Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Home Entertainment

Actors might make a lot of money, but at least they work for it with long hours on set, paparazzi insanity, exhausting PR tours, and the pressures of handling the same questions over and over and over again with grace and charm. But even more impressive is when they can be graceful in the face of utter ignorance or idiocy.

We've watched John Cusack get interviewed by a clueless film student, and now (after the jump of course) you can see Ian McKellen handle the women from The View. Ah, there's nothing like having your television interview start out with an inflammatory rant about swine flu and socialized medicine. It's not a surprise really -- the once-sweet Survivor star Elisabeth Hasselbeck has made a career out throwing wild rants into unusual places on the show. But, sadly, that's only the start of the nonsense that McKellen handles with dashing grace. Whoopi Goldberg can't keep her actors straight, and Sherry Shepherd pulls off one of those classic moments where a clueless interviewer reads crap off the cards without knowing what the hell she's talking about.

Yet, in the face of all that, McKellen is pure charm. I always find that impressive. Sure, he's an actor and makes his living making fiction convincing, but to be ready with that clever retort, graciously correct someone who should know better, and take it all in stride ... I wouldn't say this about most of Hollywood, but I think we can all learn a little from that small part of the biz.

Continue reading Ian McKellen Suffers 'The View' Stupidity with Grace and Wit

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Trailers and Clips

If you've been watching playoff baseball these past few weeks, you've probably come across the Tommy Boy DirecTV commercial about, say, 176,000 times. About a week after it began airing, the satellite television company came under fire for a second time for airing parody commercials featuring actors or actresses who died tragically at a young age. The first was a commercial featuring Poltergeist actress Heather O'Rourke, and now folks are really pissed DirecTV is using Chris Farley in a commercial that stars David Spade (who reprises his character from Tommy Boy in a parody of the "Fat Guy in a Little Coat" scene).

If you want my personal opinion, I think DirecTV does this sort of stuff on purpose -- claiming to be "celebrating" the life of a dead celebrity, though what they're really hoping for is that people like us (and several other sites) will give them a bunch of free publicity by writing attacks on their ads. But back to my original point: The folks over at Landline TV have put together a spoof of the DirecTV dead celebrity spoofs -- this time including folks like Heath Ledger, John F. Kennedy and Jesus Christ. Honestly, I'm surprised Michael Jackson hasn't made an appearance yet ... or, heck, how long before DirecTV butchers a scene from Dirty Dancing and craps all over Patrick Swayze?

What do you think about these commercials? Yes, they're annoying (believe us we know), but are they in the wrong for featuring dead celebrities? Or what about celebrities who died tragic deaths at an early age? Is there a difference? Anyone canceling their DirecTV service because of this?

Chime in below, and watch the video after the jump.

Continue reading Wait, Now Heath Ledger Has a DirecTV Commercial?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Deals, Sony, Celebrities and Controversy, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels

Back in August, we reported that the Terminator franchise was in some serious legal and financial trouble. The rights are currently owned by the Halcyon Company, who have managed to make more court appearances than they have films. They were in danger of losing the rights to their hedge fund, Pacificor, who was poised to claim them if Halcyon defaulted on their loan.

But according to The Financial Times, Halcyon has now filed for bankruptcy after their lawsuit with Pacificor, and is selling off the rights to Terminator. It would appear that filing for Chapter 11 afforded their precious franchise some protection from the hedge fund, and they can now sell it to bail themselves out. The sale will be conducted by FTI Capital Advisors, and does not cover rights to the earlier Terminator films.

The Times notes that this auction is coming at a particularly tough time for Hollywood, who is feeling the economic crunch just like everyone else. But it notes that Terminator is one of the rare "blockbuster brands" not controlled by a big studio, and that alone has may drooling at the chance to control future properties. Summit is said to be particularly interested (they can probably pay for it just out of Twilight proceeds), as is Sony and Media Rights Capital. But remember, this is America! Everyone has a chance at destroying mankind, and if you have millions (estimates put the sale beyond $60 million, the benchmark set by the sale of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), you can buy them for yourself. I would have faith in something other than John Connor if a Cinematical reader took the reins of this franchise.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy

As if we needed yet another reason to do what we can to fight cancer. On top of the hundreds of thousands of cancer-related deaths the U.S. is plagued with every year, and just a short time after we lost Patrick Swayze to pancreatic cancer, The Associated Press (via Canoe) reports that two-time Oscar nominee Dennis Hopper has been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

The 73-year-old actor has canceled his travel plans, as well as his attendance at an exhibition of his artwork in Melbourne in order to focus on his treatment. Said treatment is said to be part of a "special program" at the University of Southern California, according to Hopper's manager, Sam Maydew, and they are "hoping for the best." That's not exactly an optimistic quote, which might not be so surprising. This news comes just days after the actor was hospitalized for "showing severe flulike symptoms" and getting treated for dehydration. If those symptoms were the cancer, that cannot be a good sign. And even if they were just the flu, that can't be good for his health and strength.

Nevertheless, we hope for the best and that Mr. Hopper makes a full and speedy recovery.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy

The winds of Hollywood move at a rapid pace, quickly replacing one drama with the next. The thing is, though, the drama doesn't go away. Earlier this year, the cinematic world was buzzing over the fate of the young kids from Slumdog Millionaire. There was the culture shock between Oscar fanfare and slum life, rumors about selling Rubina Ali for profit, and the demolition of their home.

Now The Associated Press reports that the kids could lose their trust fund. It's not a case of movie people jerkitude -- it seems that Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail is only going to school 37% of the time, while Rubina Ali only makes it 27% of the time. The claimed culprit: out-of-slum jetsetting. Trust administrator Noshir Dadrawala says: "They are constantly going to Paris and Cochin and Chennai. That's fine, but go over the weekend, not at the sacrifice of school." (For Ali, travel that's presumably for her many performances and memoir PR.) If their attendance doesn't improve to 70%, their monthly $120 stipend will be stopped, and they will forfeit the later lump-sum money they're set to receive. In response, Azhar's mother Shameen says these absences are due to the death of his father this September from tuberculosis: "He would cry often, so I kept him home from school for a while" -- and that she's determined to improve his attendance and get him an education.

Continue reading A Sad Update On the 'Slumdog Millionaire' Kids

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy

Remember when Sean Penn decided to back away from Hollywood to tend to his family? Well, that didn't seem to go too well. Only a short time later in August, Robin Wright Penn filed for divorce. So much for finding familial focus. With all that freed time, one might think he'd chill with his kids, or head back to acting. Nope. Why do that when you can hunt down dictators?

TMZ reports that Penn has once again put on his part-time journalist hat and flown to Cuba to hunt down an interview with Fidel Castro for Vanity Fair. He hopped on a plane with Diana Jenkins earlier this week in Las Vegas, headed for Havana. (I'm guessing that there's a stop along the way. As far as I know, flying from the U.S. to Cuba is not exactly okay.) But there's a little he-said, she-said among the sources. Barclays contacts say he's going there to meet Castro and talk about how the Obama administration has affected Cuba. Penn's rep told the site that a meeting is possible, but there's no current appointment or plan to meet with the dictator. Methinks that's just evading the topic. One doesn't go to Cuba, have no plans to meet with Castro, yet say that a meeting is possible.

Penn has entered sticky situations before -- most notably with Hugo Chavez, who he thinks is "much more positive for Venezuela than he is negative." But is that enough to make him the first Western journalist to interview the man in three years, since Castro stepped out of the spotlight?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Horror, Lionsgate Films, Celebrities and Controversy

Sunday over at Cinematical's sister site, Horror Squad, vigilant contributor Brian Salisbury picked up a news story from Arrow in the Head about Saw VI receiving no less than an 'X' rating for violence from the ratings board in Spain. While this might be minor news if the rating board awarded 'X' ratings to its predecessors, or even just some of the other horror films released in recent years that borrowed from the first film's gag-inducing inspiration, evidently Saw VI is the first-ever movie that has been awarded the killer rating for violence in the country's history, which begs makes us wonder what the board saw in, uh, Saw that made it so offensive?

Despite having seen only the first and sixth installments in the Saw series, I can attest that the new film is indeed gross and gory, featuring scenes like a showdown between two victims to shave off enough body mass (or maybe just body parts) to survive, and a merry-go-round fitted with six victims who more or less indiscriminately suffer from direct shotgun blasts to the chest. But personally I'm not sure that the movie is really any more violent or gratuitous than any of its predecessors, even those that I haven't seen; while one could perhaps make the argument that many of Jigsaw's victims were dubiously "guilty" at worst (or even outright innocent), making their deaths more tragic, it seems unlikely that the murkier morality of this film would earn it a harsher rating than any of the others.

Since I'm sure there are plenty of readers who have seen all of the films and are ready to weigh in with their own opinions, we'll put the question to you: Is Saw VI deserving of an 'X' rating?

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand

While geeks the world over are eagerly awaiting Avatar, the return of James Cameron to the original sci-fi territory he's proven a master over with The Abyss and Terminator/Terminator 2, fans of obscure science fiction novellas from 1957 are being struck with deja vu. A reader tipped off genre champions io9 to the story Call Me Joe by Poul Anderson, a story that sounds remarkably like Cameron's supposedly original script that revolves around humans that use the bodies of an alien species via a mental connection as physical avatars, and proceed to use said avatars to exploit the resources of the alien's home world.

From the io9 post, "Like Avatar, Call Me Joe centers on a paraplegic - Ed Anglesey - who telepathically connects with an artificially created life form in order to explore a harsh planet (in this case, Jupiter). Anglesey, like Avatar's Jake Sully, revels in the freedom and strength of his artificial created body, battles predators on the surface of Jupiter, and gradually goes native as he spends more time connected to his artificial body."

Read the rest over at SciFi Squad

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Home Entertainment, Harry Potter

The long arm of Warner Bros. law strikes again. For many years now, the studio has been known for being quite strict with their projects. I'm not sure if any property felt that quite so much as the television world of Buffy; numerous fan sites were shut down during the run of the show, and post-finale, the uber popular Musical events were nixed. Now it's happening to fans of our favorite young, big-screen wizards.

The BBC reports that a woman planning a couple Harry Potter supper club nights for Halloween has been told to stop infringing on the studio's rights. Ms. Marmite Lover runs a small restaurant of sorts out of her home -- selling tickets and then making food for her guests, sometimes themed. For Halloween, she chose to make a Harry Potter-themed meal with a Diagon Alley entrance with password, a sorting hat, and food that includes butterbear and Fizzpop chocolate frogs. As part of their letter, Warner Bros. says: "We would therefore ask that you refrain from holding and/or offering for sale any tickets to the Harry Potter Nights and confirm to me by return email that the Harry Potter Nights will not go ahead as planned. Warner does not, of course, object to you holding a generic wizard/Halloween night at the Underground Restaurant."

She's since changed the name of the event, which is going on as planned, although I imagine Warner Bros. was probably expecting a little less Pottermania through the whole event (the Alley, hat, etc.). But how far should studios stretch their rights in cases like this?

Continue reading Where's the Line Between Fandom and Studio Rights?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand, Politics, Religious

Normally, we don't run stories about the personal lives and religious beliefs of celebrities. The exception to the rule is when they have some kind of impact (positive or negative) on a film or a career. So when Paul Haggis gives the finger to the Church of Scientology, we have to run it. As Haggis himself admits, "I am fully aware that some of my friends may choose to no longer associate with me, or in some cases work with me."

According to Village Voice, Haggis has been a member of the Church of Scientology for 35 years. But he found himself questioning its practices and beliefs, particularly after its San Diego branch openly sponsored California's anti-gay Proposition 8. Haggis asked Scientology's spokesman, Tommy Davis, to denounce the branch. Davis skirted the issue, and Haggis went on the offensive with a confrontational letter that has made its way online on Mark Rathburn's anti-Scientology blog. "The church's refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent."

The church's bigotry encouraged Haggis to do a little digging, and he found an online interview with Davis, who claimed that the Church doesn't force its members to cease contact with anyone who forsakes the religion, or openly criticizes it. "I was shocked. We all know this policy exists. I didn't have to search for verification - I didn't have to look any further than my own home." Haggis' wife was ordered to "disconnect" from her parents because they resigned from the church.

Continued below the jump...

Continue reading Paul Haggis Bails on Scientology Big-Time

Permalink | Email this | Comments