Discuss: Who Would be the Most Profitable Director if ...
Filed under: Fandom
.jpg)
What if a new movie was coming out and the only information we had was the name of the person directing? This was a discussion my friend and I had over the long holiday weekend, where we pondered a situation where a heavily-marketed film was coming out, and in the TV spots, trailers and billboards, all we were told was the date the film was arriving in theaters alongside the director's name. We then began to wonder which director would not only create the most buzz, but would also make the most money. Whose name is the strongest commercially right now -- is this person also the most talented, and if not, then what does that say about us and why we choose to spend most of our money on a weaker product?
Of course the first three names we spit out were James Cameron, Michael Bay and Steven Spielberg. In our opinion, these three men would make the most money at the box office if all we knew was the simple fact that they were coming out with a new film and nothing else. Seeing as Spielberg can go either small or large, we then narrowed it down to Bay or Cameron -- mainly because both are known for event-type films. My friend ultimately chose Cameron, whereas I went with Bay only because I feel he's a little more relevant at this moment in time and for this specific generation (though Avatar may certainly change that).
A second tier of names included Quentin Tarantino and the Wachowski Bros., though keep in mind the marketing cannot mention the other films these folks have directed -- only their name and the release date. For argument's sake, we're giving it a rating of PG-13 (just to take that off the table).
So, then, have at it. In your opinion, given the circumstances, who would be the most profitable director?
Wait, Wait, Wait: 'Steven Seagal: Lawman'?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy
I realize (belatedly) that this is not breaking news, but I heard about it for the first time the other day and nearly choked on my Sunkist. Did you know that: a) Steven Seagal, the pony-tailed B-movie bad-ass who needs no introduction, has spent the better part of two decades working as a deputy sheriff in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, a downscale suburb of New Orleans, and b) A&E will shortly be airing a COPS-like reality TV show depicting his adventures called Steven Seagal: Lawman? It's true. The first episode airs December 2nd. For more details on the show, you might take a look at this post from over the weekend on our sister blog TV Squad, which among other things includes this wonderful quote, delivered to a group of police trainees: "Some of you may know who I am, and some of you don't. I've been doing martial arts for 40 years, so you can look at me as Steven Seagal, he's a movie star, or you can look at me and say Steven Seagal, he can save my life." Indeed.
But you might also look at these clips from the A&E website for the show, which made me choke back some of my laughter. 'Cause as much as it sounds like a joke, it doesn't really look like one. I mean, by all accounts, the guy has been working as a real live policeman on the side for twenty years. It's a dangerous and unglamorous job. He doesn't do it for the money or the attention, as evidenced by the fact that almost no one knew about his moonlighting for twenty years. He does it, apparently, because it's a job where he can help people and put his skills to some use. Isn't that... kind of awesome? How many movie stars have done something similar?
Anyone else now have a new respect for Steven Seagal?
Is This the Next 'District 9'?
Filed under: Deals, Fandom, Newsstand
By: Zachary HermannCount Sam Raimi among the people who saw District 9 and thought, "Gee, why can't more studios put out budget-conscious gems like this?" The Spider-Man director will be playing Peter Jackson to his own Neill Blomkamp of sorts, a Uruguayan director by the name of Federico Alvarez. After the buzz around Alvarez's alien invasion short (posted below for your viewing pleasure) Panic Attack! had him making rounds in Los Angeles, Raimi's production shop Ghost House Pictures signed the director for what will be Alvarez's feature film debut.
The reports have been translated from Uruguayan newspaper El Paris, but here's what everyone seems to agree on -- the feature, like District 9, will be budgeted in the $30-40 million neighborhood and Raimi will take on a mentor role, thus saving Alvarez from the ugly, business part of things. The picture will shoot in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Montevideo, Uruguay and will likely involve giant robots, which play a big part in Panic Attack! What is unclear is if this feature-length will be based on Panic Attack! at all.
Read the rest and watch the original short over at SciFi Squad
Warner Bros Will Make Clint Eastwood Fans' Day
Filed under: Action, Classics, Warner Brothers, Distribution, Newsstand, Home Entertainment
If you're lucky enough to be graced with cash or gift cards this Christmas, and you have a big hole on your DVD shelf where Clint Eastwood ought to be, Warner Bros will be happy to help you out. On February 16 they're releasing a massive, 19-disc collection Clint Eastwood: 35 Films, 35 Years at Warner Bros that celebrates the actor / director / producer. Included will be a booklet and a feature length documentary by Richard Schickel. The retail price will be a hefty $179.98.Warners didn't release a complete list of those 35 films, but it spans the tender years of Where Eagles Dare all the way to 2008's Gran Torino. I imagine there will be some crossover with what you already own, like the entire Dirty Harry collection and The Outlaw Josey Wales. But most of his output from the late 1970s onward was done at Warner Bros, so all those films you've forgotten he ever made -- The Gauntlet, Bronco Billy, Honkytonk Man, Tightrope, Firefox, Heartbreak Ridge, A Perfect World, Pink Cadillac -- and can't find on DVD will make this a must have for the fan who needs everything.
Or almost everything. If you're looking for his directorial debut Play Misty For Me, or forgotten gems like Thunderbolt and Lightfoot or The Beguiled, you'll have to wait until Universal or MGM decides to put out a boxed set of their own. On that day, you better reinforce your bookshelf with steel frames to support the other 30 odd films he's done, even without Francis in the Navy.
Weekend Box Office: 'New Moon' Edges 'Blind Side' Over Thanksgiving
Filed under: New Releases, Box Office
It's a bit disconcerting when a movie takes a 70% tumble in its second weekend, and still ends up with a $66 million holiday take, but that's Twilight fans for you. New Moon took all of eight days to get to $200 million, a number bested only by The Dark Knight and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It doesn't look like New Moon's staying power will be particularly impressive, but when your movie opens to $142 million, you don't really need it.A movie that might be sticking around the top of the charts for a few weeks yet is The Blind Side, which surged to get an 18% boost over its strong opening weekend (3-day numbers). The relentlessly positive movie no doubt was helped by families looking for something generically acceptable to watch together over the holiday weekend. Even those who don't care for The Blind Side should be happy that most families chose it over the universally despised Old Dogs, which landed in fourth place with $24 million over the five-day weekend, about $15 million less than its predecessor-in-everything-but-name (but really in name too), Wild Hogs, made in its three-day opening.
The weekend's other major debut was Ninja Assassin, which put up a lukewarm $21 million. That's weaker than the non-holiday opening of the last McTeigue/Wachowski Bros. collaboration, V for Vendetta, despite Ninja Assassin seemingly having broader potential appeal (I mean, come on -- ninjas). Opening in limited release was Dimension's The Road, which did okay on just over 100 screens. It seems safe to say that the dark, grimy post-apocalyptic thriller won't be a breakout hit.
The holiday top 11 after the jump.
New to Me: Purple Rain and Stunt Rock
Filed under: Action, Drama, Music & Musicals, Columns
As the perpetual young'en on the staff, it only seems fitting that I start chronicling my encounters with whatever classic or otherwise noteworthy titles that I'm just now dusting off and catching up with. For the first in this series, I find myself tackling a double feature of '70s/'80s rock kitsch - Stunt Rock and Purple Rain.
Their Best Role: Nicole Kidman in 'To Die For'
Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Fandom, Nicole Kidman
Welcome to a new series here on Cinematical where we select an actor or actress and the role we think is their all time best.
There is no doubt about it, Nicole Kidman is a big old movie star. But, what's always struck me as a little odd is that when you ask most people what they think of the actress, more often than not the reactions aren't all that positive. As for box-office, it's not like her numbers are going to blow you away either. But neither of those things have stopped Kidman from joining the ranks of A list actresses. So yeah, her career has spanned two continents and she has become an icon of glamor, but when it comes to her work as an actress, I happen to think that she peaked in 1995 in Gus Van Sant's dark comedy, To Die For. In Van Sant's film, Kidman played Suzanne Stone, a loose approximation of Pam Smart (the high school teacher who was convicted of conspiring with her 15-year-old lover, and his three friends to kill her husband), a ruthless and truly terrible person who will use her looks and just anything else she can get her hands on to make her dreams of stardom come true.
It was her role in the Aussie thriller, Dead Calm, which had Kidman as a grieving mother in a fight to the death with a psycho on the open sea that first caught the attention of Hollywood. Kidman had a charisma and natural beauty on screen that must have seemed like the perfect fit for blockbuster stardom -- and that's where things started to change. In her subsequent roles in the big budget racing flick, Days of Thunder, she was basically 'the girl', before turning to her first Hollywood role as a bad guy in the '93 thriller, Malice. But her turn as a con-woman in that film was no match for her performance as the murderous meteorologist in Van Sant's black comedy.
Discuss: How Long Should You Keep Netflix DVDs?
Filed under: Home Entertainment
Over at Hacking Netflix, Peter Nelhaus started a lively discussion about how long Netflix subscribers should get to keep DVDs without penalty. Peter feels that Netflix needs to establish some limits -- after you've hung on to a disc for, say, two months, you should be charged the purchase price for the DVD. His problem is that Netflix just doesn't have large quantities of more obscure foreign/indie titles, and if I'm procrastinating on watching one of those "smaller" titles, the rest of you are waiting on me. The two pages of comments offer a range of suggestions: Netflix sending a "nudge" email to subscribers every month, waiting until six months to charge a fee for holding a DVD, or simply buying more copies of that title.The thread prompted me to look at our own Netflix account. It's not pretty. We've had one DVD for a month, and the other two for over two months. If you're in Austin and wondering why you can't get your hands on Brothers of the Head, it's totally our fault. A "nudge" email would probably help; threatening us with a fee might be overkill, although we'd sure send them back ASAP. Admittedly we tend to use the Watch Instantly feature more than the physical discs, so even hanging onto the discs, we get our money's worth. However, I think I'll physically nudge my husband to watch 'em or send 'em back soon, just to avoid the wrath of Peter and others like him.
400 Screens, 400 Blows - Doc Flock
Filed under: Documentary, Columns, 400 Screens, 400 Blows
Lately I have been looking at some of my year-end awards screeners, mainly the documentaries. My critics' group votes for the year's best documentary; we each vote for our top five and then vote again from the top five finalists. It's not easy to figure out this year's front-runner as of yet, and most of the contenders have been huge yawners. For several years in a row, the big award-winners have always been about war in some form, either WWII or the more recent wars in the Middle East. But this year I have detected grumblings of ennui from the other critics, an ennui that i started developing years ago. This year the favorites appear to be a bit more lighthearted in tone, as well as more local in theme. Rowdy movies like Anvil: The Story of Anvil, Capitalism: A Love Story (52 screens) and Food, Inc. (5 screens) for example have captured the hearts of my colleagues.
The Academy threw a monkey wrench in the works when they announced their shortlist of 15 films that they would be considering for Oscar nominations. Following their bizarre rules, it was an odd list; it included many titles that no one has seen, and it eliminated many of the favorites, including Tyson (prompting an interesting response from director James Toback), Good Hair (38 screens), The September Issue (13 screens), It Might Get Loud (11 screens), Yoo-Hoo Mrs. Goldberg (10 screens) and More Than a Game (46 screens). The list also eliminated a couple of my favorites, both lively and spirited: Kirby Dick's Outrage and Not Quite Hollywood, about the history of Australian exploitation cinema.
Cinematical Seven: Movies with Nameless Main Characters
Filed under: Cinematical Seven
Making a movie about a character whose name you never reveal sounds backwards and bizarre. How are we supposed to identify with the protagonist if we don't even know what to call him? But many films go that route, including this week's movie adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's The Road, which doesn't name the man or the boy who occupy almost every frame of it. That's in keeping with McCarthy's novel, which is spare and bleak and doesn't use much punctuation, either. (The apocalypse wiped out most of the world's apostrophes.) Here are seven other movies whose central characters' names are kept hidden from us.
Fight Club. Currently celebrating its 10th anniversary, this modern classic follows novelist Chuck Palahniuk's lead by not naming the narrator, played by Edward Norton and identified simply as "The Narrator" in the credits. (Some viewers have thought the character is named Jack due to the Narrator's use of expressions like "I am Jack's cold sweat" and "I am Jack's raging bile duct," but he'd previously established that these are metaphors adapted from an old educational pamphlet he read where "Jack" was the generic name given.) The Narrator is intended to represent 20th-century men in general: repressed, emasculated, and timid. Of course, if you've seen the movie, you know we might actually wind up learning his name after all....
_thumbnail.jpg)
Discuss: Who Would be the Most Profitable Director if ...
Warner Bros Will Make Clint Eastwood Fans' Day
Their Best Role: Nicole Kidman in 'To Die For'
Discuss: How Long Should You Keep Netflix DVDs?
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
_thumbnail.jpg)
