hollywood Tagged Articles at Cinematical
Forbes Determines Hollywood's Most Overpaid Actors
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy », Box Office »
Just the other day, I tackled the notion of whether A-List actors were becoming an endangered species. Now Forbes is adding to the celebrities woes with a list of Hollywood's 10 Most Overpaid Stars. Their criteria for the list: Look at the 100 biggest stars who have starred in at least 3 flicks opening in more than 500 theaters in the last 5 years, and calculate a return-on-investment by dividing total operating income on the 3 movies by the actor's total compensation (salaries and sales earnings). So, who could possibly end up on such a list? Hazard a guess? Well, here are some hints. The 10-spot actor, who has the biggest earnings for his pay, earns an average of $8.62 for every $1 paid, while the worst offender skyrocketed to the #1 spot with a pretty big flop this year, earning only $3.29 for every buck paid. Some of the names in the middle are quite expected, especially Tom Cruise and Eddie Murphy, the former still dealing with image issues, and the latter found out that his silly-comedy formula isn't working like it used to. Also, there is one lone woman on the list, but this actress might be a little hard to guess.
Considering the previous post and some of the names on this list, I think we might be seeing a big decrease in star-power pay over the next few years. But for now ... Who's the least-bad investment, the worst, and the woman? Can you figure out the names in-between? Take a stab and then check out the list after the jump
Are the A-List Actors Becoming an Endangered Species?
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy », Box Office »
There was a time, not too long ago, when the dream was to be on the A-list in Hollywood. Being so high up on the ladder meant great roles, great movies, and box office success. It was a world raining money. Now, however, not only are times tough, but Hollywood is learning a valuable lesson: It's not all about the stars. (Something we wondered about three years ago.)Reuters reports that the movie town is rethinking the millions of dollars they spend to grab the big stars because big celebrity doesn't necessarily equal big box office. They cited the money brought in by The Hangover, District 9, Paranormal Activity, and the Twilight Saga, and the fact that none of these productions had big celebs leading the way. Meanwhile, the star extravaganzas like A Christmas Carol, Surrogates, Funny People, Land of the Lost, Imagine That, and Duplicity boasted big-name talent, but still flopped. Now insiders say that the stars used to big paychecks and gross profit deals are having a heck of a time getting their demands met. As Reuters says: "several films have shown that a great concept or story can trump star appeal when it comes to luring fans."
What a concept! A worthy story being more important than the actors who star? Crazy talk! Could we, dare I say, be headed towards a Hollywood where they don't just write a bunch of crap to have big names appear in (say, Sandra Bullock), and actually put some more effort into the story? Or will we just get greeted by the same crappy stories, but now with unknown names?
Girls on Film: The Hollywood Dollhouse
Filed under: Fandom », Girls on Film »
Being an actress can be a real pain in the ass. By definition, the gig is simple. You pretend your someone else; you perform. In reality, however, there's a whole added can of worms -- especially when Hollywood is involved. There's this ridiculous and particular mold an actress has to fit into, and pitfalls she must deal with -- especially in terms of superstardom.
There is literally no way to completely avoid the possible pitfalls of celebrity -- especially if you choose to be involved with any film project. We live in a world where potential blockbusters can tank and the $11k, uber-small Paranormal Activity can become a phenomenon. There's always a chance -- the possibility of being thrust into the ever-scrutinizing public eye, finding any semblance of privacy fly out the window as the paparazzi camp out at your front door and fandom rains down.
Welcome to the Dollhouse.
Discuss: When an Actor's Look Gets in the Way
Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy », Fandom », Images »
Are you finding it increasingly harder to take the changing physicality of Hollywood actors?Things change; they grow old, they morph, and sometimes even evolve. It's a fact of life, and usually a good fact of life. But lately, I find myself constantly having to try and ignore certain physical aspects to enjoy a trailer, an image, a film. Rather than absorbing the project, the mood, the plot, I'm trying to blur my eyes so Mr. or Ms. So-and-So doesn't look quite so silly.
On the one hand, of course, it's the plastic surgery. Practically everyone in Tinseltown does something. There's no way everyone has smooth foreheads and bright skin. But when the random nose job or improvement turns into new cheeks, chin, or balloonish lips until the original person is nowhere to be seen, it becomes too much. If this was happening to actors known for morphing into characters, whose performance shines much brighter than their own image or personality, fine. But when the stars whose name and faces are their fame, you can't ignore it. I simply cannot see Mickey Rourke without thinking back to The Pope of Greenwich Village, spot Meg Ryan without trying to recognize the girl from Innerspace, Melanie Griffith, Sylvester Stallone, Nicole Kidman... Can they really think that's better than a few wrinkles and some sagging skin?
Discuss: In Love of Past Decades
Filed under: Fandom »
I have this problem. I have really sensitive triggers to the '90s. Dazed and Confused. Cameron Crowe. Sheryl Lee. Grunge music. Pirate DJs and Christian Slater. Kevin Smith. Plaid. Hackers.
Get started on one train of thought and in no time, many parts of that decade flash through my mind. When I see that perfectly coiffed teen movie, I think back to Empire Records, Dazed, Pump Up the Volume, and the other films that didn't look like fashion ads. Movies about relationships lead me back to the days of Singles and Chasing Amy. And the music. Oh, the music. Sure, there was bubble-gum mainstream fare, but there was also so much that was fresh and unexplored.
One of the main reasons that I adore the '90s is because many of the films were just a little different, a little less polished, and all the better for it. I could never relate to Angelina Jolie's Kate Libby (I, for one, never had the urge to buy a boyfriend a pleather bikini for example.), but I could relate to the idea of her. I didn't want to start my own pirate radio station, but I loved Hard Harry's monologues and how his musical tastes threw another nail in the coffin of my pop-loving past.
Toronto Mayor Woos Hollywood Studios
Filed under: Deals »
A lot has changed in the last decade. In the late '90s, Toronto was a hopping, up-and-coming film town, with the city doubling as just about every New York landmark. Mega Mayor Mel Lastman led the charge, and was so pro-movies that you could even catch his face on the big screen before some films started rolling. (A startling inclusion, I assure you.) Then 9/11, SARS, and the strengthened Canadian dollar, and productions started staying stateside.But now The Hollywood Reporter has posted that Toronto's current Mayor, David Miller, has been touring studios in Los Angeles, attempting to woo them back to the northern city. His pieces of woo: a promise to charge 78 cents for every Canadian dollar spent on city services, the new Filmport studios, and the fact that the Canadian dollar is back down to 80 cents. "Toronto has a good reputation in the U.S. We're safe, we're well organized. Our unions are true partners, and a number of producers have had positive experiences in the city," he said.
In these times, I imagine money would be enough of an incentive, although studios will also have to deal with disgruntled US workers. Then again, as long as the film is good, will audiences care? I mean, we've forgiven a lot over the years in order to indulge in solid entertainment, so I can't see this being a problem.
But only time will tell if more will be added to the cinematic list that includes: American Psycho, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, X-Men, Police Academy, Mean Girls, Adventures in Babysitting... What's your favorite Toronto-shot film?
Discuss: Too Attractive to Be Believable?
Filed under: Casting », Celebrities and Controversy », Newsstand », Angelina Jolie »
There is something rather odd in the way Hollywood values the external beauty of its players, while simultaneously decrying it for being shallow and unrealistic onscreen. Have you ever noticed that? This came to mind when I was reading Changeling press a few weeks ago -- you might have read Clint Eastwood's sincerely lovely quote regarding his leading lady, Angelina Jolie: "She is an actress hampered by her gorgeous face, I think the most beautiful face on the planet. People sometimes can't see past that, to her talent. She's on all these magazine covers so it's easy to overlook what an amazing actress is underneath." It's an interesting thought, and a valid point when it comes to Jolie's career -- her looks and personal life outstripped her Oscar win long ago, and her acting talent was called into question soon after meeting Brad Pitt.
However, I don't really want to debate Jolie's talent, but rather the idea that an actor or actress can be hampered by their looks. (And yes, we discussed a variation of this in regards to Keira Knightley a few weeks ago.) Remember when Spike Lee didn't want to cast Halle Berry in Jungle Fever because he thought she was "too pretty"? The same problem nearly prevented Joe Wright casting Keira Knightley in Pride and Prejudice -- he thought she was too attractive to play Elizabeth Bennet. Unfortunately, I can't think of any comparable stories regarding male actors, and Google is coming up woefully short. Paul Newman always struggled against it, though, but I don't know if he was ever hampered by it.
Obama Endorses Jeff Bridges for President
Filed under: Casting », Celebrities and Controversy », Newsstand », Politics »
When it comes to sifting through all actors responsible for portraying the most powerful man on the planet, there's no shortage of options. John Travolta did a great Bill Clinton impersonation in Primary Colors and Timothy Bottoms delivered a near-perfect imitation of George W. Bush in both D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis and That's My Bush! Neither one comes across as particularly flattering, so presidential nominee Barack Obama has chosen a safer bet: At a recent party in Los Angeles, Obama revealed that he prefers Jeff Bridges' conflicted commander-in-chief in The Contender. Granted, he may have said this simply to keep his audience happy -- in this case, Contender director Rod Lurie, one of the attendees who was willing to plop down $28,000 for the event. "'I just plugged your movie," Obama told Lurie, according to a report the director sent to Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeffrey Wells. Still, when you're under the kind of intense scrutiny that Obama currently endures, Bridges actually seems like a pretty safe choice. Choose Anthony Hopkins in Nixon and it sounds like you're endorsing the bad guy. Choose Kevin Kline in Dave and you come across as disingenuous. Choose Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove and somebody will call you incompetent. Bridges, on the other hand, plays a fierce leader bound to his moral convictions. Of course, Obama also expressed sympathy over Lurie's short-lived television show Commander-in-Chief, which featured Geena Davis as the first woman president. Perhaps it's no coincidence that he and Hillary have publicly made amends.
Discuss: Will 'Sex and the City' Change Hollywood's View of Chick Flicks?
Filed under: Fandom », Politics », Polls »
Let's talk about Sex, baby ... I got an email from Melissa Silverstein over at Women and Hollywood yesterday, asking a pack of women who work in various aspects of the film industry to share our thoughts on whether a successful box office turn for Sex and the City, which opens this weekend, might herald a change in Hollywood's attitude toward chick-centric movies. Melissa posed the following questions:
- If it's a success do you think that this will change Hollywood minds about whether women can "open" movies?
- If it doesn't do the predicted numbers, do you think this will spell more difficulties for women centric films?
- Do you think that because this is an "event" that other films about women will be held up to an unrealistic standard?
- Do you think there is a double standard for this film?
- Are you surprised by the nasty tone that some of the media has taken on this week?
You can read my response, and the thoughts of some other smart women, over on Melissa's site, but in the meantime, I thought this was a great set of questions to pose to Cinematical readers. Whether you love Sex and the City or hate it, what are your thoughts on whether a big box office run for the film might change the way Hollywood thinks about movies for and about women? Discuss away ...
Warner Bros. Likes 'Americanizing Shelley'
Filed under: Comedy », Romance », Deals », Warner Brothers », Distribution », Home Entertainment », Cinematical Indie »
The film only got a brief, limited release in May, and now Variety reports that Warner Brothers has grabbed the North American DVD and pay-per-view/on-demand rights to Americanizing Shelley, which will be let loose on the American and Canadian public February 5 of next year. The brainchild of writer/producer/star Namrata Singh Gujral, and directed by Lorraine Senna (Sopranos), Shelley is a Bollywood/Hollywood production about a "wanna-be Hollywood player, who sets out to Americanize an Indian girl straight from the Himalayas." She comes to the US, sees her arranged husband smooching some white girl, and then gets picked to be Hollywood's next star. If that's not enough to whet your appetite, how about the fact that the flick is pun-crazy? The film proves that "You Can't Curry Love!" and shows "a new game of the cowboy and the Indian." I couldn't make that up if I tried! Okay, I could, but I'm not sure that I'd want to. The former shows up on the film's website, while the latter is from the trailer. I wish I could tell you more about the film, but the synopsis on the website is just filled with puns and those lines that movie PR people love, like "Their clash in cultures soon gives way to understanding, unity, and love as they begin to see the world through each other's eyes," rather than solid info. But there is this: Shelley also
*Fixed thanks to Wil. Tricky website sporting Wil's face first, as if he's a co-star.
_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive 'Nine' Poster Premiere!
Exclusive: Title Track for 'The Road' Soundtrack
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
_thumbnail.jpg)
