How Hollywood tries to masculinize femininity — and makes everyone miserable



We are told, repeatedly, that woke is dead. Piers Morgan even wrote a book about it, so it must be true. Right?

Wrong.

Strength, by Hollywood’s current definition, must weigh a little over 100 pounds and look perpetually annoyed.

If in doubt, please watch the trailer for "Apex," due for release in April. With it comes Hollywood’s most exhausted fantasy yet: the indestructible badass woman who outruns youth, outpunches men twice her size, and shrugs off biology like it’s a clerical error.

Mission: Implausible

This time, it’s a 50-year-old Charlize Theron sprinting through the Australian wilderness and scaling cliffs as if she’s Tom Cruise circa "Mission: Impossible 2." Gravity is optional. Muscle mass is negotiable. Aging, it seems, is strictly forbidden.

We’ve seen this act so many times that it barely registers any more. Swap the title card, rotate the backdrop, keep the same choreography. A lone woman wronged by men. A past trauma. An axe to grind, sometimes literally. Six-foot brutes wait their turn to be neutralized. The music swells. The credits roll. And with them go the eyeballs of nearly every viewer still capable of respecting basic reality.

The point is not that women can’t be strong. Of course they can. Strength is not the issue. Hollywood’s definition of it is. Somewhere along the way, empowerment became synonymous with women cosplaying male action heroes, only with fight scenes that insult Newton and scripts that insult the audience. A petite actress body-checking men built like refrigerators — then calling disbelief misogyny — is not progress.

What makes "Apex" more revealing than irritating is how nakedly it exposes the broader frame. This isn’t about one film or one actress. It’s the result of a steady drip: years of female-driven nonsense poured into every genre until it became the genre. The same beats. The same postures. The same lectures delivered at gunpoint.

Form fatale

Hollywood has always run on formula. Nothing new there. It followed money, copied hits, and abandoned failures without sentimentality. But the formula answered to the audience. If people didn’t buy tickets, the trend was over.

Now the industry treats audience resistance not as feedback, but as something to be corrected — like a behavioral problem that needs retraining. Failure is no longer evidence that the formula is broken. It is treated as proof that the audience is.

Studios like to pretend this is audience demand. It isn’t. It’s institutional inertia. Executives terrified of being accused of regression keep recycling the same safe lie: If the movie fails, the audience is at fault. If it succeeds modestly, it’s a cultural victory.

It’s a system that makes the arrival of the new "Supergirl" later this year entirely predictable. Not because audiences asked for it. Not because there was pent-up demand. Not because anyone ever thought, yes, this is what’s missing. It is arriving because this is what the industry now produces by reflex.

The irony is hard to miss. The original "Supergirl" debuted in 1984, the same year Orwell warned us about systems that repeat lies until they feel inevitable. That film was a commercial and critical dud, quickly forgotten for good reason.

Four decades later, Hollywood appears determined to rerun the experiment, convinced that time, tone, and audience memory can all be overwritten. Don’t expect to be entertained. Expect scowls and sermons in spandex. Strength, by Hollywood’s current definition, must weigh a little over 100 pounds and look perpetually annoyed.

RELATED: FEMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Kathleen Kennedy leaves 'Star Wars'; is it too soon for fans to celebrate?

Down for the count

We saw the results late last year. The box-office face-plant of "Christy," the biopic of boxer Christy Martin, made the point brutally clear. Despite opening in more than 2,000 theaters, it scraped together just $1.3 million — one of the worst wide releases on record.

The film stars Sydney Sweeney, an American beauty inexplicably styled like a discount Rocky Balboa. Producers assumed her star power would draw crowds, then forgot why anyone — especially male viewers — watches her in the first place. It isn’t to see her absorb jabs, hooks, and uppercuts like a human heavy bag. It’s when she leans into what she actually is: feminine, magnetic, sexy. No one is buying a ticket to watch a gorgeous woman get beaten senseless.

This is the quiet truth studios refuse to say out loud: Men and women are not the same, and they do not want the same things on screen. Audiences happily watched Liam Neeson bulldoze Europe in "Taken." They turned up in droves to see Keanu Reeves turn the death of a dog into a four-film genocide in "John Wick." Nothing motivates a man like canine-related trauma and unlimited ammunition. Those films worked because they leaned into male fantasy without apology.

Equalizer rights?

What audiences don’t want is that same template awkwardly stapled onto a completely different body and sold as innovation. Denzel Washington was excellent in "The Equalizer" — cold, credible, and infinitely cool.

The TV reboot took that precision and desecrated it by turning the role into unintentional slapstick. A morbidly obese Queen Latifah as a silent, unstoppable angel of death is pure absurdity. This is a woman who struggles to climb a single flight of stairs, yet viewers are expected to believe she’s capable of stalking, subduing, and dispatching trained men without breaking a sweat.

Which brings us back to "Apex." What makes the film accidentally hilarious isn’t Charlize Theron running through the bush. It’s the industry sprinting right behind her, desperately chasing a fantasy that stopped selling years ago. The humor comes from the sincerity. From the absolute faith that this time — finally — it will land.

And it will land. Just not gracefully. More like a Boeing falling out of the sky. Twisted metal, scorched wreckage, and stunned executives wandering around asking what went wrong.

And from that wreckage, there will be no reckoning. No pause. No course correction. Just a quick trip back to the studio lot to greenlight the next movie nobody requested and that everyone will forget.

Anti-Israel celebs: Free speech for me, not for thee



Actors can’t stop reliving the Hollywood blacklist. So why won’t they speak out against the new, not-so-improved version?

Sen. Joe McCarthy’s Communist paranoia paralyzed Hollywood in the 1950s. The movement sent A-list talent scurrying for cover and made stars keep their far-left views quiet.

Align emailed press representatives for Ruffalo, Nixon, Dunne, Ahmed, Common, Youssef, and Philipps. What are their thoughts on the unofficial Hollywood blacklist targeting conservative artists?

No wonder the industry keeps revisiting the era with films like “The Front,” “Guilty by Suspicion,” “The Majestic,” “Good Night, and Good Luck,” and, most recently, 2015’s “Trumbo” starring Oscar nominee Bryan Cranston.

Now, a gaggle of stars are warning Hollywood not to repeat the era’s mistakes by punishing pro-Palestinian artists.

Mark Ruffalo, Cynthia Nixon, Griffin Dunne, Riz Ahmed, Common, Busy Philipps, and Ramy Youssef signed an open letter demanding stars be able to speak their minds without professional blowback.

The said letter called for a “permanent ceasefire” in Gaza along with the release of the remaining hostages taken by Hamas in the Oct. 7 massacre. The letter insisted Palestinian “hostages” also be released.

The missive featured another pointed demand:

“to condemn our industry’s McCarthyist repression of members who acknowledge Palestinian suffering; and to eliminate any doubt of our solidarity with workers, artists, and oppressed people worldwide.”

Actress Susan Sarandon, another name on the letter, has a personal stake in the subject. She lost her agent after her extreme anti-Israel views went public. She wasn’t alone. “Scream” star Melissa Barrera exited the horror franchise for similar reasons.

No matter where one stands on the Israeli-Palestinian debate, punishing artists for political viewpoints is anathema to the industry’s creative spirit and the First Amendment.

It’s why Align reached out to seven of the letter’s signees to ask their views on the other blacklist permeating Hollywood. It targets conservative artists like James Woods, Kevin Sorbo, Scott Baio, and more.

Woods and Sorbo have gone public with how their right-leaning views essentially ended their Hollywood careers. The Oscar-nominated Woods hasn’t had a sizable role since 2014’s “Jamesy Boy.” Sorbo mostly works via his Sorbo Studios shingle, creating small-budget titles like “Let There Be Light” and “Miracle in East Texas.”

Baio’s X profile refers to the actor as “happily retired,” but his support for Donald Trump in 2016 helped make that official.

The examples are endless. And while a tiny number of conservatives continue to act, including Jon Voight and Tim Allen, they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

The now-defunct Friends of Abe once allowed conservative artists to meet in secrecy, network, and commiserate about being forced to stay silent. Former members recall fear-filled exchanges, often from crew members recalling the blowback they faced for thinking the “wrong” way in Tinseltown.

The Hollywood Reporter recently suggested that liberal actress Cheryl Hines of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” fame might be “shunned” by the industry for supporting her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The former presidential candidate recently endorsed Trump.

Surely, the pro-Palestinian actors are equally concerned about this troubling state of affairs.

Align emailed press representatives for Ruffalo, Nixon, Dunne, Ahmed, Common, Youssef, and Philipps. What are their thoughts on the unofficial Hollywood blacklist targeting conservative artists? Are they aware of the situation? Do they think it’s fair that right-leaning actors must hold their tongues lest they face professional blowback?

The outreach letter featured generous examples of the blacklist in question. No one responded to the query.

It’s not surprising. It’s an open secret the Hollywood press occasionally acknowledges but never questions. Last year, Emmy winner Alec Baldwin addressed the matter but dubbed it “unfortunate.”

Some blacklist sequels are more acceptable than others.

Adam McKay: Hollywood's Oscar-winning climate extremist



You may not know Adam McKay’s name, but chances are you love his movies and TV shows.

“Anchorman.” “Step Brothers.” “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.” “Succession.”

McKay is one of Hollywood’s most prolific and profitable creators. He’s also obsessed with promoting the climate change agenda on and off screen.

The notion that an Oscar-winning filmmaker would help target timeless works of art seems like a juicy story. So far, the mainstream media, by and large, hasn’t connected McKay to attacks his money helped make possible.

And he’s taken some radical steps along the way.

McKay spent years alongside Will Ferrell, pooling their talents for big, bawdy comedies. That formula worked for a while, but McKay’s inner artiste apparently wanted more.

His 2015 dramedy “The Big Short” spun from the best-selling tome of the same name by Michael Lewis. The film found him fusing laughs with social commentary, all from a rigorously left-leaning agenda. The film earned McKay a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar.

Suddenly his days of cracking wise with Ferrell were over. Meet Adam McKay, full-time culture warrior.

He wrote and directed the hit piece “Vice” (2018), an assault on both Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans in general, before pooling his creative energies to a project more in line with his eco-passions.

His 2021 film “Don’t Look Up” gave Netflix a streaming smash. The satirical smart bomb mixed the auteur’s wit with a full-on climate change metaphor. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a scientist trying to convince the president (Meryl Streep) that a comet is hurtling toward the earth.

The fictional politicians prove hard to convince.

McKay explained his rationale for the film to the New York Times.

“I’m under no illusions that one film will be the cure to the climate crisis. ... But if it inspires conversation, critical thinking, and makes people less tolerant of inaction from their leaders, then I’d say we accomplished our goal.”

Now, he’s going back to the eco-well. Twice.

He’s set to produce “Stormbound,” a documentary close-up of professional storm chasers. The film, set for a 2025 release, focuses on the alleged impact climate change has on extreme weather events.

He’s also in talks to direct a separate climate change feature after dropping plans to make “Average Height, Average Build,” a conventional thriller that was set to star Amy Adams and Robert Pattinson.

The new project will reportedly be called “Greenhouse,” and the subject falls in McKay’s sweet spot. The drama is based on David Wallace-Wells’ book “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.” Sam Rockwell and Amy Irving, who previously costarred in “Vice,” may anchor the doom-and-gloom story.

McKay is hardly alone in weaponizing Hollywood product to spread the climate change gospel. The subject comes up frequently on screens large and small, from references in shows like HBO’s “The Last of Us” to major plot points in “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.”

Recently, we learned of a new “tool” that coaxes storytellers to fill their screenplays with climate change alarmism. The Climate Reality Check works like the feminist Bechdel test does, analyzing stories to see if they sufficiently address the environment.

Journalist John Fund recently reported on how “green billionaires” are trying to cajole screenwriters into adding even more climate change alarmism into Hollywood stories.

Recent films like “Barbie,” “Nyad,” and “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part I” all passed. Barely.

Except McKay doesn’t silo his climate change activism to the big screen.

In 2022, the director/producer wrote a $4 million check to the Climate Emergency Fund. That group is behind some of the attacks on precious art installations across the globe. The fund funnels money to the eco-activists and their various splinter groups, hoping to gain attention for their cause.

Art works by Vincent van Gogh, Sandro Botticelli, Pablo Picasso, and Umberto Boccioni have been targeted over the past few years. None have been damaged to date, but museum experts warn their fragile states make them vulnerable to future violence.

The notion that an Oscar-winning filmmaker would help target timeless works of art seems like a juicy story. So far, the mainstream media, by and large, hasn’t connected McKay to attacks his money helped make possible. Few, if any, journalists have pressed McKay on the topic.

Last year, McKay promised to keep on funding similar protests.

“I stand with those taking action to defend the climate, to wake up the world’s sleeping governments to the terrifying scale of the catastrophe we are now living through.”

Watch: Trump vs. De Niro | Rant Nation