Meghan Shop

Friday, October 8, 2010

Rick Sanchez wants his CNN job back - Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- Fired CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez said Friday morning that he would "absolutely" return to CNN if offered the opportunity, acknowledged he had "a chip on his shoulder," apologized for his "offensive comments" and called Jon Stewart "the classiest guy."

In his first TV interview since being fired for his comments last week about Stewart and Jewish people in the media industry, Sanchez appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" in a chat with George Stephanopoulos to once again apologize.

Talking about his comments, he said: "Not only were they wrong, they were offensive."

Stephanopoulos said they were anti-Semitic, to which Sanchez replied "yeah" before adding "First of all, that's not what I meant. Second of all, I apologize, and it was wrong for me to be so careless and inartful. But it happened, and I can't take it back, and you know what now I have to stand up and be responsible for it."

But he also highlighted that currently no primetime cable newscast, not including news magazines, has African American, Asian American or Hispanic hosts, which he said was one of things that bubbled up inside of him when he made his comments last week.

"It's tough, I screwed up, George," he said when Stephanopoulos welcomed him and pointed out that he was at least smiling despite what must have been a tough week.

"CNN is a wonderful, wonderful organization that treated me well," he said at one point.

"CNN didn't screw up. Rick Sanchez screwed up." He concluded: I'd be happy to go back."

Recounting the day of the Sirius XM satellite radio interview that got him fired, Sanchez once again highlighted how overworked he was, mentioning three shows and 14 hours of work.

And he did the interview before a softball game his daughter had that he wanted to go to, he said.

Stephanopoulos wanted to dig deeper into where Sanchez's emotions came from and whether there was a pattern behind his remarks.

After mentioning that Sanchez is known as a strong supporter of Israel, the anchor brought up a Huffington Post column from former New York mayor Ed Koch, in which he mentioned that Sanchez once asked him on the air whether it was a problem that U.S. government officials are fighting Israel's fight.

"I wanted to ask it without being afraid to ask the questions that sometimes people are afraid to ask, and I think we don't do enough of that in our business," Sanchez replied and mentioned his book "Conventional Idiocy."

"We should address real issues, and sometimes I get myself in trouble, because I confront these types of issues in this way."

Asked by Stephanopoulos if there was a problem with what Sanchez said or what he believed, Sanchez replied: "It's certainly not what I believe. I was just being a reporter. I was asking a question every good reporter should ask."

In the incident with Stewart, Sanchez said "I think what I was feeling got in the way of what I should have done and said and that's why I am going through what I'm going through now...I went in there with a chip on my shoulder. I was a little bit angry."

After talking about the lack of minority anchors on newscasts, Stephanopoulos asked if he felt like a victim of prejudice. "That's interesting the way you put that," he replied. "No, I was wrong to say that. And I was wrong to scapegoat Jon Stewart. I was feeling a little bit put out...And I externalized the problem and put it on Jon Stewart's shoulders, and I was wrong to do that."

Sanchez also said he asked Stewart in a conversation after his apology Monday why he always picks on him, and Stewart replied: "Because you are the one I like."

Asked why he indeed seems to have a chip on his shoulder, Sanchez said: "When I was a little kid, my parents were really poor." He recounted a childhood story that has stuck with him. Delivering furniture with his father, he once asked a rich woman for a glass of water, "and she said no, you go...and drink outside from the water hose."

When he asked his father about her reaction, he said in America you have to become somebody to gain respect.

By Georg Szalai

Oct 8, 2010, 08:11 AM ET

NEW YORK -- Fired CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez said Friday morning that he would "absolutely" return to CNN if offered the opportunity, acknowledged he had "a chip on his shoulder," apologized for his "offensive comments" and called Jon Stewart "the classiest guy."

In his first TV interview since being fired for his comments last week about Stewart and Jewish people in the media industry, Sanchez appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" in a chat with George Stephanopoulos to once again apologize.

Talking about his comments, he said: "Not only were they wrong, they were offensive."

Stephanopoulos said they were anti-Semitic, to which Sanchez replied "yeah" before adding "First of all, that's not what I meant. Second of all, I apologize, and it was wrong for me to be so careless and inartful. But it happened, and I can't take it back, and you know what now I have to stand up and be responsible for it."

But he also highlighted that currently no primetime cable newscast, not including news magazines, has African American, Asian American or Hispanic hosts, which he said was one of things that bubbled up inside of him when he made his comments last week.

"It's tough, I screwed up, George," he said when Stephanopoulos welcomed him and pointed out that he was at least smiling despite what must have been a tough week.

"CNN is a wonderful, wonderful organization that treated me well," he said at one point.

"CNN didn't screw up. Rick Sanchez screwed up." He concluded: I'd be happy to go back."

Recounting the day of the Sirius XM satellite radio interview that got him fired, Sanchez once again highlighted how overworked he was, mentioning three shows and 14 hours of work.

And he did the interview before a softball game his daughter had that he wanted to go to, he said.

Stephanopoulos wanted to dig deeper into where Sanchez's emotions came from and whether there was a pattern behind his remarks.

After mentioning that Sanchez is known as a strong supporter of Israel, the anchor brought up a Huffington Post column from former New York mayor Ed Koch, in which he mentioned that Sanchez once asked him on the air whether it was a problem that U.S. government officials are fighting Israel's fight.

"I wanted to ask it without being afraid to ask the questions that sometimes people are afraid to ask, and I think we don't do enough of that in our business," Sanchez replied and mentioned his book "Conventional Idiocy."

"We should address real issues, and sometimes I get myself in trouble, because I confront these types of issues in this way."

Asked by Stephanopoulos if there was a problem with what Sanchez said or what he believed, Sanchez replied: "It's certainly not what I believe. I was just being a reporter. I was asking a question every good reporter should ask."

In the incident with Stewart, Sanchez said "I think what I was feeling got in the way of what I should have done and said and that's why I am going through what I'm going through now...I went in there with a chip on my shoulder. I was a little bit angry."

After talking about the lack of minority anchors on newscasts, Stephanopoulos asked if he felt like a victim of prejudice. "That's interesting the way you put that," he replied. "No, I was wrong to say that. And I was wrong to scapegoat Jon Stewart. I was feeling a little bit put out...And I externalized the problem and put it on Jon Stewart's shoulders, and I was wrong to do that."

Sanchez also said he asked Stewart in a conversation after his apology Monday why he always picks on him, and Stewart replied: "Because you are the one I like."

Asked why he indeed seems to have a chip on his shoulder, Sanchez said: "When I was a little kid, my parents were really poor." He recounted a childhood story that has stuck with him. Delivering furniture with his father, he once asked a rich woman for a glass of water, "and she said no, you go...and drink outside from the water hose."

When he asked his father about her reaction, he said in America you have to become somebody to gain respect.


View the original article here

Johnny Depp Dons Capt. Jack Costume for Kids - CBS News

(CBS)  When you were a kid, did you ever write to your favorite movie star asking him or her to hang out? Well imagine one girl's surprise when her fan letter was answered - with a personal, and very spontaneous, visit. It happened in England, when actor Johnny Depp decided to thrill one young fan.

It was a day to always remember - for a group of school kids in London - when actor Johnny Depp paid them a surprise visit.

It all began when 9-year-old Bea Delap wrote a letter to Depp's "Pirates of the Caribbean" alter-ego, Capt. Jack Sparrow.

Photos: Johnny Depp

She wrote, "Captain Sparrow, We are all a bunch of budding young pirates ... We're having trouble mutinying against our teachers!"

Bea told CBS News, "It was amazing. It was such a long shot, and he came!"

Depp, who was shooting the fourth "Pirates" movie just down the road from Delap's school, thought he'd swing by - much to the delight of Bea and her classmates.

Bea recalled, "He called me out to the front, and he hugged me!"

It was all posted on YouTube.

Depp can be seen in the video, in character, saying, "We shall take over the school, and we shall eat nothing but candy, and all of our teeth will fall out."

Kirstin Benson, editor of Hollywoodlife.com, said, "This is classic Johnny...and it's a complete fairy tale - who writes to a celebrity and then has them show up? And she didn't expect it at all. It was completely spontaneous, it was great!"

It was the thrill of a lifetime for Bea - and she has advice for other kids hoping to meet their favorite star:

"If you don't give it a try, you'll never know," she said. "Because we thought it was never going to happen. But if we hadn't tried, we'd never have known."

Hill added, "Interestingly, apparently, Delap said at one point Johnny Depp
said, 'You may want to lay off the mutiny because police outside are following me.'

"One of the teachers told the Associated Press at this point and perhaps thanks to Capt. Jack Sparrow, plans for a mutiny."

And what if Bea had missed school that day?

Hill said it is good that she was there because apparently had only about 10 minutes' notice that Depp was coming.

Hill saids, "It is not even, as we understand it, the school could have called and said, 'Make sure she's here tomorrow.'"

? MMX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



View the original article here

Secretariat 'insistently square' - CNN

Diane Lane plays the film's central character, Penny Chenery, a housewife who wins Secretariat in a coin toss.Diane Lane plays the film's central character, Penny Chenery, a housewife who wins Secretariat in a coin toss."Secretariat" is a Disney sports drama about the racehorse who won the Triple Crown in 1973When Secretariat is running his races, the movie has a hokey, old-fashioned appealDirector Randall Wallace aims for the Christian demographic that supported "The Blind Side"

(EW.com) -- Moviegoers have grown increasingly intense about avoiding ''spoilers'' (probably because of all the information that spills out of the Internet.)

In that light, "Secretariat," a benignly inspirational Disney sports drama about the legendary racehorse who won the Triple Crown in 1973, offers a fascinating test case for how much spoilers sometimes don't matter.

Going into the movie, we absolutely know that Secretariat, the chestnut Thoroughbred who galloped to triumph through a rare combination of total speed and maximum stamina, will win his three big races (the first time a horse had done so in 25 years.)

Yet there he is, in his famous blue-and-white blinker hood, pounding the track at the Kentucky Derby, starting way in the back (as was his style), then overtaking one horse after another, the camera following right on his hooves.

And damned if, at that moment, we aren't as excited as children, our hearts in our throats as he thunders to victory, almost as if we had no idea what was coming.

When Secretariat is running his races, the movie has a hokey, old-fashioned appeal. It uses a fantastic gospel anthem to stoke our feelings, the Edwin Hawkins Singers' 1969 rendition of ''Oh Happy Day.'' And that song, with its funky-sublime syncopation, its waves of lordly joy, makes us feel that, yes, Secretariat really was a miracle horse, a competitor graced by Someone Up There.

Off the racetrack, however, "Secretariat" is a sketchy and rather innocuously upbeat movie. The director, Randall Wallace ("We Were Soldiers,") often seems to be aiming for the same Christian demographic that helped make a hit out of "The Blind Side."

I personally have no objection to a horse film that views a creature as magnificent as Secretariat with religious awe, but in this case the uplift has a downside. The film is so insistently square it undercuts the very drama it's out to capture.

The central figure, Penny Chenery (Diane Lane), is a housewife who knew nothing about running a horse farm when she took over the management of her ailing father's Meadow Stables in Virginia. Penny wins Secretariat in a coin toss (though the film suggests it's her womanly vantage that leads her to foresee how the horse's bloodlines will give him racing strength.)

It's a pleasure to see her take charge, fighting her way up in a racehorse world thick with the corruptions of men. Lane, wearing Pat Nixon's hair, makes Penny devoutly traditional but never prim; it doesn't scare her that she's in over her head.

She recruits the eccentric trainer Lucien Laurin, played by John Malkovich, and the actor, wearing crazy hats and spouting French whenever he gets angry, makes us feel his horse fervor.

Penny, in her devotion to Secretariat's racing career, tears her family life apart. Yet this central conflict comes to very little. (Dylan Walsh plays her husband with just enough mild testiness to make you wish he'd shown more.)

Penny's obsession remains flawless, noble, benevolent. The only real drama is that (spoiler!) Secretariat occasionally loses. As long as he's winning, though, this pleasantly rote movie will rouse you. B-

See the full article on EW.com.

CLICK HERE to Try 2 RISK FREE issues of Entertainment Weekly

© 2010 Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. All rights reserved.


View the original article here

Juliette Lewis injured in hit-and-run car crash - NME.com

Juliette Lewis has been injured in a hit-and-run car crash in California.

The singer was in the back of a car in Burbank on Wednesday (October 6) when it was hit from behind by another vehicle, reports TMZ.com.

She suffered pain in her head, back and neck, was taken to hospital and later discharged. Her spokesperson said she was a "bit banged-up and sore but otherwise thankfully ok".

Police are now searching for the driver of the other vehicle, saying he would be arrested on suspicion of hit and run.

Lewis' latest album, 'Terra Incognita', was released last year.

New! NME iPhone App: Get NME news, videos, photos and more on the move


View the original article here

Actress Juliette Lewis Injured In Crash - Access Hollywood

BURBANK, Calif. --

Actress Juliette Lewis has been injured in a hit-and-run crash in Burbank, police said.

Lewis was a passenger in the back seat of a Lincoln Town Car Wednesday night when a driver ran a stoplight, smashed into Lewis’ vehicle and kept going, Sgt. Sean Kelley said.

The car was found a short distance away, but the driver had fled the scene.

Lewis complained of pain in her head, back and neck and some bruising. She was taken to a hospital for evaluation but her injuries were not serious, Kelley said.

The driver will be arrested on suspicion of felony hit and run when found, Kelley said.

The 37-year-old Lewis received a best supporting actress Oscar nomination for her role in the 1991 film “Cape Fear.” She appears in the soon-to-be released film “Conviction.”

A phone message left for a representative for Lewis was not immediately returned late Thursday.

Copyright 2010 by Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Keep your Access to everything in Hollywood! Breaking news and personal commentary from Billy, Tony, Shaun, Maria & all of our producers! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter now!


View the original article here

MGM seeks lenders OK for pre-packaged bankruptcy - Reuters

By Sue Zeidler

LOS ANGELES | Fri Oct 8, 2010 7:16am EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Film Studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer proposed a pre-packaged bankruptcy plan on Thursday that would wipe out $4 billion in debt and put the founders of Spyglass Entertainment at the helm.

MGM, which has been mired in discussions with creditors and investors to try to reduce its debt, said it had begun seeking lenders' votes for the plan of reorganization to salvage one of Hollywood's most legendary studios.

The plan provides for MGM's secured lenders to exchange more than $4 billion in outstanding debt for 95.3 percent of equity in the company upon its emergence from Chapter 11, the company said.

Any agreed restructuring should clear the way for the making of "The Hobbit," a two-part prequel to the blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which MGM is set to make with Time Warner Inc. The companies have yet to announce the start of production but MGM's woes had been an obstacle.

The studio, home to the James Bond and Pink Panther franchises, has struggled for years with debt after a $2.85 billion 2005 leveraged buyout by a group that included private equity firms Providence Equity Partners, TPG, Quadrangle Group and DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, and media companies Sony Corp and Comcast Corp.

EXPLORING ALL OPTIONS?

The deadline for the company's secured lenders to vote on the plan is October 22 unless extended. More than 50 percent of MGM's creditors who own at least two-thirds of its debt must endorse the plan for it to pass.

A majority of the company's senior secured lenders are led by JPMorgan Chase and Credit Suisse, according to Thomson Reuters data.

Following receipt of the required consent, MGM said it plans to begin the pre-packaged Chapter 11 proceedings.

MGM first began exploring options in November. It put an initial idea of selling itself outright on hold after offers for the studio from such entities as Time Warner Inc -- which had bid about $1.5 billion -- were considered too low.

On Thursday, the studio presented a plan under which production company Spyglass would contribute certain assets in exchange for 0.52 percent of a reorganized MGM. Two Spyglass affiliates, Cypress Entertainment Group Inc and Garoge Inc, will merge into MGM in exchange for 4.17 percent of the reorganized company.

Spyglass founders Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum will serve as co-chairman and chief executive officers of MGM once it emerges from Chapter 11, as had been reported since this summer.

A source familiar with the matter told Reuters the pair were planning to ramp up both film and television production once a restructuring was complete.

A spokeswoman declined comment when asked if the studio would entertain any increased bids, but a source familiar with the matter said the auction was now closed.

(Reporting by Sue Zeidler; editing by Carol Bishopric)

*We welcome comments that advance the story directly or with relevant tangential information. We try to block comments that use offensive language or appear to be spam and review comments frequently to ensure they meet our standards. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters.

View the original article here

Review: Secretariat 'insistently square' - CNN

Diane Lane plays the film's central character, Penny Chenery, a housewife who wins Secretariat in a coin toss.Diane Lane plays the film's central character, Penny Chenery, a housewife who wins Secretariat in a coin toss."Secretariat" is a Disney sports drama about the racehorse who won the Triple Crown in 1973When Secretariat is running his races, the movie has a hokey, old-fashioned appealDirector Randall Wallace aims for the Christian demographic that supported "The Blind Side"

(EW.com) -- Moviegoers have grown increasingly intense about avoiding ''spoilers'' (probably because of all the information that spills out of the Internet.)

In that light, "Secretariat," a benignly inspirational Disney sports drama about the legendary racehorse who won the Triple Crown in 1973, offers a fascinating test case for how much spoilers sometimes don't matter.

Going into the movie, we absolutely know that Secretariat, the chestnut Thoroughbred who galloped to triumph through a rare combination of total speed and maximum stamina, will win his three big races (the first time a horse had done so in 25 years.)

Yet there he is, in his famous blue-and-white blinker hood, pounding the track at the Kentucky Derby, starting way in the back (as was his style), then overtaking one horse after another, the camera following right on his hooves.

And damned if, at that moment, we aren't as excited as children, our hearts in our throats as he thunders to victory, almost as if we had no idea what was coming.

When Secretariat is running his races, the movie has a hokey, old-fashioned appeal. It uses a fantastic gospel anthem to stoke our feelings, the Edwin Hawkins Singers' 1969 rendition of ''Oh Happy Day.'' And that song, with its funky-sublime syncopation, its waves of lordly joy, makes us feel that, yes, Secretariat really was a miracle horse, a competitor graced by Someone Up There.

Off the racetrack, however, "Secretariat" is a sketchy and rather innocuously upbeat movie. The director, Randall Wallace ("We Were Soldiers,") often seems to be aiming for the same Christian demographic that helped make a hit out of "The Blind Side."

I personally have no objection to a horse film that views a creature as magnificent as Secretariat with religious awe, but in this case the uplift has a downside. The film is so insistently square it undercuts the very drama it's out to capture.

The central figure, Penny Chenery (Diane Lane), is a housewife who knew nothing about running a horse farm when she took over the management of her ailing father's Meadow Stables in Virginia. Penny wins Secretariat in a coin toss (though the film suggests it's her womanly vantage that leads her to foresee how the horse's bloodlines will give him racing strength.)

It's a pleasure to see her take charge, fighting her way up in a racehorse world thick with the corruptions of men. Lane, wearing Pat Nixon's hair, makes Penny devoutly traditional but never prim; it doesn't scare her that she's in over her head.

She recruits the eccentric trainer Lucien Laurin, played by John Malkovich, and the actor, wearing crazy hats and spouting French whenever he gets angry, makes us feel his horse fervor.

Penny, in her devotion to Secretariat's racing career, tears her family life apart. Yet this central conflict comes to very little. (Dylan Walsh plays her husband with just enough mild testiness to make you wish he'd shown more.)

Penny's obsession remains flawless, noble, benevolent. The only real drama is that (spoiler!) Secretariat occasionally loses. As long as he's winning, though, this pleasantly rote movie will rouse you. B-

See the full article on EW.com.

CLICK HERE to Try 2 RISK FREE issues of Entertainment Weekly

© 2010 Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. All rights reserved.


View the original article here

Bluecoat recreates Lennon bed-in - BBC News

In 1969 the venue was the Amsterdam Hilton and John Lennon and Yoko Ono were spending their honeymoon campaigning for world peace.

They spent a week in bed-in the hotel, in the full glare of the world's media.

Fast forward to 2010 and to celebrate Lennon's 70th birthday Liverpool's Bluecoat arts centre is, for the next two months, inviting people to emulate John and Yoko's protest.

BBC Radio Merseyside will be broadcasting live throughout Friday 8 October to mark the anniversary.

Programmes being broadcast live from the bed include Sean Styles 1000BST -1200BST, Roger Phillips 1200BST-1400BST and Billy Butler 1400BST-1700BST.


View the original article here

Review: 'Nowhere Boy' travels well - CNN International

Actor Aaron Johnson portrays a young John Lennon in the film "Nowhere Boy."Actor Aaron Johnson portrays a young John Lennon in the film "Nowhere Boy.""Nowhere Boy" is a portrait of John Lennon as a teenIn the film, Lennon forms The Quarrymen with Paul McCartneyIt's the directorial debut for photographer and artist Sam Taylor-WoodActor Aaron Johnson captures Lennon's turbulent brilliance

(CNN) -- Released in time for John Lennon's 70th birthday, Sam Taylor-Wood's moving film is a portrait of the rebellious future Beatle on the brink of breaking rock 'n' roll wide open.

In 1956, Lennon is 16, a cheeky, smart-mouthed Scouser (Liverpudlian) who is beginning to run into trouble at school, especially after the death of his beloved Uncle George.

Lennon (played by Aaron Johnson) has grown up in the care of Aunt Mimi (Kristin Scott Thomas), a prim and proud lower middle-class housewife -- a woman who brushes off any overt displays of emotion with a gentle scold: "Don't be silly," meaning life is too punishing to relax our defenses even for a moment.

That's not Lennon's way.

Coming of age in the austere post-war years, he's hungry for fun -- girls, for instance or riding the roof of a double-decker bus or listening to the American 45s he picks up cheap at the docks. But it's only when he's reunited with his real mum, "the red-haired one," as he refers to her early on, that music becomes his main focus.

Screenwriter Matt Greenhalgh ("Control") puts that reunion in the wake of George's funeral, but in reality she had been a regular visitor at Mimi's house. Played by Anne Marie Duff, Julia is Mimi's polar (or bipolar) opposite: an effusive, flighty good-time girl who showers John with so many kisses her second (or is it her third?) husband has to bite his tongue.

Sensual and uninhibited but borderline manic-depressive, Julia seems ready made for rock 'n' roll. Put a shilling in the jukebox, and she'll dance in front of a roomful of strangers, the kind of display that could only harden Mimi's conviction that she is no fit mother for the wayward boy.

When Lennon shows up with a Screamin' Jay Hawkins record, they listen to it together and Julia's rapt reaction is almost as inspiring as the song itself. Expelled from school for a week, he takes refuge with his mum and she puts a banjo in his hands.

The rest, as John might say, is his story. He forms a skiffle band, The Quarrymen, and soon makes the acquaintance of baby-faced Paul McCartney.

A distinguished photographer and conceptual artist, director Taylor-Woods keeps it simple in her first feature film. And if she occasionally seems stranded by the script's bald determinism (Greenhalgh condenses and distills with too much vigor sometimes), she's equally sensitive to the emotional claim of each sister, as well as to the troubled adolescent who feels himself torn between them.

You might expect Mimi to be the villain in this scheme, but while Paul McCartney has noted that Mimi was less starchy than she seems here, Kristin Scott Thomas delivers another superb, subtle and ultimately deeply sympathetic performance that makes Mimi the movie's unlikely center of gravity.

Johnson -- who made "Kick Ass" after this -- probably wouldn't win a look-alike competition and soft-pedals the hard Scouse accent, but he catches Lennon's turbulent brilliance, his swagger, wit and anger.

The movie reminds us just how much he had to be angry about, and suggests very movingly that before he preached universal peace and love, he had to find it within his own heart.

"Nowhere Boy" may be modest in scale, but Beatles fans will recognize that it's made by one of their own.


View the original article here

Review: Life as We Know It is Love as We Know It - Seattle Post Intelligencer

Friday, October 8, 2010
Last updated 9:43 a.m. PT

Holly and Eric (Katherine Heigl and Josh Duhamel) zip a Smart Car from zero to, well zero, in a blind date so terrible you know they're destined to be together -- at least in Life as We Know It. That is, life as we know it in the romantic comedy date-o-sphere and the latest spawn of the genre, the film Life as We Know It.

If the Academy created a category for Best, or Most Frequent, Use of Musical Montages (which of course they should), Life as We Know It would certainly be a contender. It relies on the first of its extended montages to sum up Holly and Eric's post-first-date and pre-parenthood history. Their BFFs Alison and Peter are a model of married bliss, living in a perfect house in a perfect neighborhood with a perfectly adorable baby Sophie (Eric and Holly's goddaughter). Despite Holly insisting that she never wants to set eyes on Eric again after Alison set them up on their disastrous date, all five seem to do everything together. Though it's clear, when Eric pinches Holly's rear during a wedding photo-shoot, or points out the mistletoe when she obviously doesn't want to kiss her Christmas party date, that they hate each other.

Then Alison and Peter die in a car crash, and Holly and Eric learn from their lawyer that they've been chosen in their will to take care of Sophie. "TOGETHER?" is their response since of course they detest each other. The lawyer suggests (which I'm sure is standard legal practice), that they move into Sophie's house (for her sake) until they've decided if they accept the responsibility or prefer other guardian options (like Sophie's oxygen-tank-dependent grandpa). Eric points out the ludicrousness of their friends forgetting to mention they're Sophie's guardians. Yet when movies admit something doesn't make sense, you know the movie makers aren't really sorry and will just do it again.

So the singletons are thrust into a life of poo, vomit and sleepless nights. It's a rather realistic (for a while) portrait of sudden parenthood. Holly's gourmet bakery biz and Eric's sportscast director dreams all take a backseat to Sophie. On top of that, a quirky social worker drops by at all the wrong moments to evaluate whether they're even capable of raising Sophie. But then, they're both beautiful people, Eric especially as their kooky neighbors keep reminding us. (You'd think Heigl would demand the writers flatter her looks instead of spotlighting, as in most of her roles, her character's stick-up-her-skirt personality.) Nevertheless, they're attractive and Heigl and Duhamel's high-strung gal meets carefree playboy chemistry works unexpectedly well. When the life-with-Sophie montage of diaper changes and first steps starts, you suspect everything will work out regardless of whatever bickering ensues, or Holly's crush on her blue-eyed bakery customer Sam (Josh Lucas).

So if you can swallow the following pills of romcom wisdom:
1. Loathing is a mask true love wears, or as Sam puts it after Holly and Eric squawk at each other during a Thanksgiving tiff, "if my wife and I fought like that, we'd still be married."
2. Backwards is the new forwards. First comes baby, then comes man (or woman), then comes love.

Then Life as We Know It is a heartwarming romantic comedy of peppy pop montages that hits all the right notes and will be music to your ears. Or, it may only remind you that romcoms are a lot like Jackass, potentially entertaining, but not an example of something you should try at home, especially in your love life.

Grade: C+

View the original article on film.com


View the original article here

Jesse Eisenberg's new 'Social Network' profile: Less friendly - USA Today

By Anthony Breznican, USA TODAYAfter years playing sweet, earnest and awkward in movies such as Adventureland,The Squid and the Whale and Zombieland, the actor has shown a more sinister side with his ruthless portrayal of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network.

Critical hosannas for the role may lead to an Oscar nomination, and the high-profile part is helping the boyish 27-year-old transition from "Hey, it's that guy" to a household name.

But some signature halting nervousness comes into Eisenberg's voice when he talks about reactions he has gotten after screenings of the film.

"We do these question-and-answer sessions, and some people say, 'Why ... wha ... I was so turned off by your character. He was such a jerk. Why — why would you want to play this character?' " he says, repeating the stammering indignation. "There are these almost aggressive condemnations."

"The real other extreme is, 'I just wanted to give him a hug through the whole movie. I just felt so bad for him' — this is my mother talking," Eisenberg jokes. "But other people, too. 'The kid was so desperate to connect and just doesn't know how to. He's so lonely.' "

Even the visuals in the film try to underline that. Director "David Fincher practically composed the movie that way, with him behind panes of glass, in corners of rooms, framing him in a way that makes him look more isolated," Eisenberg says.

One personal reaction the actor hasn't received is from Zuckerberg himself, who did not cooperate with the filmmakers or meet Eisenberg prior to the shooting.

The script, by West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin, explores the fractured friendships and allegiances between Zuckerberg and a handful of fellow Harvard students who in 2004 helped create Facebook, now estimated to be worth $33 billion.

On The Oprah Winfrey Show, Zuckerberg dismissed the film with a smile: "The last six years have been a lot of coding and focus and hard work, but you know, maybe it would be fun to remember it as partying and all this crazy drama."

Zuckerberg was on the show to discuss a $100 million donation to Newark's troubled school system, which took place on the day of the movie's premiere — something widely regarded as an effort to burnish the back-stabbing image depicted in the film.

Eisenberg is inclined to go easier on Zuckerberg. "What he did last week was so incredibly generous," the actor says. "To attribute it to anything else seems mean-spirited and cynical."

It may be the only time he goes easy on Zuckerberg. Though Eisenberg didn't set out to attack, he plays the young CEO-to-be as brilliant but revoltingly condescending and lacking even a modicum of tact.

That's before the story even gets rolling.

Once Facebook begins to take shape as one of new media's most powerful forces, he betrays best friend and co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, Never Let Me Go) and cuts out the brash twin frat brothers who proposed the idea.

"Mark's concern, which may account for seemingly ruthless behavior, was to be in charge at a young age, and you have to be aggressive and occasionally do something unpopular. Well ... that's not something new for him," Eisenberg says.

But in the face of success, why betray a friend? Eisenberg sees it this way: "Friendship is nice and contributed to some pleasant evenings, but it's nothing compared to the more important goal — the maintenance and expansion of Facebook."

It's a not a philosophy Eisenberg necessarily follows, though he acknowledges that success in Hollywood requires aggression and restlessness.

"I don't think of myself that way, but in retrospect, I didn't work for about seven months two years ago, and in that time, I wrote two plays and a musical for myself," he says. "And I almost completed a novel."

As a kid growing up in New Jersey, he became interested in acting around age 7, doing children's theater with his sister, then 10.

"I did it to be with her, but then I wanted to be in plays with adults, and then wanted to be in plays with bigger sets," he says. "I just always wanted to move up to the next level."

As a teenager, he took bus trips to New York, auditioning for Broadway, television and film. By the time he was a senior in his performing arts school, he had landed two movies, Roger Dodger and The Emperor's Club.

Eisenberg says he and Zuckerberg may be motivated by insecurity.

"It's fear of failure. I constantly feel on the last day of a movie that it's the last day of my career," he says. "I could read the nicest thing about myself and say, 'They only said great. ... They couldn't say very great?' "

The curse of ambition is that nothing is enough. Even "very great" can underwhelm.

"Then you could say, 'This review isn't even grammatically correct,' " Eisenberg says with a laugh. " 'It's meaningless!' "

Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.

View the original article here

Mario Vargas Llosa: an unclassifiable Nobel winner - The Guardian

Mario Vargas Llosa Mario Vargas Llosa meets the press in New York after his Nobel prize for literature victory., Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images

I first met Mario Vargas Llosa in London in 1989, at a dinner party organised by a mutual friend, Nicholas Shakespeare. I had been hired by a Hollywood studio to write a script based on Vargas Llosa's wonderful semi-autobiographical novel Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter and was both very keen and somewhat wary about the prospective encounter. I was very keen because I was an unashamed fan of Vargas Llosa, the writer – it took me a second to accept the Aunt Julia job – but wary because I quickly came to realise that the book was a fantastically difficult challenge to turn into a movie and my Hollywood brief was uncompromising: there was no way the film was going to be placed in its vividly rendered setting in Lima, Peru – Aunt Julia had to be Americanised.

In fact, the meeting couldn't have been more reassuring and agreeable. Vargas Llosa was as enthused as I was about the possible film and unperturbed about its required US location (we ended up with New Orleans, as close to Lima as the US could provide, I calculated). He gave the enterprise his blessing: "Make it a bold adaptation," he said, urging me to take risks. And so, taking him at his word, I did. And I am relieved to report that he liked the eventual film (starring a young Keanu Reeves in the Vargas Llosa role).

And now he has won the Nobel prize for literature. Does it strain interpretation to see in that first meeting some of the factors that might have gained him the prize? Cosmopolitanism, pluralism, conviviality, worldliness, multi- lingualism, audacity, comedy, experimentalism, are all epithets that can be attached to his name and his work. Aunt Julia is probably my favourite novel of his – for obvious reasons – but the body of work that Vargas Llosa has produced since his first novel, The Time of the Hero in 1963, is both prodigious and admirable. The range is remarkable – from the surreal fantasies of the radio soap operas in Aunt Julia to the baroque comedy of Captain Pantoja and the Special Service; from weighty historical epics such as The War at the End of the World and The Feast of the Goat to the whodunit thriller-style of Who Killed Palomero Molero? Vargas Llosa is very hard to classify and pin down as a writer: he has written short novels and very long novels, comic novels and deeply serious novels, straightforward realistic novels and recognisably South American "magic-realist" novels. Perhaps this unclassifiability has been seen as a disadvantage. Indeed, when one compares Vargas Llosa to his great South American literary rival Gabriel García Márquez one is reminded of Archilochus's old fox and hedgehog adage: "The fox knows many things, the hedgehog knows one big thing." Márquez, a hedgehog novelist if there ever was one, received his Nobel in 1982 at the age of 55. Vargas Llosa received his at the age of 74. Almost 30 years later the day of the fox has arrived – it inevitably comes around, even if it takes a little longer.

There is another consideration when it comes to Vargas Llosa. His reputation as a writer is trammelled by the controversial public events in his own life, namely the political voyage he has made from the left of South American politics to the libertarian right. Both reasons perhaps explain why this prize – for which he is routinely considered a contender each year – has been comparatively late in coming. He is a great South American novelist but one who combines that continent's vibrant and malign profusion, its energy and crazy humour, with what might be termed a European intellectual rigour. His scholarly and imaginative interpretation of Flaubert and Madame Bovary, The Perpetual Orgy, perhaps illustrates that capacity of his mind most effectively.

Few novelists today have combined the public man and the private artist so prominently as Vargas Llosa – how many novelists have run for president, as Vargas Llosa did in the 1990 elections in Peru? Perhaps it's fair to say that his political adventures have tended to obscure the very real achievements of his novels and their manifest literary ambition. One of the blessings of winning the Nobel (among its few curses) is that it does focus attention once more on the work, and Vargas Llosa's oeuvre deserves to be reconsidered in its own right. And while it's true that the historical novels, with their forthright and fascinating reinterpretations of South American political upheavals and machinations, seem the most obviously hefty and momentous, my own private celebration will concentrate on other works in the Vargas Llosa canon.

It's most present in Aunt Julia but it could be argued it is the leitmotif of all his works of fiction: Vargas Llosa has continually celebrated the sexual and amatory electricity between men and women – that ticking clock that animates almost all of us, whether to delightful or disastrous effect, or both. Sometimes it is explicit (in all senses of the word) in a novel such as In Praise of the Stepmother or The Bad Girl, but such a concern runs as a life-enhancing note through almost everything he has written. Intriguingly, in an attempt to derail his presidential bid in 1990, his opponents used to read out the more shocking and sexually candid sections of his novels over the radio in an attempt to encourage voters to shift allegiance. Maybe it worked: certainly Vargas Llosa didn't win. His readers, I suspect, were secretly very grateful – it meant he could continue writing.

Vargas Llosa, in all his multifacetedness, in spite of and as well as his many rare gifts and talents as a novelist, remains fundamentally a great chronicler of the highs and lows of our carnal and passionate adventures as human beings – our many mishaps and shameful duplicities, our rare nobility and rarer moments of pure happiness. His work reveals what the novel does best – in that it "gets" the human condition better than any other art form. Vargas Llosa's novels understand and reproduce the absurd and melancholy tragicomedy of our lives and their occasionally inspiring moments of pure happiness. The Nobel is hugely merited and I suspect Vargas Llosa will be very pleased. But then he'll say to himself: it's only a prize, it's the books that matter.

This is a preview from tomorrow's Guardian Review. This week's review also includes: Booker-shortlisted Howard Jacobson in praise of the comic novel, Al Alvarez on the newly-discovered Ted Hughes poem, a Forward prize-winning poem by Seamus Heaney and an interview with the winner of the Guardian children's fiction prize

Find out how to subscribe to the Guardian at a special rate


View the original article here

Galifianakis provides salve for 'Kind of' good indie - New York Daily News

Elizabeth Weitzman 'It's Kind of a Funny Story' stars Keir Gilchrist and Zach Galifianakis, whose chemistry saves the average indie flick. 'It's Kind of a Funny Story' stars Keir Gilchrist and Zach Galifianakis, whose chemistry saves the average indie flick.

Melancholy 16-year-olds are the ideal audience for "It's Kind of a Funny Story," which actually feels as though it were made by an especially precocious adolescent.

This romanticized vision of mental instability comes to us from Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, the team behind 2006's acclaimed "Half Nelson." Strong performances help keep the not-so-funny story -- based on a novel by young adult novelist Ned Vizzini -- grounded.

Keir Gilchrist plays Craig, a student at a competitive Brooklyn high school. Stressed out and misunderstood by his parents (Jim Gaffigan, Lauren Graham), an overwhelmed Craig commits himself to a local psych ward.

Almost immediately, he realizes the madness of this desperate act. But he's calmed by his therapist (Viola Davis), who suggests he try and learn from the experience. Soon enough, life lessons arrive in the form of the beautiful Noelle (Emma Roberts) and suicidal sage Bobby (an effectively somber Zach Galifianakis). The former provides Craig with his first romance; the latter becomes his unlikely role model.

It's tough to appreciate this gauzy view of mental illness, which is presented as a personality quirk easily overcome. But Gilchrist proves an engaging hero, while Galifianakis expands his range with gratifying results. Their chemistry infuses some touching sensitivity into an otherwise average indie fairy tale.


View the original article here

‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’: New posters let you look the main characters in the eyes

With 42 days left until the release of the highly anticipated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I, Warner Bros. has released seven new character posters to further promote the film. The posters are simple, dark, and totally striking, spotlighting one of the film’s seven major characters: Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), Hermione (Emma Watson), Snape (Alan Rickman), Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), Fenrir Greyback (Dave Legeno), and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). (Collector’s item, anyone?) I was ridiculously excited to see this movie even before I saw these posters, but now I am beyond ready for Nov. 19th.

This entire poster series is visually stunning, and the extreme closeups show the intense emotion each character has in what will be one of the darkest films in the Harry Potter franchise. I’m not ready to accept that this film marks the beginning of the end, but these mature-looking photos (I see that facial scruff on Harry and Ron!) are a clear indicator that my three favorite Gryffindors are ready to move past Hogwarts and face the darkness of the world head on.

It’s great seeing each of these characters that we have come to love — or fear — over the course of the series take center stage in each of the seven posters. As much as I love Harry, I like seeing everyone get equal face time, as they’re all so integral to the story. As much as the Lord Voldemort — I mean, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named — poster freaks me out, I’ll admit I’m glad to see him sneering at me through my computer screen.

Excited yet?

Read more:
New ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’ trailer debuts. Goosebumple overdose in progress
The new ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’ trailer: So much to see! So little time!
‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’ TV spot premieres
‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’: New photos, new trailer tonight


View the original article here

2010 Power List! New EW cover

EW-COVER-1124Who has more muscle in Hollywood — Johnny Depp or Sandra Bullock? Does Robert Pattinson have more clout than Simon Cowell? What about Brad and Angelina — who’s on top in that relationship?

This week’s EW cover story brings back The Power List, our rankings of the most influential people in the entertainment business. We started doing these rankings way back in 1990 — when names like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madonna were up high — and have come back to it from time to time in various forms (in 2007, it was The Smart List). This year, we’re freshening things up again, by focusing exclusively on on-screen talent — in other words, folks with recognizable faces only, no agents or studio suits need apply. As usual, we based our calculations on a formula that included both hard, crunchable numbers (box office grosses, TV viewers, albums sold) with less tangible factors, like a star’s influence within their industry or general command of the pop cultural stage. We’ve come up with some nifty new sidebars, too, such as EW’s first international edition of the Power List (take a bow, Golshifteh Farahani, the Julia Roberts of Iran!).

We aren’t going to tell you who ended up as this year’s No. 1. You’ll have to buy the magazine (on newsstands now). But here’s a hint: It’s not Arnold Schwarzenegger or Madonna.

For more on Hollywood’s most influential stars, pick up the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly, on stands Oct. 8.


View the original article here

Putting Faith in Speed and Sinew - New York Times

John Bramley/Walt Disney PicturesOtto Thorwarth plays Ronnie Turcotte, Secretariat’s jockey. More Photos »

Diane Lane might be the two-legged star of “Secretariat,” a gauzy, gooey, turf-pounding, Bible-thumping tribute to the celebrated 1970s thoroughbred from the wonderful weird world of Disney. But the bigger and truer stars of this enjoyable, sometimes accidentally entertaining movie are the five horses that take turns playing Secretariat — one was used for running, another posed for the cameras — along with the memory of that original breathtaking beauty. This was a champion whose races thrilled the usual society swells and off-track gamblers along with a larger public swept up by the story of the big red horse who could and did.

Squeaky clean and as square as a military flattop, “Secretariat” doesn’t take the wide or long view when it comes to horse racing or anything else, despite an occasional oblique nod to Vietnam. Instead it sticks to the Disney gospel that life means following your dreams, which here belong largely to those who surrounded Secretariat in his glory years, including his owner, Penny Chenery (Ms. Lane, sincere and dulled down), and trainer, Lucien Laurin (John Malkovich, insincere and showboating). Don’t fret, though: there are plenty of pretty horses — and a few hilarious close-ups of Secretariat and a rival at the starting gate eyeballing each other like boxers in the ring — even if the triumph here is of the human spirit and not the horse.

That tale gets swishing in Denver in 1969 with Penny, immaculately dressed and coiffed, whipping something up for her four children and husband, Jack Tweedy (Dylan Walsh). One phone call later and Penny and brood are back in her Virginia childhood home, burying her mother. She stays to care for her ailing father, Chris (Scott Glenn), a horseman whose mind and farm are slipping away. After a Kodak-moment flashback of her father and her as a child, Penny determines to save her patrimony, telling her husband that she’s taking care of business, a declaration of independence that might resonate more inspirationally if the movie actually showed you how she managed to care for the farm and her children (two of whom look under 12).

But uplift is the name of the game in “Secretariat,” not little details like life. Directed by Randall Wallace with his previous lack of subtly (“We Were Soldiers”), it opens with a shot of the sky and Penny reading in voice-over a passage about horses from the Book of Job: “Do you give the horse his strength?” (That passage, in a different translation, is also used in Peter Shaffer’s play “Equus.”) The rest of the writing can be blamed on Mike Rich, whose screenplay was, as the credits put it, “suggested by” William Nack’s book “Secretariat: The Making of a Champion.” It’s hard not to think that the folks behind “The Blind Side” — last year’s inspirational about a steel magnolia of faith and a sports hero — deserve some credit too.

Alas, Ms. Lane, smoothed and nearly emptied out, doesn’t have the material or direction that Sandra Bullock enjoyed in “The Blind Side” (or the flattering costumes). Penny Chenery’s story is not uninteresting, and she certainly doesn’t appear to have been the paper doll of the movie. The real woman hired the William Morris Agency to book Secretariat’s appearances, and said of her horse-racing life, “I love the prestige, the excitement and the money.” The movie’s Penny spends a lot of time fretting and every so often stares meaningfully into Secretariat’s eyes (or muzzle). That said, in one mad, delicious moment, she does bathe Secretariat alongside his black groom, Eddie Sweat (Nelsan Ellis, from HBO’s “True Blood”), the two humans working up quite the lather and harmonious vision to the sounds of “Oh Happy Day” (When Jesus Washed).


View the original article here

Excess Hollywood: ‘Haven’ gets second season on Syfy

I haven’t watched Haven, but I always see the ads during Warehouse 13.
I’m really happy Warehouse 13 also got renewed!!!!


View the original article here

Springsteen: 'Darkness' spotlight

There are two Bruce Springsteens in tonight’s don’t-miss HBO special The Promise: The Making of Darkness On The Edge of Town. There’s the Springsteen of the late 1970s, ambitious and anxious and eager to get on with his career in the wake of his then-recent ascent to super-stardom with Born To Run. Then there’s the Springsteen of 2010, ambitious and contemplative and willing to let you in on how much he thinks that young Springsteen succeeded in his goals.

The documentary, directed by Thom Zimny, makes extensive use of 1976-78 footage shot in back-and-white by Barry Rebo, which captures the painstakingly long recording sessions Springsteen and the E Street Band endured. If you’re a fan, you’ll love the watching the agony — the endless experiments to get the “right” drum sound; Springsteen poring over spiral notebooks into which he’d scrawled literally scores of lyrics and song ideas, as the band waits around listening to their hair drop out; the occasional flashes of temper from The Boss and his minions (Steve Van Zandt feels especially free to say when he thinks something “sucks”). Springsteen says now with a dry chuckle, “I didn’t have a life [back then], so everyone had to suffer with me,” and suffering is indeed what it frequently looks like. And of course, out of this emerged a great album as well as songs that became hits for others, most notably Patti Smith’s version of “Because The Night.” (Smith is interviewed here, and speaks with with her usual charm and frankness about how to her, the song was a love letter to the man she would marry, the late Fred “Sonic” Smith.)

Yes, it’s striking how much time the young Springsteen spent in the studio without a shirt on (cue screaming fans). But what’s much more impressive is his artistic purpose: The latter-day Springsteen, looking back, says, “More than rich, more than famous, I wanted to be great.” And Rebo’s ’70s footage bears him out, as Springsteen sought “a leaner, angrier sound” (punk rock was breathing down his neck) and, as comments from Springsteen and Landau attest, how seriously the singer-songwriter approached what could have been just a relatively fast, easy, hit-single-filled follow-up to Born To Run. Instead, Springsteen sought to make a “sonic movie,” the equivalent to the soulful, sere John Ford Western The Searchers.

Young viewers may even be perplexed by Landau’s mission statement that “the work of art is the album… That is the highest-developed thing in rock.” Landau was talking about two sides of vinyl intended to take the listener on a carefully sequenced journey. Today, in an era dominated by downloaded singles and a fractured marketplace, the unity Springsteen and Landau sought, in both the music and their mass audience, has all but vanished.

The Promise even has a secret hero: engineer Chuck Plotkin, who was brought in to mix the album and provide fresh ears and problem-solving to achieve the atmosphere Springsteen wanted to have hanging over Darkness. Plotkin’s descriptions of how the voice should emerge from the guitars, the balance he wanted to create, is enthralling.

In the context of those times, Springsteen was extricating himself from a lawsuit that pitted him against his former manager Mike Appel (with whom Springsteen had signed contracts that, as Bruce delicately puts it, “rather than evil were naive”). Finally he was liberated to work with his close collaborator, manager, and co-producer Jon Landau. (Appel is also interviewed separately, and while both he and Springsteen speak with a practiced civility about each other, in a separate interview, drummer Max Weinberg cuts to the chase: As far as he and Bruce saw it, Weinberg says bluntly, this was “someone trying to take [Springsteen's] career away.”)

Thus freed, Springsteen crafted his magisterially downbeat saga of what he now calls “deep despair and resilience and determination.” He made good on the promise that is revealed on The Promise.

Follow: @kentucker


View the original article here

‘Secretariat’: Disney successfully turns Goliath into David

SecretariatImage Credit: John BramleyDisney mastered the art of the sports underdog movie long ago, but now they’re just showing off. After crafting hits like Remember the Titans, The Rookie, and Miracle, in which real-life longshots overcome incredible obstacles and long odds to achieve athletic glory, Disney figured they really don’t even need the underdog. I give you Secretariat, which opens tomorrow on about 2,500 screens. It’s generally acknowledged that the strapping red colt was the most dominant Triple Crown winner ever, galloping into history with a Pegasus-like performance at the 1973 Belmont Stakes. At the Belmont, Secretariat was a 1-10 favorite to win the race. The year before, he was voted the national horse of the year as a promising two-year-old. Secretariat wasn’t a four-legged Rudy; he was the 1927 Yankees.

No matter. Screenwriter Mike Rich (The Rookie) sticks to the Disney playbook, emphasizing the underdog status of Secretariat’s owner Penny Chenery, played with just the right amount of Southern steel by Diane Lane. She is the outsider, the woman fighting her way through a man’s world while trying to keep her farm and her family together. And it works. Even though I knew the history of  Secretariat, I still felt the tingle in the hairs on the back of my neck as he ran away from his competition at Belmont, purely because I was invested in Penny’s struggle. I didn’t even mind that that struggle relied on a liberal interpretation of the actual facts.

This cinematic success opens the door for entirely new subgenre of Disney sports film. They no longer have to rely on undersized, overmatched heroes who slay the heavily-favored Goliath. For example, and I’m just spitballing: the 1992 U.S. Olympic basketball team. Sure, the Dream Team had Jordan and Barkley and Bird and Magic, and won the gold medal with ease. But what if — what if — the American team suffered food poisoning from some bad Catalan cuisine the night before the gold medal game, and their subsequent illnesses nearly prevented them from covering the 30-point spread against Croatia? Will bench-warmer Christian Laettner hit those two last-minute foul shots to assure gamblers of an American victory? That is cinematic suspense.

Do you think there’s a future in films where the guys who are supposed to win actually win? Can you envision a movie about the foot fungus that nearly derailed the 2010 Duke Blue Devils from winning the college basketball title against those pesky Butler Bulldogs? Or the swimmer’s ear that nearly cost Michael Phelps one of his 14 gold medals?

Read more:
EW’s Secretariat review


View the original article here

Katherine Heigl explains her image problem

Katherine Heigl’s been on the promotional circuit hyping Life As We Know It, but her interview on KTLA this morning was more candid — and interesting — than most. She talked about her “image problem,” as described in her New York Times profile:

“I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out where I went off track and how and why and what I can do in the future to avoid that. But as he says in the article, nothing I said was particularly scandalous — it just had a tone. And that’s the most important thing I’ve sort of learned as I get older and grow a little bit and get a little less defensive… I can just let go of the tone, and still say what I gotta say, and be honest, and all those things, but maybe not so edgy.”

Heigl may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but the NYT profile sort of swayed me. Is it really so awful to say things that are true? Of course Knocked Up is “a little bit sexist,” and that season of Grey’s Anatomy did totally suck. Maybe it’s the dawn of a new day for Heigl.

What do you think, PopWatchers?


View the original article here

Toni Braxton Bankrupt Again - Access Hollywood

LOS ANGELES, Calif. --

Toni Braxton has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy again.

According to documents obtained by Access Hollywood, the 43-year-old singer lists her debt between $10 and $50 million and lists her assets somewhere between $1 and $10 million.

The singer’s filing includes a 60-page creditor’s list of different businesses and people to whom she could potentially owe money. Included on the list are AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Tiffany & Co., The Four Seasons Hotels, DirecTV, Neiman Marcus, Orkin Pest Control, American Express, FedEx and The Internal Revenue Service. The DMV in both California and Nevada are also listed.

A rep for the singer released a statement about her bankruptcy to Access on Thursday.

“Toni Braxton and her Company, Liberty Entertainment filed Chapter 7 petitions following a prolonged health crisis that hindered her ability to work and perform. After considering various options, Ms. Braxton determined that this course of action will enable her to fulfill her obligations to the IRS, rid her of upside down real estate in Atlanta and take care of her two small children,” the statement said. “In April of 2008, Ms. Braxton was hospitalized for microvascular angina, a serious heart condition, which required that she cease work immediately. As a result, she had to cancel her sold out shows in Las Vegas. Although these performances were insured, the insurance company denied her claim which has resulted in costly ongoing litigation. Although her health is currently good, she was not able to get out from under the debts she incurred when she was unable to work.”

Adding, “Ms. Braxton will be keeping her upcoming performance commitments as well as all spokesperson and other contractual obligations.”

The singer’s attorney, Debra Grassgreen, also released a statement about Braxton’s financial woes.

“This was a very difficult decision for Ms. Braxton. However, after months of trying to work out an acceptable arrangement with her principal creditors, she determined that the only way to assure that she could meet her tax obligations and provide for her two small children was to commence these bankruptcy cases,” Grassgreen said.

In 1998, Braxton previously filed for bankruptcy. In March, the singer was hit with a $396,000 federal tax lien.

Copyright 2010 by NBC Universal, Inc. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Keep your Access to everything in Hollywood! Breaking news and personal commentary from Billy, Tony, Shaun, Maria & all of our producers! Follow us on Facebook and Twitter now!


View the original article here

'Hunger Games' dream cast?

Her book description: She's slender, with long black braids and gray eyes.

Our pick: Lyndsy Fonseca (Kick-Ass, Nikita)
Your pick (inset): Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Clash of the Titans)


View the original article here

'Community' catfight: First Look!

community-202Image Credit: Trae Patton/NBCTonight’s episode of Community will finally answer the centuries-old question: What happens when Jeff-crushing classmates Annie and Britta stop being polite and start engaging in a knock-down, drag-out oil fight in the middle of the Greendale quad? See for yourself in this exclusive first look clip!


View the original article here

The Oxygen Network can’t get enough of Tori & Dean. Can you?

tori-deanImage Credit: Michael Lavine/OxygenThe Oxygen Network is about to be living and breathing all things Tori and Dean. The women’s-oriented cable channel announced today that it’s renewing the reality series Tori & Dean: Home Sweet Hollywood, which stars Tori Spelling and her husband Dean McDermott, for a sixth season. At the same time, the cable channel announced it has picked up a new series featuring the couple called Tori & Dean: sTORIbook Weddings, in which the celebrity pair will help other couples plan their weddings. According to the network’s press release, “Tori will turn the bride-to-be’s dreams for a beautiful event into a reality while Dean will help the groom-to-be navigate all the twists and turns.”

Maybe it’s just me, but wouldn’t a show about train-wreck weddings be a whole lot more fun to watch than one about dream weddings? Then again, I’m clearly not the target demo. If you ask me, two series focused on a single celebrity couple sounds like excess invenTORI for Oxygen. But what do you think? Does the new series sound like mandaTORI viewing?


View the original article here

12 kick-ass ladies of fall TV

She's an operative who's not only skilled in martial arts, but also holding a nasty grudge against her former employers.


View the original article here

‘Brighton Beach’ reality series is a go for Lifetime

Lifetime really is working on a reality show about Russian-American Brooklyn neighborhood Brighton Beach, a source at the show has confirmed to EW.com. It’s coming to your TV sometime next year — or just as soon as Marlon Wayans and Jared Leto from Requiem for a Dream drop it off at your house! Old ladies like Ellen Burstyn in that movie are clutching their curls and murmuring, I’m gonna be on television!

Unlike MTV’s Jersey Shore, Brighton Beach will feature a multi-generational cast in order to appeal to a Lifetime-y demographic. The show will follow several families and center around a popular nightclub.

I’m down for this series — Brighton Beach is fascinating (particularly its grocery stores, which are brimming with hidden gems), and I wanted the dance party scene in the Brighton Beach episode of Bored to Death (“The Case of the Lonely White Dove”) to last a few more hundred vodka shots. What about you?


View the original article here

Dynamite cast checks in to ‘Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’

Exotic-Marigold-HotelImage Credit: Sylvain Gaboury/PR Photos; Jim Spellman/WireImage.comGood golly, they’ve outsourced Waking Ned Devine! Fox Searchlight, the eclectic studio behind such British art-house fare as Separate Lies, Once, and Notes on a Scandal, has invited some of its favorite actors to India for The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) will direct Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, and Dev Patel in a story about a group of British retirees who think India is the ideal — and less expensive — place to spend their golden years. “Enticed by advertisements for the newly restored Marigold Hotel and bolstered with visions of a life of leisure, they arrive to find the palace a shell of its former self,” according to a press release from Fox Searchlight. “Though the new environment is less luxurious than imagined, they are forever transformed by their shared experiences, discovering that life and love can begin again when you let go of the past.”

I wonder if Searchlight pitched the esteemed actors the same way: “Six weeks in India, it will be splendid, experience of a lifetime.” To be sure, I don’t expect that the cast, which includes at least two dames, will be assigned meager accommodations. But who knows? Can you imagine the eye-daggers from Dench and Smith if they’re shown to their bunk-beds in a closet off the kitchen? Actually, the two old friends would probably have a blast.

Are you excited for this cinematic passage to India?


View the original article here

Exploring the myth: Did John Lennon have a gay affair? - msnbc.com

Larry Kane was the only American reporter to travel with the Beatles on their first historic American tour, and he kept up a long and close relationship with John Lennon throughout his career. Kane’s book, “Lennon Revealed,” includes extensive personal memories as well as interviews with Yoko Ono, May Pang (with whom Lennon had a 10-year relationship) and more than 70 friends and experts on Lennon’s extraordinary life. Here is an excerpt:

(Editor’s note: This book excerpt contains explicit language and references.)

The man, the myth, the truth
From his early days to the afterlife of the 1980 tragedy, perhaps no human being in the contemporary culture has been written and talked about more than John Lennon. The analysis of his life and times matches the sort of detailed scrutiny usually reserved for the careers of world leaders. To that end, legends persist, myths remain, and clarity is a rare commodity.

The life of John Lennon was a duality: the private man and the public personality. But in his case, the public persona wasn’t far removed from the private person, a rare thing at that level of fame. John may have feared the dangers of entertaining people in public, but he was fearless in allowing the world to witness his strengths and his weaknesses. Perhaps he knew that the vulnerability he exposed endeared him to anyone who experienced similar miscues in their own lives.

Ritter’s widow on pain of his death Amy Yasbeck writes poignantly of her life with the popular star of  “Three's Company.” Excerpt

White House party crasher says she has MS Conservative ‘Young Guns’ rethink America’s future Hunting his prey: Typos

Yet the burden of the famous is the sense of hero-worship that exists outside their control. The worshippers, in their zeal to idealize or crucify, forget the fact that their idol is a real human being just like themselves. They overanalyze facts just as quickly as they conveniently omit them. They define and compartmentalize. All the while their fantasy expectations blind them from seeing — or even seeking — the real deal.

Few have allowed us to see the real deal so well as John Lennon. Still, the myths persist and the rumors swirl. Was John Lennon a mean bastard? A foolish prankster? An aggressive sex-fiend? A musical tyrant? A drug abuser? A gay man?

The answer to such questions — like the man — is complex. But the clues are out there, and there are many. When it comes to certain lingering myths surrounding John Lennon’s legend, there are clear-cut explanations, and I will give them. But to understand and grasp the man as a whole, there is only subtle revelation like the layers of an onion peeling away, and in that revelation, there is truth.

Seething anger, sincere remorse
London tabloids portrayed John as always being in trouble with the law. In fact, outside of routine punishments in school and his overplayed marijuana conviction in London in 1968, he had no remarkable legal difficulties. Although he lived his personal life quite dangerously, John paid his taxes, stopped for red lights (after he finally acquired a driver’s license), and enjoyed being an upstanding, if not quiet, resident of the two nations he called home. The bad boy reputation that often followed him was a source of great aggravation and agitation and was simply not deserved. His respect for law enforcement, for instance, is underscored by the generous donations he arranged to provide protective equipment for the New York City Police Department.

Still, there was no question that John Lennon had “edge” written all over him, and it often grated others. As we walked down the steps of the Beatles’ plane at the airport in Minneapolis on August 21, 1965, a print reporter came up to John to ask him a question, her face only inches away from his. I didn’t hear her remark, but I will never forget the response. John slapped her in the face and moved quickly toward the car. Approaching the limo, I asked him, “What was that all about?” Before I could blink, he answered, “None of your f------ business.”

Technically, he was right, but I’ve always had solidarity with my fellow reporters and was especially curious. Slapping a reporter because you don’t like their attitude is not something I would advise or endorse. Later on in the hallway at the Leamington Motor Court in downtown Minneapolis, I chided him again about the slapping episode. He said, “The s--- asked me if I was faithful to my wife.” I replied jokingly, “Instead of slapping her, why didn’t you say ‘no’ and have a laugh over it?” He didn’t answer, but a bit of a smile curled on the edges of his lips, a silent message that he knew he had screwed up. Still, being the year 1965, that particular reporter was light years ahead of her peers in her extremely audacious line of questioning. Lennon’s extreme reaction to her (while unfortunately physical) simply proved that he was willing to dish out more than he would take. And it never mattered who was doing the dishing.

'Nowhere Boy' sweetly reveals young Lennon

The risk of instant anger always lurked just below John’s surface. And one thing that usually set it off was prying questions — especially those that had to do with fidelity. In the Beatles’ rented mansion in Hollywood on the 1964 tour, John was sitting on a sofa chatting with a young woman during a party following the Hollywood Bowl concert. “Long John” Wade, a popular deejay from Hartford, Connecticut, walked into the room, tape recorder in hand, and casually approached the woman. He pointed the microphone toward her face and said, “And who might you be?” Wade was holding the microphone with an animated gesture, trying to be funny. The recorder happened to be turned off, but Wade’s joking was off limits. Lennon didn’t think it was all that funny, especially since he didn’t know the recorder was off. He sprung out of his seat and punched Wade in the forearm. Wade looked like he was in shock as the microphone detached from the recorder and flew across the room.

“I was stunned,” Wade said. “But what was interesting was how hard John tried in the days ahead to make up for it. He became so accommodating, so friendly.” At one point in the following days, Lennon asked Wade to join him for a drink. “He did everything but come on to me,” Wade says. “He was a tough customer, but he was the real thing. I was scared to death when he struck out at me, but considering my little prank, as I look back, I’m not surprised.”

This pattern of trying to make amends and be loved — after lashing out — was very clear to those around him. May Pang talks repeatedly about John’s drunken fits in Los Angeles, and how sweet and tender he became after realizing just how far he had gone toward the precipice of indecency or even violence. It was a character trait that revealed itself consistently, as if a Jekyll & Hyde existed inside him. Those who only see the negative side of things say that Lennon was an ornery bastard. But, as many insiders attest, very often his lashing out was justified and the remorse intensely sincere. Whether John Lennon was reacting to outside forces or just his own gut, you always got the truth out of him. And sometimes the truth can be an intimidating, powerful force.

Even in the early days as leader of the Quarrymen and Johnny and the Moondogs, Lennon often emitted signals of danger ahead. Pauline Sutcliffe remembers how that element of impending peril made John an unparalleled conductor of live musical electricity:

“I thought he was frightening, overwhelming, interesting. I found him quite magnificently attractive. My brother tried to calm him down, and often did. I knew he could be explicit and rude. I never wanted to be at the end of his acidity, but that also made him so electrifying. I used to marvel at my brother who handled that and still loved him.”

Upon my arrival at the Hilton Hotel in San Francisco, the 1964 tour’s first stop, I was stunned by my initial encounter with John. I had met and interviewed him and the Beatles back in February of that year, and was looking forward to reconnecting with the boys even while wondering what was in store. I was stunned, to say the least, by John’s “greeting.” Puffing on a cigarette and looking tired, John publicly chided me about my clothing and general appearance, calling me a “fag ass.” I roared back, “It’s better than looking like a slob like you!” Minutes later, he ran out into the hallway outside the room, spun me around, and rather heartily apologized. In life, there’s something to be said for candor. There is also much to be admired for realizing that you’ve screwed up and doing something about it. Few of the chroniclers of John Lennon’s life have ever given him credit for loving more than hating, for creating more than destroying, and, ultimately, for leaving the world a better place.

Many of John’s professional acquaintances became his good friends. He was especially tight with Mick Jagger and Elton John. Beatles historian Denny Somach suggests that friends like Elton were willing to put up with John’s emotional roller coaster because they respected him as a loyal friend, and they were captivated by his personality and presence:

“Actually the best description of John Lennon was given to me by Elton John. He said, ‘John Lennon was my friend — my best friend in the world. He was the greatest, but he could be an a--hole at times.’ And that’s how he described him. Nice guy, nicest guy, but he had his moments when he could be a problem.”

More than anything, Lennon saw humor in people and enjoyed chiding and cajoling the people he met and worked with. Vince Calandra, a young producer for “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964, remembers an encounter with John in Miami Beach:

“I just know that he had a real dry sense of humor. I didn’t find him abrasive or anything. In fact, when they went to Miami, right in the middle of the press conference, he started ragging on me with Ringo, you know, like ‘Here’s the boob from “The Ed Sullivan Show” following us around,’ [as if to say] get him arrested or something. It was a funny, funny remark. I mean, that was his sense of humor. It was warm and it was fun.”

Lennon also had an uncanny ability to inject humor into sticky situations, especially those that he created. In the party following the Hollywood Bowl concert in ’64, we were chatting with a woman from Capitol records when he suddenly blurted out, “Tell me, can you give me a blow job?” As I blushed in horror, the woman responded, “Are you kidding! No way!” John replied, “Well perhaps you can get me a referral?” The three of us laughed, if a little uncomfortably. John ended the conversation by saying, “Mind you, only kidding, ya’ know.” Kidding or not, he knew that thinking out loud could get him into trouble, but he also knew that he could always manage to bring prickly situations to a comfortable close.

Nowhere can the caring side of John Lennon be documented more accurately than in his relationship with Malcolm Evans, the very tall and bespectacled man who became a regular as a road manager, along with Neil Aspinall, on the Beatles’ tours. Evans had a magnetic personality and was a favorite with reporters and the women who tagged along. His smile and charm could be deceptive; he would have done anything to protect the Beatles. At one point on the touring aircraft, while traveling from Jacksonville to Boston in 1964, a tired Mal Evans sat next to me in the rear of the aircraft with tears trickling down his face. I asked, “What’s the matter?” Mal answered, “John got kind of cross with me ... just said I should go f--- off. No reason, ya’ know. But I love the man. John is a powerful force. Sometimes he’s rough, if you know what I mean, man. But there’s no greater person that I know.” I never learned what the dispute was about, but I do know that a few minutes later, a sullen Lennon walked by and embraced Evans.

In February 1965, while in Nassau, Bahamas, for the filming of the Beatles’ feature film “Help!,” Evans asked me to join him for a few drinks in town. There, Evans would introduce me to the facts behind a Lennon myth that has persisted to this day.

Did Lennon have a homosexual affair?
The greatest myth and mystery in Lennon’s legacy is whether he had same-sex encounters — particularly with Beatles manager Brian Epstein. Many fans, authors, and screenwriters — amateur sleuths all — believe they know what really happened. But in my estimation, if it were indeed valid, John Lennon, with his determined desire to be blunt and honest at all costs, would have come out years ago.

If you fast forward the tape on John Lennon’s life, this story surfaces to the world at large shortly after his death, but it was leaked early and often by those on the musical scene in Liverpool.

First of all, some background. Malcolm Evans would have stood in front of a freight train to protect John Lennon’s life, so it will come as no surprise that the lanky Mal was enraged at the accusations that were flying in 1965. It all began with a vacation.

Several weeks after the birth of his son Julian, Lennon took off with Beatles manager and impresario Brian Epstein on a twelve-day vacation to Spain. The pair left on April 28, 1963, for a simple retreat filled with sun and rest. The holiday, however, quickly brought about whispers and innuendo that continue into this century. The question was, and for many still is: Did John Lennon have a gay affair with Brian Epstein?

Was Lennon the most interesting Beatle?

The whispers were mostly local until John struck out quite famously at the 21st birthday party of Paul McCartney. Bob Wooler, a popular local deejay and Lennon friend, said something to John about the Spanish trip. Lennon, ugly drunk, answered with his fists and pounded Wooler. The episode made the papers, but there was no mention of why John hit him. Instead, Tony Barrow, the Beatles’ careful and wise press secretary, managed to spin the story so there was no mention of any potential homosexual tryst. In the end, John apologized to Wooler and blamed it all on too much drink. Years later, he would say that he made his first big national headlines in Great Britain “when I punched a friend who called me a fag.”

So, what really happened in Spain?

While it is common knowledge today that Brian Epstein was a homosexual, it is important to note that homosexuality was illegal in the United Kingdom in the mid-sixties. “The love that dare not speak its name” was scorned by most of the world, in fact, and so Epstein was always extremely discreet about his sexual preference. He disclosed his innermost secret to only a few people, and to only one member of the media that I know of, namely, myself.

On a late night during the 1965 tour, Brian invited me to his cottage room at the posh Beverly Hills Hotel. We talked about the Beatles and had some food. Most of his conversation was about his problems with John. He had a sense of losing control of the band and he was clearly worried. Toward the end of the evening, he brought out some wine and said, in a toast, “Here’s to you and me.” With that, he put his hand on mine. And rather abruptly, but kindly, I called it a night.

Rather naïve at the time, I failed to connect my social time with Brian Epstein to the story I had heard about Spain from Mal Evans a few months earlier. In recounting the entire story in Nassau, Evans had complained to me that Lennon was still aggravated by the rumors, and so was he:

“He’s a man, you know, John is, and it’s awful what they were saying about him.”

Mal’s anger, his detailed storytelling of the episode, and Epstein’s hand on mine along with his toast “to you and me,” all finally clicked later that night. So I wondered, like many have for decades, was it true? Did John Lennon and Brian Epstein have physical sexual relations with each other?

It was a question that was on many minds within the Beatles’ circle, and to a lesser degree within the Liverpool music scene. Later, it would be written about by the Lennon biographer, Albert Goldman, in his book “The Lives of John Lennon,” and it was the focus of the screenplay and feature film, “The Hours and Times.” Goldman recklessly stated in his book that John used sex with Brian Epstein to advance his career as the self-proclaimed leader of the Beatles. It was a tawdry assumption, designed most likely to sell books, yet it doesn’t make sense in light of the fact that John was already the band’s unquestioned leader. Furthermore, Lennon’s key power and tool in terms of leverage was his talent. “The Hours and Times” also leads the viewer to believe that Epstein’s famous infatuation with John Lennon may have been requited while in Barcelona. Its portrayal of the four-day interlude is more subtle than Goldman’s take, but it does have Lennon and Epstein practically flirting with each other, while leaving the big question itself unanswered.

Duke coed’s scandalous sex ratings go viral Recent Duke University graduate Karen Owen kept detailed notes of her sexual adventures with many of the school’s athletes, even ranking their performances in a PowerPoint presentation. Now it has gone viral, and some of the men involved say it’s harassment.

Police confirm cause of Gary Coleman's death Secret writings of Marilyn Monroe revealed Are you texting into a toilet seat? Meredith Vieira among ‘most powerful’ women

But Lennon’s friends and associates have their own views on the matter, based on better primary evidence than either Goldman or the countless other speculators have had access to.

Beatles’ insider Tony Bramwell, there from the beginning in Liverpool with John, dismisses it all angrily, saying, “I don’t think it ever happened. I think it is furious, pure bulls---.” Bramwell, who worked for Epstein and called him “Eppy,” explains it this way:

“Brian was close to all of us. He never came on to any of us. He was a very private gay person. Homosexuality was illegal. The terror of being found out was one of his main horrors. Revelation of it would have destroyed everything. It was, after all, a jailing offense.”

Tony Barrow, the Beatles’ extraordinary spin doctor, has his own take on the Spanish getaway.

“No one really knows. John was daring, ever blunt, so determined to be different. I would never say, ‘never.’ But knowing both of them, I would say it never happened. There is no question that Brian was attracted to John in a sexual way; Brian was a sensitive man. His cheeks would go purple when Lennon was tough with him, and John could be gruff. He was stand-offish quite a lot, which was John’s way of saying, ‘I’m not gay, you can’t love me, but you can be my best friend.’ But remember, there was pressure. John was the reason that Brian Epstein got involved with the Beatles in the first place. Brian had a strong bond with him, but he also knew that his homosexuality itself could shatter the Beatles. He may have wanted John, but as far as I know, it only happened in his dreams.”

The timing of the trip was a source of family anguish. Lennon had decided to go to Spain shortly after the birth of Julian. Instead of staying home with the newborn, he elected to take a vacation.

For some, the question of whether or not John Lennon and Brian Epstein had sexual relations on the trip to Spain begins with the question of why they even went on holiday together in the first place. Tony Barrow explains the reason for the trip in terms of timing and other circumstances in John’s life:

“In those days, if your girlfriend got pregnant, it was quite simple — you got married. [John] wasn’t happy about the baby, although I knew he began months later to really love Julian. But the fact that he had to marry was disturbing to him. His decision to go to Spain, although very selfish, was a ‘f--- you’ to all the things that were happening to him. It’s kind of ironic because months later at a West End pub called the Speakeasy, we were chatting after a recording session. Both of us sensitively talked about our infant children, and how good it felt to be fathers. John loved Julian, but he didn’t love the circumstances surrounding his birth.”

May Pang, who saw all sides of John Lennon, dismisses the speculation surrounding John and Brian as nothing but revisionist history:

“The likelihood of John having an affair with Brian Epstein is absurd, and actually impossible. Even when Phil Spector once tied up and threatened male sex against him, John was terrified.”

One thing is certain: if John were alive today, surely he would relish the debate and do his best to leave us guessing, as he tried to do in a 1973 interview:

“I went on holiday to Spain with Brian — which started all the rumors that he and I were having a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But we did have a pretty intense relationship. And it was my first experience with someone I knew was a homosexual. He admitted it to me. We had this holiday together because Cyn was pregnant and we left her with the baby ... lots of funny stories, you know. We used to sit in cafes and Brian would look at all the boys and I would ask, ‘Do you like that one? Do you like this one?’ It was just the combination of our closeness and the trip that started the rumors.”

Cynics who fan the flames of rumor would say that of course Lennon would deny the gossip. But the ultimate truth is in the single revelation that Brian Epstein himself offered to me the night after our uncomfortable encounter in his cottage room. The Beatles were performing that night at Balboa Park in San Diego. I walked up to Brian as he stood outside the makeshift dressing room. His face turned beet red, but I broke the ice by saying, “Thanks for the time last night. I really enjoyed it.” Awkward moments are never a pleasure, but in an effort to show my support, I whispered to him, “Did all that talk about the Spanish trip upset you?” He responded, “Larry, I love John, but nothing (pause) nothing happened. It was simply an impossibility.” I may have been the first and only reporter ever to pose that question to Brian Epstein.

If I knew at the time what a fable would develop from the trip to Spain, I would have pursued the story more aggressively. But in the journalism of the sixties, such talk or even the suggestion of it, was off-limits. And besides, Epstein’s brief characterization of the trip couldn’t have been more emphatic, or sincere. Meanwhile, the story of the Spanish trip would not surface in the general public for years. In retrospect, Brian Epstein’s answer to my question — which I have never reported until now — provides all the truth anyone needs to know.

Excerpted with permission from “Lennon Revealed” by Larry Kane (Running Press, 2007).

© 2010 MSNBC Interactive


View the original article here

Google TV’s first set-top box: Is it worth $299?

Google TV’s set-top box from Logitech is now available for preorder, and if you want to fork over $299, it looks pretty nice! Nicer than just connecting your computer to your television? Well…not quite. But still! Nice!

Logitech’s Revue Google TV box comes with a full QWERTY keyboard, but you can also control it with your iPhone or Android smartphone. (Fun.) Ultimately, though, the hardware matters less than the software: Is Google TV compelling enough, versus, say, Apple TV ($99) or Boxee’s upcoming set-top box ($199), to make the added expense worth it? I’m not convinced yet. For $299, buy an Xbox and watch Netflix through that. I hear you can also play games on it.

Are you preordering your Revue, PopWatchers? Can you not wait to get Google TV fired up in your living room? Or are you finding other ways of getting web content onto a television screen?


View the original article here