Filed under: Documentary, Independent, Celebrities and Controversy, DIY/Filmmaking, Cinematical Indie

Before he was judgmental in The Devil Wears Prada and farting around with his Entourage, Adrian Grenier decided to film his quest to find his father, and step into the world of documentaries. Really, this guy has been all over the place professionally. After a starring stint as Sebastian Cole, he was oh, so lucky enough to be Melissa Joan Hart's love interest in Drive Me Crazy and then did almost every drug known to man as a guerrilla movie buff in John Waters' Cecil B Demented. Still, Shot in the Dark broke new territory for the actor -- as both his step into documentary work and the challenge to put that much of your real self and story on-screen.

It all happened in 1999 when, after a series of phone calls with his father, Grenier filmed his road trip from New York to Ohio to see him face-to-face. It contains interviews with both strangers and relatives about what fatherhood means, and how parents affect their children's sense of self. You can see a trailer for a little more background over at The Documentary Blog before it airs after Adrian's hit show Entourage, on Sunday, June 3 at 10:30 p.m. Considering all the actors-turned-filmmakers out there these days, and those who think the idea is completely ridiculous, like Alex Cox, I think it's pretty ballsy to reveal yourself when trying other cinematic hats. I mean, much of the movie business is preying on those real-life stories that can be adapted into big-budget phenomenons, but how many of those who portray real-life people would turn the same lens on themselves? According to IMDb, the film screened at Tribeca in 2002 and TIFF last year, so if you've seen it, what did you think?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand

Wow, I bet no one saw this coming. If you're not sick and tired of hearing about the trials and tribulations of Lindsay Lohan by now, then you seriously need to come over to my place because we're having a ball with this whole "coked up on the side of a road" snafu. Ah Lindsay, you beat Paris and Britney any day. Sometimes I feel as if all these girls get together in a room, throw a bunch of moronic activities into a hat and randomly choose the best way to end their career. "Ooohh, I got 'shave my head and punch a photographer's car!'" "Yeah, well I got 'drive the wrong way on the freeway.'" "That's nothing ladies, I got 'snort some coke and crash my car into a tree.' Beat that bitches!" Oh, but wait -- they're addicts. I forgot. Then again, I'm not so sure rehab can cure an idiot addiction.

Now that La Lohan has officially checked into rehab following the events that took place this past weekend, her future on film is all up in the air. According to Variety, the hard-partying thesp might have to ditch her latest role in the dark comedy Poor Things (which we literally just told you about the other day) because shooting was set to begin this month. Pic, which also stars Rosario Dawson, Shirley MacLaine and Channing Tatum, will either delay its start or feverishly search for an adequate replacement. For my money, I'd bet on the latter. This also brings into question Lohan's I Know Who Killed Me, which is due out July 27. Will Lohan be healthy enough to promote the flick? What will happen? And how long before someone plans a movie about her life with Lohan attached to star? And then, how long until she ditches that role too?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand

I'm not exactly sure how the word "pilot" came to mean "initial episode of a TV show," but it's definitely a part of the general lexicon by now. "Did you watch that new series called People on an Island?" is what I might ask you, and your response very well could be "Yeah, I watched the pilot but I couldn't get into it." So you understand the word "pilot" in this context, right? Good. Maybe you should get a job at Los Angeles International Airport.

It's funny because I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened before: Director Mike Figgis was going through security at LAX when he was asked the reason for his visit. "I'm here to shoot a pilot," was his response. Obviously he meant "I'm here to shoot the first episode of a TV series that may or may not be picked up for broadcast distribution," but what the immigration official thought he meant was "I'm here to shoot an airplane pilot with a gun." Yikes! The director of Leaving Las Vegas, Timecode and Internal Affairs was then detained for about five hours until immigration officials could get online and figure out that, yep, "pilot" has more than one meaning.

Good thing the immigration officers didn't ask him about his body of work. Figgis' answer might have been "I recently made a huge bomb."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Independent, Celebrities and Controversy, Distribution, The Weinstein Co., Cinematical Indie

Here are some of the words Harvey Weinstein is using to describe his critics: jealous; disgruntled; has-been. The first two, you may have assumed, refer to the many people criticizing the ability and financial stability of The Weinstein Co. The latter, though, is directed at an internationally respected filmmaker, Luc Besson. The comment was in response to Besson's claim that TWC mishandled the American release of his animated film Arthur and the Invisibles. Weinstein says he'll give the "has-been" $1 million if he can prove that Arthur actually cost $85 million, as Besson claims. So, once again, a film industry dispute turns into a messy blame game, battled with egos rather than brains (and here, I thought Weinstein actually believed Arthur failed because audiences are not used to films that feature both animation and live-action).

But Weinstein could never be personally apologetic for his company's failures. Then he wouldn't be Harvey Weinstein. And it has become a regular thing for him to tell reporters, such as Variety's Anne Thompson, how everyone else is wrong about The Weinstein Co. Despite the obvious, which has been easily noticed by all of us following the film business, Weinstein continues to claim that TWC is doing just fine. Sure, most criticisms are speculative, but mostly they are reasonably so. According to Thompson, rumors are floating around that the Weinstein brothers could lose TWC to its investors; either they will be forced to sell the company or merge with a studio. She also questions TWC's chance for independent success given that even Dreamworks was unable to survive on its own.

Still, Weinstein feels secure in the future of TWC, stating to Thompson that the only thing it's missing is a "glamorous theatrical hit." And he seems hopeful about this summer's release of SiCKO, as well as next year's slate of in-house productions like The Great Debaters, Crossing Over and The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. According to Weinstein, anyone who is doubtful about TWC making it is either a jealous competitor, probably some exec just trying to look cool, or a disgruntled former employee. Considering Weinstein has already surprised me once this year, with his almost personally apologetic reaction to the disappointment of Grindhouse ("We obviously didn't do it that well."; "We didn't educate the South or Midwest."; "We missed the boat." -italics mine), I will just have to be open-minded about the possibility of him turning TWC's reputation around.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Horror, Celebrities and Controversy

Drug abuse is a terrible thing, kids. It land you in jail, ruin your reputation and turn you from a busy character actor into an uninsurable pariah. Case in point: Crazy Tom Sizemore just got fired from pre-production on a flick called The I Scream Man -- and if you can't hold on to a job in a movie with that sort of title, then you're definitely living life a little too hard. I know his drug problems are entirely of his own creation, but I really do feel for the guy. He went from working with Michael Mann, Oliver Stone and Steven Spielberg -- to a public dismissal on The I Scream Man. Ouch.

According to STYD.com, Mr. Sizemore was fired from the upcoming horror flick and replaced by sometimes co-worker Michael Madsen. The reason for his dismissal? Another visit from the "drugs and jail time" fairy. It might sound like I'm cruelly mocking the guy, but the truth is I feel really rotten for Mr. Sizemore. Here's hoping he can right the ship, toss that monkey off his back and mount a small comeback of sorts. In the meantime, J.T. Mollner's The I Scream Man will go into production this summer with Madsen, Dee Wallace, Haylie Duff, Fred Ward, Judd Nelson and the entertainingly bizarre Crispin Glover as ... The Ice Cream Man. (Yes, it's a horror movie.)

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Independent, Cannes, Celebrities and Controversy, Cinematical Indie

Controversial French* filmmaker Roman Polanski was participating in a pretty auteur-packed Cannes event over the weekend, one that brought about 30 filmmakers together to share a bunch of short films. But when the question & answer section of the event started winding down, Polanski got pretty perturbed and called the questions not only "poor," but "empty," too. Ouch. (Now he knows how we felt about Pirates.)

"It's a shame to have such poor questions, such empty questions ... And I think that it's really the computer which has brought you down to this level. You're no longer interested in what's going on in the cinema," is what Mr. Polanski stated, just before recommending a nice lunch and walking out on his fellow filmmakers and a room full of journalists. Hmph, who knew the French could be so irritable? Maybe the guy's blood sugar was really low...

Our man in The Cannes James Rocchi had this to say about the occurrence: "Anyone who's been hanging out with Brett Ratner looks pretty silly trying to speak from the moral high ground, The fact that Polanski's upcoming Pompeii is getting a major marketing push at this year's Cannes may explain in part why Polanski's trying to draw some attention to himself as a savior of cinema."

( * Correction: One very polite commenter makes the very good point that Roman Polanski is Polish and not French. Research indicates that Mr. Polanski (birth name: Roman Liebling) was born in Paris to a Polish dad and a Russian mom. The family moved to Poland when Roman was four years old. So I guess that makes him Polish, French and Russian at the same time.)

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Independent, Celebrities and Controversy, The Weinstein Co., Michael Moore, Hold the 'Fone, Images, Summer Movies

Last week, we debuted the key art and a few photos from Michael Moore's upcoming health-care documentary Sicko, and today we have an exclusive first look at two new posters for the film. (Click on the art below for larger versions.)

Whether you love or hate big Mike, you have to admit that both posters are pretty humorous. I mean, what isn't funny about Moore rubber-gloving up to give the U.S. health care system a metaphorical colonic? And the combo of the skeletons in the doctor's office waiting room and the 'What seems to be the problem?" tagline is definitely worth a chuckle -- especially since they're sitting next to the very non-skeletal Moore.

Get more info on Sicko

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand

Departed star Leonardo DiCaprio is getting a little touchy over claims that's he's a convenient environmentalist. Over at Cannes, the actor has screen his own eco-documentary, which he wrote, produced and narrated, called 11th Hour. Of course, as soon as someone tries to be a voice in anything, questions will come to check for hypocrisy. In this case, he was asked if he took a "fuel-guzzling" jet to the Festival. DiCaprio's response: "No, I took a train across the Atlantic." Snap! Apparently, a British journalist explained that many stars say they're environmentally conscious, and then use huge-emission private jets, to which he replied: "I try to travel commercial as much as I can."

There is just something about the thought of Leo sitting next to a large, snoring man who begins to drool on him that amuses me to no end. I wonder, when can he not fly commercially? Is it a matter of whether they can wipe out the first-class section and let him sit there in peace with his entourage? DiCaprio says that the environmentally inconsistent are "all trying the best we can, truly, we really are." Now I understand wanting to better the environment, but still doing some environmentally-questionable practices -- it's a scale of means. However, it's completely valid to question whether he's doing enough.

Of course, part of the conversation turned toward Al Gore, and DiCaprio said: "This person is truly trying to relay a message to the public and the way he travels and the way he leads his life should not be splayed out like that." But shouldn't they, to some extent? We're a society testy about hypocrisy, and we like to try and fish out the genuine from those that are full of bull. Should Leo spew all that fuel from his private jet because he doesn't want fangirls molesting him and that old man drooling on him? I understand there are safety concerns, so where in the world is the Hollywood jet-setter airline? Get a saucy, decked-out plane that can take 50-100 stars from place to place instead of different jets for each person traveling somewhere. Maybe those green limo guys can look into it. Or, corral all the stars going to one area and say: "Hey, why don't we all go in one jet? It would be good for the environment, and just imagine the PR!"

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Independent, Cannes, Celebrities and Controversy, The Weinstein Co., Movie Marketing, Politics, Michael Moore

This weekend marks the world premiere of Michael Moore's SiCKO at the Cannes Film Festival, and while we wait for the feedback -- including a Cinematical review from James Rocchi -- to come out of the French Riviera, there is an interesting note from Moore, on the filmmaker's website, that is worth reading. Following his unrestrained response to the U.S. Treasury Department, the new note is a lot more calculated and mature. Sure, he still criticizes Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, as well as the Bush Administration (it would be a shocker if he didn't), but this time he expresses his points more clearly than he did in his previous rant. If only he addressed his opposition as well as he addresses his friends (to whom this note is directed), more people might pay him respect.

One major surprise in the note is that Moore honestly thought he could make it to Cannes without a lot of noise. He claims to have been intent on keeping SiCKO under wraps and on keeping himself uncharacteristically silent, mostly because he didn't want to prematurely upset the health care industry (wasn't it too late, though?). Of course, thanks to the Treasury Department's investigation of him, Moore and the film have been given a lot of press these past couple weeks, and certainly Moore is not too upset with the publicity. The filmmaker gives a tiny bit of information about the now infamous trip to Cuba and he hints that SiCKO actually goes somewhere far scarier, though he mentions that his lawyers have advised him to say little more about the incident other than to once again assure us that he has broken no laws. Moore also states that it was his lawyers who recommended hiding a copy of the negative outside the U.S. (he found the notion that the government might confiscate SiCKO to be absurdly un-American). Stay tuned for coverage of the filmmaker's reception at Cannes following its screening on Saturday night.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek

Perhaps we're just a tad late to the game on this one, but I simply had to add in my two cents about the brand new hot-to-trot statue of Spider-Man's main gal Mary Jane. For those who aren't yet aware of this priceless collectible, you can check it out to the right of your screen. Yup, that's Mary Jane holding her man's Spidey costume and casually bending over a wash-bucket with a pink thong riding high up on her waist. Created by comic-book illustrator Adam Hughes, the limited-edition Comiquette comes from Sideshow Collectibles and is licensed by Marvel. And if you're interested in placing Ms. Mary Jane in your living room (right next to your Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 2.1 DVDs, I imagine), then she'll set you back a crisp $125.

Not surprisingly, bloggers everywhere are all up in arms over this trashy, yet smokin' hot version of Mary Jane. Hughes hilariously describes his creation as "Mary Jane discover[ing] that her superhero husband has slipped some of his laundry into the mix, but she's not looking too displeased about Peter's naughty little transgression." Funnily enough, all the outrage has done nothing by spark a feeding frenzy; the statue (which is available through the Collectibles web site) has already sold out, with a waiting list recently added. Now here's where I get to tell you what I think. First off, who cares? The majority of folks who actually buy these statues are geeked-out males (or fanboys) who like to steal a peak at their purchase while surfing for the latest Star Trek fan art. (And based on some of the fan art I've seen, this statue is quite tame). I see nothing wrong with it; she's not naked, she's not revealing too much (unlike a certain "rain scene" from one of the films) and, quite simply, she looks good. Thoughts?

Permalink | Email this | Comments