NEWS: Kirsten Dunst is a Stoner

i loved it!

I'm 24 and I still brag that my father is one of the top men in his field.

Sorry, but being a stoner still doesn't make up for having starred in Bring It On. Call me when she's moved on to crack or meth, then (maybe) i'll be willing to forgive.

I'd say it's (pot) better than alcohol. Not to good for being productive but you don't get all "riled up" like you can while drinking.

Just chill.

Wrong.

Virgin Suicides. Awful. Marie Antoinette. Gaudy. Lick the Star. Fiveteen minute IFC bowel movement.

Ebert enjoys tons of shitty movies, so linking me to one four star review of his (while he lied on his cancer bed doped up to all hell) really doesn't mean a whole fucking lot.

this just in, most people don't care if people smoke weed or not

Everyone's a goddamned critic.

It never ceases to amaze me that entertainers should be constantly criticized for their career choices, as if somehow their decisions have the same weight as those of politicians and business leaders or as if they have the luxury of picking and choosing their roles at the age of eighteen. If you take a look at her career, doing Bring it On was probably the exact right career move for Dunst. After ridiculous child star success, she goes into a five year slump during her teenage years with either flop big studio pics like Dick and Small Soldiers) or cult indies that never picked up steam like Virgin Suicides and Drop Dead Gorgeous or TV movies. Then along comes Bring It On, which was extremely successful and probably had more than a little to do with her getting Spider-Man.

Four percent of all working actors make enough acting to live above the poverty line. Two percent make enough to live a "middle class" lifestyle. So I can't blame any actor who grabs what they can when they can, especially if it frees them up to pursue the projects the want to do. My last acting coach on the last year he acted for a living before moving into education went to over 200 auditions. He'd get a commercial that would pay his rent and food for a month so he could go audition twenty times and get an Off-Broadway role that would, with his supplemental income from being a night watchmen, pay the rent for a month so he could go auditon twenty times... and so forth. So if all of the sudden an actor's name is worth something, they have to cash in while they can or it could just as easily slip away and they're back to doing car commercials and walk-ons on Hangin' with Mr. Cooper.

I mean, hell, if you offered me a lead role in a $10 million film starring Carrot Top and Tom Green and it was a live action adaptation of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs directed by Uwe Boll with music by Nickelback, I'd fucking take it, no questions asked. If it involved someone who'd actually won Oscars and, I'd probably come in my pants.

Quality isn't determined by consensus. Generally, the only real value Rotten Tomatoes has is that it acts as a clearinghouse of links to real, actual, full reviews. The aggregation index doesn't mean shit. For *any* movie.

The Ebert review is only meaningful because every reason he lists for loving Marie Antoinette is correct.

It was kind of meant as a joke actually. I do hate that film, but I still think Kirsten a total babe.

It had less to do with you and more to do with a general attitude people have towards actors who've had any sort of success.