Somehow I missed this on Thursday, but apparently so did everyone else, since I didn't see it linked anywhere. Roger Ebert was hanging out at a post-production studio in Chicago, watching the restored new print of The Godfather, when he was unexpectedly joined by Larry and Andy Wachowski, the famously inaccessible duo behind The Matrix, Speed Racer, and (people forget) Bound. Afterward, he got a chance to chat with them -- not in a conventional interview setting, complete with a hovering publicist (the brothers don't do that, remember?), but over a beer.
Ebert was impressed with the "zillionaires": "Nice people. Friendly. No Hollywood attitude." He writes that "[t]he blogosphere paints them as mysterious recluses, which may add to the legend but doesn't match the reality." But their being nice and friendly doesn't make them any less mysterious and reclusive: I'd wager that Ebert only ran the piece because of their reputation for not giving interviews or talking to anyone in the press.
Anyway, it's really interesting to "hear" them speak, though they mostly talk about the difficulties of keeping a moving 35 mm shot in focus and the brilliance of Coppola's Godfather shot selection. It's funny how keeping silent for a while will make such brief, mundane snippets into objects of arcane fascination. (Though since I think the Wachowskis are pretty formidable visual artists themselves, I find their perspective on that sort of thing interesting in its own right.)
No photo, of course; all you get is that old shot of the two admiring a Matrix comic book.
Okay, for this story I need you to try to remember something that happened, like, two years ago. Can you do that for me? Can you take your brain back that far, or do we need to call in McFly and the Doc? Anyway, remember all the hoopla surrounding James Frey's very popular book A Million Little Pieces? How Oprah used the so-called "memoir" to re-launch her book club, and how it turned into this huge success -- so much so that Warner Bros. desperately wanted to make a film out of it -- and how it later came out that Frey made up a good portion of the book ... and then Oprah smacked him around on TV ... and then the film went bye bye. Remember?
Well, that's what happened -- and now, two years after the fact, comes a film called A Million Little Pieces, based on the book by James Frey and directed by Nigel Tomm. And no, it's not being developed -- it's actually done ... in the can ... and available on DVD. Who's in it, you ask? Well, unlike the previous in-development adaptation, you're not going to see stars like Jake Gyllenhaal, Orlando Bloom, Josh Hartnett or Ryan Gosling (all of whom were interested in starring in the other flick). Nope, this one, according to its tagline, is -- wait for it -- "70 minutes and 41 seconds of pure turquoise screen. Nothing more, nothing less." On a budget of $345. Ahem. Confused?
***Note: The above "memo" is not real, it is a work of fiction and it is not to be taken seriously.***
Not ten minutes after this scintillating story hit the wire, I came across this similar item on my very own desktop. Read on to see how the movie marketing machine really works: --------------------------------- From: Enrico Palazzo, Digital Marketing, Disney To: Equally Deluded Colleagues
Attached is an updated report on online buzz around the new Beverly Hills Chihuahua assets:
Favorable Tone Dominates Trailer Buzz – Currently, reactions to the Beverly Hills Chihuahua trailer are significantly favorable (approximately 80%) within Entertainment, Fan-Boy, Video Sharing, Social Networks, Social Bookmarks, and Dog Show communities. Latin-American groups seem particularly pleased with the ways in which their culture is depicted in the trailer. Fans deem the trailer "full of small dogs," often praising the "disturbingly non-human" way that the dogs were presented and asserting that it is "slightly less migraine-inducing" than the initial teaser. Enthusiasts also note that the "furry" trailer has furthered their anticipation for the film's release and anticipate that it will feature many great ADR-to-dog-lip performances from the ensemble dog cast. Additionally, many viewers share panting excitement to see Raja Gosnell's "distinctive work" in the film and, while others admitted that they "aren't fans" of the voice of George Lopez, they stated that the trailer has "sold" them on seeing Beverly Hills Chihuahua during their next flight to Denver. Neutral reactions (15%) arise from viewers sharing sickened reactions to the trailer, often asserting that while the film has the potential to be "doggy-riffic" they still have their doubts based on the initial reviews in the predictably dismissive Cat Fancy magazine.
Lack of Taco Bell References Still an Issue - The limited amount of unfavorable discussion (5%) stems from critics expressing general disinterest in the film, contending that the trailer makes Beverly Hills Chihuahua look like "another talking dog movie that will briefly spark interest in chihuahuas, but only till the kids get bored and they abandon the yappy little dogs in an unsanctioned dog shelter along with all those dalmatians they swore to love forever." Additional focus group testing indicates that American viewers are "confused" by the lack of Taco Bell references in the trailer, while other viewers confused a boom mike for a cattle prod and promptly sent a complaint to PETA.
In related news, Americans barely have money to buy milk, but early tracking indicates that they'll gladly drop $25 on Beverly Hills Chihuahua if it makes their children stop whining for 91 consecutive minutes.
Those folks with plans to see Fernando Meirelles' Blindness this weekend may find themselves blinded by ... protesters? That's because activists from the National Federation of the Blind were pretty ticked off after learning the premise behind the flick: that, essentially, a blindness epidemic strikes leading most folks to go absolutely apesh*t on one another. It would probably be in poor taste to criticize the group for not seeing the film before they protested against it, however I should point out that this all came about after seven NFB staffers watched the movie (three of which were sighted) at a screening.
The NFB claim the movie is offensive, and that it "portrays blind people as monsters ..." A spokesman for the organization added, "We face a 70 percent unemployment rate and other social problems because people don't think we can do anything, and this movie is not going to help ... at all." See, I tend to disagree. First of all, people who aren't smart enough to realize that it's a movie deserve to be repeatedly kicked in the head by a one-armed monkey on steroids. Second of all, if an entire city full of citizens suddenly became blind and couldn't see a thing, you bet your ass people would freak out -- after all, how could they keep up with this season of Dancing with the Stars if they're blind!?
The NFB plan to protest at 75 theaters across the country this Friday, carrying signs that read: "I'm not an actor. But I play a blind person in real life." Where do you stand on all this?
(We're re-posting our review of Religulous from the Toronto Film Festival to coincide with the film's theatrical release this week)
By: James Rocchi
I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F. Roberts
In Religulous, stand-up social commentator Bill Maher doesn't just assert how he believes in one less god than many of us, and he doesn't just craft bold, bizarre and hilarious moments of comedy and discussion with the help of director Larry Charles (Borat). More importantly, and more intriguingly, Maher states the film's thesis in an introduction filmed at Megiddo, the prophesied location of the final battle of Armageddon as written in Revelation; Maher, much like author Sam Harris does in his excellent (if dry) book The End of Faith, proposes that religious belief, in an age of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, actively endangers humanity through encouraging conflict, promising rewards for irrational behavior, justifying artificial divisions and enabling other unfounded and unkind forms of thinking. Or, as Maher succinctly puts it early on, "When Revelations was written, only God had the power to destroy the world. ..."
And then the opening titles kick in, a montage of Maher globe-trotting in search of people to talk to, and as the guitar riffs of The Who's "The Seeker" ring out, we recognize that we're going to get plenty of sizzle along with the steak in Religulous, lots of showbusiness to liven up the soul-searching. Like most documentaries dealing with weighty matters, though, the concern in Religulous isn't that there'll be no sizzle with the steak but rather if there'll be steak to go with the sizzle; does Religulous have the right ratio of factual points to funny punch lines, a balanced mix of context and comedy?
(Note: The following interview ran earlier this month during the Toronto International Film Festival. We're re-running it now in anticipation of the film's theatrical release this week.)
By: James Rocchi
Even after debuting Religulous, his new docu-comedy about faith in the modern world directed by Larry Charles (Borat), Bill Maher still has plenty of questions of his own:"I was saying to Larry in the car on the way over here: I suddenly realized that I don't know the relationship between the Devil and the Antichrist. Do you? I mean, we both know those terms, but they're not the same guy, I don't think. I'm not sure if the Devil works for the Antichrist? Or the Antichrist for the Devil? Or is it like the Joker and the Riddler -- neither of them work for each other, but they gang up on Batman ...?" Maher spoke with Cinematical in Toronto about the difference between 'changing your mind' and 'flip-flopping,' what wound up on the cutting-room floor, getting in harm's way for the sake of a great scene, why it's doubtful he'll follow Religulous with another feature film and much more.
Cinematical's podcast content is now available through iTunes; you can subscribe at this link. Also, you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:
As ever, you can download the entire podcast right here -- and those of you with RSS Podcast readers can find all of Cinematical's podcast content at this link.
Last week, Sacha Baron Cohen crashed a Milan fashion show. Now video has emerged as well, and it really whets our appetite for his upcoming Brüno flick.
Out of his three stock characters, Brüno's the least known, and yet the fabulous fashionista engaged in some of the funniest bits on Da Ali G Show. Not only did he send-up the laughable self-importance of the fashion world, he also challenged folks' sexuality. A memorable bit had him asking a gay deprogrammer if he would get turned on if Brüno gave him a lap dance. (We know we would!)
Although some critics wonder if Cohen can repeat the success of Boratwith Brüno, we're betting he'll get the last laugh, as long as he's willing to suffer for his art. And oh how he loves to do that. Just watch the video. After his moment of glory strutting down the runway in his Farrah 'do and Shadow cape (looking strangely hot), Cohen was detained by authorities. If only all comedians were willing to go so far for a chuckle.
In Miracle at St. Anna, four African-American soldiers are trapped behind enemy lines in Italy near the end of World War II; caught between indifferent leadership and hostile troops, the four fight to survive -- and protect the Italian villagers they've come to know during their exile. Director Spike Lee spoke with Cinematical from New York about the challenges of film financing in modern Hollywood ("it's hard to get stuff made today that's not superhero, comic-book, TV show, sequel stuff. ..."), shooting in an 800-year-old Italian town (" ... all we had to do was take down the satellite dishes ...") and the challenges his new film faces (" ... historically, women do not run to see, or even walk to see, or even crawl to see World War II films ..."), The Wire ("'Omar's Coming!'"), sequel possibilities for Inside Man and more.
Lee even touched on politics and race in the here-and-now: "I'm optimistic. We're going to have a Black president. The 44th President of the United States is going to be a Black man ... I think this is a definite indication of how far America has moved in how it views race. ..."
Cinematical: I was very curious if you could talk a little bit about the genesis of what brought you specifically to Miracle at St. Anna as a film?
Spike Lee: I needed something to read; I went into my wife's office; looked up on her shelf upon shelf of books (laughs) and the spirit told me to go to this one book -- all the time my head is twisted to the side, trying to read the titles -- read this title, Miracle at St. Anna; that sounds interesting; take the book off the shelf, see the cover of a Black soldier with a young Italian kid, World War II, said "Let me read this. ..." After the first chapter, I said "I want to make this into a film, called up James McBride, we met ... and here we are. That's the abbreviated version. ...
(With Miracle at St. Anna opening this week, we at Cinematical are re-running our review from the 2008 Toronto International Film Festival.) By James Rocchi
Spike Lee's films have always been fraught with the potential for greatness and disaster, shuddering with a nervy wire-walking energy that makes them superb when they stay on the narrow space between ambition and execution and gives you a long time to watch the fall when they don't. But that, of course, is what makes them worth watching; for but one example, the only thing more shocking than the realization that there was a musical number in Malcolm X was the realization of how superbly it worked; Lee's films are rarely undeniably perfect, but they are always undeniably his.
So it is with Miracle at St. Anna, a bold, sprawling, messy epic of war and faith set behind enemy lines in 1944, as a group of four African-American soldiers are trapped far from their fellow troops in German-occupied Italy. There are moments here where the film does not work, where you can feel the sharp needle of disbelief or dislocation puncture the film mercilessly, and there are other moments that are not only willing but indeed eager to look at big, challenging, relevant issues of race and power, war and justice, faith and failure. These moments -- and there are many of them -- not only speak to Lee's unwavering skill and commitment as a filmmaker, but also to the singular nature of his talent and will. When Miracle at St. Anna falters, it's in the moments that seem like they could have been crafted by any other film maker; when Miracle at St. Anna succeeds, it's in the moments that could only have been crafted by Lee.
Steven Spielberg has yet another project that he's keen to make his next directorial gig -- according to The Hollywood Reporter, he's just snagged the rights to Chocky, John Wyndham's famous sci-fi novel.
Chocky is more famous in the United Kingdom than here in the States, as it was the basis for a television show in 1984. It centers on a young boy who has a rather tumultuous relationship with his imaginary friend. His father grows concerned that his son has not yet abandoned his imaginary friend for real ones -- and slowly, he begins to realize that the invisible friend is actually an alien consciousness that is residing in the boy's mind. It's old territory for Spielberg, right down to the government forces who are far too interested in the boy and his alien. Surely, Chocky is some reader's favorite book or childhood television memory, and I'm keen to hear your opinion of its big screen potential.
Nevertheless, don't get too excited, Chocky fans. Given Spielberg's break with Paramount, it's uncertain where the project will end up -- DreamWorks has optioned it, but all of its properties automatically end up with Paramount, which would require Spielberg to actually buy it back for his own development. And this is just one of a slew of projects Spielberg has acquired lately. He still has Tintin, The Trial of the Chicago 7, that long-delayed Lincoln biopic, Cowboys and Aliens, and The 39 Clues. All are technically owned by Paramount, all are "the next picture Spielberg wants to direct," and all need to be re-purchased if he wants to develop them at DreamWorks. So by 2009 or 2010, you might see Tintin, you might see Chocky, or you might see another project altogether. Spielberg is covering all his bases.
While Googling pictures of Keira Knightley for a Cinematical project, I couldn't help but be bombarded with reviews and photos from The Duchess, as well as Knightley's latest role in The Beautiful and the Damned. Every article comes with a remark about her slim figure -- and even more frightful, every review of The Duchess complained more about her prominent cheekbones than about her performance. Salon's Stephanie Zacharek found her "unbearable to watch" -- not, it seems, because her acting was poor, but because "I just couldn't get past the skeletal planes of her face." The New York Times' Manohla Dargis called her "a big boned beauty who leads with her jaw" which, I hope, doesn't mean that Dargis thinks her to actually be a sort of giant, and not a lass with a 23-inch waist. The New Yorkercalled her "a starved supermodel," leaving Entertainment Weekly to be the kindest of the lot, labeling her build as "athletic."
Now, as a girl who boasts a very visible clavicle and zero cleavage, I often find myself jumping to Knightley's defense. I'm not as lithe of leg, as anyone who saw me in Lara Croft shorts can attest, and no one would call me anorexic, even if my ribs and hip bones like being seen. I shudder to think what Zacharek would think of my cheekbones onscreen. I'm inclined to believe Knightley isn't anorexic, as her hair and skin look awfully good for someone allegedly starving herself. I've also seen her Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Chinese costume in person and it was pretty normal sized -- I think Johnny Depp's Sparrow outfit was tinier!
I know this is traditionally a slow news time but wow, it's a desert out there! Is everyone in Hollywood sleeping? Are they becoming addicted to CNN election coverage like I am? Well, I managed to tear myself away from Anderson Cooper to do a little Cinematical work (and it's hard, 360 runs on such an endless loop that it's kind of like spending a delightful eternity with him), you'd think someone in Tinseltown could option some graphic novels or cast Captain America. Sheesh. Anyway, here's what we've got today:
The Hasbro Licensing Summit of 2008 revealed the Transformers appearing in Transformers 2 are: Sideswipe (Chevy Corvette), Ravage, and Devastator. Also from Transformer World 2005, Robert Orci has answered a slew of new sequel questions. Beware of spoilers. Additionally, The Insider visited the set of Transformers 2, and you check out some video after the jump.
Oh, Brett Ratner. I snark on him, but immediately feel guilty because everyone does, and it can't be easy for one man to endure. And then he goes and tells MTV about his superhero spin-off ideas and I just want to shake him by the shoulders, and tell him to leave this genre alone. Disappointed that he didn't get to direct Batman, he nevertheless thinks there should be a Joker spin-off -- and not even Heath Ledger's death dampens his enthusiasm. "Heath was great," Ratner said. "But the Joker is a great villain. That's why Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger had so much to work with. And I think there will be another actor who can interpret that. It would be great to see [Robert] Downey [Jr.] as the Joker, for instance." Now, while I don't think the character of the Joker should die with Ledger, I certainly think he's off-limits for awhile -- and a spin-off? Come on. This isn't Magneto, this is a character we never really want to know more about, he needs to exist solely where you can't see him. But then again, Ratner also thinks a Storm spin-off with Halle Berry is a good idea.
Ever since Daniel Craig took over as James Bond and helped re-boot the entire franchise with a modern, serious spin, folks have wondered how far, exactly, they'd take our favorite secret agent. Not long ago there was a rumor that Bond would go full frontal in Casino Royale, but that came and went. And then, for some odd reason, fans pondered whether Bond would ever seduce a man ... or if a man would ever seduce him. Perhaps the rumor began when Craig co-starred in Infamous and shared a kiss with Toby Jones -- or maybe a select group of fans simply like to push the buttons of those who would rather ... let's just say not be down for watching Bond take on a homosexual experience.
Well, most of you have nothing to worry about (and I say 'most' because I know our readers like to get their freak on and wouldn't mind some Bond on Hanz action). While in London, Craig addressed the issue and, regarding whether Bond would ever seduce another man, he said: " No. Kill him and then seduce him [laughs] but not seduce him. This is that question that keeps eternally coming up but it's never been on the agenda and we've never had a discussion about it. It's not something that I desire or want. No." Or shall we call that a Double-O No?
What do you think? Is there room in the franchise for them to play around with this idea?
I think this is the quietest week in the land of the nerdy since I started here at Cinematical. No major casting news from Marvel, no new graphic novels optioned, no reboots announced. It was a pretty crazy summer when it came to superheroes -- maybe everyone is just really tired. Nevertheless, let's look at what has come across the wire, shall we? It's a very verbal day -- Alan Moore still hates Hollywood, William Shatner is still annoyed at JJ Abrams, and M. Night Shyamalan is all wistful. There's plenty to discuss here!
Geoff Boucher interviewed Alan Moore over on HeroComplex and finds him as intractable as ever when it comes to the upcoming Watchmen movie. He believes it sounds like "more regurgitated worms" as Hollywood is wont to produce. (Not just of his work, mind you, but of films in general.) He even hinted that its recent legal woes (which he finds "wonderfully ironic") might, in fact, originate from his corner of the world. "Perhaps it's been cursed from afar, from England. And I can tell you that I will also be spitting venom all over it for months to come." I'm not surprised, but I do wish he could concede that there are good films just as there are bad comic books. Can we send him something by Darren Aronofsky? Perhaps a gift set of The Fountain and its graphic novel companion?
I guess when you make a movie about the Irish Republican Army and Northern Ireland's infamous "Troubles," you're bound to court some controversy. Fifty Dead Men Walking, which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival despite legal threats from the man whose life it's based on (he has since dropped his suit), has now drawn more fire because of comments made by one of its stars, Rose McGowan.
During an interview in Toronto last week, McGowan, who plays an IRA operative in the film and whose father is Irish, said: "I imagine, had I grown up in Belfast, I would 100 percent have been in the IRA.... My heart just broke for the cause. Violence is not to be played out daily and provide an answer to problems, but I understand it."
This has caused a bit of a hullabaloo in that part of the world, where the IRA was officially classified as a terrorist group. (Its proponents saw themselves more as freedom fighters, striving to throw off the shackles of British rule.) Martin McGartland, the British secret agent whose infiltration of the IRA is the basis of the film, said, "Rose McGowan's comments were insulting to victims of IRA terrorism and she should apologize. It's easy to say this sort of thing when you live in L.A." A victims' advocacy group leader said, "She may as well add that she would have joined al-Qaeda and flew those planes into the Twin Towers had she been born a disgruntled Muslim."
Somehow I missed this on Thursday, but apparently so did everyone else, since I didn't see it linked anywhere. Roger Ebert was hanging out at a post-production studio in Chicago, watching the restored new print of The Godfather, when he was unexpectedly joined by Larry and Andy Wachowski, the famously inaccessible duo behind The Matrix, Speed Racer, and (people forget) Bound. Afterward, he got a chance to chat with them -- not in a conventional interview setting, complete with a hovering publicist (the brothers don't do that, remember?), but over a beer. 
***Note: The above "memo" is not real, it is a work of fiction and it is not to be taken seriously.***.jpg)
Steven Spielberg has yet another project that he's keen to make his next directorial gig -- according to 
I know this is traditionally a slow news time but wow, it's a desert out there! Is everyone in Hollywood sleeping? Are they becoming addicted to CNN election coverage like I am? Well, I managed to tear myself away from Anderson Cooper to do a little Cinematical work (and it's hard, 360 runs on such an endless loop that it's kind of like spending a delightful eternity with him), you'd think someone in Tinseltown could option some graphic novels or cast Captain America. Sheesh. Anyway, here's what we've got today:.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
I think this is the quietest week in the land of the nerdy since I started here at Cinematical. No major casting news from Marvel, no new graphic novels optioned, no reboots announced. It was a pretty crazy summer when it came to superheroes -- maybe everyone is just really tired. Nevertheless, let's look at what has come across the wire, shall we? It's a very verbal day -- Alan Moore still hates Hollywood, William Shatner is still annoyed at JJ Abrams, and M. Night Shyamalan is all wistful. There's plenty to discuss here!
I guess when you make a movie about the Irish Republican Army and Northern Ireland's infamous "Troubles," you're bound to court some controversy. 
