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

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