Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Box Office, Fandom, Newsstand

Remember that Jessica Simpson film called Blonde Ambition that was supposed to be going straight to DVD after everyone involved pretty much agreed that it sucked, and wasn't worth a theatrical release? Well, according to Slashfilm, Blonde Ambition was given a theatrical release this weekend on 8 screens in Simpson's hometown of Texas. (In case you're interested, the film will officially hit DVD on January 22.) So you figure since the film is opening on eight screens in the gal's hometown, that all theaters would be packed full of hardcore Simpson fans, friends, random acquaintances -- what have you.

Yeah, well try this one on for size: The flick grossed a whopping $384 bucks on Friday, meaning the per screen average was $48. Slashfilm breaks it down even more: "Based on an $8 ticket price, that means that 6 people paid to see the movie at each of those theatres, and only 48 people went to see the movie! That's amazing! One of the worst performances a movie has ever had. I am projecting that Jessica's "star vehicle" will gross just $1,190 this weekend or $149 per location." Six people per theater? If that's not the definition of pathetic, I don't know what is. Additionally, Simpson ain't the most popular person in Texas right now, considering the fact that ever since she started dating Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, the guy's weekly performance has declined to a point where his teammates don't even want the girl near the stadium for fear she'll ruin the team's Superbowl chances. Yup, the next Julia Roberts she most certainly is.

UPDATE: Cinematical's Peter Martin, a Dallas resident, informed me of the following: "The film opened on three Dallas-area theaters -- all Cinemark Discount Theatres, with tickets on Friday and Saturday after 6:00 pm priced at $2.00 (matinee prices: $1.00). Still a pathetic performance, but means a few more people actually attended. That's balanced by the fact that it's the only new release playing at the bargain theatres, which is embarrassing in itself."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Awards, Deals, Celebrities and Controversy, Politics, Oscar Watch

I haven't been following the strike issue nearly as close as I'd like, but I'm starting to get increasingly interested as it looks like there's less and less chance of a deal being cut to spare the Golden Globes and Academy Awards from the wrath of the writers. David Poland's blog is the place for some entertaining commentary on this issue. Like everyone else, he doesn't care about whether or not the Globes goes on, but he's absolutely enraged at the thought of Oscar being put in the crosshairs next. "There is a world of difference between f*cking with 100 'foreigners' with the collective journalistic weight of a sitcom sidekick's blog and taking on 6,000 of the town's most powerful people," he writes. He goes on to explain how the Oscar ceremony is a critical income generator for the AMPAS and attempting to derail it is tantamount to a declaration of war. "If the union tries to shut down Oscar, they will be messing with something more than money. WGA would really be tapping into the mass ego of the industry," he writes, before blasting off into an extended hyperbole that ends with -- I'm not kidding -- a picture of Moe Green about to get shot in the eye.

And what does Nikki Finke think about this line of argument? Not much. Her position is that the WGA simply has them over a barrel, and it's their own fault, although she does confine most of her argument to the Globes issue -- she hasn't said very much about Oscar specifically yet, but you can see where she's headed. "For the AMPTP to expect a groundswell of Internet anger aimed at the WGA for threatening the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards is naive not to mention downright laughable. The ratings for these shows keep going down almost every year so the public doesn't much care."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Casting, Deals, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Remakes and Sequels

Yesterday afternoon I was thumbing through some Sundance e-mails when I came across an interview pitch for Brian Cox, known to one and all for his many acting roles including Stryker, nemesis of Wolverine in X2: X-Men United. For a while it's been known that the role Cox originated was going to be taken over by the younger Liev Schreiber in the upcoming fourth film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so how come Brian Cox has X-Men Origins: Wolverine as his top credit on the actor bio sheet I'm looking at right now? An attempt by me to follow-up with the publicist who sent me the bio has been met with silence, so who knows if this was something that wasn't meant to be leaked or just someone's dumb mistake? I can easily see a publicist accidentally writing down X4 when they meant to write down X2. But the wall of silence hasn't yet dissipated. I'll be keeping an eye on this.

The official synopsis for X-Men Origins: Wolverine -- what a clunky title -- states that the film "explores the claw-wielding character Wolverine's violent and romantic past, and his complex relationship with Victor Creed and the ominous Weapon X programs, as well as his encounter with other mutants." Filming is expected to start in a couple of weeks, so if there are any last minute casting decisions to be made, now is the time, I guess. I'd definitely like to see dueling Strykers, but is time-travel a big part of the X-Men universe, cause otherwise I can't exactly see how they'd pull that one off. More likely that if this is true, there will be a prologue or epilogue with Cox getting to shine for five minutes.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom

While zipping through my RSS feeds this week, I found a blurb from In Style, via CNN. With the title "The world according to Katie Holmes," I couldn't resist. What followed was a word association game that shared her thoughts on a bunch of brief, personal topics like her work, marriage, fashion, and age. Between listing one of her roles of a lifetime as being a wife, making many marriage references, and talking about what husband Tom Cruise likes to see her wear, I started to muse about the good old days.

Remember when she was just starting out and lived for herself? When her main interest in life wasn't the fact that she nabbed Mr. Cruise? How about when Tom was wowing audiences everywhere instead of being the tabloid face of Scientology? It seems like a million lifetimes ago that Holmes was a big up-and-coming actress, and Tom was the uber-awesome, megastar actor that everyone loved. In memory of those days, I thought it would be nice to throw a couple great flicks into the DVD player that captured their great, successful, and gossip rag-free early days.

The Ice Storm



Before popping up in Dawson's Creek, Katie Holmes was Libbets Casey, a wild schoolgirl in the '70s who makes Paul Hood's (Tobey Maguire) Thanksgiving all sorts of memorable in Ang Lee's The Ice Storm. My favorite of Ang's films, Storm stars one heck of a cast -- Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, Sigourney Weaver, Christina Ricci, Maguire, and Elijah Wood. Instead of the regular thanks and turkey gluttony, the film deals with two families who struggle for happiness and a road out of romantic disillusionment -- all in a '70s backdrop of changing times and political lies.

But Kate comes into play outside of the family dynamic. Libbets is the object of Paul's affection, but he has to battle his paramour-stealing friend Francis (David Krumholtz) for her attentions. While her role is brief, it looked to be the start of something good. Of course, some of the work that followed couldn't even be classified anything but stinkeriffic, but still -- there's some good ones like this wonderful first role, Go, and of course, her next film with Tobey -- Wonder Boys.

Unfortunately, while you can find a few trillion billion TomKat videos up on YouTube, no one has reveled in Libbets love yet. So, here's a selection of other goodies from the movie, and some retro Katie action for good measure.

Charlie Rose Interview -- Ang Lee, Rick Moody, James Schamus

Clips set to the song "Santa Clara"

Christina Ricci, Elijah Wood, and where to store your gum when making out.

Katie Holmes sings I Hate Myself for Loving You

Katie on Speed in Go -- Ignore the Dubbing

Continue reading Friday Night Double Feature: The TomKat Edition!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: New Releases, Universal, Theatrical Reviews, Celebrities and Controversy, Politics

I didn't leave Charlie Wilson's War, the new film from director Mike Nichols, dissatisfied or unamused. I walked out of Charlie Wilson's War angry. No reasonable person expects a film -- any film -- to capture the complexity and scope of real events with absolute precision; adaptations are translations, and as the old Italian saying goes, "The translator is a traitor." It's one thing to compress, combine and fictionalize a story to fit the sprawling, ugly mess of it onto the big screen; it's another to take only the best, shiniest parts of a real, ugly story and turn it into a feel-good comedy. Translation may be traitorous, but Charlie Wilson's War feels like a conscious act of treason against reason itself. As film critic David Thompson has said, "We learn our history from movies, and history suffers ...." Charlie Wilson's War isn't just bad history; it feels even more malign, like a conscious attempt to induce amnesia.

Based on George Crile's 2003 book of the same name, Charlie Wilson's War follows the exploits of Charlie Wilson, a Democratic Congressman from Texas who, during the '80s, had as much fun with his position as you could, which was a lot. But as Charlie Wilson's War opens, we see Charlie hot-tubbing in a Vegas hotel suite; the room's full of booze, broads and blow. But Charlie, played by Tom Hanks, can't look away from the news; as one of his new acquaintances notes her apathy to world events, Charlie boils it down: "Dan Rather's wearing a turban; you don't want to know why?" Dan Rather's in a turban because Dan Rather's in Afghanistan, among the Afghan mujahideen -- the Islamic rebels trying to drive the Soviet Union out of their country by any means necessary. This sight sparks something in Charlie, so he sets out to increase the C.I.A.'s funding for the Afghan rebels -- from $5 million a year to 10. It's a lot of money. It's going to be much more.

Continue reading Review: Charlie Wilson's War -- James's Take

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Drama, Casting, Deals, Celebrities and Controversy, New in Theaters

Looks like I was at the wrong roundtable. Over at Cinema Blend, they are reporting some interesting footnotes from a recent Walk Hard junket, in which John C. Reilly says that Paul Thomas Anderson offered him a role in There Will Be Blood, but it wasn't right. "Paul and I talked a lot about it,"he says. "He wrote me a part for the movie and I said 'Don't put me in there just because you think you have to, because we're friends. Put me in there if I'm the right guy to be in there.' And he thought about it and he was like 'You know what? You're right. You just talked yourself out of a part.'" Reilly says he was happy about the decision and how the movie ultimately turned out. "I was really glad. That movie just seems so seamless. It just seems like he discovered this real place."

Reilly also went on to talk more about the film, saying "I really hope those guys [Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis] get some attention, because I think that movie is a real achievement for Paul. It's such a departure from his other work. I was just staggered by it. I've seen it a couple of times, and I have really high hopes for that one." So do I -- if a Best Director Oscar isn't forthcoming, for P.T., then it better go to Joe Wright. Who else is deserving this year?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand

Sort of. In an entertaining interview over at The Guardian, flavor of the month Jason Bateman opens up somewhat about his many years in the Hollywood wilderness, and comes across as genuinely shaken by how randomly an actor like himself can go from unemployable to a hot property in the blink of an eye, for no good reason. Specifically, Bateman talks about the randomness of choosing the Arrested Development series, his big comeback vehicle. "I would have done a show half as good as Arrested Development," he says. "Things were few and far between. I didn't give a shit at the time. I just got really lucky." He says that around the same time Arrested Development was offered, he also got an offer to appear on another show that would have tanked, and his big rebirth would never have happened. "The more obvious choice was the other series," he says. "It had a big star, it paid better, it probably had guaranteed air time. It could have buried me."

Continuing with his 'it's all a coin toss' analogy, he posits the following hilarious scenario: "Let's say, God forbid, Gary Coleman got kidnapped tomorrow. That would lead the national news. Then he would get released, maybe in a month, but now he is revitalised, currently relevant, and a great piece of casting for a new project. If he does that project and he's halfway decent in it, he's got another career. It's an awful way to make a living if your success is predicated on some arbitrary moment of exposure." Am I the only who thinks that there's at least a 50-50 chance that Coleman will read this article and then hire someone to kidnap him?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Romance, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Remakes and Sequels

There are girls who make the waves in the media world because of their exploits (Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears), and then there are some special ones who just know how to keep gossip-fiends hooked with their strange vacation from reality. Jessica Simpson is one of those people. If you thought Blonde Ambition or Major Movie Star (as if) were laughable, get ready for this -- she wants to be the next Julia Roberts. Or, at least, follow in her footsteps a little and play a hooker.

Yes, dear Cinematical readers, Jessica Simpson wants to star in a remake of Pretty Woman. According to OK! Magazine's source, "She thinks this one's got 'hit' written all over it.' Her father Joe has been telling anyone who will listen that she's the next Julia." Yeah, so as her manager, he's got to talk her up, but there's a difference between being positive about your talent (for lack of a better word), and making ridiculous comparisons. I would ask if she's really that clueless, but after her television show, and her myriad of insane statements, I think that's clear. And, no, I'm not talking about the Heckerling sort of Clueless.

And here I thought Simpson taking on the role of Sandy for a Grease remake was bad ... but I'll hand the mic over to you. Would you like to see Miss Jessica as a Pretty Woman? Can you see her winning an Oscar one day? Have we all just somehow disregarded her amazing acting talents?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Site Announcements, Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom

I'd just like to take a moment of silence for Jamie Lynn Spears' future career in the entertainment industry ...

...

And now to the business: Today, Variety reports that the WGA will indeed picket outside the Golden Globes ceremony on January 13, assuming the strike is still going strong. SAG has not decided yet whether or not they will cross the picket lines, and are "seeking reaction from members who have been nominated before announcing its plans." There might, however, be rules as to where the WGA can picket -- meaning if they set up a few blocks from the theater, there might be another way into the theater that allows SAG members to not, technically, cross the picket lines. So it's still up in the air.

Yesterday, when the whole waiver news broke, a fellow Cinematical writer asked if Cinematical would "cross the picket lines" and live-blog the ceremony. For the past few years, we have live-blogged both the Globes and the Oscars, and have had a pretty good time doing it. The way I see it, my fat ass is at home, in front of the television, and so I'm not technically crossing any picket lines by live-blogging the Globes. I told this to our writer, and they replied: "So then we don't support the writers?" No, we support the strike coming to an end in a way where both parties are happy with the outcome. That's what we've always supported. Personally, I'm not a part of the WGA, or SAG, and so my only loyalty is to our readers. And if our readers want some delicious, humorous color commentary to go along with what will probably be another boring awards ceremony, then I have no problem providing that to them.

But I wanted to ask you folks first. Keep in mind, we're not asking whether the ceremony is worth live-blogging, because most of you will say it sucks anyway. That's a fact. I'm asking whether you think we should live-blog the ceremony considering the WGA will be picketing it? Would you be offended if we "crossed the picket lines?" (Note: Our decision will not be based solely on this poll, but I wanted to get a general opinion before making the final call.)

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Comments