men, The Princess Bride -- novel and script, mind you -- has in his first book on the Biz this: In Hollywood, nobody *knows* anything.
What he means is, you can fill the screen with big stars, a terrific premise, great script and director, have a project everybody down to the Best Boy loves, and still get a belly-up goldfish that stinks something awful
Or you can give some kids a shaky-cam and they go out and do Blair Witch Project.
Anybody predict that one in advance? It's a rhetorical question. No.
A movie that costs two million to make and brings in ten before the DVD? That is a roaring success. It's made back five times its cost, it's a winner. People who put up money will smile all the way to the bank.
Picture that cost a hundred million and the box office is two hundred million? A failure, unless the DVD's soar. The old rule of thumb was two-point-five-times-the-cost domestic to turn a profit, but that was before everything went worldwide and DVD's.
There are fairly large summer movies -- solid runs, not megahits, that made half again as much on the DVDs as they did in the theaters.
There's no way to know, as Goldman pointed out, what will happen, unless you have a working crystal ball.
Since most summer blockbusters are fantasy/action things and nobody gets laid, the argument for having the black guy get lucky doesn't impress anybody. If Will had gotten Charlene into the sack and Hancock had blown the roofs off theaters?
That bandwagon would be sold out and a line waiting for the next one around the block. Every black male lead would be up to his eyeballs in nooky.
Green. Green is the color here.
And while I'm just spitballing here, I'm guessing that the first black guy getting laid heading up a big budget moneymaker might do it in a chick flick, or one in which a lot of white guys get laid, too. If Denzel is in one corner with a hottie and Brad is in the opposite corner with another sweet thang, that might be the way to sneak it past the unconscious racism ...
I see your point, Erich. Individual stars (and clusters of actors and directors) can pool their leverage and make movies that reflect their political points of view. Why more conservative stars don't do this is beyond me. Eastwood, for instance, could get any movie he wanted green-lit. While Liberalism is more dominant than Conservatism, it is most certainly not exclusive, and I'd estimate it at about 60-40% based on conversations with executives. What's going on? Really not sure.
##
My real problem is not objecting to Hollywood execs being "flamed." Hell, roast them in oil for all I care. It is that blaming them makes it seem that the problem is localized. To me, this is like blaming the fact of an overwhelming majority of whites in the Senate on "Washington."
Steve--
I agree that it will have to be snuck in the side doors, slowly desensitizing the audience. Look what Will did with "Hitch"--a strong B story of Kevin James to balance the "A" story of Smith's romance, as well as putting him kissing a guy in the coming attraction, making him non-threatening.
>-I'm not sure why you added "big budget" to your list of qualifications<
Because I was trying to say that Hollywood was willing to push "big budget" movies with big stars (Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, etc) of an anti-Iraq war bent and that this shows that being anti Iraq-war is something they care about very much.
>What's going on? Really not sure.<
I think it has to go with it being about a million times easier to kill a movie than it is to get a movie made.
Tom Cruise and Robert Redford pretty much worked for scale. I am unaware of any "big budget" anti-Iraq films. Budgets are available on IMDB and the internet. Please educate me. These are small scale films with big actors, not "big budget" films.
Huh, my bad then. I just assumed that any Tom Cruise movie would be a big budget one.
Post a Comment