Friday, July 31, 2009

Ridley Scott to direct Alien prequel…Unfortunately!!

Director Sir Ridley Scott is reportedly set to direct a prequel to his classic sci-fi film “Alien”. Trade newspaper Variety said the veteran director would return to the series for the first time since he directed the original film in 1979. Rumor has it the prequel will reveal what happened to the marooned ship found by the crew of the Nostromo in the original.

Two things worry me about this project: 1) Scott hasn’t directed a sci-fi film since he made “Blade Runner” WAY back in 1982, and as far as I’m concerned, that was also his last decent film. 2) The prequel is being written by Jon Spaihts, someone who has absolutely no credits to his name (according to IMDB).

Time will only tell whether or not this ends up being a worthwhile project, but right now I'm thinking it might be a HUGE mistake letting either man anywhere near this project.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Studio scrambles to blame Lefevre for losing her "Eclipse" role

Looks like Summit Entertainment, the studio releasing the “Twilight” series, is scrambling to avoid a backlash from Rachelle Lefevre/Victoria fans by pointing the finger of blame at her. As I reported earlier, they’re claiming they only chose Bryce Dallas Howard to replace Lefevre in “Eclipse” because Lefevre is scheduled to shoot scenes for the film “Barney’s Vision” which would conflict with the “Eclipse” shooting schedule. Summit says it even informed her reps days ago that taking the part in "Barney's Vision" could jeopardize her “Eclipse” role.

But, Rachelle Lefevre is now saying she knew nothing about Howard replacing her or the scheduling conflict. According to a statement she released “I turned down several other film opportunities and, in accordance with my (“Twilight”) contractual rights, accepted only roles that would involve very short shooting schedules.

She added that she was "stunned" and "hurt deeply" by the decision, and that she was "fully committed" to returning as Victoria. She said shooting her role in “Barney’s Vision” would only last 10 days. "Although the production schedule for `Eclipse' is over three months long,” she said, “Summit said they had a conflict during those 10 days and would not accommodate me. Given the length of filming for `Eclipse,' never did I fathom I would lose the role over a 10-day overlap."

The studio fired back by saying "Contrary to Ms. Lefevre's statement, it is simply untrue that the studio dismissed her over a 10-day overlap. It is not about a 10-day overlap, but instead about the fact that `The Twilight Saga: Eclipse' is an ensemble production that has to accommodate the schedules of numerous actors while respecting the established creative vision of the filmmaker and most importantly the story."

Many of Lefevre’s fan are already posing online petitions to "Bring Back Rachelle."

August 4 is Megan Fox-Free Day

Finally the media has come to its senses -- if only for one day. After months of interviews and photo shoots of the (totally unnecessary) star of Transformers 2 Megan Fox, several websites have decided to make August 4 Megan Fox-Free Tuesday!

As far as I'm concerned, they can make it Megan Fox-Free 2009 and ban this borderline "talent" from everything for the rest of the year.

'The Room': Worst Movie Ever Made? Then it'll probably win an Oscar

For a few years now the film "The Room" has consistently grown in popularity. Not because it's good, but because it's so bad. It's been called "The Worst Film Ever Made". Well, I've seen it, and trust me, it's nowhere near as bad as the Oscar-winning (still can't figure that one out) "No Country For Old Men" and the new "Public Enemies".

"The Room" has been called "The BEST worst film ever made". In other words, it's so bad it's actually fun to watch. "NCFOPM" and "PE" on the other hand, are just plain BAD.

Personally, I think the critically-lavished Coen Brothers wanted to find out whether or not they were still being judged on their talent rather than the fact that they were indie darlings. So they wrote and directed the absolute worst film they could think of: "No Country For Old Men". Problem was, the members of the Academy -- who have proven time and time again they are totally disconnected from the rest of the world -- began praising it as a masterpiece. At that point the Coens were trapped. If they announced NCFOM was just a joke on the film world, they'd be ostracized from the industry. So they kept their mouths shut as award after award fell into their hands. And all along it drove them into fits of despair.

Don't believe me? Go back and take a look at their faces when they accepted the Oscar for Best Picture. They look MISERABLE! If you win the top Oscar, you get VERY excited. You smile, you laugh, you have the time of your life. Not those two guys. They looked like they were just diagnosed with cancer.

That brings us to "Public Enemies" by director Michael Mann. This is a movie SO bad, it may win the Oscar, too. It's almost three hours(!!) of mediocre acting, listless characters, unimaginative direction, a pointless script and a lack of any real suspense, drama or action (and guys standing in one spot shooting guns does NOT count as action). Yet -- again -- critics are slobbering all over it.

WHY?? It's as if the Academy only nominates films they know are lifeless and boring.

BTW, I think that's why "The Dark Knight" wasn't nominated last year. If not for the phenomenal job done by Heath Ledger as the Joker, that film would have easily won. Because without Joker, that film was just like NCFOM and PE -- lifeless, boring and pointless. In fact, I'm surprised "Batman Begins" didn't grab every Oscar available. That borefest had no reason for existing.

No wonder the Oscar telecast has been consistently losing viewers year after year. Long ago, general audiences realized it was nothing but a self-centered pat-on-the-back for an organization out to prove what geniuses they THINK they are. They are totally out of touch with mainstream moviegoers. Each year they keep nominating films no one went to see for the top awards. In fact, the last time a successful film (i.e. one people actually wanted to watch) won Best Picture was "Titanic" -- over ten years ago!

This year (although they deny their true reason) the Academy increased nominations for Best Picture to ten films in a desperate attempt to draw more viewers. They'll undoubtedly nominate five more mass-friendly films along with their usual indies no one saw. Problem is, even if viewer ship does increase, it won't last long. People will realize they've been duped when the Academy STILL picks one of their "art house" favorites to win. It's like those time-share companies who get you to sit in on their presentations by promising you a huge gift, then just shove a coupon for a free cheap meal in your hand at the end.

No thanks. I'll pass.

In the meantime, check out the trailer for "The Room" at

As bad as it is, it's still more enjoyable than any part of "No Country", "Public Enemies" or anything else the Academy may pick this year.

Bryce Dallas Howard replacing Rachelle Lefevre in third Twilight film

Entertainment Weekly reported that Bryce Dallas Howard will be replacing Rachelle Lefevre in the role of ‘Victoria’ for "Eclipse", the third Twilight film. According to Summit Entertainment, the switch is due to a “scheduling conflict” with Lefevre's role in "Barney’s Vision".

Most Popular Superhero Movies (per


Once relegated to the pages of comic books, superheroes have burst onto the big screen within the past decade with a power that's nothing less than, well, superhuman! Every summer features at least one (if not more) superhero epic, and each year ups the ante in terms of story, acting, and special effects. Our latest feature on the Power of Film explores the Most Popular Superhero Movies, as ranked by IMDb users. You'll find some familiar faces (and animated ones), with one hero placing no less than three films in the top fifteen.

15. The Incredible Hulk (2008)

14. Superman (1978)

13. X-Men (2000)

12. Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

11. Spider-Man (2002)

10. RoboCop (1987)

9. The Crow (1994)

8. Batman (1989)

7. Spider-Man 2 (2004)

6. X2 (2003)

5. Watchmen (2009)

4. Iron Man (2008)

3. The Incredibles (2004)

2. Batman Begins (2005)

1. The Dark Knight (2008)

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Peter Jackson releases remake then complains about "lack of original ideas"

Peter Jackson just released "District 9" his new sci-fi outing he and director Neill Blomkamp (GREAT name) created after plans for their "Halo" film crashed and burned. Haven't seen it yet, but from what I've seen it looks an awful lot like "Alien Nation", the 1988 film starring James Caan. Nonetheless, I've been looking forward to seeing it.

But then Jackson makes a comment at Comic-Con last week about movie fans being "fed up with the lack of original ideas":

That's true, Peter, but after just releasing a retread of an older film, should YOU be the one pointing that out?

"Haunting In Connecticut" DVD

Watched the DVD of "Haunting in Connecticut" last night and really enjoyed it. One of the rare paranormal films out the past few years that wasn't some fast food hack job designed to make a quick buck then fade into obscurity.

Peter Cornwell did an excellent job directing, especially considering it's his first live-action feature. He managed to avoid too many predictable shock scenes and build some fine suspense. Writers Adam Simon and Tim Metcalfe also did an impressive job. The story had some nice twists and characters I actually cared for (i.e. I didn't want to see them get hurt vs. rooting for them to get knocked off quickly).

Skip all those over-rated Asian horror flicks (and their American remakes) littering the theaters and DVD shelves. Rent this one instead.

Acting Tips on What To Wear & Not Wear At Auditions

SInce this site is more than just brilliant reviews and insights, here is a great article for those of you wanting to break into acting. It's written by Stephen Reynolds.

This is an extremely important part of auditioning. You should always dress for auditions, according to the “type” or "character" being cast. Know what you have been type cast for and wear appropriate clothing to match. This information should be clearly stated in the information provided by your talent agent or within the casting call brief.

If the character brief asks for a “sexy, attractive, young lady”, be sure you wear some figure hugging clothes and a skirt that will show of your legs, as opposed to trousers, jeans or a smock dress. If the brief is for a business man, then be sure to wear a business suit and tie as opposed to jeans and a T-shirt. If you don’t own a suit, then borrow or rent a good one.

Choose shirts or tops with collars or a “V” neck as they will be the most flattering to the camera. Do be sure to dress neatly. Make a good first impression. Remember, how you look will be the first impression you make to the decision makers.

Possibly more important than knowing what to wear to an audition is knowing what you should NOT wear. Here are some tips for you to consider when dressing for an audition.

Don’t wear black tops, shirts, jackets, sweaters or jerseys etc., unless specifically requested to do so. Black will absorb a great deal of light and will possibly make you look unhealthy.

Don’t wear white or light pastel tops, blouses, shirts, jackets, sweaters or jerseys etc., unless specifically requested to do so. White will absorb light and make you look blurred.

Don’t wear turtlenecks unless specifically requested to do so. They do not flatter you and people may wonder what you could be hiding under there.

Don’t wear an excessive amount of jewelry unless the role requires you to do so. A large number of bracelets or bangles will only distract the decision makers (and make lots of noise). As will large earrings and every finger covered in rings. Less is best!

Don’t wear sandals or flip flops. Although it may be a hot summer’s day and they feel comfortable, it is not a good idea. Be sure to wear some closed toe shoes that are suitable to the role being cast.

Don’t wear clothes with crazy designs or patterns on them. This will just be another distraction to the viewers (those deciding on whether to cast you or not).

Don’t wear visible logos or clothing with visible writing or branding. The brand you are wearing could be a competitor to the advertiser and you will lose their interest quickly.

Don’t wear clothing with branding for the company you are auditioning for. Although, it sounds like a good idea, it will come across as trying too hard.

Don’t arrive in full costume unless specifically requested to do so. There should be enough costume at the audition. One or two items of costume clothing that may set you apart from the competition is OK, just don’t be excessive.

• Always remember, too many distractions will take the focus away from YOU!

If you are ever unsure what to wear then go as conservative as possible. However, you should always consider carrying an extra bag or suitcase in your car with different outfits you can quickly change into if required to do so. You may find that at an audition, the outfit you have chosen is not appropriate and therefore you can quickly remedy that with an outift change. Carrying extra clothing with you is also good practice for situations where you may be requested by the casting director to audition for a different role. Finally, having extra clothes at your immediate disposal is most advantageous when you find you have spilled that cup of coffee all over your audition outfit.

Good luck with your auditions and remember Action = Success!

Monday, July 27, 2009

Latest Harry Potter film weakest of all

I'll keep this short and sweet: The latest addition to the Harry Potter franchise is by far the weakest of them all. In fact, would someone please tell me why it even exists? Almost three hours and nothing to show for it. Except for a few tidbits on the Norman Bates childhood of Tom Riddle, not a single development was worth sitting through this muddled mess.

And does ANYONE actually believe Dumbledore is really dead (and no spoilers, please, if you've read the books)?

In my opinion, this entire series peaked in creativity and quality with "Prisoner of Azkaban", then started going downhill. Even the actors look tired of it -- both on screen and off. Now, with this weak effort, I dread seeing what we'll be given with the final chapter, especially since they're going to chop it into two segments. After all, they could have easily sliced off thirty or forty minutes on Half-Blood.

If you haven't seen Half-Blood Prince yet, wait for the DVD. Neither the story nor the visuals make it worth the time or price to see it in theaters.

Better yet, just read the book: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince