entertainment weekly Tagged Articles at Cinematical

I just love a good list, I really do. You can't tear me away from those Top 100 AFI specials, so for me, there is no such thing as a bad list -- even if I disagree with it. Because, isn't that half the fun of talking about movies in the first place? EW has just released a list of the top 25 active directors (which I guess was a nice way of saying 'no dead guys allowed'), and there are a few surprises, but luckily they haven't gone crazy and pronounced Joel Schumacher as the misunderstood auteur of our time. So who did make it to the top of the heap? Well, it's the usual suspects: Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, Soderbergh, and The Coens rounding out the top ten. But there are some nice surprises to the list as well, like Judd Apatow, Jon Favreau, and Ron Howard (whose directorial talents don't always get the respect they should).

But, we film geeks love a good debate, and Anne Thompson has started us off with some passionate commentary on EW's choices; including a slap on the wrist for their habit of relegating directors of a certain age, gender, or race to the top 50 -- I told you she was feisty. So even though I think EW got it right most of the time, I am going to have second Thompson when she says, "their order does not compute." I like Zak Snyder as much as the next girl, but I'm not sold that he deserves the #16 spot on the list when P.T. Anderson is at #22, and Woody Allen didn't even crack the top 25.

Well, ladies and gentlemen start your engines; what do you think of EW's list? Are there any glaring errors? And if you had make a list of the best and worst working directors today, who would you nominate?

Sound off below....

On page 11 of the current issue of Entertainment Weekly, next to an article about the Oscar race, there is this brief item:

"Earning some of the harshest reviews of the year, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is officially the first Holocaust movie that won't have a shot at winning an Oscar."

What?

First of all, it's not even true. There have been several Holocaust movies that never had a serious chance at an Oscar. Robin Williams' loathsome Jakob the Liar comes to mind. (Whoops, EW liked that one.) But I get that EW is exaggerating for the sake of a joke about how Holocaust movies "always" get Oscar attention. Fair enough.

The more baffling assertion is that The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is "earning some of the harshest reviews of the year." It has gotten a few very scathing reviews, that's true -- but they comprise a very small minority. The film has a 64% Fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 6.2 out of 10. Saying it's earning some of the harshest reviews of the year while failing to mention the overwhelming majority that aren't harsh is like saying "some people" hate ice cream. It might be true, but it's misleading when you're looking at the big picture.

And are the harsh ones really that harsh? I tend to think the fiery excoriations of Disaster Movie and Witless Protection were much harsher, though I guess that's a matter of opinion.

For the past several months, folks have been questioning The Incredible Hulk and whether Edward Norton's extremely "hands on" involvement hurt or helped the finished product. It took a very long time for any images from the film to hit, and even longer for an initial trailer. Some have claimed that part of the hold-up had to do with a dispute between Norton, director John Louis Leterrier and Marvel -- with the latter wanting a more commercial cut of the film and the former, according to Entertainment Weekly, wanting a "more meditative cut of the film that ran about two hours and 15 minutes." From what I've heard, Norton is notoriously hard to work with -- so much so that everyone around him must refer to the guy as Edward, not Ed or Nort or Dude from Fight Club. I imagine folks just go along with it so they don't have to see him angry. In case you didn't know, you don't want to see Edward Norton when he's angry.

After trying for more than a month to interview the guy, EW has just published a 257-word statement (approved in advance by Universal and Marvel) from Norton. In it, he briefly addresses some of these accusations in saying, "Every good movie gets forged through collaboration, and different ideas among people who are all committed and respect the validity of each other's opinions is the heart of filmmaking. Regrettably, our healthy process, which is and should be a private matter, was misrepresented publicly as a 'dispute,' seized on by people looking for a good story, and has been distorted to such a degree that it risks distracting from the film itself, which Marvel, Universal and I refuse to let happen.''

I'm sure we won't hear the real story until well after the film is out in theaters (if there even is a real story), but we'd like you to chime in here: Should this sort of off-screen dispute worry fans of the film? And would you rather see a more commercial or meditative cut of The Incredible Hulk (which, mind you, hits theaters on June 13)?

Check out Norton's full statement to EW after the jump ...

And no, you're probably not one of them. According to Entertainment Weekly, George Lucas is currently on the hunt for a number of writers to script 13 episodes of his planned live-action Star Wars TV series. EW claims to have heard from someone who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 flavors last night. Wait, actually, they heard that Lucas is heading to Los Angeles next week to meet with writers. They say (via one agent) that "Lucas' plan is to recruit several freelancers -- aka 'writers of real significance' -- to spend a week at the Skywalker Ranch in November to come up with story ideas for the series.The agent also said that Lucas has indicated a desire to hire writers from other countries. The scribes would then disperse and write the 13 episodes that would be produced and financed by Lucas."

Lucas is taking somewhat of a chance on both the animated and live-action series considering he doesn't have a deal in place with any network yet. He's already indicated that the animated series (which has completed roughly 40 episodes so far, and is set between Episodes II and III) is PG-13, and as such it would need to air on a network later at night. As far as the live-action show goes, I imagine it will also be PG-13; here's what Lucas had to say about it recently: "The live-action [series] is not the movie. It's the Star Wars universe, but it's characters from the saga who were [previously] minor, and it follows their stories. It's set between [movie episodes] III and IV, when the Empire has taken over." The one aspect of the live-action series that sort of bugs me is that there are no Jedis, since all of them (with the exception of Obi Wan and Yoda) were wiped out after Episode III. They will also mark the first time Lucas has gone live-action with his Star Wars universe outside the big screen world. Originally, he was looking to do 100 episodes of each (animated and live-action), but seeing as he's looking to commission only 13 episodes for the live action version, I'd imagine he's playing it safe just in case ... they bomb. There, I said it!

We've heard rumors for months with regards to the script for the much-hyped, live-action version of Justice League of America. While movie sites compete to be the first to obtain top secret JLA info, none other than Entertainment Weekly has stepped up claiming to have obtained an early version of the script. According to the magazine (and what follows might be deemed spoiler-ish, so beware) the following characters were included in the version they read: Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter. Earlier reports had claimed Aquaman was left out, but here he's listed -- and personally, I dig the orange and green suit; hopefully he'll stick.

EW also says the script goes the "origins story" route, apparently showing how the Justice League was formed. Here's how EW describes the plot: It "revolves around villainous businessman Maxwell Lord and involves cyborgs called OMACs (One-Man Army Corps), who can take over humans and turn them into killing machines. There are epic battles between Superman and Batman, as well as Superman and Wonder Woman." Aww man, why would Supes do battle against Wonder Woman? As of right now, no one has been officially cast -- Jessica Biel was offered the role of Wonder Woman, but turned it down (perhaps because she wasn't guaranteed a starring role in a potential spin-off). Not long ago, Cinematical asked folks who they would cast in the Justice League of America film. Based on your answers, we've put together a gallery so you can see for yourself whether these are the people you want portraying some of our most beloved superheroes on screen. Check it out below.

[via IESB and IGN]

Just when we thought things were starting to happen regarding Warner Bros. upcoming live-action Justice League movie, comes word from Entertainment Weekly that Jessica Biel has passed on the role of Wonder Woman. We brought you news recently that Biel was in discussions to take on the first live-action, big-screen version of one of the sexiest superheroes of all time. But, for whatever reason, Biel has decided to pass -- so says EW, that is. Official word has not come down as of yet, so I wouldn't count her out completely. But, with Biel out of the picture, it means a lot of folks will have to go back to the drawing board. And seeing as there are plans to begin production within the next couple months, it will be a race to cast someone, anyone, in the role.

But they don't just have to find a Wonder Woman, they have to also find a Batman, a Superman, a Green Lantern, a Flash, a Martian Manhunter and an Aquaman (although recent rumors point toward Aqauaman not being included). Good luck. It's not clear why Biel passed on the role; perhaps she's been reading up on all the negative internet chatter surrounding the film -- maybe she didn't feel like signing her life away (I take it whomever plays WW will also need to sign onto at least three films) -- or maybe she'd rather go after an Oscar nom instead of a big payday. We don't know, and we may never know, but the field is wide open yet again. Will this delay the film? Who knows - but I do know there are a lot of other actresses out there capable of taking on the role. And I'm sure all of you have lots of suggestions ...

Is it just me, or is arguing about 'torture porn' sooo 2006? But, it's not like horror director Eli Roth has ever been one to back away from a fight. Deadline Hollywood Daily tells us about a new post on Roth's personal MySpace page in response to Entertainment Weekly film critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's take on the 'torture porn' genre. Back in July, she had written a film commentary titled 'What I Hate' and as it turns out, the lady hates 'torture porn' -- which is a term that is still not readily accepted in a lot of horror fan circles. You can read Schwartzbaum's entire editorial here, but here are some of the highlights: "It's quite simple: I hate these movies. I won't see these movies" and as if that wasn't inflammatory enough, she went on to say, "I'm not impressed with the ''quality'' of the gore or the ''wit'' of the film making. I'm not enjoyably scared; I'm horrified, and not in the way horror fans get off on, groaning and screaming with pack-mentality excitement. Instead, my horror is one of disturbance and anger: Who makes this vile crap?"

Well, Roth is someone who makes 'this vile crap', and he wasn't exactly thrilled with Schwartzbaum's take on his work. Some of Roth's response: "There is no such thing as "torture porn." It's a made up term, made up by people who don't understand these movies, who are afraid to even watch them, and who feel some bizarre sense of moral obligation to warn the public about them, despite the fact they don't watch them and never would," Then there are people like myself who grew up watching slasher flicks and just don't get what all the fuss is about. Roth will be keeping it relatively PG when he shoots his episode of Heroes: Origins this year. Of course, if you can't wait for the 'goo', Roth is still wrapping up Cabin Fever 2 (which he's producing), and there's still the possibility his big-screen version of Stephen King's Cell will hit theaters at some point in the next five years. Roth wound up his rant with instructions to Schwartzbaum to find a new line of work if she is willing to dismiss films without actually sitting down and watching them. So, as much as I might not personally be a fan of Roth, the man does have a point; don't you think?

Leave it up to the folks over at Entertainment Weekly to open up a big ol' can of worms. Basically, they asked readers to name some of the worst supporting performances of all time -- and kicked things off with a still of John Turturro (as Agent Simmons) from this summer's blockbuster hit Transformers. Funnily enough, Turturro was one thing (out of several) that I despised about Transformers. The flick was fun and entertaining, no doubt, but some stuff was just too ... annoying. And Turturro (who's usually fantastic in every role he takes on) was one of them. Checking out EW's featured gallery, I have to agree with a good majority of the performances mentioned. Let me run a few past you:

Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins is on there, as well as Ben Stiller's horrifically annoying supporting performance in Dodgeball. Adrien Grenier gets the "stale, boring and wooden" nod for The Devil Wears Prada, and Julia Stiles joins him in that category for her supporting role in the Bourne films. But the one mention that's sure to upset a few people has to go to Sofia Coppola from The Godfather: Part III. Kidding (although she is on there) -- I'm actually talking about little Emma Watson as Hermoine in the Harry Potter flicks. The person who submitted Emma says that the actress' "heavy sighs" and "eye rolling" are annoying to no end. I'm sure I can find about a trillion readers who disagree with that statement. There aren't many older films on there; I believe the oldest goes to Mickey Rooney's performance as a Japanese neighbor in Breakfast at Tiffany's. So check out the list and let us know: Are these the worst supporting performances of all time? And which roles were left off the list?

If you ask most fans, it seems the consensus is that if you didn't like Transformers, you deserve to be shot. While disapproving critics (like our own James Rocchi and Scott Weinberg) deal with personal insults and the occasional death threat ... (one second, I'm just adding to my list of things Transformers and Scientology have in common) ... director Michael Bay is already talking up the sequel. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Bay (after he noted that he watched 15 minutes of the original 1986 Transformers movie and "wanted to put a gun to my head") says he "has a lot of ideas for the next one." Of course, the powers that be will wait to see how this one does first -- but having grossed $65 million in only two days, I can't see anyone over at Paramount opposing another go-round.

Bay, who's only ever directed one sequel in his career (Bad Boys 2), continued: "There's a lot of really cool, big robot stuff that I had in my head that we didn't do. I just want to see how this works. You might not grow as much as a director [to do a sequel]. But it's kind of like you have your baby and you don't want someone else to take it.." When asked whether he would make Transformers 2 his next film, Bay replied: "I don't know if it would be ready. It just takes so long to do a script. A couple things are on the horizon, but [maybe] I'll do my little movie that I can knock out, because we all think we're going to have a strike." When Bay refers to his "little movie," he's talking about Pain and Gain -- a flick he says is a "mixture of Fargo and Pulp Fiction" about "these guys who work at a gym, and nothing's good enough." Ah, the jokes would be too easy.

Personally, I didn't love nor hate Transformers. My moviegoing experience was fun (people were screaming, cheering, etc ...), but I did feel a tad dumber by the time the credits finally rolled. And no, I'm not some snobby, elitist critic -- I guess I'm just getting tired of watching Michael Bay rip off scenes from ... Michael Bay. Yeah I'd be down for a sequel, but I would also fully support giving someone else a try behind the camera. Heck, Len Wiseman impressed the hell out of me with his action sequences in Live Free or Die Hard -- why not give him a shot?