Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Home Entertainment, Images

The internet covers a lot of life's ground. You can research historical events, read popular media, watch movies and of course, you can interact with friends and strangers across the globe. But there's something the net has really been lacking. Everywhere you turn, there are fully-clothed women who could barely cover more skin if they were clad in burkas, parkas and head-to-toe body armor. Where on earth can you see some female skin? I mean heck, naked men are everywhere, but women just hide away in the shadows ... until now! Fellow movie site, JoBlo, has been renovating lately and in their fiddling they've launched MovieHotties.com.

The site's mandate: "to see that everyone who is surfing the Net with their pants ON (if your pants were off, you'd be on lolitamegs.com or something) has a sweet place in which to drop ... from time to time, to hear all about the latest in these women's lives, their careers ... as well as stare at pictures of their hoho's." Gee, I didn't realize there weren't places like that on the net! No longer will there be desperate pleas for female nudity. The site offers the oft-used link-story-link setup that gives you headlines to the left, such as "Uma Looks Very Yummy!" and then name links on the right. Since the list is in alphabetical order, Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai is lucky woman #1. Her links is still in need of a "hottie pic," but she's already got four votes, putting her at 6.5/10 and a headline below that reads "Indian hottie likes to sin." ... is this the answer to your Internet dreams?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Drama, Celebrities and Controversy, Angelina Jolie, Movie Marketing, Paramount Vantage

Everyone's favorite entertainment journalist, Roger Friedman, is calling Angelina Jolie a hypocrite after she reportedly censored journalists while promoting her new film, A Mighty Heart. The Michael Winterbottom pic is about Mariane Pearl, widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and it deals with freedom of the press, so the idea that Jolie made reporters sign a censoring agreement before interviewing her is certainly problematic. At the premiere of A Mighty Heart Wednesday night, Jolie's lawyer presented journalists with a contract stating certain subjects that could not be discussed with the actress, including questions about her personal life. Of course, this makes sense, because otherwise some writers would attempt to stray from the topic of the film in question -- which would take away from the promotion of the film, as well as from the purpose of the press' purpose at the event.

Still, the contract does seem unnecessary and contradictory to the film's apparent message. If Jolie wanted to reject a question or topic, she could certainly just refuse to comment or leave. Most of the junkets and red carpets I've been to, this has either been addressed or accepted as a given anyway. Instead, according to Friedman, the mode of dealing with gossippy reporters made a lot of people angry, enough to cancel coverage, as USA Today and the Associated Press supposedly did. Eventually Jolie ended up refusing all print interviews because of the outrage. Friedman also claims that Jolie instructed publicists to ban Fox News (for which Friedman works) from the red carpet and any other premiere access. In the end, though, some higher ups at Paramount allowed Fox's coverage. Friedman goes on to criticize Jolie's history of press manipulation and also quotes a disappointed editorial director from Reporters Without Borders, an organization that was supposed to be supported by the film's premiere.

[via Fark.com, which has a good discussion of the article going in its comments section]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy

One of the best cases of cutting through the Hollywood BS in recent years was when Paris Hilton got shipped back to prison. Four days after going behind bars, the suspended-license, DUI driver was stricken with a serious medical problem that just could not be helped at the jail, or in a hospital, but at her posh home. Confinement in some wet, cold basement apartment somewhere I could see still being a punishment for her, but c'mon! It would be paradise to a large percentage of the world. Miraculously, she wasn't allowed to get away with it and was thrown right back in jail whilst screaming and sobbing. Moral of this story: don't think your money, prestige and attitude will let you get away with everything because if you ever get caught, many-a-people will be amused to see the tears as you go down. If you want a run-down of things, go here.

Now, to add insult to injury as she learns her hard lesson behind bars, her agency, Endeavor, has said hasta la bye-bye. Variety reports that the agency, which signed her in 2005, axed her the same day she was ordered back to jail, and they won't say why. Perhaps they felt short-changed when they saw her police car waterworks, thinking that she's been holding back all this time? I imagine it won't be too hard for her to find other representation, but maybe this experience were spur her onto causes more noble than sex tapes, barely-there outfits, DUIs and crappy entertainment. Or maybe not.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Horror, Thrillers, Lionsgate Films, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Movie Marketing, Interviews

Earlier this afternoon I had a chance to speak with Courtney Solomon from After Dark Films. A filmmaker himself (he directed An American Haunting and the 2000 flick Dungeons & Dragons), Courtney is now a partner over at After Dark Films. A company that has a multi-picture deal with Lionsgate; these are the same folks who were also responsible for marketing the upcoming horror flick Captivity. And we all know what happened there. Back in March, a bunch of controversial billboards for Captivity began popping up all over New York and Los Angeles; billboards, mind you, that were not approved by the MPAA. Hence, the MPAA suspended the film's ratings process and slapped After Dark Films with an unprecedented sanction, forcing the company to clear all venues and locations of its ad buys with the MPAA.

Since then, the film's release date has been pushed back twice (it's now set to be released on July 13), and folks like Eli Roth have called them out basically saying that After Dark Films helped ruin the ratings process for other films, like Hostel: Part II, that were trying to go through the process at the exact same time. Following my interview with Roth (in which the director had some pretty harsh things to say about both Captivity and After Dark), I caught up with Solomon who wanted to set the record straight.

Cinematical: Let me read what Eli Roth said to me regarding Captivity and its controversial ad campaign: "Well ... I mean, everyone hates those guys. And word of mouth is that Captivity sucked. Why would I be jealous of that; I don't give a sh*t. I was pissed actually, because it makes it very difficult for the rest of us. They did not go before the MPAA with those posters. It really puts everyone on edge when that happens. And suddenly, who's the next one up? Oh, thanks, it's me. I'm not doing this for attention, I'm doing this to make good movies. And that decapitated head poster was a European poster; that was in 80% of the countries in Europe. It was not a poster that was intended for American audiences." What's your response to that?

Courtney Solomon: First of all, I've heard this over and over again -- [Eli] has spent most of his publicity tour talking about the Captivity posters and dissing us. I was listening to K-Rock one day, and he spent twenty minutes on there just going on about me -- and I've never even met Eli. As far as what he's saying, there are a couple of things that are completely inaccurate. First of all, nobody has seen Captivity because we re-did a third of the movie and we're just finishing it now. We actually just finished the mix on it two days ago. So he hears word around town that the movie is sh*t, but how can he say that when no one has even seen the movie? We just spent a lot of money and a lot of time to make the movie better, because we cared that the movie was good. In fact, it's got a lot more substance than his movie does -- that's number one. That's just a blatant, stupid, wrong statement. That's someone just spouting out from the mouth without even thinking about what they're saying.

Continue reading Interview: After Dark Films' Courtney Solomon Talks to Cinematical About 'Captivity' Controversy and Eli Roth's Big ... Mouth

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Drama, New Line, ThinkFilm, Celebrities and Controversy, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand

If you're not at all familiar with Tony Kaye, then I suggest reading this new Telegraph interview with the infamous artist/filmmaker/lunatic. In it, they explore Kaye's entire career -- from growing up in an Orthodox Jewish home aspiring to be a painter to suing New Line for $275 million after they wouldn't allow him to credit himself as Humpty Dumpty on the final version of American History X, the man has pulled more elaborate stunts than ... screw it; no one has pulled more maniacal stunts than this man. Some might consider the man a genius (he's won a whopping 23 design and art direction awards throughout his career), but his wild temper and nonsensical actions once brought him to a point where no one in their right mind wanted to work with him.

For example, when New Line wanted to make changes to Kaye's first cut of American History X, the director proclaimed, "I'm fully aware that I'm a first-time director, but I need the same autonomy and respect that Stanley Kubrick gets." And that was him being nice. From there, he spent $100,000 of his own money taking out advertisements in the trades denouncing Edward Norton and the producer, he would show up to studio meetings with a Priest, a Rabbi and a Tibetan monk, and was so upset about the eventual 18 minutes of footage that was added in, he hasn't watched the finished film in 10 years. But that's just the short version; how in the world they found a way to get a great film out of this experience is beyond me, but reading about it is almost as much fun as watching it. The best part is that Kaye is finishing up a documentary about the whole experience called Humpty Dumpty, and guess who's distributing it? Yup, New Line.

But after spending 10 years in Hollywood prison, Kaye is currently prepping his first narrative feature since AHX, Black Water Transit. This time he's older, wiser -- and hopefully he's learned his lesson. Humpty Dumpty is set to get a small theatrical release, and then New Line will put it on the 10th anniversary DVD re-release of American History X next year -- a DVD I will purchase, even though I already own an older copy. Kaye's abortion documentary, Lake of Fire, finally premiered last year at Toronto after the director had been working on it for years. ThinkFilm will distribute later this year. What's your favorite Tony Kaye story?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Drama, Celebrities and Controversy

It seems to be the time of questionable lawsuits. Last week, Scott Weinberg posted about the Canadian author, Rebecca Eckler, who is suing Judd Apatow for similarities between her book and his latest -- Knocked Up. Now, Mike White is getting sued for his recent Year of the Dog. It seems that his former friend, Laura Kightlinger, says that the idea came from her, although the claim seems a little weak. She's filed suit alleging that she gave him a script called We Are Animals (about a woman who loves rescuing cats), which became his doggie film.

Now, if you caught James Rocchi's interview with White in April, you might remember where the writer/director says that he got his material -- a stray cat he had inherited who had died: "this cat's death just totally spun me out in a way that I totally did not expect... I just thought, 'Well, that's an interesting idea for a movie premise -- somebody who has a relationship with a pet, and the loss of that changes their life in a way.'" If this is the case, I can't see her script being the source, unless he follows her plot closely. However, White says: "They are totally different scripts. I know there is a similarity in the sense that (the female leads) both have pets that they care about, but beyond that, everything she is saying that is similar seems like a real stretch to me." Meanwhile, Kightlinger's lawyer says: "There was an expectation that if she told him her idea and he was going to use it in some way, she would be paid and she would also be involved in the project." So, they'll continue going through a he-said, she-said with broken ex-friend egos, and potentially some undisclosed settlement.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Comedy, Celebrities and Controversy, Columns, 400 Screens, 400 Blows, Cinematical Indie

I worry sometimes about Will Ferrell. His newest film, Blades of Glory (242 screens) was another critical and financial hit, so that's not the problem. He has also managed to concretely establish his own comic persona, one that seems remarkably adaptable to different kinds of movies, so that's not the problem either. The main problem is that he has made so many movies in so little time; since Old School and Elf in 2003, he has appeared in thirteen movies. To the public eye, he's refining his craft and expanding his repertoire, but in private I suspect he's panicking, or perhaps obsessively searching for something.

I met Ferrell once, and we had a very revealing talk. I'm not claiming to know him, but he told me something that I suspect most movie stars go through; they wonder if they really deserve this kind of treatment and success. They suspect that, at any moment, they'll be discovered and exposed. He could be afraid, if he stops working for even a short time, that someone will fire him from his job. But in just a few years, Ferrell's unique, irreplaceable comic persona has fully emerged. In our interview, he told me that he used to be a field goal kicker for his school football team, which required him to do one task extremely well; it took a serious amount of concentration. He said that he discovered a private place wherein he could retreat during his kicks that he more or less still uses today for his performances.

Continue reading Jeffrey M. Anderson's 400 Screens, 400 Blows -- Will's Way

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand

Wednesday night, a British television channel is going to defy the wishes of Prince William and Prince Harry by showing photographs of Princess Diana's car crash moments after it happened. This is part of a documentary that Channel 4 television will air called Diana: The Witness in the Tunnel. The princes believe the act to be grossly disrespectful and their private secretary, Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, has said in a note: "If it were your or my mother dying in that tunnel, would we want the scene broadcast to nation?" But this has not deterred the station, and the head of the channel, Julian Bellamy says: "We have weighed the princes' concerns against the legitimate public interest we believe there is in the subject of this documentary and in the still photography it includes."

With this reaction, I would imagine that those images must be pretty risque; however, the channel says: "We acknowledge that there is great public sensitivity surrounding pictures of the victims and these have not been included. Some photographs will be of the scene inside the tunnel, but in none of the pictures is it possible to identify Diana or indeed any of the crash victims." Honestly, I'm not sure what these pictures show that have upset the royal offspring so much -- you can find lots of pictures of the car crash online, and even a close-up of Diana surrounded by response teams. So, the royal family could be spot-on in their angered response that Lowther-Pinkerton says will "cause the princes acute distress," or it could be a big kerfuffle for nothing. It might be the latter, since a number of other sources say that there are graphic images of her dying, that her face is just blanked out, etcetera, even though the channel has said none of that will be shown. If you're in the U.K. and see the documentary, let us know if the clips are worth the fuss.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Horror, Celebrities and Controversy, Politics, Remakes and Sequels

Before I present you with the situation, here's a question to think about: Is it okay for someone to label Hostel: Part II "disgusting" prior to seeing the film? Think about that; we'll get back to it. The always-opinionated Nikki Finke recently wrote a story for her Deadline Hollywood site which talked about the various bootleg copies of Hostel: Part II that are showing up on streets and online. Now, in reporting on this story, Finke said the following: "I say, fine: Lionsgate deserves to feel the effects of piracy (not to mention the wrath of mankind) for distributing such a disgusting film." It's her belief that no business should profit off the "uber-violence" apparently featured in the Hostel sequel.

Okay, everyone has the right to their opinion -- except, when you dish it, you need to be able to handle whatever backfire heads your way. Case in point: Brendon from Film ick wasn't happy about how Finke called Hostel: Part II "disgusting" when she hadn't even seen the film yet. During an odd back-and-forth between Brendon and Finke (in which all of Finke's emails were subsequently removed and summarized at her request), it appears Brendon's biggest problem is that Finke "a) declared a film 'disgusting' and insinuated it is without merit, without even seeing it first, and b) attempted to prejudice other people similarly." Finke, on the other hand, felt she had every right to "be offended by 'torture porn'" and shouldn't be persecuted for urging people not to watch the film. Following that exchange, it appears emails were blocked, filtered into spam folders and the call went out for readers to send Finke an email telling her why she's wrong.

In defense of Finke, calling Hostel: Part II "disgusting" (which, in all reality, it probably is -- and even director Eli Roth wouldn't disagree with you there) is no different than assuming the latest Lindsay Lohan film sucks because she's in it. I'm not saying it's right to assume things, but those of us in the movie blog business do it all the time. It's our job to assume; we get paid to offer an opinion. And so it goes. Should Finke have re-worded it to read, "Hostel: Part II is probably disgusting," just as Brendon said Prince of Persia "sounds like quite a dreadfully dull film?" Probably. Then again, Finke urging people not to see it will probably help the film more than it hurts -- "Finke said not to go. I'm there!" What do you think?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Politics

Earlier this month, Erik Davis alerted us to the anger over at Warner Bros. concerning movie piracy in Canada. According to the anti-piracy division of the company, "Canada is the No. 1 priority in terms of anti-camcording legislation." To try and curb this supposedly rampant recording in movie theaters, the company is stopping pre-screenings north of the border, starting with Ocean's Thirteen and continuing with Harry Potter. But go figure -- both are being released or screened internationally before they hit stateside. To me, that seems like a flaw in the rationale, but that's right, there's that 70% number that Warners is throwing around.

Now this past Wednesday, as part of his visit to Canada, the Terminator politician Arnold Schwarzenegger met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Although Arnie is traveling around to discuss climate change, the PM brought up the movie issue and announced that he was going to crack down on Canadian movie piracy by strengthening the laws dealing with using camcorders in cinemas -- making it illegal to tape in theaters. One American official is quoted as saying: "We think it's a good first step." Only the first though, because you have to leave room for the movie criminals to be shipped to big companies and clean the dirty floors with their tongues.

And what about China? I guess "Blame China" doesn't have the same ring that "Blame Canada" does. If this country is to blame for so much of the Hollywood's struggles with fiendish movie pirates, I want to know why they're letting Chinese bootlegs and pirated copies float around. Doesn't big business (in this case, the rampant pirate state of Canada) always tromp the little guy (this case, Chinese pirate imports)? It's just silly. I think Erik had it right when he said: "While Canada certainly needs to step up and join the fight against piracy, I also think we need to evaluate these ridiculous trickling release schedules." Shouldn't you tighten and strengthen your ship before attacking the pirates?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments