I used to fuck a crackhead native, who was probably a prostitute, but we don’t ask questions on how a bitch gets her crack when she’s sucking my dick for free…I used to invite her to the office I was working at for lunch and every time she’d get there, she’d drink a think of white out…I didn’t really understand it, and I can’t imagine it got her high, but for some reason that’s what Anna Kendrick is reminding me of in this Fast Company article, that I assume is about how she’s invested in TINDER or some other start-up and is now a dot com billionaire, because becoming a dot com billionaire with an app is a fucking joke, but the bigger joke is me for not having one… Under normal circumstances, Anna Kendrick’s face, or mouth, or something about her freaks me the fuck out, but that white out, shit that’s porn to me….because there’s nothing hotter than liquid paper breath telling you how desperate a bitch is…while your busting’ on her back…
Last time I did a post on Anna Kendrick , I realized for the first time what a solid set of funbags she’s got on her, and I’ve been keeping an eye out for her ever since. So here she is at some event called the Rebels With A Cause gala, which I’m guessing was some kind of charity thing. But as good as Anna’s looking stuffed into this tight dress, I also have an important cause I want to use these pictures of Anna to promote: red carpet cleavage education. Because for too long, my readers and I have had to suffer through hotties like her forgetting to bring their cleavage to big events. And I promise I won’t rest until the problem’s solved for good. » view all 14 photos Photos: WENN.com
Believe it or not, I think this might be my first post on Anna Kendrick , so let this be a lesson to all you hotties out there: just be patient, keep showing up to events looking hot, and eventually you’ll get featured on the most important website on the Internet. That said, after these red carpet Grammy pictures, remind me to start doing more posts on Anna in the future, because she’s clearly a true triple threat: an actress, a singer, and an instant pants fire. Yow. » view all 22 photos Photos: WENN.com
Filmmaker Jennifer Lynch knows a thing or two about battling the MPAA — her 1993 debut Boxing Helena earned the ratings board’s dreaded NC-17 for its sexualized violence and general depravity — and so it seems just like old times that her latest effort, Chained , faces the same fate for “some explicit violence.” But wait: Isn’t violence supposed to fly with the ratings board while sex gets the adults-only rating? What gives? Actually, look no further than the film’s NSFW trailer for your answer. On the one hand, I wouldn’t put it past distributor Anchor Bay to pull a Harvey special and exploit Chained ‘s Vincent D’Onofrio serial-killing kidnapper menace for maximum ratings “controversy.” On the other, publicity stunts aside, this just looks… heinous : Anyway, no release date has been set, and Anchor Bay can always turn around and release the film unrated, which is basically regarded the same as an NC-17 by skittish mainstream theaters, so for now it’s just a conversation piece with straight-to-video written all over it. Interested? [ LAT ]
Roughly two weeks after Gary Ross’s departure from and Francis Lawrence’s rumored attachment to Catching Fire , Lionsgate has officially announced Lawrence as its man to direct its mega-anticipated Hunger Games sequel . “From the very beginning of this brilliant trilogy’s journey from page to screen, our first priority has been to stay true to the heart and soul of Suzanne Collins’ powerful stories,” producer Nina Jacobson said in a statement just over the transom at Movieline HQ. “From my first conversation with Francis, I knew he would make a great partner for both me and Suzanne. His passion for Catching Fire and inspired ideas for a faithful adaptation make him the perfect director for this movie. I know this will be a wonderful collaboration and I cannot wait to get started.” Added Lawrence: “It is truly an honor and a privilege to bring Catching Fire , the second chapter of Suzanne’s beloved trilogy, to the big screen. I fell in love with the characters, the themes and the world she created and this chapter opens all of these elements up in such a thrilling, emotional and surprising way. I can’t wait to dive right into it and bring this chapter to life along with the truly superb cast and filmmakers involved.” Mazel tov! And get to work : Catching Fire opens November 22, 2013. [Photo: Getty Images]
About 20 minutes into a 3-D press screening of The Avengers Monday night in Los Angeles, one member of the audience interrupted the superhero theatrics to make it known that all was not right with his viewing experience. “Fix the projector!” the exasperated gentleman bellowed during a conspicuously quiet moment, as Mark Ruffalo ’s contemplative face filled the screen. Something was very off, giving the complainant and others in attendance a less-than-ideal, even disastrous presentation. The only problem? There was nothing wrong with the projector. The issue that led this particular fed up gentleman — who may or may not have been a film critic on assignment, I’m not sure – to shout out in irritated frustration wasn’t any fault of shoddy projection, or texting teens, or (forbid!) an accidental digital file deletion up in the booth, or any of the common complaints audiences have in the age of modern moviegoing. It was a case of faulty 3-D glasses mucking up the picture for the poor guy, giving Joss Whedon’s ZOMG epic 3-D adventure an unsolicited layer of blurriness, blackouts, green tint and/or other visual muck — only he didn’t realize that it was because of the cumbersome contraption on his face and not the projection itself. I know this because about 10 seconds into The Avengers , I realized my pair of theater-provided 3-D glasses were also inoperable — and then spent 15 minutes running back and forth from lobby to darkened theater aisle, sorting through literally dozens of pairs in a frantic attempt to find ones that worked so I could get back to watching Hulk and Co. smash, already. Now, a brief techie aside: The Arclight theaters, which hosted the screening in Hollywood, employ the XpandD active-shutter kind of 3-D glasses — they’re the heavier ones with the rubberized frames and the just-cleaned wet spots, weighty because the active-shutters in each pair are synced to an infrared signal broadcast in the theater which switch alternate right — and left-eye images at high speeds and require batteries. (The alternate kind of 3-D glasses, passive glasses, use polarized lenses and tend to be those lightweight, disposable, hipster-looking shades; these were used at the incident-free Avengers ’ L.A. premiere last month at Grauman’s Chinese, but the Arclight cinemas are XpanD partners.) So the Arclight’s active-shutter glasses were causing a major malfunction for us unlucky attendees who’d grabbed bunk pairs on our ways to our seats. And the exasperated gentleman and I were not alone. In my journeys up and down the hallway I saw many fellow would-be Avengers -watchers doing as I was, all of us locked in a comically desperate dance of grabbing glasses, testing them, returning defeated. Trays upon trays of fresh 3-D glasses were laid out in front of us by the bewildered theater staff, who quickly retired their “These should be working” auto-reply and let us seize handfuls of the damned things at a time. (The Arclight Cinemas declined to comment for this article, by the way.) Critic/journalist Fred Topel , who’d been in the same boat, tweeted about the snafu that night along with an explanation he’d received from the theater manager later, after it had been fixed: @ arclightcinemas 3D glasses broke tonight. Some stayed blurry, some blacked out one of the eyes. I tried 7 before I got one that worked.— Fred Topel (@FredTopel) May 01, 2012 @ Arclightcinemas manager Joshua said they fixed the broken 3D by adding a second emitter in the booth.— Fred Topel (@FredTopel) May 01, 2012 Topel managed to find a working pair before too long, but others weren’t as lucky; of the handfuls of folks I saw leaving their seats to hunt down working 3-D glasses, some, like Screen International critic Brent Simon, gave up the search when he’d decided too much movie had gone by to return to his seat. “My glasses had in-and-out image flickering, one of them went black, and then I had massive green tinting on one pair — sort of like Hulk vision?” he told Movieline. “I tried watching with no glasses for a while, but that was problematic.” After 15 minutes of attempting unsuccessfully to find a working pair, Simon decided he’d have to see the film from the start another time, and left. But unlike those who’d exited altogether or managed to eventually find a working pair, there were the untold folks who, like our exasperated gentleman, either never realized the glasses were the problem or that they’d have to leave their seat and miss parts of the film in order to find a fix. “I had a good vantage point from where I was sitting of how many people were coming back and forth, streaming down the aisles,” said Simon, “and some people were just watching without their glasses.” If you’ve ever watched 3-D without 3-D glasses, you know that watching a film for any amount of time with that kind of consistent blurriness would totally suck. So is every 3-D release worth the potential hassle? Or worth the potential risk ? I’ll put this out there: The Avengers does not need to be seen in 3-D. For starters, it contains a number of scenes that are dark and dimly lit to begin with, notwithstanding the added dimness that most 3-D post-conversions usually suffer. (For example: The entire opening sequence is composed of nighttime action shots that are frustratingly hard to make out.) At moments I glimpsed the screen sans 3-D glasses and the film was brighter, crisper, much more vivid, even gorgeous, and if not for the blurriness of the third dimension I’d have preferred to watch it that way. Whedon seems to have shot for immersive 3-D rather than gimmicky 3-D, which is fine and all, but overall the added dimension doesn’t add that much. If I were to recommend The Avengers to anyone, I’d wholeheartedly push them toward 2-D. Besides, to be in a 3-D film and not get the full 3-D effect — or worse, to sit through a blurry presentation without even realizing something was wrong — would defeat the point entirely. And if 3-D isn’t an essential or notable enhancement to a film, why bother? Just remember: In our brave new world of 3-D dominance, we are all, potentially, that exasperated gentleman. How many of us might continue to sit there, watching through broken glasses, unaware of why the picture was so darn fuzzy? But 3-D continues to be pushed upon us, and while Monday’s minor debacle was just one isolated incident of the technology revolting against its bearer, I simply offer it up as anecdotal evidence of a bump in the road to our moviegoing future; take from this what lessons you will if you see The Avengers in 3-D this weekend. Just don’t rush to blame the blurry curves of ScarJo’s Black Widow getup on the projector. Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .
“From the writer of Training Day … and The Fast and the Furious …” Yeah, OK. The first trailer for the thriller End of Watch is all that lead-plated machismo and more jammed through the chaotic handheld prism of Crank and distilled with the essence of Jake Gyllenhaal until the potency has you lapsing into a cop-buddy-shoot-’em-up swoon, faceplanting helplessly into writer-director David Ayer’s oversaturated L.A. grit. And it’s got Michael Pe
Who are these beautiful, sharply dressed, slightly orange people gliding so effortlessly through a glittery, postcard-worthy version of New York in New Year’s Eve ? They’re stars, of course, a galaxy of stars of varying luminescence. New Year’s Eve is Garry Marshall’s follow-up to last year’s Valentine’s Day , which he also directed, and like that film it uses its titular holiday as a ruthless star delivery system in which a menagerie of assembled celebs sprints through a collection of interconnected narrative threads that briskly accelerate from alleged comedy to syrupy sentimentality.
Just when you thought that a movie could not accommodate more stars and subplots than tomorrow’s Garry Marshall-directed New Year’s Eve , Lionsgate has unveiled the trailer for What to Expect When You’re Expecting . The film, an adaptation of the popular ’80s pregnancy guide, packs Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Banks, Cameron Diaz, Matthew Morrison, Anna Kendrick, Chris Rock, Thomas Lennon, Dennis Quaid, Wendi McLendon-Covey, the hot Brazilian from Love Actually and more actors into a sprawling tale of hormonal outbursts, catty jealousy, dads unafraid to wear Baby Björns and infants. Lots and lots of infants. Judge the trailer for yourself below.
The bold, relatively brief life of Serge Gainsbourg, the French singer, songwriter and svengali who died in 1991, is twice removed from the story told by Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life . First-time writer and director Joann Sfar has said that polishing the fine points of that life — ceding to biographical “truth” — was of no interest to him. A top-flight fan and best-selling comic book artist, Sfar was intent on avoiding the brash outlines of a biopic in favor of a certain sort of homage, the tender evocation of style and personality in place of strict chronology and narrative arc. A parallel determination to inhabit his hero’s life with an intensely personal, interpretive gusto bends the film back into a more conventional shape; the big moments play out with the giddy gratification of fan fiction. Both abstract and very specific, Sfar’s inspirations abound such that they frequently overshadow those of his subject.
