rudyrock

Stephen Colbert skewers Trump with a devastating burn during impeachment update

[embedded content]

The Late Show may have paused for Thanksgiving, but impeachment news never sleeps.

In the clip above, Stephen Colbert returns with an update – using the intelligence committee’s impeachment report as a launching platform for a particularly brutal burn.

“Before the intelligence committee released their report, the GOP issued their own prebuttal, in which they concluded that Trump was acting on genuine and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine,” says Colbert. “Yes, because the two words everyone uses to describe Donald Trump are ‘genuine’ and ‘reasonable.’ Right after ‘athletic’ and ‘monogamous.’

Oof.

Holiday Party Outfit Ideas Inspired by Celebs — Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Katie Holmes and More

Holiday Party Outfit Ideas Inspired by Celebs — Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Katie Holmes and More | Entertainment Tonight

arrow-left-mobilearrow leftarrow-right-mobilearrow rightGroup 7Gallery Icon Copy 2Video Play Button Copy 5Hamburger MenuInstagramTwitterYoutubeShare Button7C858890-6955-48EA-B871-66CE1E33590CVideo-Playbutton Copy

Candace Cameron Bure Says Have Tissues Handy For Final Season Of ‘Fuller House’

The door will soon close for good at “Fuller House.”

The Netflix sequel to the long-running ABC sitcom “Full House” will return for a fifth and final season on Friday. And for much of the cast, parting ways is bittersweet. 

Candace Cameron Bure, who plays D.J. Tanner-Fuller on the series, said that nearly everyone got emotional when the cast wrapped production in mid-November.

“There were so many tears. It was tough,” Bure told HuffPost at Build Series. “A lot of people say jobs come and go. This particular show is more than a job for us. It’s really been more of a family and it has meant more to us than a typical job.” 

That’s because most of the actors from the original show came back, at least to some extent, when “Fuller House” launched in 2016. Like Bure, Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie Tanner) and Andrea Barber (Kimmy Gibler) returned as main cast members. Original series stars Bob Saget (Danny Tanner), Dave Coulier (Joey Gladstone) and John Stamos (Jesse Katsopolis) made recurring appearances. Lori Loughlin periodically showed up as Aunt Becky, although she is not expected to appear in the final season given the charges she faces in the college admissions scandal.

Candace Cameron Bure directed a few episodes of "Fuller House."



Jammi York/Build Series

Candace Cameron Bure directed a few episodes of “Fuller House.”

Bure said it’s been such a “wonderful gift” to do the show a second time around. 

“There was a writer on our show that had said, ‘You’re lucky enough if lightning strikes once. You’re really lucky if lightning strikes twice. But to have it strike twice with your two best friends is pretty amazing.’ And that’s what’s happened with ‘Full House,’ ‘Fuller House’ and really getting to spend every day with my best friends Jodie Sweetin and Andrea Barber,” she said. “I absolutely love the multi-cam world and over-the-top comedy. It’s really fun. I love being goofy and silly. It’s a dream job and one that I’ll never forget and hold dear memories.” 

Season 5 will pick up where Season 4 left off. Fans may remember that last season wrapped with Kimmy giving birth to Stephanie and Jimmy’s baby after offering to be the couple’s surrogate in Season 3. Bure said that Season 5 won’t disappoint. 

“Get out the tissues ’cause there are more tears in this season than the other seasons,” she said. “And that’s also because there’s a lot of life lessons with the kids and the parents, lots of those violin-playing music moments. But there’s a lot of comedy and song and dance and silly hijinks.” 

"Full House" aired from 1987 to 1995. The cast included (from left to right) John Stamos, Dave Coulier, Bob Saget, Canda



ABC Photo Archives via Getty Images

“Full House” aired from 1987 to 1995. The cast included (from left to right) John Stamos, Dave Coulier, Bob Saget, Candace Cameron Bure and Jodie Sweetin.

It’s even more special for the cast because the revival almost didn’t happen.

“A lot of people think that this show was on a whim,” Bure said. “Like someone asked us, ‘Do you want to reboot ‘[Full] House’? And we all went, ‘Yay!’” 

But that’s not the case. It took a lot of time and energy to get “Fuller House” off the ground. 

“We went out and we developed the show and then pitched it to every network, and they all turned us down. And Netflix was the last one we pitched to and they said yes,” Bure recalled. “And so we knew the fanbase that we had for 30 years and we really were certain that if the show was done right ― which we knew it would be because it was the original creator and executive producer [Jeff Franklin] of ‘Full House’ that was going to do it.”

Looking back, Bure said she’s really happy with the way the second series turned out and how the storylines evolved. 

“I was delighted at where D.J. was or is as an adult ― that she was a smart woman, a veterinarian and that [she] became as much of a clean freak and controlling as Danny Tanner. I just thought it was funny. And I liked that I turned into not quite the Joey Gladstone character but more of the dad and that I got to be the dorky mom at times.” 

"Fuller House," set in the same San Francisco home as the first series, finds Bure's character as the mom of three boys.



Netflix

“Fuller House,” set in the same San Francisco home as the first series, finds Bure’s character as the mom of three boys.

Having played the character on and off for three decades, Bure said there’s no doubt that she injects a piece of herself into the role.

“Every part of her is a part of me to an extent,” Bure said. “She’s a little bit more over the top and goofy. But those things have to come from me to some degree. She’s just like that extra version of Candace.” 

In addition to “Fuller House,” Bure can be seen in a new holiday film on Hallmark called “Christmas Town.” 

Watch the full Build Series interview with Candace Cameron Bure below. 

Visibly Damp Papa John’s Founder Says He Ate 40 Pizzas In 30 Days In Viral Interview

Papa John’s founder John Schnatter is apparently eating a lot of pizza these days. 

Schnatter said in an interview broadcast Monday with Kentucky TV station WDRB that the quality of food at the Papa John’s chain has drastically shifted for the worse since he was ousted as CEO in July 2018. 

“I’ve had over 40 pizzas in the last 30 days, and it’s not the same pizza,” said Schnatter in the video, looking visibly damp. “It’s not the same product. It just doesn’t taste as good. The way they’re making the pizza is just not fundamental to what makes a Papa John’s pizza.”

Schnatter, 58, who founded Papa John’s in 1984, resigned as board chairman in July 2018 amid reports that he used a racial slur in a conference call earlier that year. He quit as CEO the previous December after an outcry over his criticism of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest injustice.

Schnatter acknowledged in the interview that he used the slur, but said he was quoting someone else to demonstrate his hatred of racism. He called the conference call a “farce.”

“I just didn’t know it would happen from people on the inside doing this,” Schnatter said. “I thought it would come from the outside.” 

Then he called out Papa John’s executives by name. “Steve Ritchie, Olivia Kirtley, the board of directors all used the black community and race as a way to steal the company,” he said. “They stole the company, and now they’ve destroyed the company.”

He claimed Kirtley, a Papa John’s board member, and director Mark Shapiro “should be in jail” because “what they’ve done is just wrong, and they’ve hurt a lot of people.”

“The day of reckoning will come,” he warned, and “the record will be straight.” 

“Stay tuned,” he added.

Papa John’s didn’t immediately answer a request for comment.

Meantime, a clip from the interview with Schnatter explaining his pizza consumption has gone viral ― for quite a few reasons. Here’s what people are saying:

Tyler Cameron’s Focused on Himself, Not ‘Bachelor’ or Stassie

Cardi B Claims Hack Responsible for Offset’s ‘Miss u’ DM to Tekashi69’s GF

Oscar De La Hoya Belts ‘La Bamba’ During Impromptu Performance

The best EE broadband deals in the UK

Get unlimited broadband that will never slow you down.

BEST DEALS ON EE BROADBAND THIS WEEK 

  • Fibre Max 1 — 18 months, 145Mbps, £40 a month, no up-front fee  

  • Fibre Plus Broadband — 18 months, 67Mbps, £30 a month, no up-front fee 

  • 200GB 4GEE — 18 months, 31Mbps, £40 a month, no up-front fee  


EE has been a big name in the mobile world for some time now, but it is also becoming stronger and stronger in the UK broadband market thanks to its versatile packages and competitive pricing. 

The retailer represents a great option for those who already have a mobile deal with the provider, as some really nice perks allow customers to top up their data allowance and take advantage of some cheap TV packages. All fixed plans also come with a year’s free subscription to Norton Security Premium, worth £79.99, which can protect up to 10 devices. 

EE offers great standard broadband packages alongside 4G routers, and it’s also a big name in the ultrafast market, offering both a 140Mbps and 300Mbps package. So there are plenty of options when it comes to EE broadband.

These are all the best EE broadband deals in 2019. 

If you’re interested in BT broadband deals, or all the best broadband deals from the wide range of UK providers, we’ve got you covered.  


£50 switching credit • Flexible plans • Mobile benefits
Not the cheapest
EE offers an array of benefits for those signing up to its broadband service.

EE Broadband

EE offers an array of benefits for those signing up to its broadband service.

There are plenty of benefits to switching to EE broadband. EE will even contact your current provider and give you a £50 switching credit if you’re charged for early cancellation. 
The regular broadband packages from EE range up to the Fibre Plus plan that provides 67Mbps — perfect for most standard UK households. If you’re not looking for anything spectacular, the Fibre and Standard plans are cheaper but provide slower download speeds.
All three of these broadband plans also include a 5GB data top-up for any EE mobile customers.

Fantastic speeds • No speed reductions
Not the cheapest
EE Fibre Max promises to never slow you down, even at peak times.
Fibre Max is EE’s version of ultra-fast broadband and can provide speeds of up to 300Mbps on average. 
Fibre Max is perfect for streaming 4K content and online gaming seamlessly. Starting at £40 per month these packages aren’t exactly cheaper than the offerings at Vodafone or Virgin Media, but EE continues to supply a range of other benefits that could outweigh the price difference. 
For starters, mobile customers can get 20GB data top-up every month when taking out these plans. Plus EE promises to never slow your speeds down, even at peak times. 
This will benefit those who are tired of losing their incredible download speed every evening. 

Best Deals

  • Fibre Max 1 — 18 months, 145Mbps, £36 a month, no up-front fee 
  • Fibre Max 2 — 18 months, 300Mbps, £43 a month, no up-front fee 

Covers most of UK • Good for cordcutters • One month rolling contract
Less reliable • Data limit
Get super-fast internet speeds without a landline.
If you struggle with slow broadband speeds in your area, opting for a new 4G enabled home router might be your best option. 
This could also benefit your home if you’re having trouble getting fixed broadband installed or you’re staying somewhere temporarily.
You don’t need an engineer to assist either, as the 4G router can simply be plugged in and will begin receiving signal immediately. It also has a 30 metre range around your home, so connecting should be easy and simple. 
Delivered through 4GEE on the UK’s fastest network, you could get average speeds of 31Mbps. The only caveat is that all of the plans have a data limit, unlike most broadband packages that are completely unlimited. 

  • 100GB 4GEE — 18 months, 31Mbps, £35 a month, no up-front fee 
  • 200GB 4GEE — 18 months, 31Mbps, £40 a month, no up-front fee 
  • 500GB 4GEE — 18 months, 31Mbps, £50 a month, no up-front fee

UFO sighting: Conspiracy fears after NASA Space Shuttle photos reveal 3 ‘unknown objects’

And the trio were seen and photographed from NASA’s Space Shuttle, during the STS 32 and STS 61 Shuttle missions.

The first object discussed was spotted in a photographic burst outside of the Space Shuttle STS032 mission as it orbited over the ocean.

Waring said: “This object is moving fast as you can see the clouds moving in the background.

“The UFO is flat, metallic, black and also facing the Space Shuttle’s window at intervals.

READ MORE: ‘UFO city’ spotted on Google Moon map

“The anomaly would have to be matching the NASA spaceship for enough time for the seven photo sequence to be shot.”

Waring reveals the map location indicates the anomaly was shot over the east coast of South America.

The NASA site also reveals the image was shot on a Hasselblad – one of the best quality cameras available.

The next anomaly was captured by the STS 61 Space Shuttle mission, and is described as a “very long, jellyfish-like object” by the conspiracy theorist.

This is thought to have been photographed in the depths of space by the Shuttle.

The eerie object, when viewed in context off the full image, show a slither of Earth glowing white against the blackness of space.

The next object, captured on the same NASA mission is believed to have been viewed from the Space Shuttle window.

The bizarre anomaly is considered to be smooth, metallic with no discernible seams.

Waring addresses the inevitable claims the UFO is in fact a screw or nut.

He said: “Screws have lines across the bottom and they also have a line at the head – this one does not.

“At the most, if this a part of the Space Shuttle, this would be a rivet, an object resembling a screw.

“However, the mystery object does not have any lines on it.

“It is curved instead on its base, and rivets are not meant to have this feature.

“So I have no explanation for this or the other objects capable of dismissing them as UFOs.”

The Greta Gerwig Trick For A Modern ‘Little Women’: ‘Make It Sad’

Greta Gerwig kept pausing, sometimes midsentence. It was a Monday night in early November, and her newest movie, “Little Women,” echoed through the halls of the Manhattan theater where awards voters were among the first to see it. She shot it on film, and a projectionist needed to switch reels at the exact right moment so the action didn’t skip a beat. Gerwig was nervous. “It’s very easy to fuck up,” she said. She stopped periodically to listen, the sounds of the famous March sisters flooding our greenroom. 

Nothing went awry, at least not during the 45 minutes I spent with Gerwig, who was beginning the monthslong promotional blitz required of a Christmas Day release that’s based on a beloved book and headed for Oscar contention. But you’d forgive those interruptions, too. “Little Women” isn’t Gerwig’s first solo directorial achievement — that’s the 2017 coming-of-age hit “Lady Bird” — yet it is the movie she was destined to make, as corny as that sounds. Of course she was nervous.

Like “A Star Is Born” last year, “Little Women” is a testament to once-a-generation adaptations. The previous big-screen rendition, featuring Winona Ryder and Kirsten Dunst, opened 25 years ago, allowing enough distance to justify another interpretation of Louisa May Alcott’s classic text. (Before that, Hollywood had adapted “Women” five times, including versions starring Katharine Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor.) In the same way that Lady Gaga’s “Star Is Born” performance implicated those of Barbra Streisand and Judy Garland, Gerwig’s “Little Women” offers a meta approach to Alcott’s words and the reactions they’ve elicited over the past 150 years. 

During their second week of production last October, Gerwig and her cast went to see “A Star Is Born” near Concord, Massachusetts, which is where they shot the film and where much of it takes place. “We sobbed our faces off,” she said. “If you’re starting with great source material and the heart of something eternal — I mean, how many productions of ‘Hamlet’ have there been? We revisit these because they say something to us. I think what was astonishing to me when I read ‘Little Women’ as an adult was how … ” 

She trailed off. A reel change had occurred. “Fuck, I missed it,” Gerwig said, leaping into a “hyper-nerdy” monologue about projection mechanics while Alexandre Desplat’s score crescendoed around us.

“Anyway, I’ll stop talking about the reel changes,” she finished, returning to the book. “There were so many things that were jumping out at me as being so incredibly modern. I couldn’t believe it.”

Whereas Godzilla and the Skywalker cooperative clang into multiplexes every 16 months, this is more than a corporate nostalgia push. Gerwig’s “Little Women” is a dissertation on the passage of time, the evolution of femininity and the weight of shared stories.

Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Emma Watson in "Little Women."



Sony Pictures

Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Emma Watson in “Little Women.”

For Gerwig, this endeavor predates “Lady Bird.” She started drafting “Little Women” in 2014, by which point she’d co-written the idiosyncratic “Frances Ha” and “Mistress America” with her now-partner, director Noah Baumbach. Gerwig then set “Women” aside to write and direct “Lady Bird.” When that movie broke into the mainstream, grossing $79 million worldwide and making Gerwig only the fifth woman to receive an Oscar nomination for directing, producer Amy Pascal asked whether she’d like to step behind the camera on this one, too.

That’s a familiar trajectory for a relatively young filmmaker. (Gerwig is 36.) You make a fruitful indie, then a big studio snatches you up. With additional resources come heightened stakes and a higher profile, especially for a known actor who’d appeared in films as disparate as “No Strings Attached,” “Arthur,” “Jackie” and “20th Century Women.” But Gerwig’s goal wasn’t to go commercial. If it were, she could have picked one of the flashy scripts producers sent her in the wake of “Lady Bird” — and not just more teen dramedies, surprisingly. She had action movies and suspense movies and all sorts of genres to choose from, but none enticed her to abandon “Little Women.” 

“It wasn’t that I was looking for the bigger thing and then this was the bigger thing,” she said. “It’s that this is what I wanted to do, and it needed more bells and whistles. It needed the whole confetti factory. One thing that I loved about ‘Little Women’ was that there were so many different things about it that were new to tackle for me, [like] the world-building of the time period and creating something consistent but interesting but modern but genuine but period-correct but not slavishly devoted.”

Saying her “Little Women” isn’t slavishly devoted might be an understatement. Gerwig knew immediately that she would restructure Alcott’s linear tale, beginning when the four March sisters are adults and using flashbacks to navigate the defining recollections of their youth. Her approach is both reverent and fresh, wistful and progressive. Events unspool as the protagonists look back at a bygone time when they resided under one roof, poor but spirited. 

Saoirse Ronan and Greta Gerwig on the set of "Lady Bird" in 2016.



A24

Saoirse Ronan and Greta Gerwig on the set of “Lady Bird” in 2016.

Alcott’s book, published in two parts in 1868 and 1869, is targeted at young readers, something adaptations tend to accentuate. As a girl, Gerwig skipped the novel’s second half, finding the depiction of marriage and maturation unrelatable. Now, it’s what most interests her. For that reason, she wanted to make a “Little Women” for adults. Memories — “the way you’re always looking back to go forward,” as she described it — are a fulcrum that guides the characters’ sense of themselves. No single moment better distills that essence than a line delivered by a grown-up March: “I can’t believe childhood is over.” 

Such finality — the idea that they will never again capture what existed in the humble home they shared, when they put on plays and flirted with neighbors and helped their mother finish those endless chores — is what makes the film so wonderfully Gerwigian. “Frances Ha” and “Lady Bird” were also about saying goodbye to one chapter and hello to another. 

“If I told it linear, I would lose the ability to do what I’m interested in, which is to make it sad,” Gerwig said.

In independent-minded writer Jo, the second-eldest March sibling, she found a kindred soul. The movie begins with adult Jo (Saoirse Ronan, who also headlined “Lady Bird”) preparing to enter a New York publisher’s office to sell a story she’s composed. At first, we see only Jo’s back — “like a boxer,” head lowered, shoulders wide. Moments later, she’s running through town in a mad dash that resembles a popular “Frances Ha” scene wherein Gerwig’s title character sprints down a Chinatown street. (“I’m interested in women in motion,” Gerwig said. “Of course I am.”) Another two hours pass, and after gracefully hopscotching across timelines, the film concludes with a shot of Jo’s face in that same office. No matter the financial and emotional trials that intervened, she has won the match.

“I wanted it to be a palindrome,” Gerwig explained. “I wanted it to read backwards and forwards, so the movie starts on her back and ends on her face so that you could start the movie again from the beginning. It’s a circle.” 

That quote alone defines the Gerwig who has blossomed over the course of the 2010s: literary, analytical, witty. When “Little Women” was announced last summer, I thought it came from left field. After penning so much original material that feels indebted to Gerwig’s own life, why do a remake? But in seeing the movie and hearing her talk about it, any doubts evaporate. It’s more revelation than remake, the work of an artist bold enough to refashion something that never went out of fashion.  

Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach at the Oscars on March 4, 2018.



Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP

Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach at the Oscars on March 4, 2018.

Further confirming the serendipity of this moment in Gerwig’s career, she gets to cruise the awards circuit with Baumbach, who is hawking the biggest work of his career, “Marriage Story.” In a post-Sofia-Coppola-and-Spike-Jonze universe, Gerwig and Baumbach are Hollywood’s primo director couple. (The pair recently gained competition in Barry Jenkins and Lulu Wang, who helmed “Moonlight” and “The Farewell,” respectively.) They swap notes while working and attend red carpets together, which they’ll do a lot of over the next few months.

When Gerwig returned home for Thanksgiving last year, she was still shooting “Little Women.” The next day, she went to Baumbach’s editing suite to see his first cut of “Marriage Story,” a divorce drama in the vein of “Kramer vs. Kramer” and “Scenes from a Marriage.” (Fun fact: “Little Women” and “Marriage Story” share a supporting actor in Laura Dern, who is fantastic in both.) What’s it like, I wondered, to watch the breakup movie your boyfriend just finished? 

Gerwig demurred, savvy enough not to take the bait. She and Baumbach had a child earlier this year, but they’ve managed to remain fairly private about their personal lives. “I just cried for two and a half hours, and I came out and I was completely dehydrated,” she said of Baumbach’s film. “I was like, ‘Jesus Christ, Noah.’ He was like, ‘Should we have more stuffing?’”

As Gerwig and I wrapped up our conversation, she went back to listening for the reel changes. Exiting the greenroom together, I started to head for the lobby when she turned and suggested we step into the auditorium to see how much better her movie looks on film than in digital transfer, which is how most of the public will see it. We stood in the back, watching a touching scene in which a neighbor (Chris Cooper) grants musically inclined Beth March (Eliza Scanlen) access to the piano at his home. Whispering, Gerwig pointed out how crisp the colors looked without the silky glaze that accompanies digitalization. The trees were greener, the roads more textured. It looked like a postcard. Or, in her words, “a snow globe.” She stood there smiling, reveling in the beauty she’d conjured.

“That’s just my taste,” she said. 

Then Gerwig bid me farewell and slid out the door — a woman in motion. 

“Little Women” opens in theaters Dec. 25.