Louisville Film Society to host annual Oscar Watch Party

person

‘And the winner is …’ It’s time to start making your Oscar night plans, Louisville


Kirby Adams


Louisville Courier Journal
Published 10:48 AM EST Jan 7, 2020

The 77th Golden Globes on Sunday night kicked off the 2020 season of entertainment awards shows. Now, with that glittery and booze-soaked celebration fading in the rearview mirror, it’s time to look forward to February to the opulence of the 92nd Academy Awards. 

Who will win the golden Oscar for Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Picture and Director? Find out the answer to these Academy Awards night nail-biters in the company of friends, new and old, at the seventh annual Oscar Watch Party presented by Louisville Film Society Feb. 9.

With a little over one month to go before the famous words “and the winner is” are heard around the world, the Louisville Film Society is hosting its own award-worthy Oscar Watch Party at Rabbit Hole Distillery in NuLu at 711 E. Jefferson St.

Guests are invited dress to dazzle and walk the red carpet starting at 7 p.m. then join the fun and festivities. Christine Fellingham (Louisville Magazine) and I will again serve as Masters of Ceremony and will welcome guests on the red carpet before the live broadcast begins at 8 p.m. Multiple large-screen TVs will be placed throughout Rabbit Hole to view the awards streaming live from the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood.

Beauty, style and grace: Meet the 2020 Kentucky Derby Festival Royal Court

And even though this is a party, don’t worry if you’re a “serious” Oscar viewer. There will be a special designated area for serious Oscar watchers set in the active distillery.

Throughout the broadcast, you’ll enjoy heavy hors d’oeuvres, desserts and a full open bar, including custom cocktails designed by Rabbit Hole, all served in an ambiance reflecting the glamour of Hollywood’s biggest night. 

Be sure to bring extra cash to test your skill at predicting the winners in a $250 ballot competition. Plus, there will be raffles and a silent auction with film-related items and more.

Tickets to Louisville Film Society’s Oscar Watch Party are $100, which includes a one-year $50 Louisville Film Society membership. They may be purchased at louisvillefilmsociety.org.

The Louisville Film Society is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing resources and support to local filmmakers as well as enriching the Louisville community through exposure to engaging and innovative films and cinematic programming. The Oscar Watch Party is the organization’s primary membership drive and fundraiser helping to support the organization’s programming and operations throughout the year.

For more information, contact Nancy Tafel at nancy@louisvillefilmsociety.org or 502-593-1243.

Oscars 2020: Here are the films and actors leading the race

 Reach Kirby Adams at kadams@courier-journal.com or Twitter @kirbylouisville. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: courier-journal.com/kirbya.

Related posts

In the wake of Brexit, turns out racism is a very British thing

person

On Brexit day, CBBC shared a video clip from its Horrible Histories programme on Twitter. Comedian Nish Kumar introduced the clip, which was intended to be a lighthearted history of “British things” aimed at children.

Unfortunately, some flag-waving Brexit fans didn’t respond too well to being told that tea, sugar, and cotton aren’t really British. Kumar received a racist backlash from people who clearly aren’t big on history:

Ooh Nish Kumar is trending. Let’s take a l-

*a tsunami of gammon washes through the screen

English supremacists are literally losing their shit at Nish for telling them where tea, sugar & cotton actually come from.

😂✊🏾❤pic.twitter.com/qqcUK93Zyf

— Kerry-Anne Mendoza (@TheMendozaWoman) January 31, 2020

Even the likes of BBC presenter Andrew Neil joined in the pile-on. Meanwhile, blame for the video’s “anti-British” message fell squarely on Kumar, despite the fact that Kumar only introduced the clip. In fact, the clip itself has been around for a while and wasn’t even made for Brexit:

Interesting that nobody had an issue with this song when it was first shown in 2009… It’s almost as if they have a problem with Nish Kumar, not the message? 🧐 https://t.co/TZ2tieyXlX

— oh look another fool (@ElenaBjxrn) January 31, 2020

Your racism is showing

Much as many people at Brexit Day celebrations might argue that they aren’t racist, just proud of being British, their true colours keep showing. And they are, quite frankly, disgusting:

Nish Kumar was born in Wandsworth.

— rufa ratae (@rufaratae) January 31, 2020

it only ended slavery by spending a king’s ransome by buying off slave owners, learn some history before opening yer cake ‘ole https://t.co/10fp91wnRT #bloodyknowalls

— John Boocock (@JohnBoocock) January 31, 2020

Clearly, Brexit has emboldened those with racist views, which is obvious from the spike in racially-motivated hate crime in recent years. So the far-right leanings of some celebrating Brexit Day come as no surprise:

this is moment we left the EU last night from within parliament square. amongst 1000s of ppl there were sizeable pockets of far-right. lads with swastika neck tattoos, ppl singing “oh tommy tommy”+deification of nigel farage. a big moment that felt a little like a tipping point. pic.twitter.com/eX8jGyqiYm

— Ben Smoke (@bencsmoke) February 1, 2020

“Make Britain Great Again”

The nationalist lines of ‘getting our country back’ and ‘making Britain great again’ has an eerie echo of the Trump-supporting MAGA crowd in the US:

Peak Leavers’ interview. Watch and weep. 😖🇪🇺 pic.twitter.com/gQsGLeZQME

🕷Mrs Miggins Esq (@MrsMigginsHere) January 31, 2020

Sadly, Kumar’s experience of racism in the wake of Brexit isn’t the only one. It’s just more visible because of its public nature. Meanwhile, everyday experiences of racism for People of Colour carry on in Brexit Britain:

A friend posted this on another social media platform, left overnight in her neighbourhood. pic.twitter.com/CuFHgr7uTn

— Dorothy Lepkowska (@DotLepkowska) January 31, 2020

Those celebrating Brexit are doing so because they got what they wanted. But if they want me or Kumar to go back to where we came from, there’s bad news. Britain may have left the EU, but people like us aren’t going anywhere.

Featured image via YouTube/CBBC

By Afroze Fatima Zaidi

Related posts

Facebook keeps policy protecting political ads | ABS-CBN News

ad
Facebook logos are seen on a screen in this picture illustration taken Dec. 2, 2019. Johanna Geron, Reuters/file

SAN FRANCISCO — Defying pressure from Congress, Facebook said on Thursday that it would continue to allow political campaigns to use the site to target advertisements to particular slices of the electorate and that it would not police the truthfulness of the messages sent out.

The stance put Facebook, the most important digital platform for political ads, at odds with some of the other large tech companies, which have begun to put new limits on political ads.

Facebook’s decision, telegraphed in recent months by executives, is likely to harden criticism of the company heading into this year’s presidential election.

Political advertising cuts to the heart of Facebook’s outsize role in society, and the company has found itself squeezed between liberal critics, who want it to do a better job of policing its various social media platforms, and conservatives, who say their views are being unfairly muzzled.

The issue has raised important questions regarding how heavy a hand technology companies like Facebook — which also owns Instagram and the messaging app WhatsApp — and Google should exert when deciding what types of political content they will and will not permit.

By maintaining a status quo, Facebook executives are essentially saying they are doing the best they can without government guidance and see little benefit to the company or the public in changing.

In a blog post, a company official echoed Facebook’s earlier calls for lawmakers to set firm rules.

“In the absence of regulation, Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies,” Rob Leathern, Facebook’s director of product management overseeing the advertising integrity division, said in the post. “We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.”

Other social media companies have decided otherwise, and some had hoped Facebook would quietly follow their lead. In late October, Twitter’s chief executive, Jack Dorsey, banned all political advertising from his network, citing the challenges that novel digital systems present to civic discourse. Google quickly followed suit with limits on political ads across some of its properties, though narrower in scope.

Reaction to Facebook’s policy broke down largely along party lines.

The Trump campaign, which has been highly critical of any attempts by technology companies to regulate political advertising and has already spent more than $27 million on the platform, largely supported Facebook’s decision not to interfere in targeting ads or to set fact-checking standards.

“Our ads are always accurate so it’s good that Facebook won’t limit political messages because it encourages more Americans to be involved in the process,” said Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign. “This is much better than the approaches from Twitter and Google, which will lead to voter suppression.”

Democratic presidential candidates and outside groups decried the decision.

“Facebook is paying for its own glowing fake news coverage, so it’s not surprising they’re standing their ground on letting political figures lie to you,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on Twitter.

Warren, who has been among the most critical of Facebook and regularly calls for major tech companies to be broken up, reiterated her stance that the social media company should face tougher policies.

The Biden campaign was similarly critical. The campaign has confronted Facebook over an ad run by President Donald Trump’s campaign that attacked Joe Biden’s record on Ukraine.

“Donald Trump’s campaign can (and will) still lie in political ads,” Bill Russo, the deputy communications director for Biden, said in a statement. “Facebook can (and will) still profit off it. Today’s announcement is more window dressing around their decision to allow paid misinformation.”

But many Democratic groups willing to criticize Facebook had to walk a fine line; they have pushed for more regulation when it comes to fact-checking political ads, but they have been adamantly opposed to any changes to the ad-targeting features.

On Thursday, some Democratic outside groups welcomed Facebook’s decision not to limit micro-targeting, but still thought the policy fell short.

“These changes read to us mostly as a cover for not making the change that is most vital: ensuring politicians are not allowed to use Facebook as a tool to lie to and manipulate voters,” said Madeline Kriger, who oversees digital ad buying at Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC.

Other groups, however, said Facebook had been more thoughtful about political ads than its industry peers.

“Facebook opted against limiting ad targeting, because doing so would have unnecessarily restricted a valuable tool that campaigns of all sizes rely on for fundraising, registering voters, building crowds and organizing volunteers,” said Tara McGowan, chief executive of Acronym, a non-profit group that works on voter organization and progressive causes.

Facebook has played down the business opportunity in political ads, saying the vast majority of its revenue came from commercial, not political, ads. But lawmakers have noted that Facebook ads could be a focal point of Trump’s campaign as well as those of top Democrats.

Facebook’s hands-off ad policy has already allowed for misleading advertisements. In October, a Facebook ad from the Trump campaign made false accusations about Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. The ad quickly went viral and was viewed by millions. After the Biden campaign asked Facebook to take down the ad, the company refused.

“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” Facebook’s head of global elections policy, Katie Harbath, wrote in the letter to the Biden campaign.

In an attempt to provoke Facebook, Warren’s presidential campaign ran an ad falsely claiming that the company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, was backing the reelection of Trump. Facebook did not take the ad down.

Criticism seemed to stiffen Zuckerberg’s resolve. Company officials said he and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s president, had ultimately made the decision to stand firm.

In a strongly worded speech at Georgetown University in October, Zuckerberg said he believed in the power of unfettered speech, including in paid advertising, and did not want to be in the position to police what politicians could and could not say to constituents. Facebook’s users, he said, should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.

“People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society,” he said.

Facebook officials have repeatedly said significant changes to its rules for political or issue ads could harm the ability of smaller, less well-funded organizations to raise money and organize across the network.

Instead of overhauling its policies, Facebook has made small tweaks. Leathern said Facebook would add greater transparency features to its library of political advertising in the coming months, a resource for journalists and outside researchers to scrutinize the types of ads run by the campaigns.

Facebook also will add a feature that allows users to see fewer campaign and political issue ads in their news feeds, something the company has said many users have requested.

There was considerable debate inside Facebook about whether it should change. Late last year, hundreds of employees supported an internal memo that called on Zuckerberg to limit the abilities of Facebook’s political advertising products.

On Dec. 30, Andrew Bosworth, the head of Facebook’s virtual and augmented reality division, wrote on his internal Facebook page that, as a liberal, he found himself wanting to use the social network’s powerful platform against Trump.

But Bosworth said that even though keeping the current policies in place “very well may lead to” Trump’s reelection, it was the right decision. Dozens of Facebook employees pushed back on Bosworth’s conclusions, arguing in the comments section below his post that politicians should be held to the same standard that applies to other Facebook users.

For now, Facebook appears willing to risk disinformation in support of unfettered speech.

“Ultimately, we don’t think decisions about political ads should be made by private companies,” Leathern said. “Frankly, we believe the sooner Facebook and other companies are subject to democratically accountable rules on this, the better.”

2020 The New York Times Company

Related posts

Deepika Padukone at JNU: With far more to lose, Bollywood’s women have shown far more spine than its ‘heroes’ | Entertainment News,The Indian Express

person
Written by Yashee
|

Updated: January 8, 2020 6:01:47 pm

In Bollywood as in the world, it’s the women who are smashing the status quo, at great personal risk. The actors, with far greater appeal and access, remember political causes before their movies, but then retreat to asking questions about mangoes.

The pictures of Deepika Padukone at JNU have by now launched more than a thousand tweets, many in support of her, many condemning her for aligning herself with the ‘tukde tukde gang’ , yet others claiming she was only trying to promote her movie while in the same breath adding they will boycott that movie.

Taking an obvious risk days before the release of Chhapaak, which she is also producing, Padukone has made an unmissable statement, and raised yet again a getting-harder-to-ignore question — where are Bollywood’s men?

The A-listers who have for decades ruled the roost and millions of hearts, whose hairstyles, dialogues, gestures and clothes the country has been united in copying, why do we not know what they think about the issues polarising the country today?

The recent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, the proposed National Register of Citizens, and the police crackdown against agitating students have seen unprecedented Bollywood involvement. Actors and directors like Swara Bhasker, Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, Richa Chadha, Anurag Kashyap, Anubhav Sinha, Dia Mirza and many others have not just spoken up on social media, but actively turned up for rallies and protests.

Yet, till very recently, the A-listers were missing. The merchants of fairytales, who have built their careers and their millions on “feel-good” cinema, stayed away from the grimy hurly-burly of politics.

However, in the past few days, actresses, one by one, have broken this unwritten rule. Sonam Kapoor and Alia Bhatt have condemned the recent incidents in no uncertain words. And now, Deepika Padukone has physically turned up at a protest venue.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Indian Express Entertainment (@indian_express_entertainment) on Jan 7, 2020 at 10:50am PST

Padukone wasn’t at JNU as a star. She did not take centrestage, she did not make a speech. She was there, as a member of her team said, because she wanted to “express her anguish” at the violence in the campus, just like many other concerned citizens have been doing in city after city, at protest after protest.

Deepika Padukone knows better than most stars what this could unleash — as recently as in 2017, a BJP leader had announced a Rs 10 crore bounty on her head for starring in Padmaavat, while the Karni Sena wanted to chop off her nose.

Even without personal experience, Bollywood heroines know what’s at risk in triggering the troll brigade. Just reading Bhasker’s timeline for an hour can turn your stomach, make you want to go off social media forever.

Yet, Sonam Kapoor, Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone chose to take the risk. What prevents the men? The Kapoors, the Khans, the Bachchans, who wield enormously more power, and run far fewer risks?

It is no one’s case that the “heroes” don’t stand to lose by taking a political stand. Just a few years ago, both Shah Rukh Khan and Amir Khan had people — including BJP leaders — sending them to Pakistan when they spoke up about the growing intolerance in the country. Then Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had to personally broker a peace deal between Karan Johar and MNS goons during the release of Ae Dil Hai Mushkil.

It can also be argued that in a democracy, a public figure does have the right to remain totally apolitical, however questionable that choice.

Yet, in an industry where the scales are anyway tilted against them, it’s the women of Bollywood who have stood up to be counted.

Women are paid less, have a shorter shelf life in Bollywood, are more dispensible. As we have heard for ages, few heroines can “carry a movie on their shoulders”, which is also because they rarely get parts written for them — a beautiful face and charismatic screen presence are all that is required of the leading lady in most “mainstream” movies.

In a notoriously risk-averse industry dominated by risk-averse men, women can easily be dropped from projects and endorsements for showing “political adventurism”. Bhasker, indeed, has spoken about losing work because of her political stands.

For the audience too, a woman with an opinion can be more difficult to stomach than a man. Men can obviously be interested in “serious matters”, but how inconvenient to enjoy a beautiful woman dancing to a beautiful song when you know her sympathies lie with the tukde tukde gang!

Also, the attacks against the women are far more vicious, and far crasser, than against men. People see a woman with an opinion as a greater transgression, and the more her mind infuriates them, the more they target her body — sexually explicit threats and “jokes” are generally the weapons of choice against women.

Anurag Kashyap has been faced with relentless trolling for long now, so has Javed Akhtar. But they haven’t had people from within their own fraternity calling them “sasti” (cheap), as happened with Bhasker and film-writer Raaj Shaandilyaa recently.

Even during the Padmavat fracas, it was Deepika Padukone’s head and nose on the line, not her male co-stars Shahid Kapoor and Ranveer Singh’s.

And it is not like the men of Bollywood eschew politics altogether. Akshay Kumar’s recent movies have — co-incidentally? — been themed around the projects the government wants to promote: building toilets, vanquishing foreign Muslim invaders. In this Kumar is not alone, though he is the only one to have interviewed the PM about his mango-eating preferences (again, an opportunity given only to a man).

Many A-listers had happily posed for a grinning selfie with the PM at a time when it was impossible to not know its significance.

Amitabh Bachchan, who has had perhaps the longest successful run at Bollywood, stars in the government’s advertisements, but is resolutely silent when that government seems to be turning against its own people.

The appeal these stars wield is unparalleled — any cause that Salman Bhai raises his hands for, maybe with that blue bracelet, that Bachchan lends his baritone and gravitas or Shah Rukh his dimples and his charm to, will instantly get the kind of resonance a hundred erudite editorials and speeches by JNU alumni can’t garner.

These stars are well-aware of their great power. They choose not to see the great responsibility it comes with.

Even outside Bollywood, the CAA-NRC protests have been dominated by women — the brave ladies of Shaheen Bagh are a shining, heartening example. Perhaps it is time we rewrite our definition of “heroes”, change whom we look at for inspiration and solidarity. For now, the women of Bollywood have proven to be far more heroic than the stars who rule it.

For all the latest Entertainment News, download Indian Express App

Related posts

‘Nollywood is full of envy’ – Actress Grace Ama says

person

Actress, Grace Ama, has been in the movie industry for quite some time but keen observers would agree that she hasn’t been as regular on the silver screen as she used to.

Speaking on her absence from the movie industry in a chat with Saturday Beats, Ama noted that she came into the industry when social media had not gained grounds.

“I’m glad that I’m still in the minds of people. I still get people that ask me, ‘what happened to you?’ It is unfortunate that Nollywood is full of envy and all sorts,” she said.

The actress, who has been in Nollywood for over two decades, but keeps a low profile on the popular photo-sharing app, Instagram, stated that sharing one’s problems on social media would either compound it or get one the attention one desire.

Ama said, “Sometimes, social media could be helpful and at times, it should not be a go-to place to talk about one’s problems. There are times in one’s life that one has to deal with so many things.

“Many people are used to social media that they want to put out everything about themselves for the world to know. You don’t even know where those challenges are coming from and the moment you go public, you make the culprits know that their plans have worked and they have succeeded.

“You either get the attention you want or it becomes worse for you. When you put it out there and the people you think should have come to your aid didn’t do that, it becomes a problem.

“As for me, I deal with my problems differently. I am not a social media person, I guard my private life and try as much as possible to tackle my problems privately. I have close people that I can reach out to but I pray it never gets to the stage where I would have to go on social media to let people know that things have gone bad for me.

“A lot of things are happening but it takes the spirit of discernment to understand what the world is all about. The world does not want to know that you are doing well. Leave social media. All those things are rubbish; once the chips are down, the people you think are your followers would turn their backs on you.”

Related posts

Easy way to set Facebook to Private 2020 – Facebook.com

Hey guys we are on again to show you an easy way to set Facebook to private 2020. Basically, it’s no doubt that security is one major form of our lives right now. However, most people on social media like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat and so on like to keep their accounts private. This is not just because they love to but because they want to keep some standard of their information secret.

Easy way to set Facebook to Private 2020 – Facebook.com

Particularly, it is never a doubt as well that Facebook is one of the most used social media platforms today. Therefore, Facebook is a unique place to connect with old friends and as well make new ones. More so you can as well sell and buy with the Facebook marketplace feature and promote your business also with the Facebook advertising feature.

Basically, this is to say there is so much activity you can do using the Facebook platform. However, sometimes keeping your Facebook account private is a way of keeping your Facebook account safe from unwanted people. Furthermore, this also helps you to regulate the kind of persons you want on your Facebook friend list. So without wasting more of your time let me show you how to go about getting the easy way to set Facebook to private 2020.

Steps on How to Make Your Facebook Private 2020

  1. Locate the privacy shortcut at the top right corner of your screen. Therefore, you will see a three-stripe horizontal like icon click on it or you will see an arrow-like icon click it and a menu will dropdown.
  2. Scroll down to the settings icon at the bottom and click on it.
  3. Furthermore, it will then take you to the Privacy and tools page. Therefore, on this page, you can then edit your Activities on Facebook and set how people can find and contact you. Also, make your Facebook account public or private.

Basically, with this easy way you can edit your Facebook account to suit your profile. Also, you can set your privacy status in any way you prefer it to be. This is the easy way to go about setting your Facebook account private.

The post Easy way to set Facebook to Private 2020 – Facebook.com appeared first on Bingdroid.

Related posts

Mother beats one-year-old baby to death for pulling TV off the table – Davina Diaries

person

A one-year-old boy was allegedly beaten to death by his mother last week after pulling a TV off a table.

Rhianna Nichols, 20, claimed to have shaken one-year-old Viston and hit him with a slipper when medics rushed to her Detroit home last Thursday.

But the child is understood to have been taken into intensive care with a fractured skull, collarbone, ribs and pelvis.

Police have not confirmed details after Viston died on Saturday but his family have revealed that Nichols allegedly flew into a rage over a fallen flat-screen TV and attacked the boy.

Nichols was charged with felony murder and first-degree child abuse and torture on Monday in Wayne County.

‘It’s difficult to really know what to do right now just to think of the fact that I’ll never be able to hold my nephew again the same way,’ Viston’s paternal aunt Kenya Stevenson told Fox

‘I can’t imagine what my nephew had to go through.’

Pictures on social media showed the lifeless boy with tubes coming out of his body being held by a family member.

One donor, Patrick Debolt who gave $100, wrote: ‘I fostered rianna (sic) for 3 years. She returned to her mother and was abused. Later we found her and viston and would watch him on the weekends.

‘Rianna started back with the drug use and would text us she needed money all the time. She wouldn’t ask for us to watch him. She just wanted money.

‘We would pray for them. But we are so saddened over this. So very sad. Viston was such a happy baby. We have been crying all day most people will look at rianna as a monster but I remember a sweet little girl that cried and screamed when they gave her back to her mother.

‘She said daddy pat I love you, please. Please, I want to live with you and momma dawn….. I love viston and rianna so very much. God have mercy on your soul rianna. My sadness is so heavy. That poor sweet boy. Lord God why.’

Related posts

Sorry Will Ferrell, Elf is the most overrated Christmas film of all time

person

Elf is one of the most overrated Christmas films of all time

Elf is one of the most overrated Christmas films of all time (Picture: New Line)

It’s Christmas, which means that normal TV is thankfully replaced by an abundance of festive fun. Home Alone 1 and 2, Miracle On 34th Street, Die Hard, Jingle All The Way, I’m ready to watch it all. But, before we all start commanding the remote control, we need to talk about how Elf is the most overrated Christmas film – and maybe just overall movie – of all time. And, instead of spewing me with gifs, telling me that I sit on a throne of lies etc, just take a breath and hear me out.

Buddy the Elf is probably one of the most annoying characters to appear on the big screen. He just is. And that’s no disrespect to Will Ferrell, but a grown man in an Elf costume who eats cotton balls, shouts all the time, breaks into song and bounces around like a high-as-a-kite Tigger is not fun, endearing or cute. Imagine when Christmas is over and he’s still… there.

Also his back story is the most ridiculous thing. I know it’s a film, and it’s Christmas so we should suspend belief just a touch more, but seriously guys… Newborn Buddy is left in an orphanage, then climbs into Santa’s sack undetected, with no one realising at any point that they’re missing a literal baby. And how does Santa not clock there is a child in his bag until he gets back to the North Pole? He presumably has to open said sack to give other people their presents, but he just failed to see a baby? Not buying it.

Editorial use only. No book cover usage. Mandatory Credit: Photo by Alan Markfield/New Line Prods/Kobal/REX (5884647n) Will Ferrell Elf - 2003 Director: Jon Favreau New Line Productions USA Scene Still Elfe

Buddy the Elf is the most annoying character ever (Picture: New Line)

Instead of the elves checking his address in their all-knowing records, they let Buddy build a life for himself in the North Pole, beavering away and making crap Christmas presents. But, in all that time, did no one also stop and suggest to build him some grown-up furniture so he didn’t have to constantly crouch? They’re all elves, building is what they do. The man doesn’t even have a toilet he can fit on.

When he’s eventually told about his parents – after what seems like 30 years as an elf – he just swans off to New York, floating away from his adopted dad on an ice ledge and armed with nothing but a snow globe of the Empire State Building. How did he get there? How does he know the way? How are his clothes not dirty from the journey? Why didn’t he just take Santa’s sleigh? So. Many. Questions.

Suddenly, Buddy is just handed a job at a swanky department store as part of their Christmas display. No CRB, no checks, just letting a grown man off the street – dressed as an elf – in a job where he interacts with children. Police would shut Gimbels down in a hot minute, but it’s a festive film so no one bats an eyelid. While there, he locks eyes on Zooey Deschanel’s character, who is also dressed as an elf (for work) and they have precisely five seconds of banter before she moves on, because Buddy is someone you would swipe past on Tinder, or ghost after precisely three messages. He then walks in on her in the shower, tells her that she makes his tongue swell up (absolutely a euphemism) and takes her on a date to a revolving door. And she still falls madly in love with him. This is how low the bar is for men.

Editorial use only. No book cover usage. Mandatory Credit: Photo by Moviestore/REX (1566358a) Elf, Zooey Deschanel Film and Television

Zooey Deschanel, you’re better than this. (Picture: New Line)

Also, you’re better than this, Zooey Deschanel, and don’t let an overgrown man child dressed like an elf tell you differently.

Buddy’s dad Walter (James Caan) is also a horrible human being. He’s rude, entitled, mean to nuns, has all his priorities in exactly the wrong order, and knowingly shipped a bunch of books out with missing pages like an absolute monster. Yes, this is probably his biggest crime of all. He quite clearly doesn’t want to spend any time with Buddy – or his other son, Michael – as we’ve spent most of the movie seeing.

But then, in a blink-and-you-miss-it character arc, he then becomes a nice guy who remembers he should love his family. All of a sudden, he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and save Christmas. Where the hell did that even come from? In the space of 30 seconds, Walter has gone from the meanest man on the planet to quitting his very good job for a son who puts syrup on their pasta.

Nope, sorry, I do not buy it. Count me out. I honestly love Christmas more than most other people, for me it is the happiest time of the year, but Buddy the Elf and his terrible taste in pasta does nothing for me.

Got a showbiz story?

If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.

Related posts

Nollywood: Audition for pro-NYSC scheme movie debuts in FCT | P.M. News

person

A cross section of participants at the audition for new movie “A Call to Service” in Abuja.

Audition for ‘ A call to Service’, an advocacy movie geared towards promoting core values, Acts and Bye-Laws of the National Youth Service Corps(NYSC), on Saturday, holds in the Federal Capital Territory(FCT).

The youths, including and corps members, seeking acting opportunities, in large number, took part in the audition for the new movie, which held at the Bolingo Hotels.

Mr Jairuspaul Osazuwa, the scriptwriter and producer of the film, said that “A Call to Service” is conceived to promote, tribal tolerance, national peace and unity, which the NYSC scheme champions, NAN reports.

He explained that the audition was to discover corps members that had potential and passion for acting in line with the Skill Acquisition and Entrepreneurship Development ( SAED ) initiative of the scheme.

He noted that Nigeria as a nation has faced a lot of challenges in recent times, and it was imperative to promote things and initiatives that bind citizens inrespective of tribal and religious divides.

“This is the first time a project of this nature and magnitude will be carried out in the history of the NYSC scheme.

“We are glad is it happening now under the Leadership of Brig-Gen. Shuaibu Ibrahim, who is the executive producer of the Film “A Call To Service”.

“The initiative is birthed by the Director-General of the NYSC and it is aimed at projecting the scheme and spread the message of peaceful co-existence and selfless service to fatherland.

“The film will also promote the Acts and Bye-Laws of the scheme by putting the book on screen for effective communication to all stakeholders,” he said.

Osazuwa explained that the star-studded film will feature upcoming and seasoned actors drawn from across the country, including Nollywood veterans Pete Edochie, Ali Nuhu, Imeh Bishop Omoh,( Okon ) Steve Ebor and Bruno Iwuoha.

He disclosed further that Jairuspaul Osazuwa and the D-G of the NYSC will also feature among the cast of ‘A Call to Service.”

According to him, the film will be shot in locations in FCT, Kano and Delta , among others.

NAN reports that NYSC was created on 22 May 1973 , based on decree No. 24 as an avenue for the reconciliation, reconstruction, and rebuilding of the nation after the civil war.

It was created “with a view to encourage and develop common ties among the youth of Nigeria as well as promote national unity.

Under the scheme, young university graduates under the age of 30 are expected to serve their fatherland for one year, known as national service year.

They are posted to states other than their state of origin where they are expected to mix with people from different ethnic groups and learn the culture of the indigenes in the location they are posted to.

This action is aimed at bringing about unity in the country and help the youth appreciate other ethnic groups.

Share this:

Related posts

Pictured: Parents accused of keeping their five-year-old son in cage before scalding him to death | Daily Mail Online

person

The parents accused of keeping their son in a cat cage before scalding him to death have been pictured – as they refuse to take the stand in a murder trial.

Azlin Arujunah and Ridzuan Mega Abdul Rahman, both 27, have been accused of abusing their son at the family home in Singapore three years ago.

The trial, which began on November 12, heard how their five-year-old son had died  in October 2016 after being scalded by 198F (92C) water which had caused burns to 75 per cent of his body.

Azlin Arujunah (right) and Ridzuan Mega Abdul Rahman (left), both 27, have been accused of abusing their son at the family home in Singapore three years ago

High Court judge Valerie Thean today called for the couple to testify but both have said that they ‘do not wish’ to do so.

Rahman’s lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, said that ‘there are reasons why people take the stand or not’ and branded it as a ‘strategic decision’. 

The Deputy Public Prosecutor said: ‘If they choose to take this course, they have to lie where they make their bed,’ according to the Straits Times.

The pair had previously admitted acts of abuse in numerous police statements.

The cat cage that Arujunah and Rahman are accused of keeping their five-year-old son in before his death in October 2016 

The only witnesses for the defence will now be their respective psychologists.

Dr Jacob Rajesh, Arujunah’s psychologist, created a report on how she was suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

And Dr Ken Ung diagnosed Rahman with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hypnotic use disorder and intermittent explosive disorder.

The case is currently being heard at Singapore’s High Court.

On the first day of the trial the court heard how the five-year-old was kept in a cat cage and tortured with heated spoons and pliers for months before he died. 

His death was caused by blows to the head and a deluge of 198F water poured over his back and calves, prosecutors said. 

Pictures of the boy’s injuries were shown on a screen in court.

He had a fracture to his nose and bruising on his limbs, scalp and lips as well as his gums being torn, the pathologist said.

High Court judge Valerie Thean at Singapore’s High Court (pictured) today called for the couple to testify but both have said that they ‘do not wish’ to do so

The child, who has not been named due to a court order, died just a day after he was admitted to hospital. 

A foster family had taken the boy in shortly after his birth in 2011 but he later returned to his biological parents in 2015.  

Singapore’s legal system maintains a mandatory death penalty for a number of offences including murder. 

If found guilty, Arujunah and Rahman could be executed at the gallows in Changi prison.  

Both defendants deny murder and the trial continues. 

Pictured: Parents accused of keeping their five-year-old son in cage before scalding him to death

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Related posts