Anna Kendrick has a terrible face, but when you hit her and her overly famous and undeserving body from the right angle, where her weird mouth is cropped out of the frame, she’s got some tits…relatable, hireable, famous for no reason I can really understand…because she’s so fucking average….straight from community college drama class but still tits…and I like tits…and so do you…especially when they get paid millions a year…and not even because they are tits…but because they have a good agent… TO SEE THE REST OF THE PICS CLICK HERE The post Anna Kendrick Picture of the Day appeared first on DrunkenStepfather .
9th Wonder’s documentary film “The Hip-Hop Fellow” will make its world premiere at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival on April 5th. RELATED: Rapsody Flaunts A…
The camps are entrenched, the battle lines drawn, and the barbs and quips are flying like cannon shot across the divide. But as the debate rages on Movieline and on other sites across the web over Peter Jackson ‘s directorial decision to film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 frames per second , as opposed to the more traditional 24, no single quip seems to draw the ire of the “traditionalists” more than this one, aimed square in the chest of the old timers: Resisting 48 frames is like resisting color. As if an argument over aesthetic choice could be so absurdly reduced. Right, four time Academy Award winning legendary SFX master and Hobbit visual effects supervisor, Joe Letteri? “If you grew up seeing films in black and white and suddenly start seeing films in color, some people are going to have the reaction ‘Wow, that’s great!’ and other people are going to have the reaction, ‘That’s not moviemaking! Films should be made in black and white! You’re losing the mystery of how to deal with tonality, you’re sacrificing that to deal with color!'” Letteri told Movieline in an exclusive one-on-one chat. “But if you grew up with only seeing color, you don’t know that. Just talking to the people that have seen it so far, and obviously that’s been a very limited audience, the younger ones that I’ve spoken with don’t really have an issue with it because they’re not so ingrained with what 24 frames mean. To them they’re just watching a movie.” A movie that doesn’t actually look like a movie, opponents might counter, since one of the effects of shooting at 48 fps — which projects 48 individual static shots every second — is to give your brain twice as much visual information as compared to 24 fps. In turn, this extra visual information translates to a more immediate and “real” experience for viewers, lifting at least partly the screen’s veil (think of the look of many American soap operas). It’s a more visceral experience. But is it an equally cinematic one? ‘It’s a choice,” Letteri insisted. “You have time to adjust. [Then you can ask] Do I want this or do I not want this?” According to Letteri, it’s a choice that may be driven in the future more in tandem with the choice to go 3-D, or “stereo,” as Letteri refers to the process, than it is from a narrative compulsion, in large part because of how the human brain interprets three-dimensional filmmaking. In all films, objects not in focus or that are moving very fast will have blurriness (or “motion blur” in the case of quick moving objects). In 3-D, however, this same blurriness can cause your brain distress since it naturally wants to interpret the image as it does the real world, Letteri explained. “I think it’s beneficial with stereo,” Letteri said of the high frame rate process. “One of the artifacts of stereo — for example, if you look at something that’s out of focus, maybe an over the shoulder shot, this is where stereo differs from the real world. In the real world, wherever your eye focuses that object snaps to focus. So if you’re looking at a big screen and your eye wanders to something that is out of focus, your eye expects it to go into focus. It can’t. So you’re sitting there focusing on an out of focus object. That’s one of the things that causes your brain [to fritz].” “The same thing also happens temporally,” he continued. “If you’ve got an object moving across the screen in the real world your eye wants to be able to track that and your eye wants to see it in focus. But because you’ve already photographed that with this motion blur, your eye cannot focus on something in space that’s blurry. Again, in the real world you never see that. It’s one of those other things that in 3-D your brain says something’s not right here. Well, if you go to high frame right, it is in focus. Your eye can focus on these fast moving objects or even slow moving ones and the details always there. So your brain can make sense of it.” Of course, if 48 fps can reduce blur, enhance 3-D, and make for a more absorbing experience, then why stop at just 48 frames per second? For those who don’t like the process, it may be time to batten down the hatches. They aren’t. “Oh no, Jim [Cameron] is considering 60 fps [for Avatar 2 ],” Letteri, who won an Oscar for his groundbreaking work on the original Avatar said. “That’s closer to where persistence of vision almost disappears. In fact, these discussions came out of when we noticed the effect of that in Avatar . And we were brainstorming with Jim on how to fix it — well, this is inherent in the photography and the only thing you can do is go shorter shutter, butt that introduces strobing, or you can go higher frame rate. We started experimenting with higher frame rate [from a standpoint of] how do we solve the problem?” “It looks,” he added, sending up either the victory flag or the white flag, depending on your opinion of the movie-like quality of movies, “like something happening live.” RELATED ARTICLES: WATCH: At ‘Hobbit’ Premiere, Robinov Says Warner Is Taking Wait-And-See Approach To 48 FPS ‘The Hobbit’ At 48 FPS: A High Frame Rate Fiasco? ‘The Hobbit’ 3-D Early Review: Back Again, But Not Quite There Follow Shawn Adler on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
The other week we posted preview pics of Miranda Kerr ‘s latest Esquire Magazine photoshoot and today we have the rest of them. I don’t understand how a relatively new mom has a booty like this, but it’s proof that there are no excuses for letting yourself go after having children. So all you moms out there, how about a little less complaining about how you don’t have time for yourselves and focus all that energy on deep knee bends.
You know it is a good day anytime Joanna Krupa decides to stage candid photos of herself in a bikini. I just wish she’d lose the douche. There is no need for him to be in these pictures other than to spoil them for us. We get it, you’re the lucky bastard banging her! No need to rub it in. Anyway, I tried to post as many pictures with him not in the frame, so you’re welcome and enjoy.
Kanye West and Jay-Z could have spent up to $150,000 trashing the $350,000 car for the video. By Gil Kaufman Photo: Roc-A-Fella How much swag do Kanye West and Jay-Z have? Enough to trash a $350,000 Maybach in their “Otis” video and laugh about it. The conspicuous-consumption-loving clip is a lesson in the dynamics of hip-hop power, with two of the biggest names in the game flexing their muscle by taking one of the world’s most expensive luxury cars and essentially turning it into a torn-up plaything that’s probably not even street legal, according to Myles Kovacs, president and co-founder of DUB magazine . “It’s a great gimmick and it looks ‘Mad Max’-ish. … They’re clearly rich enough that they can take something most people could never dream of owning and tear it up,” Kovacs said of the dismantling of the car that takes place in the clip. Experts dissected the meaning of “Otis” and the Maybach for us. What starts out as a mint vehicle is quickly stripped down in the Spike Jonze-directed clip. With the glass roof tossed to the side, the doors ripped off and welded to the back, the front grill removed and stuck on the tail end and fender walls created out of sheet metal, Kovacs said the actual work done on the car was minimal, but the damage was maximum. “If it’s just for show or to make a movie car, it’s pretty simple,” he said. “You’re just trashing the car, bolting on fake bumpers, pushing the wheels out, removing doors, cutting the roof off and adding flame throwers on the exhaust. But these guys are crazy to spend money to ruin a car like that.” The Maybach is on display at the Watch the Throne pop-up store, and MTV News was on the scene. While ‘Ye and Jigga are clearly having a blast driving the chopped and screwed ‘Bach in “Otis,” Kovacs said at this point the frame of the car is probably buckling and it’s folding up “like a taco,” because it appears that the center roof supports have been taken out. He originally guessed that a job like this might cost $150,000 and take two to three weeks if you were aiming to have the car be street-legal and reinforce the frame. Making it just safe enough for the video would set you back $100,000 or so. But if all they did was cut the doors and roof out and do some welding here and there, the right tech could do that in a week. Add another for painting and the right shop could get the job done for $20,000 or so. “The thing is, the value of that car is nothing now, you couldn’t drive it on the street,” he said. “It would start malfunctioning big time.” That’s something to consider for anyone thinking about taking the car off their hands. The last frame of the video declares, “The vehicle used in this video will be offered up for auction. Proceeds will be donated towards the East African drought disaster.” Their heart is in the right place, even if their grill isn’t. Related Videos JAY Z and Kanye West: “Otis” Playlist Related Artists Jay-Z Kanye West
Kanye West and Jay-Z could have spent up to $150,000 trashing the $350,000 car for the video. By Gil Kaufman Photo: Roc-A-Fella How much swag do Kanye West and Jay-Z have? Enough to trash a $350,000 Maybach in their “Otis” video and laugh about it. The conspicuous-consumption-loving clip is a lesson in the dynamics of hip-hop power, with two of the biggest names in the game flexing their muscle by taking one of the world’s most expensive luxury cars and essentially turning it into a torn-up plaything that’s probably not even street legal, according to Myles Kovacs, president and co-founder of DUB magazine . “It’s a great gimmick and it looks ‘Mad Max’-ish. … They’re clearly rich enough that they can take something most people could never dream of owning and tear it up,” Kovacs said of the dismantling of the car that takes place in the clip. Experts dissected the meaning of “Otis” and the Maybach for us. What starts out as a mint vehicle is quickly stripped down in the Spike Jonze-directed clip. With the glass roof tossed to the side, the doors ripped off and welded to the back, the front grill removed and stuck on the tail end and fender walls created out of sheet metal, Kovacs said the actual work done on the car was minimal, but the damage was maximum. “If it’s just for show or to make a movie car, it’s pretty simple,” he said. “You’re just trashing the car, bolting on fake bumpers, pushing the wheels out, removing doors, cutting the roof off and adding flame throwers on the exhaust. But these guys are crazy to spend money to ruin a car like that.” The Maybach is on display at the Watch the Throne pop-up store, and MTV News was on the scene. While ‘Ye and Jigga are clearly having a blast driving the chopped and screwed ‘Bach in “Otis,” Kovacs said at this point the frame of the car is probably buckling and it’s folding up “like a taco,” because it appears that the center roof supports have been taken out. He originally guessed that a job like this might cost $150,000 and take two to three weeks if you were aiming to have the car be street-legal and reinforce the frame. Making it just safe enough for the video would set you back $100,000 or so. But if all they did was cut the doors and roof out and do some welding here and there, the right tech could do that in a week. Add another for painting and the right shop could get the job done for $20,000 or so. “The thing is, the value of that car is nothing now, you couldn’t drive it on the street,” he said. “It would start malfunctioning big time.” That’s something to consider for anyone thinking about taking the car off their hands. The last frame of the video declares, “The vehicle used in this video will be offered up for auction. Proceeds will be donated towards the East African drought disaster.” Their heart is in the right place, even if their grill isn’t. Related Videos JAY Z and Kanye West: “Otis” Playlist Related Artists Jay-Z Kanye West
Movie is ‘as much a comedy as it is an action movie,’ Cinema Blend’s Josh Tyler writes. By Eric Ditzian Seth Rogen and Jay Chou in “The Green Hornet” Photo: Sony Pictures Seth Rogen might be laughing that throaty, unmistakable laugh of his at the end of this coming holiday weekend. After a hellish development process, a troubling game of release-date musical chairs, and the seemingly collective declaration from the Internet that his movie would suuuuuuck, Rogen’s “Green Hornet” is set to win the upcoming box-office crown. Projections put the superhero action/comedy’s opening haul anywhere from the low $30 million range to the low $40 million range. Whether it hits that higher number — making it the first movie to cross the $40-million opening mark since “Tron: Legacy” in mid-December — might well be decided by word of mouth. Thus far, critics seem to be of two minds: those who just don’t dig how Rogen has transferred his slacker-dude comedic stylings to a whiz-bam-pow action flick, and those who, well, totally dig how much fun that transference turns out to be. Which camp do you fall into? Check out what the critics are saying about “The Green Hornet” and decide for yourself. The Story “Rogen plays Britt Reid, a spoiled and irresponsible twenty-something who inherits an independent Los Angeles newspaper after his father James (Tom Wilkinson) dies under mysterious circumstances. Unprepared for the responsibilities of the job, he commiserates with one of his father’s mechanics, the preternaturally gifted Kato (Jay Chou); but when they’re interrupted by real criminals while trying to deface a statue erected in his father’s honor, the duo decides to launch new careers for themselves as superheroes. Branding his alter ego ‘The Green Hornet,’ Reid uses the newspaper to establish himself as a criminal, hoping to protect his real identity from the authorities; but when an actual crime boss named Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) believes that the Hornet is horning in on his territory, Reid and Kato find themselves under attack from both crooks and the authorities.” — Todd Gilchrist, Cinematical The Direction “Michel Gondry has crafted an irreverently funny, ultramodern take on the 1930s radio serial, with a vibe so casual you half-expect star Seth Rogen to amble offscreen and put his feet up on the seat next to you. … Gondry is surprisingly well-suited for a big-budget popcorn adventure. While his projects occasionally threaten to float away on a cloud of whimsy, the outlandish requirements of this genre — like explosive action scenes — somehow keep him grounded. At the same time, his sense of humor and acute visual skill turn a cheerfully unfocused superhero flick into an unexpectedly fun ride.” — Elizabeth Weitzman, New York Daily News The 3-D “[A] note on the 3-D. It’s good. Bullet casings rain down on our eyebrows. Kato’s kicks fly past our heads. At times, it seems like every possible object in the frame is rendered in 3-D. Which raises the question: Does the paperweight on Rogen’s desk need to be popping out of the frame? It’s an unnecessary contrivance in a movie that’s already made all the right moves.” — Tom Horgen, Minneapolis Star Tribune The Dissenters “The film’s insurmountable problem is that Rogen and Goldberg are committed to the comic notion that Britt is an idiot. This becomes a box that the character and the movie can’t escape. At no point does Britt’s strategy of doing good while pretending to be evil ever reveal itself to be coherent. On the contrary, Rogen’s Green Hornet doesn’t do anybody any good, not even by accident — he just wreaks havoc. Britt is a joke, a parody of a fatuous rich heir. That provides the occasional laugh, as when Britt comes on to his secretary (the long-suffering Cameron Diaz), who loathes him. But when the violence comes, who cares if this fatuous, ineffectual, trouble-making idiot survives?” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle The Final Word “More important than the story being told here, though, is how much fun the film seems to be having in telling it. … The movie’s packed with fun gadgets and crazy visual effects, some of which are so outside the box that in another film they might seem strange. Here though, most of them work brilliantly because Gondry’s movie never takes itself too seriously. When reality gets in the way of having fun with the moment, ‘The Green Hornet’ is more than happy to ignore it. Gondry’s vision is a perfect fit with the comedic tone of the script, written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. Their film is as much a comedy as it is an action movie — actually it’s better than that, it’s one of the all too rare modern movies which manages to be both.” — Josh Tyler, Cinema Blend Check out everything we’ve got on “The Green Hornet.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com . Related Videos ‘Green Hornet’ Clips
