Archive for ‘Bonus Materials’
112 items.
In case you had money on the line, here are the winners of the 2011 Golden Globes.
MOTION PICTURES
Best Picture, Drama: “The Social Network.”
Best Picture, Musical or Comedy: “The Kids Are All Right.”
Best Actor, Drama: Colin Firth, “The King’s Speech.”
Best Actress, Drama: Natalie Portman, “Black Swan.”
Best Director: David Fincher, “The Social Network.”
Best Actress, Musical or Comedy: Annette Bening, “The Kids Are All Right.”
Best Actor, Musical or Comedy: Paul Giamatti, “Barney’s Version.”
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, “The Fighter.”
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, “The Fighter.”
Best Foreign Language: “In a Better World.”
Best Animated Film: “Toy Story 3.”
Best Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network.”
Best Original Score: “The Social Network.”
Best Original Song: “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me,” (written by Diane Warren), “Burlesque.”
TELEVISION
Best Series, Drama: “Boardwalk Empire,” HBO.
Best Actor, Drama: Steve Buscemi, “Boardwalk Empire.”
Best Actress, Drama: Katey Sagal, “Sons of Anarchy.”
Best Series, Musical or Comedy: “Glee,” Fox.
Best Actor, Musical or Comedy: Jim Parsons, “The Big Bang Theory.”
Best Actress, Musical or Comedy: Laura Linney, “The Big C.”
Best Miniseries or Movie: “Carlos,” Sundance Channel.
Best Actress, Miniseries or Movie: Claire Danes, “Temple Grandin.”
Best Actor, Miniseries or Movie: Al Pacino, “You Don’t Know Jack.”
Best Supporting Actress, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Jane Lynch, “Glee.”
Best Supporting Actor, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Chris Colfer, “Glee.”
[ 2 Comments ]
Last night on the red carpet at the Golden Globes, Emma Stone confirmed to MTV’s Josh Horowitz that Spider-Man’s web shooters will be a mechanical device in the reboot – not the organic web shooters of Raimi’s films.
So, I’m glad that’s been all cleared up.
That said, I think Emma Stone would have made a MUCH more interesting Mary-Jane Watson. Not for the red hair, but because she has the right tough-chick attitude.
[ No Comments ]
The internet is ON FIRE right now due to the press release sent by Warner Bros. announcing that Anne Hathaway has been added to the cast of The Dark Knight Rises as Selina Kyle – otherwise known at Catwoman.
Tom Hardy (who we already knew was involved in production) was also confirmed to play Bane – the villain who let loose all of the prisoners in Arkham Asylum before wearing down Batman’s defenses and breaking his back in the Knightfall story arc from the early 90s.
If you’re not familiar with the comics, Bane was also the goofy looking muscle-bound goon from 1997’s Batman & Robin and was previously played by professional wrestler Jeep Swenson.
The online consensus seems to be largely positive surrounding these announcements. Although I most closely associate Hardy with his reedy, sniveling performance as Praetor Shinzon in the much-loathed Star Trek: Nemesis, if you’ve seen him in Bronson or Warrior, you know that he’s capable to bulking up. I’m not worried about him.
It’s Anne Hathaway I’m scratching my head about.
The appeal of Catwoman has always been a strong mix between her street smarts and pin-up sultriness – neither of which Hathaway possess.
Don’t get my wrong. I like Anne Hathaway as an actress. I think she’s affable and makes good choices. I’m just not sure if she’s the right fit for Catwoman. She’s too “girl-next-door” to me. She’s not aggressive enough in my eyes to do the character justice.
I guess I don’t know who I would have cast from the current crop of Hollywood starlets for the role. Gina Gershon from about 10 years ago would have been good. Too old now.
Truthfully, Maggie Gyllenhaal would have been a good choice if she hadn’t already been cast (and killed) in The Dark Knight. She seems resilient and the product of an urban upbringing. And if you’ve seen Secretary, you KNOW she can do sultry.
Alas, it’s not to be.
More than anything, I guess I’m confused by the choices director Christopher Nolan is making for his villains. Catwoman and Bane? I mean, if you played them right, both characters could be seen as emotionally manipulating Batman. The original draft of Bane in the comics had him paired as a strategic equal to The Dark Knight. But over time, his cunning has been buried under a mountain of muscle that other writers have handcuffed him to.
I would think that a filmmaker as cerebral as Nolan would have had a field day with The Riddler or Hugo Strange. And by the way… what happened to those rumors?
I don’t know. I guess if Nolan sees something in the capability of these actors, then I have to trust him. But my gut is telling me this is a misfire.
What’s your take? Leave your comments below!
[ 21 Comments ]
I know I’ve been posting a lot about comic book movies, so please excuse this rant. But X-Men: First Class is a mess.
First a little bit of a recap. Two days ago and awkwardly posed (and obviously Photoshopped) picture of the cast showed up on MSN before quickly being taken down. It was for naught as the photo made it’s way around the internet in no time.
From left to right, it features Michael Fassbender as Magneto, Rose Byrne as Moira MacTaggert, January Jones as Emma Frost, Jason Flemyng as Azazel, Nicholas Hoult as Beast, Lucas Till as Havok, Zoë Kravitz as Angel Salvadore, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique and James McAvoy as Professor X.
As a result, Fox ended up distributing 3 new photos from production to media outlets yesterday that show the cast in more traditional clothing, Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw chatting it up with Jones’s Emma Frost and a quaint shot of McAvoy and Fassbender playing chess.
Serviceable photos, but a little ho-hum. As bad as the leaked cast photo was, at least it gave us something to sink our teeth into. In fact, they kind of make X-Men: First Class look… well, boring.
That brings us to today. Now we have a conversation with director Matthew Vaughn who was so incensed about the original promo shot being leaked, he reached out to SlashFilm and provided them with a pair of HIS OWN exclusive images – including one of Fassbender wearing his Magneto helmet.
“I freaked out on them yesterday,” said Vaughn. “I don’t know where the hell that came from. I don’t think it’s a Fox image. It’s not a pre-approved image. When I found out, I said, ‘What the f*** is this s***?’ and Fox is running around trying to figure out what happened as well. I agree. It’s like a bad Photoshop, which maybe it was by someone. It didn’t reflect the movie. I was shocked when I saw it. I was like ‘Jesus Christ’…”
Vaughn goes on in the interview to assert that he loves the X-Men, that they are not bastardizing the concept, that the tone of the film is serious, more realistic and basically the most awesome thing since sliced bread.
Pardon me if this sounds like a load of crap.
Clearly Vaughn and Fox are scrambling to adjust perception of the film in the wake of the leaked cast photo. That’s admirable. They’re trying to manage expectations for the film and that leak undermined it.
But at the same time, I can’t help but think all of this scurrying around is nothing but a huge cluster-eff and it really hasn’t done much to change my perception of the film.
I understand it, the plot revolves around Professor X and Magneto jointly establishing their “School For Gifted Youngsters” and the ideological differences that drive them – and the student body – apart. Framed within the context of the social upheaval of the 1960’s this makes sense.
But it over-complicates things.
Why do we need Angel Salvadore and Azazel in the mix? Modern characters that even most comic book fans aren’t familiar with. For that matter, why do we need Havok or Mystique?
What’s wrong with telling the origin story of the X-Men and using Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Angel and Beast? Why does there have to be this manufactured conflict or behind-the-scenes view of the school’s foundation that depicts the how and why of Magneto and Professor X’s falling out?
In the words of Patton Oswalt, “I don’t give a s*** where the things I love come from! I just love the things I love!”
Mostly I think I’m worried about Fox’s flimsy adherence to continuity. I don’t need the movies to be exactly like the books, but Fox seems to have trouble following character development in their own films.
In X-Men 2, Hank McCoy (AKA Beast) had a cameo in human form as a mutant rights activist. In X-Men 3, he shows up in his more well-known furry blue form and is played by Kelsey Grammar. If the leaked promo shot is to be believed, Beast shows up blue and furry almost 20 years prior to the events of X-Men 2. Um, okay.
In the comics, Havok is the younger brother of Cyclops. But in Wolverine: Origins, we see Cyclops recruited by Professor X while he’s still in high school. So I guess I’ll be interested to see how they explain that – if at all.
I’ll also be interested to see if they make any mention of Emma Frost’s relationship to Silver Fox – a plot contrivance that was also laid bare by Wolverine: Origins. Or are they just going to continue doing what they want?
Vaughn seems to hint as much.
“I’d say this is more like Casino Royale than [JJ Abrams] Star Trek. If you think about it, Casino Royale just totally rebooted Bond — they kept what they wanted and got rid of what didn’t work. You sort of saw Bond become a double O for the first time and yet it didn’t seem to matter [what they changed]. I think my rule is to make a stand alone movie that is as good as possible and do as many nods and winks towards the comics and the other films, but not get tied up in knots worrying about that.”
So, in other words, another hatchet job that will leave fans of the comics dissatisfied and Bryan Singer’s X-Men 2 the high water mark of the franchise.
What’s your take to the pictures that have been released? What do you anticipate from X-Men: First Class? Are you optimistic about the film or do you have reservations? Do you think Fox and Vaughn can salvage the negative emerging perception of the film? Leave your comments below!
[ 15 Comments ]
I was kind of spacing off for a moment and quietly reflecting on Trent Reznor’s win last Sunday at the Golden Globes for Best Original Score.
After watching the ceremony last week, Reznor’s win along with the several additional trophies The Social Network took home that night, I was motivated to listen to the film’s soundtrack and slipped into it’s dithering electronic hum for an hour or so.
Reznor’s score is probably one of my favorites of the year. But another electronic act – Daft Punk – also ranks highly for their work on the Tron: Legacy soundtrack.
I am certain I am not the first to notice that these two genre powerhouses dipped a toe in Tinsletown this year. But I am struck by the disparity of their output.
While the Tron: Legacy soundtrack is enthralling and certainly grandiose in scope, it was criticized for not bringing enough of Daft Punk’s signature drive to the table. Some people found it a little heavy on the orchestration and a little light on the booty-shakin’ beats.
I appreciate the Tron: Legacy soundtrack for what it is, but admit I wish that the signature track “Derezzed” was about 15 minutes longer…
By comparison, Reznor’s work is very similar to much of Nine Inch Nails’ instrumental catalog. The atmosphere of the score fits in quiet comfortably with the dark, melodic underpinnings of NIN remix EPs like Still or Ghosts I–IV. In many cases, tracks retain the propulsive beat missing from Daft Punk’s soundtrack work – even if it veers into distorted, bleak territory.
I’m not arguing that either effort is better than the other. But it’s interesting to notice the trajectory of these artist’s work. Reznor stuck with a formula that’s been evolving for over 20 years and converged with director David Fincher’s vision for The Social Network.
Daft Punk, on the other hand, completely re-imagined their sound. A successful effort that fans were not expecting and was met with varying degrees of acceptance.
Just making observations. How about you? Do you own either soundtrack? Do you believe Reznor was deserving of his Golden Globe victory? Leave your comments below.
[ 3 Comments ]
This blog post has been adapted somewhat from a Twitter rant I had last night after a screening of Kevin Smith’s Red State had let out at the Sundance Film Festival.
I follow a lot of movie bloggers on Twitter. Several of them are at Sundance. Nearly all of them were taking the piss out of Smith after the screening of Red State.
It wasn’t necessarily the film alone that ruffled their feathers. But, rather, Smith’s “auctioning” of the film’s distribution rights that snapped up for $20 which was promptly announced as “SOLD!” by the movie’s producer, Jonathan Gordon. Smith intends to forgo traditional major studio distribution and will market the film himself on a multi-city tour.
Was it a publicity stunt? Sure. But I’m not sure I understand why movie bloggers are up in arms about this.
I remember the days when Smith was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Journalists were more than eager to prop him up when he was the guy who maxed out his credit cards to make a movie no one had heard about.
Not that I expect journalists to be in his corner at all times. Certainly the quality of his movies has declined a little bit and he’s taken a very vocal anti-media stance. No wonder he’s unpopular in blogging circles. After being burned one too many times, he doesn’t give media the same access as before.
But watching a series of tweets from movie bloggers roll in last night, you could see how the frustration with Smith has turned into outright animosity for (what I think are) largely arbitrary reasons.
Smith has taken the distribution of Red State into his own hands. He brought it to Sundance not to sell it to a studio, but to kick off his own marketing campaign. Folks, this is as indie as indie gets. Yet, there is no praise for this decision?
I’m reminded of music acts like Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails – musicians who have walked away from major record labels and who are producing albums for fans that they release online. These guys are celebrated as marketing mavericks. Meanwhile, Smith is still a pariah.
I can’t help but think this is somewhat deliberate on the part of the movie blogging community. They’re looking for a way to punish Smith for making the decision to communicate only with his fans. Either that, or they’re participating in that time-honored media tradition of championing the unknown artist, validating his work to the masses and then tearing him down in order to look ahead of the curve.
What’s your take on the Kevin Smith hate? Is it warranted? Did Smith bring this on himself? What about his decision to distribute Red State on his own? A bold move or career suicide? Leave your comments below.
In the meantime, if you’d like to watch Smiths’ Q&A from Red State at Sundance, I’ve included that below. I’m eager to read your feedback!
[ 16 Comments ]
As promised, here are the nominees for the 2011 Academy Awards.
Scroll down for knee-jerk, armchair analysis below.
| BEST PICTURE 127 Hours Black Swan The Fighter Inception The Kids Are All Right The King’s Speech The Social Network Toy Story 3 True Grit Winter’s Bone BEST ACTOR BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR BEST ACTRESS BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS BEST DIRECTOR BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY BEST SCORE BEST SONG BEST ANIMATED FILM BEST VISUAL EFFECTS |
BEST ART DIRECTION Alice in Wonderland, Robert Stromberg, Karen O’Hara Happy Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 1, Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan Inception, Guy Hendrix Dyas, Larry Dias, Doug Mowat The King’s Speech, Eve Stewart, Judy Farr True Grit, Jess Gonchor, Nancy Haigh BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY BEST COSTUME DESIGN BEST DOCUMENTARY BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT BEST EDITING BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM BEST MAKEUP BEST ANIMATED SHORT BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT BEST SOUND EDITING BEST SOUND MIXING |
Okay… so looking at these nominations, what am I most struck by?
Well, I was certainly pleased to see Toy Story 3 among the Best Picture nominees. Are they trying to round out the category to meet the 10-nominee criteria the Academy set forth last year? Maybe, but I don’t care.
Up was similarly nominated last yet, but it wasn’t coming into the category from a position of strength like Toy Story 3 is.
Toy Story 3 was the best reviewed, highest grossing film last year. It’ll be interesting to me to see if that colors the opinion of Academy voters.
Also, I think this is the only “threequel” to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar since The Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King. Will the Academy give Pixar a “gold watch” Oscar for their achievement in animation for the last 15 years? Hear’s hoping!
The King’s Speech leads the pack this year with 12 nominations, which kind of surprised me after The Social Network scooped up so many awards at the Golden Globes last week. I’m not upset about it because I happen to think The King’s Speech is the better film – stronger performances and more entertaining. I think The Social Network is very much a film of the moment and notable for that reason. But The King’s Speech is more old-school Hollywood entertainment and is much more satisfying.
I’m kicking myself now that I didn’t write a review of the film after seeing it. If you haven’t checked it out yet, do yourself a favor and get caught up!
Aside from that, my strongest reaction is reserved for the Best Director nominations. It is absolutely CRIMINAL that Christopher Nolan wasn’t nominated for Inception. A richly layered, technically complex and nuanced narrative WRITTEN BY Nolan… and he isn’t recognized. That’s a sin, man. The worst Oscar snub in years.
Apparently the Academy has some kind of axe to grind with Nolan because they locked Nolan out of Best Director a few years ago for The Dark Knight.
Both Inception and The Dark Knight have been nominated in several technical categories. But apparently the Academy thinks of Nolan like some kind of James Cameron figure – an effects hog that dresses up his direction with technology.
I can think of nothing further from the truth.
Here’s my reasoning behind why this was such an egregious snub: Among the directors nominated, David Fincher and MAYBE Darren Aronofsky have the chops to direct a film as complicated as Inception. But Nolan would have no problem directing films like Black Swan, True Grit, The Social Network, The King’s Speech or The Fighter – all films nominated for direction. Nolan could direct those films with one hand tied behind his back.
Nolan was nominated for Best Original Screenplay. If the Academy doesn’t give him AT LEAST that, it would be a damn shame.
The Academy is setting themselves up for another Scorsese-level bout of public humiliation for not recognizing Nolan’s talent sooner. It’s disgusting.
Alright, now that I got that out of my system, what’s your take on these nominations? Was there anything I left out that you wanted to discuss? Leave your comments below!
[ 34 Comments ]
So now that we’ve all had a chance to pour over the 2011 Academy Award nominations and digest this new information, it’s time to download your official Oscar ballot and start making your picks!
Will you choose wisely or will you choose poorly? We’ll have to wait until the award telecast on February 27 to find out!
Also for your entertainment, I’ve embedded the Oscar Nominations Announcement from earlier this morning. Enjoy!
[ No Comments ]
Empire Magazine recently published a very thorough and interesting article called “Your Guide To Disney’s 50 Animated Features.” If you’re a Disney-phile or an animation buff like I am, it’s well worth your time to read. The list includes a few behind-the-scenes production details that help flesh out your understanding of the films.
In particular, I was fascinated to revisit the films from the early 2000’s. Specifically films like Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range. I’ve given those films their fair share of guff, but it’s important recognize that they weren’t the flops that some people made them out to be and – perhaps – aren’t as terrible as you remember.
Compiled as a whole, Disney’s cinematic accomplishments are astounding. It’s easy to heap praise on the standouts like Peter Pan or The Lion King. But I am much more interested in how the so-called “lesser” films have been woven into the tapestry of the venrible studio’s history.
Check out the article and chime in with your thoughts about The House of Mouse in the comments below!
[ 10 Comments ]
