The Hush-Hush News Report 2.02.10: Inflated Egos

Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 02.02.2010

This week we shoot holes in the argument for an asterisk on Avatar box office records. Plus a look at the Razzie Award nominations, a Bourne reboot, Zachary Quinto's newest role, a new La Femme Nikita television series, David Fincher and Charlize Theron joining forces, new mini-reviews and more!

Welcome one and all to the Hush-Hush News Report! I'm your host Jeremy Thomas, and this week we have quite the little spate of news topics to cover! Award season brings us another set of nominations—though not one that its honorees usually treasure—while we have more reboot and remake news as always plus some interesting casting and television news bits. With all that news to cover let's just dive right in; make sure you watch your head though. We don't need a Louganis incident, after all.

Before you start reading, have you bookmarked 411Mania.com yet? It's the easiest thing in the world to do, and it'll get you your daily dose of entertainment news that much quicker! Typing the URL out in the address bar is such a pain, don'tcha think? Hell, make it your home page and it'll be that much easier for you!

Transformers and Land of the Lost Get Razzed



"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "Land of the Lost" lead the nominations for the Razzie awards, with "Twilight" stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart in the running for worst screen couple.

Megan Fox's "Transformers" sequel and Will Ferrell's sci-fi comedy "Land of the Lost" top the list of the worst films of 2009, with seven nominations each. Ferrell and Megan Fox are both nominated for worst acting awards.

British actor Robert Pattinson, star of the Twilight series of vampire films, is nominated alongside Kristen Stewart for worst screen couple, for "Twilight Saga: New Moon". Sienna Miller earns a worst actress nomination for "GI Joe" - which also is nominated for worst remake, rip-off or sequel.

Sandra Bullock also earned a worst actress nomination for "All About Steve." She's expected to be nominated for an Academy Award on Tuesday for "The Blind Side," which tells how a homeless boy became an American Football star.

John Wilson, founder of the Golden Raspberry Awards, said of Bullock: "She could be the first person ever to win a Razzie and an Oscar in the same weekend."

The Razzies are now in their 30th year of singling out Hollywood's low points and to mark the anniversary have included a special category of worst picture of the decade. Nominated are "Battlefield Earth", "Freddy Got Fingered", "Gigli" starring Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Lindsay Lohan's "I Know Who Killed Me" and Madonna's "Swept Away".

Winners will be announced on March 6, the night before the Oscars.

I love the Razzies. I don't take them seriously and haven't for years, but I think it provides exactly what Hollywood needs: an ego pricking. Some of my favorite moments in award show history come from moments like where Halle Berry accepted her Golden Raspberry and parodied her own Academy Award win speech three years earlier. Clearly, some of these films aren't the worst of the year—though some of them are. I can't help but be impressed by this year's awards which seem pretty genuine; most of the time they seem to be more interested in laughs then actually honoring bad films. I for one would love to see Bullock win an Oscar and a Razzie in the same year, and I would think she would be the kind of person who would accept both. Megan Fox…eh, not so much. I know that I'll be cheering for "Kristen Stewart and either Robert Pattinson or Taylor Whats-his-fang" for Worst Screen Couple, and can't wait to see who wins.


Quinto To Go From Spock To Gershwin



"Star Trek" and "Heroes" star Zachary Quinto is set to play famed composer and pianist George Gershwin in a biopic of the man for DreamWorks Pictures reports Deadline Hollywood.

Gershwin composed 1924's instantly recognizable musical composition Rhapsody in Blue along with numerous other orchestral pieces and film scores. He and his brother Ira were responsible for more than a dozen Broadway shows from "Strike up the Band," "Funny Face," "Girl Crazy" and "Porgy and Bess" before George died of a brain tumor at 38. Quinto will receive accent and dialogue training for the role.

Doug Wright penned the script with Marc Platt and singer/pianist Michael Feinstein producing. The project is apparently one of three Steven Spielberg himself is considering as his potential next directing project. A shoot as early as April/May could be on the cards.

Quinto is making his play to be accepted as a legitimate actor here, and I'm very interested to see what he brings to the table. The man has a wide share of fans from his genre work in Star Trek and Heroes and if he can translate that into success and critical acclaim, he could absolutely be the next big thing in Hollywood. Playing a well-loved film composer who died at a tragically early age is never bad for one's critical reputation and while this may not get a very big release, I will be quite interested to see it should it roll into Oregon. This would seem to play into reports that Quinto is trying to break out of the potential for being typecast as Sylar and Spock, and I have absolutely no problem with him doing so.


Hayek Puts the Brakes on Faster



Salma Hayek has dropped out of "Faster" for CBS Films due to a schedule conflict reports Deadline Hollywood.

Dwayne Johnson will play an ex-con bent on avenging the death of his brother, murdered 10 years earlier when the two were double-crossed during a heist.

Shooting begins next Monday and with Hayek's role set to be recast immediately, it isn't expected to delay production. The George Tillman Jr.-directed action drama is currently scheduled for release on November 19th.

This is an unfortunate situation for CBS Films. The studio has already suffered a flop with its first film Extraordinary Measures, which has pulled only $10 million in two weeks and is already outside of the top ten. Losing a star like Hayek in a film that caters to a male demographic is going to hurt grosses a bit. On the other hand, they still have Johnson who audiences have wanted to see get back to more action-oriented fare for a while. I imagine that the pairing of the two actors could have been a lot of fun, but they could easily get another solid actor and make something worthwhile here. On the other hand this could be a disaster considering the intensely bland plot outline. Tillman is best known for directing Men of Honor and Notorious, two solid but flawed films. I hope he and Johnson can wring something good out of this; the departure of Hayek hurts it but doesn't cripple it.


Nikita On the Run Once More



Hollywood is about to undergo a third attempt at remaking Luc Besson's 1990 French action classic "Nikita" (aka. "La Femme Nikita").

Previously the film was redone in 1993 as "Point of No Return" (aka. "The Assassin") starring Bridget Fonda. Four years later Peta Wilson starred as the titular street felon turned elite assassin for the USA Network cable TV series "La Femme Nikita" which ran from 1997 to 2001.

Now The CW has picked up a new series version says The Hollywood Reporter. This incarnation features a different spin on the story, this time Nikita goes rogue and a new assassin is trained to replace her.

"Supernatural" and "Chuck" executive producer McG will serve in the same capacity on the series alongside Peter Johnson.

Do we really need to see this one again? Don't get me wrong people, I enjoy the hell out of the Besson original. La Femme Nikita was a fantastic film and I even thought that as hokey as it was, Point of No Return had its fun moments. But we don't need another television series out of this considering that the last one was severely problematic. Peta Wilson didn't make a convincing lead and this was during a time when USA was definitely not the network that brings you Burn Notice. Instead, it was the network that brought you Silk Stalkings. I could actually be okay if USA was bringing this back, but remember that this is the network who thought a remake of Melrose Place, The Beautiful Life and Vampire Diaries were great ideas. And yes, I know the latter is a ratings success; it's still terrible. Expect a twenty-something Twilight-type actress cast as Nikita and for the show to be the quality equivalent of having the pads of your feet sanded off.


SyFy To Take On Classic Fairy Tales



SyFy is reinventing fairy tales as part of its Saturday night TV movie franchise that will give a contemporary twist on classic stories.

For example, Hansel & Gretel will take place years after escaping the witch in the haunted forest, with Hansel returning to seek revenge. In Little Red Riding Hood, a descendant of Little Red discovers her family secretly hunts werewolves.

"It's exciting to take a treasured brand and put our own sideways spin on it," said Thomas Vitale, executive vp programming and original movies at SyFy. "By turning familiar timeless stories inside out, we're creating an entertaining new genre for our popular Saturday night movie franchise."

According to The Hollywood Reporter, SyFy's Saturday movies continue to be one of the last bastions of regularly produced made-for-TV movies. Each film is typically an international co-production made with a budget of about $2 million and shot on 35mm film. SyFy works with about 10 indie studios, which also distribute the titles on DVD. Each tends to average about 1.8 million viewers Saturdays during the network's twice-monthly original airings.

Beauty and the Beast kicks the five movies off on February 27.

I'm sorry, but has anyone actually watched a SyFy Original Film? I have, and I'm still suffering nightmares. Hammer of the Gods was one of the more painful movie-watching experiences I had in the last year; the two Gargoyles films were utter trash. And that's looking at some of the higher-profile ones. If I were the Brothers Grimm, I would be reconstituting myself from ash and bones just so I could roll over in my grave at this one. A Little Red Riding Hood who's part of a family of werewolf hunters? Hansel getting revenge on the witch? The latter sounds like a plot summary an eight-year-old would come up with after seeing the Saw films and Law Abiding Citizen, while Riding Hood: Werewolf Hunter makes me think that someone paid half-attention to Anna Pacquin's story in Trick 'r Treat. I'll give SyFy credit for some of their television shows, but their movies are crap and drag the network's reputation into the mud.


Fincher and Theron are Mind Hunters



David Fincher is going back to the serial killer well with "Mind Hunter", a drama series he and Charlize Theron are developing for HBO and Fox 21 reports Variety.

Based on the book by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, the book recounts Douglas' experiences as a top FBI investigator of serial killers and rapists. He was one of the first criminal profilers who developed techniques that are still in use today.

"Dexter" executive producer Scott Buck is penning the pilot with the various episodes revolving around the investigation of serial killers. Theron and Fincher are executive producing along with Jennifer Orme Erwin and Buck.

David Fincher and the executive producer of Dexter? You can count me there. HBO has been getting trounced in the last few years by Showtime and they could use something like this to really lift them up and build off the momentum some of their new hits have been providing. Fincher's name adds instant value to the project and anyone who is a fan of serial killer stories will be intrigued after the bang-up job he did on Zodiac and Charlize Theron couldn't find a better person to learn the ropes of producing under. John Douglas is a fascinating guy and his story could definitely make for some good television. This will undoubtedly be compared to Dexter but the takes are quite different and I imagine it will have a good chance to crawl out of that shadow and cast its own. I'll be keeping an eye out for it for sure.


Bourne Ready For a Reboot?



Speaking at the UK premiere for "Invictus", actor Matt Damon said that instead of another sequel, Universal's lucrative 'Bourne' franchise may get a prequel/reboot revolving around a young Jason Bourne.

He tells Empire that "There'll probably be a prequel of some kind with another actor and another director before we do another one, just because I think we're probably another five years away from doing it - we've got to get a script." As previously reported, the series has hit major stumbling blocks of late with director Paul Greengrass having exited the project and a lot of talk of script problems.

Despite Damon's comments, a prequel to the series followed by a sequel to 'Ultimatum' seems extremely unlikely; ultimately the studio will choose one or the other. The sequel is looking more and more uncertain due to many issues. The prequel/reboot would be ideal for the studio cost/control-wise but story wise is impractical as it would have to be set in the character's pre-Treadstone Green Beret days (i.e. before he became 'Jason Bourne').

The other concern is Damon as unlike say James Bond, which has had numerous actors, people associate Damon and Bourne as one and the same.

I think there's a lot being made out of a side comment here. Notice that Damon said that there would probably be a prequel, "just because" they had so long until they made the next. In other words he's speculating, or possibly even making a bit of a joke. Rebooting the series would be just another unnecessary reboot and I'm betting that the studios are holding their collective breaths for a bit to see how some future reboots (read: Spider-Man) do. If the reboots start to bomb then it would be high time to put an end to them, and that particular soup train has to end sometime. The concern over whether people could associate Bourne with another actor is a legitimate one, and there's been no hard evidence of a prequel script or anything in that respect. Until we hear anything solid, I'm chalking this up to pure rumor and innuendo based on an off the cuff comment.

---

Do you Twitter? If not, you should! And while you're at it, add these to your list of people that you follow so that you can get the latest updates!

Follow Me on Twitter!
411Mania.com
411's Wrestling Zone
411's Movies & TV Zone
411's Music Zone
411's Games Zone
411's MMA Zone
411's Boxing Zone

---

Rear Window: One of Alfred Hitchcock's classics, Rear Window features a fantastic storytelling technique from the masters of the cinema. The Oscar-nominated script from writer John Michael Hayes (To Catch a Thief) is simple yet involved, and a stellar cast headed by Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly give top-notch performances. Hitchcock builds the tension slowly, using the tale of a wheelchair-bound photographer with a case of voyeurism to involve us in the story quite nicely. The various characters we see in L.B. Jefferies' apartment complex are often not heard, but through simple pantomime and snippets of their lives the audience follows each person's story—important to the plot or not—and becomes interested in them. The main story of a suspected wife-murderer is nicely done and still feels original today thanks to the twists and turns the script makes and the solid supporting cast including Thelma Ritter and Raymond Burr fill out the characters nicely. This may not be as action- and chills-packed as the recent remake Disturbia (a good enough film in its own right), but this is a better one thanks to attention to story and to what makes a film truly great instead of just settling for good.

Rating: 8.5

Blood Creek: Joel Schumacher's Nazi/occult horror film may have suffered its straight-to-video release thanks to the terrible use of that theme in The Unborn or due to the success of the far superior Inglourious Basterds; it's hard to say why. Certainly the presence of Basterds's Michael Fassbender as the villain wouldn't have helped comparisons much. What can be said is that it was a move that probably benefitted the film, as Blood Creek plays out more effectively on a small screen. Dominic Purcell and Henry Cavill are fine as a pair of brothers who go on a mission to wreak revenge on a monster due to Purcell's capture years ago, and Emma Booth summons some fire as the young woman whose family ends up caught in the crossfire due to their own sins. The primary problem with the film is that it doesn't have enough ambition or originality to really stand out. Everyone is fine and Schumacher's infamously over-the-top flairs are kept in check; Fassbender is fun to watch as the monstrous Richard Wirth. But the themes within the plot and the seen-it-before effects don't do a whole lot to impress and the film doesn't seem ambitious enough to take the bold steps needed to make the story truly work. Instead we get a film that is okay for what it is, but easily skippable in the long run. It's likely to be forgotten amidst other horror films and that may be a shame, but it dug its own grave in that respect.

Rating: 6.0

---

From Jason Bennet:
Do you think Lohan will be the highest paid "star" in Machete? I wouldn't be surprised.

I very much doubt it. I think DeNiro and Alba will probably be paid much more than Lohan, just due to star power. They bring people to a theater. Lohan just brings people to TMZ.


From The Great Capt. Smooth
Machete could be the epitome of fun. I can't wait to hear more about it.

If Rodriguez does it right, it will be phenomenal. However, it could also be done just the slightest bit wrong and it will be a disaster. That's the dangerous tightrope he's walking.


From Dave C:
I must admit being a little skeptical about the Graveyard Book movie. The book is more like a series of loosely tied episodes instead of a single plot thread. Not sure how it will work, though I haven't been disappointed in a Gaiman movie yet.

I agree, but Gaiman seems to be very adept at making sure his stories are adapted right; mainly, because he writes his own scripts. I have full faith that he will do the same here, and being a producer isn't hurting its chances any.


From Guest#8796:
WTF is up with Lee Daniels comment? First off there are a good portion of Black filmmakers. Spike Lee, Hughes Bros, John Singleton, Mario Van Peebles, Reginald Hudlin, F. Gary Gray and Daniels himself just to name the most known.

I think he was more making a point about the perception of young filmmakers, and that perception does honestly tend to be that it's a white guy's world. I won't get too far into this, but I will say that Daniels made a good point and he wasn't trying to make the statement that he was more important or his win more significant than the other actors you mentioned.


From GUEST:
That is not Daniel Craig, but rather Clive Owen.

From paco smith:
Watts and Craig made a solid team in the good (if not spectacular) The International last year.
Jeremy did you mix up Clive Owen and Daniel Craig?

You are both correct; I did in fact confuse Clive Owen and Daniel Craig. However, in honor of our own Trevor Snyder's Movie Zone Top 5, I will present:

The Top 5 Reasons Jeremy Confused Daniel Craig and Clive Owen.

5. Smith from Shoot 'Em Up could take James Bond in Quantum of Solace any day. (With James Bond from Casino Royale, it's a wash)
4. I was subconsciously wishing that Clive Owen had been in The Invasion. It may not have made it better, but it couldn't have made it worse.
3. I saw Naomi Watts and thought of her scene with Laura Elena Harring in Mulholland Dr.. Immediately after, all blood fled my brain to another portion of my body.
2. I wasn't able to read the article properly due to all the egg that had proactively dropped on my face and obscured my vision.
1. All those British people look alike.

---

The Hush-Hush Editorial Section: Inflated Egos

So for those who haven't been paying attention, haven't have internet service or television and just marched out of the wilds of Upper Mongolia, there's been a box office sensation tearing up the charts. Released on December 18th, James Cameron's Avatar opened with what some people might consider a relatively modest $77 million opening just before Christmas and the opening of Alvin and the Chipmunks and Sherlock Holmes. Since then, it has gone on to have some of the smallest consistent drops seen in years and has blown box office records aside. As of the time of this writing on February 1st 2010, the sci-fi epic has grossed over two billion dollars worldwide to become the worldwide box office champion. Here in the United States, a $31 million weekend (which was a mere 10% drop) has placed the film at $595 million, just over five million dollars short of the all-time box office champion Titanic. If grosses hold the same pattern it has been, the film will have crossed the threshold into the number one spot by Thursday, just before another weekend for it to shine in thanks to a lackluster spate of movies this weekend. Without a doubt, box office history is about to be made.

However, not everyone agrees with this particular assessment. Since the film's grosses began, people have been talking about the film as if there was an asterisk already attached to whatever records it might pull off. Some have noted the fact that Avatar's 3D grosses are resulting in a higher set of ticket prices which are pushing it above where the film might otherwise be. Others are noting the huge amount of hype that the film has earned from critics and marketing, which they argue is pushing the film higher than it deserves. The majority of critics of the movie's records point out that inflation is not being taken into account, by which Avatar doesn't even come close to Titanic yet thanks to the latter's nearly billion dollar gross in 2010 dollars. In a world where the movie prices run higher, they say, how can anyone consider Avatar to be the biggest grosser of all-time when many other films have earned far more when the dollar was stronger?

If no one minds me saying so (well, frankly even if anyone does), these people need to get a little perspective. As it just so happens, I thought that this week, right when it is on the verge of breaking its director's own record for the box office crown, might be a good time to provide that perspective. I was obviously, as anyone who reads this column regularly knows, a big fan of the movie; in fact I felt it was the best of the year. That aside, I can't help but look with bemusement at all the people who are coming out of the woodwork with the inflation argument. Because any way someone slices it, these arguments are a bit petty and don't even hold water all that well. Don't believe me? Allow me to elucidate.

Let's attack these arguments one at a time. The first argument is that the raised prices of 3D screenings are unfairly contributing to the movie's grosses. Let's examine this a little. According to the last estimate, Avatar's 3D grosses accounted for 80% of the total grosses for the weekend of January 11th – 13th. That's a high estimate to consider the overall percentage of grosses, considering that up to that point the same reports said the 3D grosses had been about 71% of the total tally. But let's aim high here, and say that that one weekend and the ones after (for which reports have not reliably come out) have pushed the total percentage to an even 75%. I don't think it's that high, but we'll assume so to be safe. When you consider that the average ticket price in the country for 2D is ten dollars and the average ticket price for 3D is thirteen dollars then that means that about 23% of those 3D grosses would not be in the movie's coffers if not for higher three dimensional ticket prices. 23% of 75% is 17.25%. So that $595 million equates to $492 million at this stage in the game. Yes, that is much lower than the actual gross, no doubt. But consider this: at the same time in the game by number of days since release, only one other film had grossed as much; The Dark Knight. Titanic was at $308 million, Shrek 2 was at $408 million and Star Trek Episode I was at $369 million. And while The Dark Knight is about $10 million higher at the same point, it also had IMAX grosses (which are generally higher than regular 3D showings) to add to its grosses which is likely to have pushed it down below that $492 million dollar mark. In other words folks to make a long story short (too late): the 3D factor is in fact a non-factor.

So then, let's move onto the second and most significant factor: the inflation factor. There is a fair amount of validity to this argument, at least in theory. The idea here is simple: due to the inflation of the dollar, a film that grosses X dollars is not as successful as a film that grossed X dollars a decade earlier. The logic is sound, and by this factor Avatar is much further down the scale; in fact it hasn't even hit the top twenty yet. Above it are Fantasia, Star Wars Episode I, The Graduate, Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Sting, Return of the Jedi, Ben-Hur, The Empire Strikes Back, 101 Dalmatians, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Exorcist, Doctor Zhivago, Jaws, Titanic, The Ten Commandments, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, The Sound of Music, Star Wars and the all-time inflation-adjusted box office queen, Gone with the Wind. The latter film in 2010 dollars—according to most estimates—would be just over one and a half billion dollars. So with that in mind, Avatar really doesn't stand a chance, especially at the paltry $492 million that taking off those 3D numbers. Really, there is no argument that can defend Avatar's supposed record here, right.

Guess again. Frankly, if you want to consider environmental concerns like the state of the dollar in the years the movies were released, you have to consider the whole picture. The world was a very different place in 1939 when Gone with the Wind was released; in fact, it was a very different world in 1999 when The Phantom Menace bowed. In the earlier days of cinema, it's no exaggeration to say that the competition was a bit lighter and the state of movie-making was very different. Studios released far fewer films each year and in fact, there were fewer companies in Hollywood that released films. It wasn't uncommon for there to be only one new film every couple of weeks. As such, the films of that era such as Wind, Fantasia and the like had little to no competition that could compete with it. It was also not unheard of at all for films to play for very extended periods of time. Gone with the Wind played in some places for four years straight. Even with films such as the Star Wars prequel had relatively little competition; it faced films like Notting Hill, Instinct and The General's Daughter in its first few weeks. Only Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me earned a sizable gross and could be considered a largely anticipated film project for a while after the film's release.

Now take a look at Avatar. In the last several years, film-making has become a grindhouse process. It is no longer uncommon to see three or four films released in the same week, and with such a busy slate films do not stay long in theaters. The holiday season in which it released was a particularly busy one. In its opening weekend it had little competition, but the week after it took on the heavyweights Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel; even It's Complicated brought in an impressive $22 million. Since then it has had films that played exactly into the same demographic as Daybreakers, The Book of Eli and Legion were action-oriented pieces of genre fare but none of them were able to knock Cameron's film off of its perch. Edge of Darkness skewed male, the same demographic that Avatar draws to, but grossed barely more than half its money this last weekend. And also consider that the movie is only in its seventh weekend. The Dark Knight delivered its $533 million gross over thirty-three weeks and two hundred and thirty-one days; Avatar blew that out of the water in almost fewer days than the Nolan film took in weeks.

The easiest way to consider this is by pure ticket sales. While there is no doubt that Avatar does not yet rank so high in ticket sales (79 million compared to 128 million for Titanic and 202 million for Gone with the Wind), Imagine what kind of grosses the movie would bring in if it were able to play out over a non-crowded marketplace over a year or two's time, and suddenly that $1.5 billion gross of Gone with the Wind doesn't seem so much loftier than Avatar does it?

And finally, if we really want to play another couple of factors we can; I'm just going to touch on these very quickly. First off, there is the rerelease factor that plays in. Most of the films above Avatar on its grosses chart have been rereleased in theaters at least once, if not three or more times. Star Wars has had a lot of different rereleases, and the grosses for the "Special Edition" versions are included. Same with E.T.. Gone with the Wind was rereleased no less than seven times: in 1947, 1954, 1961, a 1967 70mm stereophonic version, 1971, 1989 and finally in 1998 by New Line Cinema. All those releases had different inflation prices so really, it is kind of hard to consider that inflation totally accurate. And one can't think it argue that the era of home video has had no impact on film grosses. There are many people who will just wait until a film comes out on DVD and not see it in theaters (take if from a guy who works for an online DVD rental company who knows). There are a lot of other factors to bring up, but the bottom line here is that the inflation argument is spottier than a cheetah that just ran through a spackle machine.

And for those who are bringing up the hype and marketing…well, that just brings me to my point here. No, my point was not to get up on a pulpit and scream about how these arguments are unfair and Avatar needs defending, no matter how it's seemed. Frankly, it doesn't need defending. My point here is to shoot holes in the backlash arguments, just so that people will be quiet about it. People are allowed to dislike Avatar. They are fully welcome to. Hey, I liked Strange Days and no one seems to think that's a good movie; meanwhile I can't get into It's a Wonderful Life or The Wizard of Oz while they're considered classics. People have different tastes and what emotionally connects for some people fails to do so with others. But the more people bitch and insult and whine about things like box office grosses, Metacritic and Rotten Tomato scores, awards won and critic reviews, the more petty they seem. The point, dear readers, is this: get over yourselves and accept that a lot (a LOT) of people like a film you didn't. Or at least try to find more valid arguments. This one's pretty much beating a dead horse.

Well, that was quite a rant, wasn't it folks? I should bid you all adieu for now…but before I do, let's take a look at the Random Video of the Week! This week we have the trailer for this spring's The Losers starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Idris Elba and Chris Evans. It looks like a lot of fun…what do you think?



Until next week this is Jeremy Thomas, off the record, on the QT…



…and definitely, "Hush Hush!"