Yes, I just wrote the words ” Transformers Oscar campaign.” Sigh. It’s time we come to terms with the fact that each installment in Michael Bay ‘s robot action series has technically been nominated for one or more Academy Awards — deservedly so, really, given the technical achievements these CG metal-on-metal bashfests have under their belt, even if everything else in these films are aggressively, brain-numbingly mediocre. But Paramount aims to take home one of them statuettes this year, by god, and so they’ve created an awards campaign to break through to Oscar voters in the most effective way possible: Through their TV sets. Bay’s billion-dollar summer hit Transformers: Dark of the Moon is nominated in three technical categories: Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effects. No matter how much you may loathe this series, one thing is irrefutable: Transformers 3 boasts some of the best vfx of the year. That churning building-chomping giant bot thing cutting down a skyscraper in glorious, shiny detail? Mesmerizing, really. Bay slowing down his previously indistinguishable CG robot action for the third film actually helped highlight the amazing visual work he and his team pieced together out of bits and data, and though the first Transformers lost the Visual Effects Oscar to The Golden Compass (the second lost Best Sound Mixing to The Hurt Locker ), 2012 seems like the year for a Transformers win for vfx. ( Dark of the Moon is up against Hugo , Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 , Rise of the Planet of the Apes , and Real Steel in the category.) Which brings us to the two sound categories. Does anyone out there who’s not a sound engineer actually understand the difference between Sound Editing and Sound Mixing? Fine, I’m sure there are a handful of expert McKnowitalls out there. (Essentially, editing is the selection/assemblage of sounds and mixing is the blending of all sounds/dialogue/audio for the final film.) But you know who doesn’t understand the difference between the two? Normal people, and a whole lot of Oscar voters. That’s probably why Paramount’s Transformers Oscar spot doesn’t even bother distinguishing between the two sound categories. “Just vote for us across the board!” the campaign practically screams, and why not? The goal of these spots is basically to put Transformers in the minds of the voters — the ones who can be swayed by a TV commercial telling them that these are the best effects of the year. Take a look at the ad below and chime in below: Do you think this campaign will finally earn the franchise their Oscar? [via Deadline ]
The much-anticipated Daniel Radcliffe ghost-story thriller The Woman in Black opens Feb. 3. This calls for a giveaway! But considering what you stand to win (including an iPod Nano and a signed WIB poster), we’re going to make you work for it. (Sort of.) Welcome to Movieline’s Daniel Radcliffe Mini Fan Fiction Sweepstakes! [ UPDATE 2/2: Contest is now closed — thanks to all who participated! Scroll down for the winning submission. ] First things first: The prize line-up!
For the grand finale of Contest Week at Movieline — which previously entailed conjuring Daniel Radcliffe-flavored fan fiction and Hunger Games haiku — I humbly bring you the single greatest prize we have ever offered our readers. One word: Pawtograph . And you thought the Consider Uggie campaign making 10,000 Facebook friends (and an adversary out of Martin Scorsese ) was a milestone. In fact, it gets better still as the Artist wonder dog has imprinted his paw on posters for his Oscar front-runner (see above), and I have two of these things to give away. All you have to do is write a 10-word review — no more, no less — of Uggie’s performance in The Artist at either…
File under the ever-thickening berth labeled “Dirty Oscar-Season Tricks”: No sooner did the sun rise on the Academy’s final-ballot mailing day than word circulated about the author and publishers of The Reader suing The Weinstein Company for undercompensation. I know, I know — you’re shocked. In a nutshell, author Bernard Schlink and his publishers claim that they are owed 2.5 to 5 percent of gross receipts from 2008 film — AKA the other Daldry co-produced by Scott Rudin that was hustled into theaters at the last minute only to shock the world with a Best Picture nomination (and eventually earn Kate Winslet a Best Actress Oscar) — but that they “have received only one profit participation statement from TWC that says no monies are due.” Of course. More from Deadline : The suit also alleges overstatement of production costs of which $10 million were subsidized by the German government, overstatement of distribution fees as well as overstatement of costs of advertising, marketing, publicity, promotion and of the negative cost of the film. Specifically the charges include breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, money had and received, breach of implied contract and accounting. Plaintiffs seek $1 million or more in consequential damages, a complete, up to date and correct accounting of monies due plus 10% interest from the dates any sums were due, punitive damages and court costs. Just when things were going so well for The Artist , too! Speaking of which, the Weinsteins’ designated awards-season legal representative Uggie responded to the suit this morning with typically eloquent defiance: [ Deadline ]
Usually, when the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority bans ads with links to film culture, it’s for the threat of causing ” undue distress to children ” or because a suggestively posed Dakota Fanning might corrupt all those virtuous British lasses you always hear about. So it came as a surprise to see the watchdog crack down on something genuinely troublesome: Rachel Weisz Photoshopped to within an inch of her life. But there you have it! In a statement broadly aimed at the cosmetics industry in general, the ASA took L’Oreal’s overzealous retouching goons to task for untruth in advertising: “We told L’Oreal Paris to ensure that they did not use post-production techniques in a way that misrepresented what was achievable using the advertised product. Although we considered that the image in the ad did not misrepresent the luminosity or wrinkling of Rachel Weisz’s face, we considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even. We therefore concluded that the image in the ad … misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims ‘SKIN LOOKS SMOOTHER’ and ‘COMPLEXION LOOKS MORE EVEN’.” The company’s priceless response? “We do not believe the ad exaggerates the effect that can be achieved using this product.” Ah, OK, that settles it. Weisz, meanwhile, could not be reached for comment because she’s presumably recoiling in aghast embarrassment . Well played, all. [ Daily Stab via Pajiba ]
But she doesn’t ‘encourage’ Ava and Deacon to watch them: ‘I think it’s weird,’ she says during ‘MTV First: This Means War.’ By Kara Warner, with reporting by Josh Horowitz Reese Witherspoon Photo: MTV News Hopefully you tuned in to MTV on Tuesday night for “MTV First: This Means War ,” during which acclaimed actress and MTV Generation Award winner Reese Witherspoon presented an exclusive clip from her upcoming film and stuck around for a lengthy chat to discuss her diverse career and various leading men, the most recent being Robert Pattinson and “War” co-stars Chris Pine and Tom Hardy. Witherspoon also talked about being a mom to daughter Ava, 12, and son Deacon, 8, and whether they have started to watch any of her movies together. “Not really. I think it’s weird,” Witherspoon admitted. “I don’t encourage it, but if it comes on, we’ll watch it. They kind of find it entertaining. They’re kind of fascinated with a movie I did when I was 14. They really want to see ‘The Man in the Moon,’ because that’s sort of starting to be the age that they are.” Seeing as how many celeb kids choose to follow in their parents’ footsteps, we asked Witherspoon if her children caught the acting bug or talked about wanting to act. “It just doesn’t enter the picture. I encourage their artistic abilities at home, but they’ve never said that it’s anything they wanted to do,” Witherspoon said. The busy actress and mom also dished about her encounter with Kate Middleton at the California launch of Tusk Trust, an organization designed to preserving Africa’s culture, back in July. “That was very cool,” Witherspoon gushed of meeting the Duchess of Cambridge. “There’s such a history there, and I think there’s also a fascination with [Kate]. She carries herself so beautifully, keeps her composure, and under a lot of stress, I’m just kind of fascinated with how people handle different modes and lifestyles and all that. She’s very smart and sweet.” Stick with MTV News as we roll out more from our exclusive “MTV First: This Means War ” interview with Reese Witherspoon! Related Videos MTV First: This Means War
W.E. wasn’t just an undertaking for Madonna, who directed her Wallis Simpson/Edward VIII biopic with all the lavish heft of a gigantic watercolor landscape. It was also a labor of love for Andrea Riseborough, the 30-year-old actress playing Simpson, the American socialite whose romance with Edward led to his abdication of the throne in 1936. The film’s most enjoyable asset, Riseborough was saddled with making the polarizing Simpson a wholly charismatic figure — an Evita without the benefit of torch songs. She succeeds, and with her thoroughly photogenic Edward (James D’Arcy) in tow, she softens W.E. ‘s melodrama with fantastic ease. We caught up with Riseborough to discuss her fascinating director , her feelings about the subject matter, and the zaniness of the Venice Film Festival . You’ve been promoting this movie nonstop for months! Are you sick of corsets and gorgeous costuming at this point? Are the constraints of the couture caving in on you, so to speak? That’s very funny! No, I’m very much enamored with every different period. It’s so funny because people often say — or people talk about period pieces — and I never really faction different periods or divide them from one another. I just think that really everything is of a specific period whether it be 2016 or 1810. It was extraordinary, the architectural feats that some of the couture gowns entailed on W.E. entailed. You have no idea. It was extraordinary. But is it daunting to think of committing so much to the look and feel of a period piece again? It’s something I’m very familiar with. Because whether it is 2016 or 1810, it’s very arduous. Specificity in any project, even if it exists in the abstract [Laughs] or it exists in an alternate reality, there’s always a vision that everybody adheres to. Everybody very much passionately leans toward expressing that vision and the way we share it with the world. It’s something that’s very familiar to me, actually, I suppose is the answer to that. It’s something I enjoy very much. It’s transporting. You are stunning in this movie. You really have the face of a beautiful silent screen star, or a young Bette Davis. Have you seen Dark Victory ? Oh I have, yes! Very much a part of my lexicon as a child. Did you think your throwback looks would aid you in getting cast? Because you would definitely fit in with the stars of Wallis Simpson’s time. Not really, because when I’d been sent the script, I thought it was very unique. I wanted to explore a little more and was interested certainly in the character that was Wallis Simpson, when I went to meet with the director — but when I met her, I actually had what could only be described as sandy blonde hair and a false tan. I was playing a modern character elsewhere. I’d never seen myself in one particular period. I know that my face is pretty plain and can look reasonably attractive but can also look horribly unattractive, and it’s been something that’s been a real benefit to me — being a blank canvas. Muscularly, I can mold it anyway that I want to, if need be. Or I can completely relax it! So, no, I didn’t think that — no. What I saw ahead was like with any role, the journey of a transformation that was something so utterly far away from myself. It was something and is something I’m very fulfilled by. For the record, James D’Arcy also looks just like Anthony Perkins. You can tell him I said so. [Laughs.] Nobody’s ever told him, but I can e-mail him if you like! [Laughs again.] E-mailing him now. Madonna is known for being able to choose forthcoming trends, own them, and bring them to the pop culture fore. Before you met her, did you have any idea what would impress her, based solely on your knowledge of her before W.E.? Did you use that insight to get cast in the film? My desire was not to impress; I wanted to see what fueled her passion for the story. I wanted to know what her vision was for it, and whether she would respond to what I could her offer her as a potential duchess. I think it would’ve been — I would’ve been somebody else, actually. It’s not who I am, I suppose. I was interested to see what our complicit working relationship would be. That was exciting to me. The story of the duchess was something I thought would be potentially interesting to excavate. I wanted to see within what framework that might possibly happen. She, very fortunately, responded to what I had to bring to her. Really, we were artistically complicit from that point on, from the outset really. She’d seen me play Margaret Thatcher and this other character before, so she had a good grasp on the reality that I could inhabit somebody who existed and somebody who was young and innocent — this other character was young and innocent. One interesting thing about W.E. is the sheer continental difference in knowledge about Wallis Simpson. In the U.K., everyone knows. In the U.S., plenty of people know nothing about that era of British history. Oh, don’t do yourself down! I’m trying not to! But there’s definitely a gap in awareness about who Wallis Simpson was. How do you feel addressing that with different markets for the film? I think, really, the story transcends any historical context you might feel you need to put it in. Interestingly, of course, it was a reality. But what we have portrayed is our perception or version of the truth, Madonna’s version and vision of a woman who really existed. The heart of the piece is the thing that’ll tap on the door of the common man, if you will. Because, I hope, that was the thing that originally tapped on the door of the common man — every one of the working class areas that Edward visited, the working men so very much appreciated him, took him into their homes in a way that a prince had not been taken in before. It’s that same honesty and love and truth, I think, that people will feel and respond to. Wallis, she’d seen the writing on the wall. She ended up being as trapped as she imagined she would be, if he should abdicate, which he did as you know. It’s impossible for any one person — I mean, let’s not even reduce it to gender — it’s impossible for any one person to live up to the responsibility of the kingdom. How does one man fulfill a partner who has given up such an awful, awful lot for their relationship? Do you find yourself sorting out the fair criticism of W.E. from what might be considered a biased response to your director? Has the criticism been fair? I really believe that people have their own relationship with it. And I say “with it,” I mean everything that the film is. We were all part of making it. They can choose to absorb it and gain what is valuable from it any which way. I really have no opinion on it, to be truly honest, Louis. I know I’m incredibly honest to be part of something I found beautiful. That’s really all I know. Talk about the Venice Film Festival, where the world got its first taste of W.E. and the first swarm of responses to the film hit. Seemed pretty manic at the time. How do you remember it? It felt incredibly special. It was almost like our first offering at something we’d been so lovingly baking. The explosion that then ensued was quite breathtaking. It was almost funny being so surrounded by love. I’m just speaking as honestly as I felt it! Lastly, I heard you say that you and Madonna connected deeply in researching the “geeky” minutia of Wallis Simpson’s life. How deeply did that fixation go? Oh my gosh, that is such a long answer, Louis. Her fastidious research has no bounds! And that’s where the answer lies. When you approach something that you’re ignited by and are passionate about in such a way, really, until it seems to you’re getting to the point where no stone is unturned, only then can you stop. When you imagine chronicling an entire woman’s life from age 29 to 70, everything that went before 29 — since it must be taken into account — and everything that went after, you can imagine that’s no small feat. I ferociously lapped that up. I enjoyed it so much. But none of that is worth anything if you can’t just trust that it’s been inside of you so you can be present when you’re living out what might’ve been their life. W.E. opens Friday in limited release. [Top Photo: WireImage]
Let’s hear it for Gang Grey , which handily sprinted off with first place at the weekend box office while fellow newcomers One For the Money and Man on a Ledge settled a little more quietly into their own top-five niches. A couple of unremarkable holdovers fared not much better, but hey. At least now we can look forward to February! Your Weekend Receipts are here. 1. The Grey Gross: $20,000,000 (new) Screens: 3,185 (PSA $6,279) Weeks: 1 Audiences got behind the Liam Neeson man-against-the-frozen-wild thriller in a big way — a surprisingly big way, if you believe some box-office observers. But come on: Since Taken in 2009, Neeson hasn’t led a wide release that opened below $20,000,000. And he’s only supported in one — The Next Three Days , which bombed out under $7,000,000 in 2010. Give the guy some credit! Big ups as well to distributors Open Road Films, who’ve hopefully shaken off their machismo-factory false start Killer Elite and can move forward accordingly. First start: Getting guys (and their dates) to come out for Super Bowl weekend and hold this movie up in Week Two. Developing… 2. Underworld: Awakening Gross: $12,500,000 ($45,126,000) Screens: 3,078 (PSA $4,061) Weeks: 2 (Change: -50.6%) Actually, 50 percent is a surprisingly low drop for this one against three new wide releases, so hats off to Screen Gems! Place your bets now as to whether or not it has what it takes to beat the franchise’s second installment, Underworld: Evolution , as the series’ highest grosser at $62.3 million. The math says “not likely,” but it’ll be close. 3. One For the Money Gross: $11,750,000 (new) Screens: 2,737 (PSA: $4,293) Weeks: 1 Well, that should just about do it for Katherine Heigl’s plans for a Stephanie Plum franchise. If this was One For the Money , I’d hate to think how the putative sequel, Two For the Dough , would be rebranded. Two For the Oyyy ? Two For Whatever Pocket Change You’ve Got on You ? Two For Anything But Another Katherine Heigl Comedy ? You tell me. 4. Red Tails Gross: $10,400,000 ($33,780,000) Screens: 2,573 (PSA $4,042) Weeks: 2 (Change: -44.6%) Needs more Liam Neeson. 5. Man on a Ledge Gross: $8,300,000 (new) Screens: 2,998 (PSA $2,769) Weeks: 1 Ouch . First the What to Expect When You’re Expecting poster , now this. It just wasn’t Elizabeth Banks’s week. That’ll teach her to take second billing to Sam Worthington. Seriously, Hollywood, stop doing that! [Figures via Box Office Mojo ] Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
You know how when you’re browsing around online, and you arrive at a news site or some other ad-supported publication that digs into your Web history for the most appropriate display ads to show you on your visit? Except they’re not appropriate, like, at all ? Try this recent combo found by a Movieline reader in Australia: I mean, sure! Sydney restaurateur survives 25-meter fall from balcony + your desirable age/economic demographic + Sam Worthington’s slow career suicide new film opening soon = Marketing genius . If only we’d had a guy plunge eight stories in one of our bigger American metropolises! This movie might have made some money . Anyway, can’t wait to see Titanic 3-D ads automatically show up on every story about the Costa Concordia for the next two months. You’re welcome, James Cameron. [ Sydney Morning Herald ]
The mysterious Ferris Bueller-themed Honda commercial that I was telling you about last week has been unveiled. On the one hand, it’s just Matthew Broderick and a string of references to Ferris Bueller’s Day Off , with the actor calling out ill to work to go frolic around town in his Honda CR-V. So technically, no legacies were harmed in the making of this TV spot. On the other hand, for a guy who’s supposed to be having a day off, I don’t know if I’ve never seen Broderick work harder in my life. Anyway, give it a try! It’s only 145 seconds, and will at least buy you a built-in bathroom break this coming Super Bowl Sunday. Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
