Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan in the movie), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), and Taylor Lautner walk the red carpet to a Q & A session in Japan. Taylor tells a funny story of being asked to sign Team Taylor panties by “older ladies” who were wearing them! Robert Pattinson talks about his songwriting and Kristen talks about how it felt to be bitten..
Here’s something neat I found perusing the net. Sylvester Stallone as he does some scenes during the filming of The Expendibles. Enjoy!
Dr. Henry Carter, a disillusioned celebrity psychiatrist in Los Angelos who’s wife recently died, is lost in a downward metaphysical spiral — and smoking boatloads of marijuana. Waitaminute, this almost sounds like the recipe for a Seth Rogan flick, but it’s instead quite a somber film from up-and-coming director Jonas Pate with the cross-story feel reminiscent of Crash. The stories of Carter’s patients, Jack, Shamus, Patrick, Kate and Jemma, intertwine as they all cross paths at the shrink’s office. The correlation I see to Crash is the moral dilemmas they are faced with, inherent of the theme.
Steven Holden of the NY Times calls it “a contemporary Play It As It Lays”, a 1972 movie about a Hollywood actress who undergoes psychiatry at a sanitarium, searching for meaning in her life only to find that it’s up to her to make it. While there’s overtones of the 1972 film in that it speaks about the stresses of not only the south Californian celebrity and community’s lifestyle, I find the Crash comparison much closer for the simple fact that Play It As It Lays is much more focused on one person. More like Crash, Shrink moves between the problems of several people, but it isn’t as culture-based and is more generational such as mid-life crisis and relationship fidelity as well as teenage rebellion and disenchantment. Unfortunuately it doesn’t have a solid theme for them all which proves how Crash’s racism theme won it an academy award. The struggles that people encounter on the road to success and stardom outline Shrink’s plot and make it a sort of “awe, poor hollywood people” type thing instead of anything that the rest of the country can relate to.
While all the stories have their own intriguing plotlines, the main chronicle of Henry Carter is the most fulfilling. At this point, we all know Kevin Spacey can act, but he once again manages to really pull in the viewer to his painful world as he portrays someone battling his demons in an escapism to an rather unlikely drug addiction, marijuana. It’s actually humorous to find those scenes of seeking counsel from his dealer, the guy who’s not his friend but whom Henry tries to treat as one, an all-too-familiar scene from any pot-smoker’s life.
There are some writer tricks that make me gag toward the end, including the mis-direction trick (without giving it away, here’s an example: “I’m sorry to inform you but your husband isn’t ok..[insert gasp from would-be widow]… in fact HE’S GREAT!”) and that particular one happens literally 3 times in a row, scene after scene right until the end where everything ends hunky-doory. I realize that it’s Hollywood, despite being an independent film, and that as producers of the film they need to think of a way to make money to justify their expense in making the movie. But I’ll never accept quickly typing up a movie’s plots with “everything always works out in the end” type of fantasies as “good art”. A good film is something like As Good As It Gets, where there’s multiple plot lines that are intertwined but the focus never direly leaves the protagonist as it did in Shrink, and in the end, it may have been happy for Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt’s characters to go for that walk, but it was only a walk — the emphasis was not on them suddenly becoming girlfriend and boyfriend but on them getting over themselves and spending quality time together. The result of that early morning stroll to the bakery wasn’t getting married, getting that great job promotion, overcoming a fear of heights or anything. It left a lot up to the imagination and THAT’s why it was a happy ending.
Shrink, on the other hand, seemed like it was desperate for a happy ending and it actually made me bummed out to watch. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. It’s as if I was lured into watching what I thought would be a great book only to find out it was only ok. And as Dr. Henry Carter says on national television as he gets closer and closer to a complete breakdown in his life, I would say the line Don’t Buy This Book more or less sums up my feelings.
If Mel Gibson didn’t have an edge of darkness in him, he wouldn’t be perfect such a role as this. A detective who’s lost his activist daughter by way of corporate espionage shotgun blast right at his front door when she comes to visit (I didn’t give this away, it was in the trailer). It’s all pretty and nice until that happens and suddenly it’s yet another thriller action flick starring Mel Gibson — or is it?
Corporate espionage is a fascinating subject and Hollywood knows that it’ll bring the intellectual out to the theaters (or at least to the DVD store). From Michael Clayton to the International to the Constant Gardener, the past decade alone has brought us some good films that have decidedly cast a darker shadow on the big guys. E! Online says it’s simply “more paranoia from Mel Gibson”, but I’m not exactly sure what they’re referring to. The only conspiracy movie that stands out in my mind is conspiracy theory, and it’s not even that serious of a movie. Edge of Darkness, on the other hand, looks fairly original, less demeaning and more mentally stimulating, and it’s not surprising with the director of Casino Royale and screenwriter of The Departed (not to mention Ray Winstone who’s career as an actor is full of strong supporting roles which he always pulls off with ease).
It’s nice to see Gibson acting again, though, and taking a break from producing. He outdoes himself in his work as a producer on Passion of the Christ and Apocalyptico — both movies are extreme, but incredibly artistic for a Hollywood hunk. Some would disagree with me on this, but he’s not a terrible, nor even a mediocre talent. His acting in Payback might be his darkest and in Edge of Darkness he seems to have a similar damaged persona going on. What I like from the trailer is that there appears to be some strong development of his relationship with his daughter before the murder. Whether or not this is carried out too briefly in the actual film is what I’m afraid of.
While trailers are meant to double as a quick plot summary and marketing tool, there are some unfortunate cliche taglines in Mel Gibson’s dialogue that make me roll my eyes, such as “Fasten your seatbelt” and “I’m a guy with nothing to lose”. But then there’s a good one towards the end that, while may be corny, works real well if this is to be a dirty harry sorta thing: “You gotta decide if you’re the one on the cross.. or the guy bangin’ in the nails.” Haven’t had enough of Jesus yet, Mel?
In one clip, Gibson’s character knocks over an operating table in a room where a doctor with a face-mask is, alluding to the possibility that the cover-up he is uncovering is led by powerful men who find it necessary to alter his brain chemistry or otherwise mess with his body to aid their corruption. This sort of conspiracy always makes me wonder why the evil-doers would go that far if they could just kill the guy and be done with it, especially when there’s all sorts of other killing going on. Alas, we shall have to wait to find out just how important it is to them for him to stay alive and, as a fan of conspiracy theories, I think it’ll be worth the wait.
In a recent press release to Yahoo!, pop weirdo Lady Gaga discusses the content of her new songs on her re-release of The Fame, aptly titled The Fame Monster:
“On my re-release The Fame Monster, I wrote about everything I didn’t write on The Fame. While traveling the world for two years, I’ve encountered several monsters, each represented by a different song on the new record: my ‘Fear of Sex Monster,’ my ‘Fear of Alcohol Monster,’ my ‘Fear of Love Monster,’ my ‘Fear of Death Monster,’ my ‘Fear of Loneliness Monster,’ etc…….I spent a lot of nights in Eastern Europe, and this album is a pop experimentation with industrial/Goth beats, 90′s dance melodies, an obsession with the lyrical genius of 80′s melancholic pop, and the runway. I wrote while watching muted fashion shows and I am compelled to say my music was scored for them.”
After exploring the idea of the Fame Kills tour with Kanye West (which was subsequently canceled due to lack of sales — who says irony is dead??), it’s no wonder her new songs reflect the dark side of being a celebrity. With a new twist to her beat, will Lady Gaga now start pushing less mainstream and more underground experimental?
Alexis Petridis of The Boston Globe (a newspaper in a town where music is incredibly overpopulated) said her music lacked originality and if Gaga found herself in Boston as an an amateur artist, she might have trouble finding one of the cooler parties to go to. Maybe this sort of press is what is pushing her to explore underground music a bit more. I guess we shall see in November..
The censorship in America is sad. I just watched this for the third or fourth time, but through Netflix, and there’s music and video editing that replaced what i found to be the crucial point of the movie. Originally, after the first viewing, i was more than psychologically entertained, i was shocked and felt a sense of fear. The censored version just doesn’t quite have that affect on me. Granted i had seen the movie before, i still can’t imagine someone seeing the censored version for the first time and having the same experience, the experience that Kubrick would have wanted them to have. Sadly, Kubrick died before finishing the movie (luckily, the “unrated” version is available for purchase on DVD and Blu-Ray..)
Kubrick’s genius was based on the fact that he had managed to make movies in a way you’ve never seen before, and it didn’t stop with cinematography or unruly pacing. The subject matter to each one of his films is unique and his attention to the detail of each scene (which is crucial to plot when you think about it) tends to make his motion pictures like still life portraits. In Eyes Wide Shut, it uses an extra slow plot outline to analyze the risks people will take to find release for their overwhelming feelings of desire and infidelity, specifically between a young married couple portrayed by Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise. On one hand you have a seamless and successful monogamous marriage and on the other you have a free world of sexual fulfillment outside of the marriage which tempts both parties. These temptations start as curious thought crimes which end up persuading Bill the doctor (Tom Cruise) to venture down that uncertain path of infidelity only to stumble upon something completely out of left field.
She makes cutting edge music. She dons crazy outfits. Now she is being accused of being a man. Wouldn’t all you fans like to believe this total weirdo of pop culture actually has a penis..
In a youtube video clip from the 2009 Glastonbury Festival in England, during a monologue about her empathy and reminiscence of being a masochistic fan in the audience putting up with terrible conditions for the sake of witnessing a live music performance, pop star Lady Gaga mumbles something (something about panties maybe?) just before adjusting herself and stepping off a motorcycle. Once she hits the stage with her feet there is clearly something dangling between her legs. The speculation is that it’s no vagina, but Gaga has said repeatedly that she is being ostracized for being a strong woman and that while she isn’t upset about the accusations, her vagina is.
When watching the video myself, it looks like she picked a vagina wedgy right before she got up off the bike and that her panties were just hanging down. It’s an amusing surprise on first watch, though. And it’s given millions of viewers a new reason for thinking Lady Gaga is crazy. But she’s been zany all through her 4 years of being a performer. All one has to do is google images of Gaga and there’s hardly any picture of her that is anywhere in the realm of being “normal”. Every outfit of hers is a Halloween costume, far beyond a fashion faux pas. For instance, at the MTV Video Music Awards she dropped from the sky wearing what looked like a bloody, but sexy, angel outfit, then received her award in a red, lace lingerie dress complete with a tall crown and lace that covered her whole head and face.
Some are speculating that Lady Gaga used to be a man and had a sex change, however our beloved Perez Hilton managed to snag a copy of her high school yearbook in which pictures of Gaga (a.k.a. Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta) as a teenage sweetheart are abound in all their glamor.
One might not even be surprised at this point to discover that this pop diva is indeed a hermaphrodite, a man with breasts, a transexual, especially considering her support of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) community and her openness about being bisexual — some fans might even be thrilled. What if there’s a reason why this crazy cool chick is so crazy? What if there’s a secret past to be discovered, uncovered, unveiled in an E! expose? What if she was born with two testicles and had to keep one due to the danger of losing an ovary? What if she’s really not even human? What if she’s really a horse? Or a broomstick? What if, what if, what if??
It’s easy to imagine anyone in the spotlight as something deeper, bigger, more mysterious, more intricate and vast than they truly are because most people whoa re in the spotlight are so eager to put their lives out there for us to see that there usually is not much behind the curtain. Alas, Lady Gaga’s openness also lends evidence to a more realistic possibility that she really has nothing to hide, nor could she if she even really wanted to.
Whoopi Goldberg is out of the closet about being a non-supporter of Roman Polanski. However, she says there’s a difference between “rape-rape” and “rape”. Most likely she is referring to forced-rape as opposed to consensual sex with an underage teenager.
Meanwhile, Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand of France seems to be having trouble deciding if he is for or against the support of Polanski. He says that as the minister of culture he’s naturally concerned for one of the country’s most prominent artists, however he described Polanski’s actions as “grave”.
A lot of people are asking, what crime did Roman Polanski commit? On the radio today, I heard callers compare Polanski to Woody Allen (and point out that Allen was one who signed the film community petition) and say that these are the types of role models in the entertainment industry who challenge the morals of America. Meanwhile, on this same day, David Wells, the former district attorney in Polanski’s case, admitted he lied, essentially admitting there being corruption in the judicial system. So, now, there is not only a question of morals on the defendent but also on the prosecution side. It made me question (maybe for the 5,493,285th time in my life..) how our society really intends on saving itself in these tough times.
The petition was also signed by such renowned filmmakers as David Lynch, Harvey Weinstein and Martin Scorcese, a move which any film enthusiast could view as honorable, but which any average American might be apt to shake their head at: it’s beautiful that friends and supporters of an artist would band together to create a grassroots effort, mostly likely with the hope of using their celebrity status to help influence more supporters to follow suit; it’s also begging the question of whether or not these supporters view Polanski’s actions in the 1970′s as respectable. After all, fleeing the country just before being sentenced in a statutory rape case is not normally worthy of praise. Or is it?
These filmmakers have all created art which depicts crime in America, and the simple fact that they are renowned for their work proves that their depictions are something the audience can relate to. It’s become a common joke that, in order to get ahead in American society, one needs to break the law. Going a step further, breaking the law can be a form of hazing in fraternities and even just your average social circle. You might ask yourself how often you actually break the law and find that you do almost every day.
The American justice system is based on morals and thus constantly being changed due to society’s moral values changing with the times. In the case of statutory rape and the age of consent, the U.S. generally feels that no person under 16 is capable of having consensual sex and, in some cases, if the older person is more than a few years older it’s considered a bigger crime. Roman Polanski was 43 and he was originally accused of giving drugs to, and then having sex with, a 13 year old girl.
Today, that 13-year-old girl is now 32 years older and has stated that she’d rather not deal with the media frenzy that has caused her so much distress in the past. And the prosecutor has admitted he lied. And a whole slew of Polanski’s peers are petitioning to have him freed. This will be the sort of story that changes how we perceive celebrities, filmmakers, artists, the entertainment industry, lawyers, district attorneys, morals and possibly even laws if it keeps up. And something tells me it’ll be keeping up for quite some time…
I’m going to pick a side and say that I fully believe Joaquin is pulling a Hoax, possibly Andy Kaufman style, but most likely more of a publicity stunt (where Andy Kaufman did his pranks for the pure hilarity, not to promote anything). He wants everybody to react to this character he’s made to keep them strung along for this “documentary” Casey Affleck is making.
These are the clues I’m going on:
also, i dont see much info on the documentary. All I can find is “it’s a documentary about Joaquin’s transition to hip hop”.
Neither Casey Affleck nor Joquin Phoneix seem like idiots. Their resumes are both ripe with intelligent productions and performances. So the question remains (in my mind at least), why would they do something so ridiculous and thoughtless? I mean, have you heard Joaquin’s rap song from that youtube video? It’s just your average party rap song, nothing super-creative or anything. And after doing the soundtrack to Walk The Line it’s really hard envision a future with such a painfully creatively-lacking pursuit.
Another thing to remember: Joaquin has lots and lots of money. he has a publicist, an agent, etc. Wherever he goes, these days, there is a camera following him in the name of the “documentary”. If he really wanted to, he could probably whitewash all the bad media about him.
So what about his personality change? Why isn’t anyone close to him expressing concern? Someone who’s really outgoing and charismatic suddenly looking all dishevelled, mumbling and acting socially awkward all the time… wouldn’t his peers be trying to look out for him and what not? Why was the transition to this new personality over-night?
It all smells fishy to me!