newswipe was also trying to make the point that it's harder to criticise celebrities because they can get away with more the spokes persons because the people interviewing them don’t wont them too leave because they don’t just wont to talk about the charities
Jude Law seems to think that no one should have a go at any thing critical or cynical about any thing bad. OH and I didn’t know this but Jude Law gave all his money to charity nice bloke, that or he's a massive hypocrite
I seriously doubt people like Angelina Jolie or Jude would do these things for charity if they knew it would have no bearing on their careers or public persona. But why do we need Celebrities getting involved in these things, when ultimately the message has been used for celebrity gain or lost completely in order to build on a celebrites profile. I know this says more about our society, but they play towards this and the media have manipulated this without restraint for years.
Charlie Brooker is funny and often shockingly accurate but he also makes attacks without being in possession of salient facts because it is his job to be controversial, and to be funny at other peoples' expense.
That is the life he inhabits and I'm sure he feels as uncomfortable with that deep down as people like me thinks he should.
He should go out there himself and learn these things first hand and then maybe lend his fame to a cause which can make many lives slightly better.
You know what people. You can still have your negative views about jude law, and generally i do, or used to. He seemed genuine, and yeah perhaps the tint of, "this is for my good looks" was in there. Generally though wouldn't you? I mean you're suggesting that you wouldn't make yourself look good to do something good? The fact is people are so cynical being born with the media as their demon. So if the only way to attract more people is by being a slave to the idiots. Do it. as long as it's FAGC
I don't usually criticize people for mispronouncing words but the solemn, poignant expression on his face when he reveals his ability to part the seas of conflict by reminding the world that a day of 'cessTation' exists was way too tragic. Nice t-shirt/jacket too...
Jude comes off in this interview as smart and well-informed...and so what if he has opinions and goes on a "rant" (which wasn't really what that was at all, to be honest...) We all do it. The only difference is that he's in the public eye. If he wants to offer an opinion on an issue or an organization or even a person, he should be able to do it just as the rest of us are.
Jude Law seems to think that he's the British Noam Chomsky or something. He seems good natured enough, but Jude, we don't need you and your celebrity friends to know what's going on in the world.
We find it hard to raise funds without people like "Angie"?? I work in the charity sector (for a small NGO) and can vouch that it is definitely not an imperative to have celebrity backing. It can be useful, but we wouldn't find it hard to run without them like Jude thinks.
As articulate as Jude is he doesn't talk about the celebs whose motives are far from sincere when involved with charity work. Around March/April this year there were some strong rumours circulating that a U.S publication was working on breaking a story of a David Beckham U.S affair (s). In May when The Sun had the Beckham in Afghanistan exclusive it did not suprise me in the slightest. That is one celeb whose motives to me are truly transparent.
jude law seems deluded by the fact that people dont like actors or musicians telling them about donating money to charity on the sole idea that its because there famous it has nothing to do with that i resent people who have more money than the majority of people will see in a life time berating me to donate money. and the idea is totaly fucking idiotic as if the taliban will wind up and go oh yeah lets all have a cease fire for a day i mean he calims they did but how do they know ?
we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where, what a fucking idiot
Chuffing flip, I'm going to defend Law and 'Peace One Day', Jeremy Gillick's take on using 'celebrity names' to tap into the mainstream media is fair game, if they were merely a dilligant hard working polio eradication charity, would the tabloids be interested? I doubt it, however, slap Angelina in a headscarf and snap her fondling some orphan and it's a front page cover.
I do find it odd that Brooker and Hyde themselves become celebrities in their condemnation of bigger celebrities...
I have to agree with everything that Jude said because everyone on here feels that celebrities are idiots and that certain issues shouldn't need celebrity support but if you think about it who else is going to give to these charities.I don't see anyone on here who commented giving to these charities and I don't see any of them making a difference.People like Jude, Angelina and Bono are using the $ that they earned and worked so hard on not on themselves or crap like rappers do, but to charity.
charlie brooker was right and this is the proof jude laws only real argument agaisnt what was said was the money she would of made from the book is it really more than the producer/editer/director/star paycheck he recieved plus he totally used his fame to piggy back credit off the people who really did the work and not just smiled at the camera as it was done
...but to be fair, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, especially the music. I had to track down tons of it, 'cause a lot was omitted from the actual soundtrack. :~)
The fact of the matter is that whatever they say, I can't help but doubt the pure motive behind celebrity charity work - most of them probably do do it for the good PR. Some people without the privilege of celebrity devote ALL of their time to charity work, and they deserve far more praise. And Jude Law is a bit of a bell-end.
I am so fucking sick of pseudo-intellectuals droning on and on about clockwork fucking orange. It isn't clever. There is nothing clever about it. It isn't a scathing indictment of society or a laconic expression of our attitudes of casual violence and governmental manipulation. It is a shock film. That is all it fucking is. If you want to pontificate over a shock film then go and watch 2 girls 1 cup and harp on about its dry critique of a post recycling society. It'll have just as much validity.
Charlie Brooker is undoubtedly the messiah, but Jude's heart seems to be in mostly the right place. Although he may not see himself as the famous face to tag along to give it a higher profile, I fear that's why he was asked to be part of it in the first place.
Jude Law is a good guy. He's right about the right-wing cynics and slags who put down celebs for using their fame for better purposes than just lining their own pockets. Keep doing what your doing mate.
Jude Law needs to question the 'society in which' a charitable organisation NEEDS a famous-face in order to get funds, rather than taking it for granted and calling what he does 'hard work'.
The world is celebrity obsessed, fact! I hate that shit, but it's true. What I hate more is teen celeb Yuppie Larvae!
BUT, if a small charity gets a little attention from the aid of a celeb, more power to 'em. Yeah its mutually benificial at the end of the day, but if something good comes of it, fuckit, that's great! It's human nature to Pooh-pooh someone that's making something of themselves.
If you're neighbour bought himself a new ferrari 9/10 people would call him a c*nt for no reason
It's the hypocrisy of the thing that bothers me with celebs these days. Fair play to Bono, he does a lot for charity....but when someone buys a pair of sunglasses for more than i earn in a year, and then asks me to put my hand in my pocket to give to the needy, it galls me.
Paul Byrne has balls the size of melons, serious props to the guy for daring to ask the questions that others wouldn't dare. Rock and roll Mr. Byrne, rock and roll indeed.
I can't say I've ever had an opinion of Jude Law one way or the other, but I think he comes across as a decent bloke here, well-informed, and with some interesting opinions. I do adore Charlie Brooker, though.
Well I enjoy both Charlie Brooker's and Marina Hyde's work in the guardian, but i don't think that this could be classed as a rant, more of a rebuttal. I think what the newswipe segment was showing wasn't just cynicism about Law doing good, rather than the creepy hero worship from Jeremy Gilley. Watch it, he will make your skin crawl. But that's not Jude's fault and he has a point about charities and their struggles to stay afloat without endorsement. That is a sad indictment of our culture.
Celebrities who help charities arent doing anything wrong. Fair enough, many celebrities help charities to boost their own profiles but plenty more help out for the right reasons. The fact that charities rely on celebrities to raise awareness for their cause says more about society itself than it does about the actors involved. Bono and Angelina Jolie work so hard on projects that take over their own careers, they don't do to feed their own egos. Its a bit unfair to write them all off
I think Jude has some valid points, however Charlie's points to me seemed more a criticism of society as a whole manifested in a dig at the celebs, as per newswipe's role.
marina hyde is sharp but conceited. charlie brooker, despite his misanthropic vitriol, generally appreciates good where it's done. i think jude law probably does have the best intentions, but that doesn't stop him coming across as a bit of a bell-end.
Wow, that was a truly fantastic interview and interviewer. Very very good questions and a great rapport between them. You can tell that they're kind of relieve to actually have a stimulating discussion with someone who isn't an orange american idiot asking factuous, pointless questions.
I love both Jude and Charlie Brooker..but I think I may be Team Jude with this one. That said, I agree with Charlie.
Jude, I think, is one of those few celebrities who genuine and actually cares, and this is the reason is he actively involved in the Peace One Day project.
And, just to be shallow, Jude is looking gorgeous these days. <3 :D
People forget that the Charlie Brooker on Screenwipe/Newswipe is a character. He's not really that cynical and bitter in real life. I don't think Brooker dislikes Jude Law in any way. Plus, as everyone has already said, the point wasn't to insult these celebrities point blank, it was to point out that we shouldn't need celebrities to care about said charities.
Brooker is an excellent presenter and Hyde an excellent columnist.
Law makes a point about how they castigate him for being part of this charity or whatever, but at the end of the day, if he donated just 10% of what he earns to it, that would do more good than what he does for them now. Putting in his "time" and "effort".
It really bugs me when celebs like him think they are helping the world by appearing on posters and tv, whilst they swim in their pool of cash. Sickening.
I can't believe they mentioned all those different movies, and not fucking REPO!: the genetic opera, of which this movie is a dumbed-down bland un-aesthetic re-hash.
All three have completely missed the point and Law's a bit retarded.
I shall be attacked for this, but actors tend to be idiots they are protected by this little shell of celebrity and think that anything they do that isn't about themselves is for charity or for the good of "mankind",
"Oh look i sorted out the rubbish for recycling...Im savng the earth"
Charlie Brooker is correct because they purely do these things to help their profile
fuck him for Alfie and Fuck him for being a completly pretentious prick
Charlie Brooker just got destroyed. What now you fat headed mewling cabbage? Are you going to make a sneering sarcastic apology? Or just ignore it and hope no one notices how a pouting pretty boy utterly demolished your hackneyed, empty career. I hope the next time you have to answer the phone to Marina Hyde at 3am, bawling about how her father never liked her, you tell her she's a miserable, worthless cunt too. kthxbye.
@SethMcFartlane Really? You don't think Jude made personal insults about people who make far far less money than him for not directing public attention to how great they are @ charity? 'caue that's how it looked to me.
Plus Charlie Brooker is as (or more) popular as ever, because he knows truth from lies.
@impcirca1988 No, what I thought he was saying is, they didn't have to say anything at all. And besides, what was Marina's motivation besides getting attention for herself by speaking disdain of the rich and famous? If we want to talk truth, how about the truth behind Marina? Right, nobody cares.
@impcirca1988 I kind of agree with that. He makes it sounds she makes a fortune but she probably doesn't, she certainly won't be as rich as him, what right has he got to criticize her for keeping the money she earned? I don't mean to sound like a selfish Conservative/Republican but why should someone HAVE to give away loads of money to charity when they haven't got much more than they need?
What jude law does appear to be missing is the fact that charities and issues shouldn't NEED celebrity support to be seen as important or, actually, to be seen at all. That we live in a culture that's so celebrity obsessed, we see their actions and thoughts as more important than the those of the campaigners, NGO's and politicians who do the real work. I think that's the point Charlie Brooker and Marina Hyde were trying to make.
@fallingstar169 Absolutely agree. Law makes a good point that charities need to have celebrity figureheads in order to be recognised, but this doesn't negate the wider point that Brooker and Hyde were making: It's sad we seem to need an actor to reassure us that a certain cause is worthy of our attention.
@faraday200 Isn't that more of an indictment about the public? If the public responded to charity needs without celeb involvement, then celebs would not be needed. That's hardly reason to make fools of the celes for what they do. Truth is, it's a two-edged sword; when a celeb fronts for a charity, they're accused of doing it for attention. When they are involved privately, without public fanfare, they are blamed for being shallow and ignoring societies problems.
@faraday200 But what point is that? Seems the real point is that it's on the shoulders of the public, and not the celebrities, that charities/causes must use celebrity to grab attention. Jeremy Gilliam tried for nearly 10 years to get attention for Peace One Day. Why did it take so long? Was that Jude's fault?
@faraday200 Exactly this: they seem to have misinterpreted a criticism of modern celebrity-obsessed culture as an actual personal attack on them for doing something worthwhile. Now, to insinuate that they only heard about the article, or only saw their name & that it was a critique & then drew their opinions without actually reading it would be rather churlish of me - especially if I then went on to imply that this rather shows a staggering level of self obsession.
@fallingstar169 But why blame the celebs for the public's lack of interest without a celebrity front? You, Marina, CB are assigning "blame" to the wrong side of the issue. I wouldn't say that issue is lost on JL, only that he can't change it. There's nothing wrong with celebs as spokespersons, they are visible and able to bring attention, and so the fact that some participate in this, that some really do care about our world, is good. It doesn't make them better or worse, just good citizens.
@fallingstar169 i agree that those people doing the work should get more attention, but I think jude law is being realistic. What most westerners care about is celebrity, at least that's what the press has conditioned them to care about. It massively raises the profile of charities they support.
@fallingstar169 I think Marine Hyde is just a stupid gossip, but I do see your point. I don't think Jude Law would deny the fact that charities should be recognised on their own terms, but since we don't live in a world like that, I applaud the work people like him and Angelina Jolie do.
Oh, and I'd say Forest is zen-like because he hasn't been attacked for doing good. There's nothing wrong with a difference in personalities, too. Forest is low-key, Jude is animated...and interesting.
Go Jude, Go! He's right. Why would you put down the good things that people do. There are plenty of other things to rag on. If we put down the good things what are we left with?
newswipe was also trying to make the point that it's harder to criticise celebrities because they can get away with more the spokes persons because the people interviewing them don’t wont them too leave because they don’t just wont to talk about the charities
255ad 1 year ago 16
Jude Law seems to think that no one should have a go at any thing critical or cynical about any thing bad. OH and I didn’t know this but Jude Law gave all his money to charity nice bloke, that or he's a massive hypocrite
255ad 1 year ago 20
I seriously doubt people like Angelina Jolie or Jude would do these things for charity if they knew it would have no bearing on their careers or public persona. But why do we need Celebrities getting involved in these things, when ultimately the message has been used for celebrity gain or lost completely in order to build on a celebrites profile. I know this says more about our society, but they play towards this and the media have manipulated this without restraint for years.
Mattgotsoul 1 year ago
Charlie Brooker is funny and often shockingly accurate but he also makes attacks without being in possession of salient facts because it is his job to be controversial, and to be funny at other peoples' expense.
That is the life he inhabits and I'm sure he feels as uncomfortable with that deep down as people like me thinks he should.
He should go out there himself and learn these things first hand and then maybe lend his fame to a cause which can make many lives slightly better.
sc400575 1 year ago
You know what people. You can still have your negative views about jude law, and generally i do, or used to. He seemed genuine, and yeah perhaps the tint of, "this is for my good looks" was in there. Generally though wouldn't you? I mean you're suggesting that you wouldn't make yourself look good to do something good? The fact is people are so cynical being born with the media as their demon. So if the only way to attract more people is by being a slave to the idiots. Do it. as long as it's FAGC
thedeadloader 1 year ago
I don't usually criticize people for mispronouncing words but the solemn, poignant expression on his face when he reveals his ability to part the seas of conflict by reminding the world that a day of 'cessTation' exists was way too tragic. Nice t-shirt/jacket too...
topjolly 1 year ago 9
i intensely dislike Marina Hydes contributions to the Guardian.
cooljules19 1 year ago 4
Starts talking about the subject @ 6:20
Just bumping it up, because it is so TL;DR
DSQueenie 1 year ago 80
shut up dude !!! booooring, charlie brooker is groovy right all the time man
oldudereeno 1 year ago
Jude comes off in this interview as smart and well-informed...and so what if he has opinions and goes on a "rant" (which wasn't really what that was at all, to be honest...) We all do it. The only difference is that he's in the public eye. If he wants to offer an opinion on an issue or an organization or even a person, he should be able to do it just as the rest of us are.
xoxokimberly1 1 year ago 17
good for him. he's got the money. he's using it help others.
sLAUGHTER115 1 year ago
Brooker is the man !
itchcitizen2 1 year ago
I agree with Jude on this one :P
blondgurl9 1 year ago 2
Jude Law looks a lot like Eminem in the poster!
neil865 1 year ago
Jude Law seems to think that he's the British Noam Chomsky or something. He seems good natured enough, but Jude, we don't need you and your celebrity friends to know what's going on in the world.
YourTubeSpellChecker 1 year ago
jude missin the point with brooker
antonb1983 1 year ago
We find it hard to raise funds without people like "Angie"?? I work in the charity sector (for a small NGO) and can vouch that it is definitely not an imperative to have celebrity backing. It can be useful, but we wouldn't find it hard to run without them like Jude thinks.
RobinDylanJones 1 year ago
is jude law a robot, at 6:25 ive never seen anyone stay still for so long
antipop55 1 year ago
I think you'll find it's 'Brooker' not 'Booker'
b0b1919 1 year ago
What a waste of time, there wasn't a single mention of Brooker in that video.
ScrewAttackEurope 1 year ago
As articulate as Jude is he doesn't talk about the celebs whose motives are far from sincere when involved with charity work. Around March/April this year there were some strong rumours circulating that a U.S publication was working on breaking a story of a David Beckham U.S affair (s). In May when The Sun had the Beckham in Afghanistan exclusive it did not suprise me in the slightest. That is one celeb whose motives to me are truly transparent.
addyads75 1 year ago
jude law seems deluded by the fact that people dont like actors or musicians telling them about donating money to charity on the sole idea that its because there famous it has nothing to do with that i resent people who have more money than the majority of people will see in a life time berating me to donate money. and the idea is totaly fucking idiotic as if the taliban will wind up and go oh yeah lets all have a cease fire for a day i mean he calims they did but how do they know ?
jdofb 1 year ago
Maybe I would have some respect for Jude Law, if he didn't just call Angelina Jolie Angie, no, but I wouldn't, not really...
rastabus 1 year ago
Charlie Brooker is right about everything.
SwingRiots 1 year ago
we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where we live in a society where, what a fucking idiot
marleymike2 1 year ago
I can see where Jude is coming from and I surpose it does help get attention but they all do it for such well known charities so it seems pointless.
If they really do care why not just anonymously send loads of money.
The reason they do "celebrity charity work" is because they want everyone to know the good work they are doing.
AliasNeo92 1 year ago
Chuffing flip, I'm going to defend Law and 'Peace One Day', Jeremy Gillick's take on using 'celebrity names' to tap into the mainstream media is fair game, if they were merely a dilligant hard working polio eradication charity, would the tabloids be interested? I doubt it, however, slap Angelina in a headscarf and snap her fondling some orphan and it's a front page cover.
I do find it odd that Brooker and Hyde themselves become celebrities in their condemnation of bigger celebrities...
MontagueBurton 1 year ago 2
its not political it just involves the un and politics
n2488 1 year ago
I have to agree with everything that Jude said because everyone on here feels that celebrities are idiots and that certain issues shouldn't need celebrity support but if you think about it who else is going to give to these charities.I don't see anyone on here who commented giving to these charities and I don't see any of them making a difference.People like Jude, Angelina and Bono are using the $ that they earned and worked so hard on not on themselves or crap like rappers do, but to charity.
kikiV222 1 year ago 2
charlie brooker was right and this is the proof jude laws only real argument agaisnt what was said was the money she would of made from the book is it really more than the producer/editer/director/star paycheck he recieved plus he totally used his fame to piggy back credit off the people who really did the work and not just smiled at the camera as it was done
darthrandal316 1 year ago
...but to be fair, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie, especially the music. I had to track down tons of it, 'cause a lot was omitted from the actual soundtrack. :~)
The420Gov 1 year ago
jude is clever and simple!! :DD well i think we dont know yet .. jajajaj
myfavoritejuice 1 year ago
The fact of the matter is that whatever they say, I can't help but doubt the pure motive behind celebrity charity work - most of them probably do do it for the good PR. Some people without the privilege of celebrity devote ALL of their time to charity work, and they deserve far more praise. And Jude Law is a bit of a bell-end.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
I am so fucking sick of pseudo-intellectuals droning on and on about clockwork fucking orange. It isn't clever. There is nothing clever about it. It isn't a scathing indictment of society or a laconic expression of our attitudes of casual violence and governmental manipulation. It is a shock film. That is all it fucking is. If you want to pontificate over a shock film then go and watch 2 girls 1 cup and harp on about its dry critique of a post recycling society. It'll have just as much validity.
BGH122 1 year ago 2
Charlie Brooker is undoubtedly the messiah, but Jude's heart seems to be in mostly the right place. Although he may not see himself as the famous face to tag along to give it a higher profile, I fear that's why he was asked to be part of it in the first place.
Misishaxi 1 year ago
Jude Law is a good guy. He's right about the right-wing cynics and slags who put down celebs for using their fame for better purposes than just lining their own pockets. Keep doing what your doing mate.
JoeStunner 1 year ago 3
Fuck Rotten Tomatoes, its a great movie
chaosteddy 1 year ago
Jude Law needs to question the 'society in which' a charitable organisation NEEDS a famous-face in order to get funds, rather than taking it for granted and calling what he does 'hard work'.
MetaCraken 1 year ago
8:55 Did Jude Law just spite in the studio? What a class act.
PrometheanRunGood 1 year ago
The world is celebrity obsessed, fact! I hate that shit, but it's true. What I hate more is teen celeb Yuppie Larvae!
BUT, if a small charity gets a little attention from the aid of a celeb, more power to 'em. Yeah its mutually benificial at the end of the day, but if something good comes of it, fuckit, that's great! It's human nature to Pooh-pooh someone that's making something of themselves.
If you're neighbour bought himself a new ferrari 9/10 people would call him a c*nt for no reason
DirectedBySteve 1 year ago 3
It's the hypocrisy of the thing that bothers me with celebs these days. Fair play to Bono, he does a lot for charity....but when someone buys a pair of sunglasses for more than i earn in a year, and then asks me to put my hand in my pocket to give to the needy, it galls me.
Jude Law is a prick anyway, simply for Alfie.
d245470k 1 year ago
Jude law is awesome
Serbitar 1 year ago
WHEN someone does good things, it doesn't matter celebrity or not, but if you do it because you have heart and Jude has got.
BABIROCKSVIDEOES 1 year ago
Paul Byrne has balls the size of melons, serious props to the guy for daring to ask the questions that others wouldn't dare. Rock and roll Mr. Byrne, rock and roll indeed.
hippotoast 1 year ago
I can't say I've ever had an opinion of Jude Law one way or the other, but I think he comes across as a decent bloke here, well-informed, and with some interesting opinions. I do adore Charlie Brooker, though.
unfashionablymyself 1 year ago 23
Paul Byrne. You sir are the best Irish film journalist we have. Fantastic questions and some pair of balls. Keep it up
gibboanx 1 year ago 17
he starts talking about the subject at 6:20
SomeIrishGuy19 1 year ago 46
@SomeIrishGuy19 Thank you so much! You saved 6 minutes of my life
32371 1 year ago
Well I enjoy both Charlie Brooker's and Marina Hyde's work in the guardian, but i don't think that this could be classed as a rant, more of a rebuttal. I think what the newswipe segment was showing wasn't just cynicism about Law doing good, rather than the creepy hero worship from Jeremy Gilley. Watch it, he will make your skin crawl. But that's not Jude's fault and he has a point about charities and their struggles to stay afloat without endorsement. That is a sad indictment of our culture.
noimagination68 1 year ago 11
Celebrities who help charities arent doing anything wrong. Fair enough, many celebrities help charities to boost their own profiles but plenty more help out for the right reasons. The fact that charities rely on celebrities to raise awareness for their cause says more about society itself than it does about the actors involved. Bono and Angelina Jolie work so hard on projects that take over their own careers, they don't do to feed their own egos. Its a bit unfair to write them all off
ingrogies1 1 year ago 4
I think Jude has some valid points, however Charlie's points to me seemed more a criticism of society as a whole manifested in a dig at the celebs, as per newswipe's role.
dreadeh 1 year ago 5
marina hyde is sharp but conceited. charlie brooker, despite his misanthropic vitriol, generally appreciates good where it's done. i think jude law probably does have the best intentions, but that doesn't stop him coming across as a bit of a bell-end.
noisyneil 1 year ago 10
Is "the Bono treatment" code for a hair transplant? It looks good Jude....
misterangry2009 1 year ago
I really want to dislike Jude Law but I just can't, he seems like a decent bloke to me.
butIwantpewee 1 year ago 11
Charlie Brooker is better than the media, he tells truth rather thans lies. Plus he's one of thr smartest comedians around.
kingharris22 1 year ago 2
Wow, that was a truly fantastic interview and interviewer. Very very good questions and a great rapport between them. You can tell that they're kind of relieve to actually have a stimulating discussion with someone who isn't an orange american idiot asking factuous, pointless questions.
Well done that man!
Ashlemacq 1 year ago 3
I love both Jude and Charlie Brooker..but I think I may be Team Jude with this one. That said, I agree with Charlie.
Jude, I think, is one of those few celebrities who genuine and actually cares, and this is the reason is he actively involved in the Peace One Day project.
And, just to be shallow, Jude is looking gorgeous these days. <3 :D
IdentitySixteen 1 year ago 4
Jude Law is a fucking idiot
halfofwhatiam 1 year ago
Jude has got a point
funkmasterflex 1 year ago
People forget that the Charlie Brooker on Screenwipe/Newswipe is a character. He's not really that cynical and bitter in real life. I don't think Brooker dislikes Jude Law in any way. Plus, as everyone has already said, the point wasn't to insult these celebrities point blank, it was to point out that we shouldn't need celebrities to care about said charities.
TulseLuper 1 year ago
Brooker is an excellent presenter and Hyde an excellent columnist.
Law makes a point about how they castigate him for being part of this charity or whatever, but at the end of the day, if he donated just 10% of what he earns to it, that would do more good than what he does for them now. Putting in his "time" and "effort".
It really bugs me when celebs like him think they are helping the world by appearing on posters and tv, whilst they swim in their pool of cash. Sickening.
bmkellaway 1 year ago
ROFL at their faces when he told them about the metacritic rating. OWNED!
ladyjaneheath 1 year ago 12
I can't believe they mentioned all those different movies, and not fucking REPO!: the genetic opera, of which this movie is a dumbed-down bland un-aesthetic re-hash.
All three have completely missed the point and Law's a bit retarded.
impcirca1988 1 year ago 8
@impcirca1988 Only because RTGO had nothing to do with this film.
sherylllll 1 year ago
@impcirca1988 dumbed-down bland un-aesthetic re-hash; is a perfect description of Repo: the genetic opera
Fingermush 1 year ago
I love Jude in whatever role he plays. He was good in Repo man.
brandiialize 1 year ago 2
I shall be attacked for this, but actors tend to be idiots they are protected by this little shell of celebrity and think that anything they do that isn't about themselves is for charity or for the good of "mankind",
"Oh look i sorted out the rubbish for recycling...Im savng the earth"
Charlie Brooker is correct because they purely do these things to help their profile
fuck him for Alfie and Fuck him for being a completly pretentious prick
I awate the hate...
perediam 1 year ago 351
Charlie Brooker just got destroyed. What now you fat headed mewling cabbage? Are you going to make a sneering sarcastic apology? Or just ignore it and hope no one notices how a pouting pretty boy utterly demolished your hackneyed, empty career. I hope the next time you have to answer the phone to Marina Hyde at 3am, bawling about how her father never liked her, you tell her she's a miserable, worthless cunt too. kthxbye.
SethMcFartlane 1 year ago
@SethMcFartlane Really? You don't think Jude made personal insults about people who make far far less money than him for not directing public attention to how great they are @ charity? 'caue that's how it looked to me.
Plus Charlie Brooker is as (or more) popular as ever, because he knows truth from lies.
impcirca1988 1 year ago
@impcirca1988 No, what I thought he was saying is, they didn't have to say anything at all. And besides, what was Marina's motivation besides getting attention for herself by speaking disdain of the rich and famous? If we want to talk truth, how about the truth behind Marina? Right, nobody cares.
sherylllll 1 year ago
@impcirca1988 I kind of agree with that. He makes it sounds she makes a fortune but she probably doesn't, she certainly won't be as rich as him, what right has he got to criticize her for keeping the money she earned? I don't mean to sound like a selfish Conservative/Republican but why should someone HAVE to give away loads of money to charity when they haven't got much more than they need?
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
@SethMcFartlane if you're going to slag off Charlie Brooker try to do it in a unique style of your own...and er....not his.
You mewling dollop of turd.
ryko26 1 year ago
@SethMcFartlane
Trololololol
MrTeatime 1 year ago
What jude law does appear to be missing is the fact that charities and issues shouldn't NEED celebrity support to be seen as important or, actually, to be seen at all. That we live in a culture that's so celebrity obsessed, we see their actions and thoughts as more important than the those of the campaigners, NGO's and politicians who do the real work. I think that's the point Charlie Brooker and Marina Hyde were trying to make.
fallingstar169 1 year ago 171
@fallingstar169 Absolutely agree. Law makes a good point that charities need to have celebrity figureheads in order to be recognised, but this doesn't negate the wider point that Brooker and Hyde were making: It's sad we seem to need an actor to reassure us that a certain cause is worthy of our attention.
faraday200 1 year ago 13
@faraday200 Isn't that more of an indictment about the public? If the public responded to charity needs without celeb involvement, then celebs would not be needed. That's hardly reason to make fools of the celes for what they do. Truth is, it's a two-edged sword; when a celeb fronts for a charity, they're accused of doing it for attention. When they are involved privately, without public fanfare, they are blamed for being shallow and ignoring societies problems.
sherylllll 1 year ago 2
@faraday200 But what point is that? Seems the real point is that it's on the shoulders of the public, and not the celebrities, that charities/causes must use celebrity to grab attention. Jeremy Gilliam tried for nearly 10 years to get attention for Peace One Day. Why did it take so long? Was that Jude's fault?
sherylllll 1 year ago 2
@faraday200 Exactly this: they seem to have misinterpreted a criticism of modern celebrity-obsessed culture as an actual personal attack on them for doing something worthwhile. Now, to insinuate that they only heard about the article, or only saw their name & that it was a critique & then drew their opinions without actually reading it would be rather churlish of me - especially if I then went on to imply that this rather shows a staggering level of self obsession.
Good thing I haven't, really.
greenycrimson 1 year ago
@fallingstar169 But why blame the celebs for the public's lack of interest without a celebrity front? You, Marina, CB are assigning "blame" to the wrong side of the issue. I wouldn't say that issue is lost on JL, only that he can't change it. There's nothing wrong with celebs as spokespersons, they are visible and able to bring attention, and so the fact that some participate in this, that some really do care about our world, is good. It doesn't make them better or worse, just good citizens.
sherylllll 1 year ago 2
@fallingstar169 i agree that those people doing the work should get more attention, but I think jude law is being realistic. What most westerners care about is celebrity, at least that's what the press has conditioned them to care about. It massively raises the profile of charities they support.
killapathy 1 year ago 3
@fallingstar169 I think Marine Hyde is just a stupid gossip, but I do see your point. I don't think Jude Law would deny the fact that charities should be recognised on their own terms, but since we don't live in a world like that, I applaud the work people like him and Angelina Jolie do.
FranBMan 1 year ago 12
way to go Jude!!
nojohanny 1 year ago 3
way to go Jude!!
nojohanny 1 year ago 2
I agree with Jude 100%
FlyingMooseStudios 1 year ago
Three cheers for Jude Law. Very well said. He is a smart and articulate man.
DaphneN 1 year ago 5
Oh, and I'd say Forest is zen-like because he hasn't been attacked for doing good. There's nothing wrong with a difference in personalities, too. Forest is low-key, Jude is animated...and interesting.
sherylllll 1 year ago 6
I can't add any more to what he said. Well said, Jude, WELL SAID!
sherylllll 1 year ago 6
Nice work, Jude. You have a pair of balls. Respek.
mrhowlett 1 year ago 5
Go Jude, Go! He's right. Why would you put down the good things that people do. There are plenty of other things to rag on. If we put down the good things what are we left with?
Major respect for Jude.
SugarSnaps37 1 year ago 5
fair play to aul judy, got his point across at the end without losing his cool...Ive a bit more respect for him than i did before.
Ricardoloslambos 1 year ago 17
Well, at least your asking honest questions and giving honest comments. I appreciate it very much in this society.
matt606 1 year ago 2
I saw this movie and I thought it was good even though.. the ending
DemonicElric 1 year ago 2
paul is the coolest
beyondunreal 1 year ago
It's nice to see how passionate Jude Law is about important issues... +10 respect points for him...
DanzNewzMachinima 1 year ago 19
lol
oompaloompajezuz 1 year ago