web
counter
 

His Eyes Are Up Here! Ryan Reynolds Is More Than The Sum Of His Incredibly Well-Toned Parts

By Joanna Robinson | Posted Under Pajiba Love | Comments (26)



Screen-shot-2011-06-16-at-2.43.04-PM.jpeg

You know I want to give you lovin’ spoonfuls of links, my hungry hungry hippos so here’s another edition of It Takes A Village Pajiba Love. It’s the end of the week so kick back, crank up the Rebecca Black and enjoy the best links our readership has to offer. Wait, what’s that Sarah Carlson? Rebecca Black yoinked her video from youtube? NOOOOO!! (LA Times)

Hmmm, well then, my little audiophiles, maybe you should read this excellent piece about how actor Ryan Gosling rescued “You And Me,” the sweet song from the devastating Blue Valentine from obscurity. Thanks, Caspar. (Guardian)

Speaking of Ryans, The Reynoldsy one asks that you not stare directly into his solar plexus. My favorite writer, Mark Lisanti, has a piece about how R Squared would prefer to be known for his more oblique qualities. P.S. This article is picture heavy. Oh, fr-ab-jous day! (The Awl)

That’s rather hard to swallow coming from a man who’s spending the summer clad only in a thin Reynolds Wrap of green CGI, but, okay. Speaking of costumes, check out these “redesigns” Ranting Raven sent my way. Oh, Wonder Woman. PANTS! (Fashionably Geek )

Want an 8-pack like Ryan but are unwilling to give up your drinking habit, my darling dipsomaniacs? Fear not, from the folks who brought you Get Drunk Not Broke, here’s a handy chart of which Adult Beverage packs the most alcoholic punch per calorie. (Get Drunk Not Fat)

That chart is not the most reader friendly. There’s like math, n’ stuff. Can’t we have something easier? Like this Nutrition Label redesign? (GOOD)
www.good.jpeg

To round out this week of “just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water,” I bring you this story of lobsters. Did you know that they essentially live forever and get bloody enormous?. Next time I go a-swimming on the ocean, I’m going to wear these ridiculous gloves. You know, for a speedier getaway. (Firebox)

Don’t think just because you’re on land you’re any safer. Apparently bees (you know, Nature’s Favorite Stabby Thing) have an attitude problem. In the words of b>branded, “The pessimist beees! No, not beeeeeees! My eyedealisms!” (Wired)

Nature’s Favorite Pessimist Thing, Louis CK, gave Slate an excellent interview and makes some interesting points in regards to the Tracy Morgan/homophobia debacle. (Slate)

Gay segue! The UN has passed a ground-breaking resolution related to gay rights. This is where I do a happy dance while also sort of rolling my eyes and saying “About damn time.” I’m complicated. (CNN)

Speaking of politics and complicated, Scully sent me this brilliant article on why the GOP is not at all “conservative” in the traditional sense. It’s a great read. (The Dish)

Refreshingly uncomplicated? These ad campaigns for manly hygiene products. You know, for the downtown area. Unlike with female-centric campaigns, advertisers don’t feel the need to pussy-foot around the subject. And, as Amethyst Anne points out, here are some real products for you gents. Just in time for Father’s Day! (Jezebel)

Just kidding, Dad. I wouldn’t dare. Speaking of Father’s Day, here’s an extensive look at TV Dads throughout the last seven decades. My favorite has to be John Goodman as Dan Connor. (Thanks to David Duchovny, this is mildy NSFW)

Speaking of parenting, do you think Ferris Bueller’s folks totally f*cked up? This video from Dan Carlson of “Ferris Bueller’s Last Day Off” lends some credence to those of you who think that Ferris is kind of a tool.

Watch Terry Gilliam give some fatherly advice to a young girl about what it means to be “derivative.” He works a nice Roland Emmerich burn in. Thanks, Yossarian.

Gilliam cracks me up, but let’s hope he doesn’t ever get too uppity. michaelceratops sent me this delicious FilmDrunk video of film students getting punched in the face. Oh, they so often deserve it.

Joanna Robinson hopes that’s enough for you to chew on my ravenous, ravenous river horses. Happy Father’s Day to all the pops and grandpops out there! May your offspring be quiet and your ties loud.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Hardest Working Person In Hollywood? Megan Fox's Publicist | First Image: Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx in Rock of Ages









Comments

His Eyes Are Up Here! Ryan Reynolds, Is More Than The Sum Of His Incredibly Well-Toned Parts

Shouldn't Rowles have written this?


(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Please forgive me)

Posted by: the_wakeful at June 17, 2011 2:24 PM

God I love Frank Reynolds. Though they should have used the clip from the Christmas special where he buys Dennis and Dee's most desired gifts for himself.

Posted by: Julie at June 17, 2011 2:26 PM

That Gilliam clip was amazing. My favorite bit was not the (well deserved) Emmerich bashing, but when he says "why not?" when the girl doesn't know what derivative means. When I was a kid, I hated being talked down to by adults, and I appreciate that he's not willing to do that here.

Posted by: Socraz6 at June 17, 2011 3:20 PM

If he doesn't want me looking at his awesome abs, he shouldn't show them to me so often. They are awesome, though.

Posted by: Slash at June 17, 2011 3:23 PM

Also, is it really news that Republicans aren't conservative? They're against most actually conservative ideas. Seriously, why does anybody listen to what they say anymore?

Posted by: Slash at June 17, 2011 3:26 PM

Did Archie Bunker say "groinacologist"? Because that may become my new favorite word.

Also, Michael Landon had fantastic hair.

Posted by: Slash at June 17, 2011 3:42 PM

It's like Little Feathered Mane On The Prairie up there.

Posted by: Forever Jung at June 17, 2011 3:45 PM

I haven't seen this mentioned here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43398315/ns/us_news-giving/

I'm sure everyone loves those adorable ginger twins from the Harry Potter movies, right? Enjoy.

Posted by: snapnhiss at June 17, 2011 3:45 PM

Not all Republicans are the same. Bashing them all as if they are is not useful. I happen to know several Rep's who are Pro-Choice, Pro-gay rights, Pro-environment (militantly), Pro-Gun control, and are the polar OPPOSITE of Religious. They also pay little or no attention to the foibles of the loudmouths on the TeeVee/radio whose endless supply of verbal diarrhea make it seem as if the entire Right has lost its damn mind. Divisive rhetoric only serves to put people on the defensive, and that leads only to more lashing out. Even the moderates flee to the warm embrace of the party when under percieved attack. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at June 17, 2011 4:14 PM

I didn't just post a bad bee pun. You are welcome.

Posted by: fracas at June 17, 2011 4:19 PM

I mean, ignoring Ryan Reynolds's breasteses is about as possible as ignoring Christina Hendricks's.

Saw Hendricks in Company at NY Phil, playing the bimbo stewardess last night. Damn, them is some big breasteses.

Posted by: Jerry at June 17, 2011 5:07 PM

LOBSTERS!
BEES!
I'm enthusiastic but lazy.

Also, yay Phelps twins! Thanks snapnhiss.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at June 17, 2011 5:50 PM

Republicans also drink the blood of babies and use kitten pelts for the lining of their expensive suits. They're pure evil on the hoof, I tell you.

Posted by: Slash at June 17, 2011 5:56 PM

So, Lindsey, what part of the Republican platform exactly do these friends of yours agree with, and thus consider themselves Republican? I'm really trying not to be an asshole because I love you, but I am genuinely curious.

And please don't say "They just don't think the government should spend so much," because if they're really pro-choice, then they should be for funding Planned Parenthood to the excessively tiny degree it gets funded, since PP really mainly promotes birth control, which actually cuts down on the number of a) people who receive welfare for all their various chirr'uns and b) the need for funding schools. And if they're really rabidly pro-environment, then they should agree that the only way that we're going to move towards sounder environmental policies is if the big bad government puts money into renewable energy resource infrastructure, the same way the government has spent billions and billions of dollars building endless highways and propping up the oil industry for the last 70 or something years. If they really are NOT pro-religious, then how can they justify the government funneling our tax money into FAITH-based initiatives and charities without reservation, while withholding funding from any organization that doesn't adhere to the strict moral code of the fundies?

Just sayin'.

Posted by: MM at June 17, 2011 7:46 PM

I agree with MM. You can't just say you're a Republican and disagree with every major Republican platform of the last 30 years.

Posted by: John G. at June 17, 2011 8:59 PM

So, paraphrasing: "You can't say you're a Republican without agreeing with a bunch of things I think 'Republican' means, without myself being one."

Hold still folks, while I paint you with a disagreeable brush, then complain about the colors you wear. This isn't even good blood sport. Y'all can please do better because this is boring.

Fact is, with one government and two parties if you want to play you're in league with a lot of unsavory folks. Along with agreeing with this position or that, one might in fact disagree with the other guys even more. You pick a party as the lesser of two evils, and join a party to get a seat at the table at all.

I am, however, a fan of babies' blood and kitten-fur lined suits. Also of dining on endangered species roasted over bristlecone pine and sauced with the sweat of small children.

I don't think this is a partisan issue.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at June 17, 2011 9:27 PM

Well, Bierce, she named five (5) stated party positions that her friends *agree* with the Democrats on, where the official, stated Republican positions are the *exact opposite*. She named zero (0) party positions which they agree with Republicans on.

So, I have to ask, why does she feel her friends consider themselves "Republican"? (Her/their label, not mine.) They could call themselves Libertarian or Independent. Yes, I realize that's a losing game in our country right now, but if you're really being true to your beliefs, and you don't agree with at least 50% of one party or the other's platform, shouldn't you at least acknowledge that?

Posted by: MM at June 17, 2011 9:41 PM

I know you are not an asshole MM. The only reason I even chime in is because I get so sick of the hateful rhetoric that comes from BOTH sides. Just because someone finds themselves on the conservative OR liberal side of the fence, does not mean they drink the kool-aid. The demonization of an entire political party isn't productive. The sneering accusations against 'Tax and spend liberals' are no more tasteful than the eyerolling contempt directed at anyone who dares identify as a conservative.
One example I can cite is a very long time friend of mine who is a successful blogger, and author. He has embedded as a freelance with the Marines in Iraq many times, and has earned the respect of those he writes about. He is an award winning blogger (beating out the likes of Juan Cole easily and without vitriol), gets invited to address US gov organizations , like the CIA, and runs around the world with the likes of Christopher Hitchens. He is a Republican partially because of the Left's frighteningly naive positions on foreign policy that he actually KNOWS something about, far more than the asinine talking heads in the media. He also is personally opposed to abortion, but does not want to live in a society where it is illegal, which is pretty much exactly Al Gore's position of "Safe, legal, and rare". He is in no way religious, and has seen first hand boots-on-the-ground the effects of Ethnic cleansing and religious war both in the Balkans and the Middle East. I also know for a fact that he would have voted for Hilary Clinton in a hot minute if she had made it on the ticket. His POV is informed, rational, and worthy of respect.

Example 2, my father. A buisness owner, he is a fiscal conservative, and has long identified with the traditional smaller gov model of the Republican party. He is also a MILITANT environmentalist and spends the bulk of his retirement volunteering for the National Parks service. He has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars being donated to The Sierra Club, and other organizations. He believes in strict gun control and is flat out scornful of religion. He is a very scientific minded person, and so irritated by "Intelligent Design" he can hardly cope with it. He would never treat anyone poorly because of their sexual orientation, but his position on gay marriage is undergoing some evolution. If one of his children or now grandchildren turned out to be gay, I have no doubt he would be completely supportive. He can be an asshole, but it isn't because he is a Republican. He is an incredibly smart person, and HIS POV deserves respect.

Example 3: A close friend of mine in his early 30's. Multiple college degrees, world traveler, loving caring and kind. He is active in the local Republican party and identifies as a conservative. He informs me that NONE of the other members of the University Republicans club that he is involved with (getting another Bachelors in Engineering ) are at all interested in what they call "Social Issues". He has gay friends, has no time for all the nonsense about religious claptrap, and is pro-choice. He is also pro-public transportation, and has a dog in the fight as his job deals with building things like bridges, freeways, light rail, etc... Aside from a bad talk-radio habit which occasionally causes him to participate in some thinking errors (which I call him out on REAL DAMN QUICK), his POV is worthy of respect.

All Three think the Tea Party is completely ridiculous. NONE of them are "1 topic voters." You absolutely CAN be a member of a political party and disagree with SOME or even ALL of the major talking points/issues that get whipped up into supercells of nonsense by a few loudmouths on TV. Just as you can be a member of a party and be unimpressed with the candidates offered on your ticket.

I prefer people not make uninformed generalized assumptions about what MY opinions and positions on various topics are, so I try to return the favor. It is a shame that the frothing at the mouth media industry in this country has polarized politics into such an "Us and THEM" battle that people are almost always on the defensive. It is also a shame that whipping up anger and hatred against "the other guy" is the go to move of politics.
As usual, "In politics, the party in power becomes intolerable and the party out of power becomes insane." (I cannot for the life of me remember whom I am para-quoting there)

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at June 17, 2011 10:26 PM

I now see your comment right before mine. I know at least one WOULD be a Libertarian, but since that party has no useful applications in the world, he is Republican. I know for a fact that my dad was an independent for decades, but he got tired of never having a vote in the primary's. I believe the other would be Independent, but he likes being a member of stuff and participating. Here in Portland, a Republican is essentially a conservative Democrat anyway. It is not so far fetched in this environment.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at June 17, 2011 10:33 PM

Lindsey with an 'e', I keep trying to pen a brief defense of Sullivan, but I can’t frame it succinctly and my writing’s deteriorating as I get tired, so this’ll be...the best I can do. (Other Dish readers, please jump in too, yea or nay.)

When Sullivan refers to “the GOP” and “Republicans” in this and many other posts where he rails against the use of the word ‘conservative’ to describe current GOP talking points, he’s talking about the elites, the party spokesmen, official and un---the people who publicly claim to define and defend conservatism as an ideology while putting it into legislative practice. They say they’re the experts on what it means to be a conservative while proposing incredibly non-conservative fiscal (and social) ideas. He’s riled up about Pawlenty’s tax plan, Ryan’s healthcare, Norquist’s ban on revenue increases. In other posts, he takes on Limbaugh, Beck, Gingrich, Romney, occasionally Hannity, & of course he’s got a real hate on for Pain.

Is it only because he’s an academic/elitist himself that he’s not including Republican voters when he objects to the party line? or is that a tacit acknowledgment that the leadership is disconnected from conservatism as practiced on the ground by individuals? Answer might not be noble, but as far as the definition of conservatism goes, the groundlings just don’t matter to him: whether it’s because he doesn’t stoop low enough to look at them, or that they’re not making as much noise as the VIPs are, or that they’re not rising up against those VIPs en masse in condemnation and rejecting their crazy, voting them out in swathes and canceling their shows.

Sullivan actively looks & cheers for GOP conservatives who fit his definition: Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Tom Coburn, & Roy J. McDonald have all been lauded.

Guy’s a gay married Catholic who loathes Pope Benedict and is incensed by the beatification of JP2; I promise he understands this kind of cognitive dissonance. He’s got plenty of faults, but his brush isn’t as broad as it may look here, and I can only recommend you go read some Dish: see if you find something that grabs you on his roundup page:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/week24/index.html

Posted by: Salieri2 at June 18, 2011 1:23 AM

My Example #1 up there? He was one of Sullivan's go-to guest bloggers when Sully is on vacation. I wasn't really addressing the linked piece from PL, but more the comments that were a bit off-putting to someone like me who actually knows better than to paint all Reps with the same tar and feathers. I find it ugly and unnecessary, and while I am not going to defend the behavior of the Republican party, I will attempt to point out that it is unfair and short sighted to assume they are all THE DEVIL. It is in the news media's best interest to keep people all whipped up and angry, and people are stressed out in their own lives as it is, so politics is a great place to project all that anger. Next to driving like an asshole, commenting on the internet seems like the great outlet of pent up rage these days. I used to be one of the most prominent (or at least prolific) commenters on this site, and shit like this has just driven me off. I just don't see how any good can come of participating in the endless cycle of hate that is perpetuated by people who make money off of enraged viewership.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at June 18, 2011 2:09 AM

Fortunately, commenting like an asshole (and yes, I'm including me) on the Internet has, thus far, killed fewer people than driving like an asshole.

I definitely agree that there is an endless cycle of hate that it is in a very, very narrow group of people's interests to keep rolling, and it benefits no one.

Posted by: MM at June 18, 2011 2:31 AM

Keep working ,splendid job!
free live wallpaper

Posted by: Luigi Fulk at July 5, 2011 4:02 PM

I carry on listening to the reports speak about getting free online grant applications so I have been looking around for the finest site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i find some?

Posted by: Matthew C. Kriner at July 7, 2011 8:10 PM

Keep working ,impressive job!
free live wallpaper

Posted by: Andrew Pelt at July 11, 2011 7:39 PM

Check out my compilation album I did together with my music production with J-Stalin, AP-9, Sweet Geez, City Side Crew and so much more bay area rappers.

Posted by: DJ Taylormade at August 4, 2011 3:34 PM