Megan Fox Makes Huge Career Blunder

Comments In Interview About Michael Bay Will Haunt Former Transformers Star

By AMIR ALI SAID

Megan Fox has made a huge career blunder. She insulted Michael Bay. Fox said in an interview with Wonderland Magazine, "Bay wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he's a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he's not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he's so awkward, so hopelessly awkward." Bay is one of the modern masters of the summer blockbuster film. He also is linked to Steven Spielberg. Not enough could be said about Steven Spielberg’s influence. Essentially, Megan Fox killed two birds with one stone.

Fox is a rising star. The Transformers franchise made her career. She starred in the first film and the sequel. Both films made tons of money and showed promise for a three peat. Whatever crossed Fox’s mind about Michael Bay or anyone on set for that matter should’ve stayed in her mind. Her comments on Bay and the blown bridge between her and Spielberg may affect her career forever.

There’s no doubting the fact that Megan Fox is a nice look on screen. She’s pretty. Her acting is solid. She's proven what she can do in a leading and supporting role. Fox is one of the few young actresses that show promise in film for years to come. She has a lot of potential and I see a lot of film roles coming her way. Whether those are quality works or just a pay check have yet to be seen. Needless to say, Fox has a lot of control. But this bump in the road with Spielberg cannot be paved.

Latest Installment of 'Transformers' Hitting Box Office Head On

'Dark of the Moon' Succeeding During Long Weekend Release

By AMIR ALI SAID

The latest installment in the Transformers series is out. Dreamworks Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Michael Bay, and Shia LaBeouf are about to make tons of money. As of yesterday, Transformers: Dark of the Moon has already made $42.8 million domestically. That's on a Wednesday. Here are some highlights of yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered his first press conference in months. The Yankees won their fourth straight. The latest installment of Transformers made nearly as much as Green Latern did in an entire weekend. Here's why...

The Transformers franchise will likely make money in the hundreds of millions if it stretched out over 2 or 3 more installments. This franchise is a cash cow worldwide. The film's are shot well. The storyline's are efficient. And Tons of kids around the world want to see the film. Adults want to harness their inner child with Transformers. Plus, the film's are just flat out fun. The Transformer's films are an event. An event that many want to be apart of, it'll never fail. Even a few hiccups along the way haven't stopped the film's cashflow.

Megan Fox made a huge mistake. She insulted Michael Bay. Megan Fox said in an interview, "Bay wants to be like Hitler on his sets, and he is. So he's a nightmare to work for but when you get him away from set, and he's not in director mode, I kind of really enjoy his personality because he's so awkward, so hopelessly awkward." Of all directors and producers to never insult Michael Bay would be in the top 15. His overall pull, outlook on film, an brain cannot be duplicated. For one, Bay didn't even make it a point to have Fox fired. Instead, it was the work of his friend and Co-Producer Steven Spielberg that got her fired. That being said, production of the latest installment moved on without the rising star.

I'm looking forward to seeing Transformers: Dark Of the Moon. It looks better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Plus, without Megan Fox I wonder how the film will turn out. Then I want to see if the film will live up to the hype or the posters. I remember seeing the first trailer and a poster and feeling like this was going to be the best Transformers yet. That'll be hard considering the fact that the first installment was really good. During this long weekend Transformers: Dark of the Moon will make a lot of money. Hopefully I'll get to see the film as well.

Sequels Battle For Top Spot At Box Office

'Hangover Part Two' Leads June 14th Weekend Worldwide

By AMIR ALI SAID

The box office war waged between The Hangover 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2 has gotten interesting. The second installment in the Hangover series has made $436 million so far. One of the film's opening week counterparts, Kung Fu Panda 2, has made $345.6 million. As both film's begins to wind down at the box office I think The Hangover 2 will probably win this battle.

Both of these films were expected to make tons of money. Coming off of spectacular finishes with their first installments, both films had high expectations. I wondered which film would make more. In an earlier post I came up with an answer The Hangover 2. I was taking a risk. There are more kids than their are adults. Kung Fu Panda 2 is solely a kids film. The Hangover 2 has a pull for kids from 13-40. That range of kids from 3-10 highly outweighs the latter. Therein lies the question, how does The Hangover 2 outgain Kung Fu Panda 2.

I think the reason why The Hangover 2 has done better than Kung Fu Panda 2 is because of the engine behind both films. The Hangover was great. The first installment made $467 million. The installment had a perfect set-up for a sequel that could go in any direction. Now that the film is out tons of people want to see what the new comedy can do. Plus, the trailer and posters are very intriguing and probably gets a laugh out of anyone who sees them. But with Kung Fu Panda 2 I don't get the same feel.

I saw Kung Fu Panda and I liked it. It was a quality animated feature with jokes here and there. There wasn't any over reaching or desperate attempts for laughs or claps. The film was interesting, there was something to the film that I liked. But Kung Fu Panda 2 seems like a desperate attempt to make money. The storyline doesn't seem to be as tight as the first. It seems like more slapstick comedy is involved. And I don't think it will be as good or even close to the first installment. Most kids won't care about storyline. But sub-consciously I believe kids don't think the film is as good as the first.

'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,' Underrated British Classic

One of the Best British Films Hasn't Gotten Much Exposure In the U.S., Plenty of Beneficial Material

By AMIR ALI SAID

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an underrated classic. Most people in America haven't seen the film. That's evident from the $3 million box office return domestically. This 1998 British crime drama tells the story of four friends. A brilliant idea falls into the lap of one of the friends, Eddy (Nick Moran), and they act quickly on the opportunity. A card game, with a lot of big names and money involved. There's only one hefty amount that they need to get into the game, 100,000 pounds. After debate and reluctancy the group pool money together. Of course not everybody will be playing in the game, only Eddy, the card expert will partake in this event. But all goes wrong, the card game is no where near what he expected. In fact, he's out of 500,000 pounds, with three days to get it back. He also happens to own a big time gangster, Harry 'The Hatchet'. What's there left to do?

I'll tell you what. A heist is inevitable. There's no other way to get 500,000 pounds within three days legally. But here's the problem. When this card game goes wrong, so does the rest of their world. A simple heist is in the works but way more parties are involved with the whole situation than anybody expected. Guns, gusto, and pride are all up for grabs as Tom (Jason Flemyng), Soap (Dexter Fletcher), Eddy, and Bacon (Jason Statham) struggle to stay alive. But then again, these aren't regular friends, they are close and witty. Nonetheless, the storyline has multiple layers that can't be described very easily. You've just got to see the film.

Guy Ritchie did a great job of managing and executing multiple layers of the storyline. I'm in awe by how well they were able to pull it off. Keep this in mind, there were about four or five parallel stories running throughout the film. I only want to state two since I don't want to ruin the experience. But the two stories (Eddy and Company, and Harry 'the Hatchet' and his crew). If those two stories alone were tackled in the film it still would've been splendid. But then two or three others were thrown as well? That's just an outstanding effort of management and execution. Who do you thank for this great storyline? The director, Guy Ritchie. That's every impressive. But here's a look into the acting found in the film.

This film sparked two acting careers, Jason Statham, and former International footballer turned actor, Vinnie Jones. These two actors collectively pushed their lives into a new light with the roles they played in the film. Statham himself was a semi-critical character in the film. In fact, I expected Nick Moran out of the four friends to go onto a prosperous career. However, Statham is the one on went on to do that. Jones also played a semi-critical role in the film. He was seen a lot, but his actual role wasn't too apparent. However, both Statham and Jones delivered solid performances. I also noticed how the characters seemed to react naturally to their peers and the action. I wonder if an editing career was spawned off of this film, because the editing was incredible.

Editing is essential when dealing with multiple layers to a storyline. Not only does the editing have to be near perfect. But the editing also has to maneuver through each piece of the storyline easily and effectively. Both of those tasks are hard because a slow or fast cut here or there could mean jagged editing. Which would then mean an unauthentic story. The story would be unauthentic because the parallel stories would no longer feel like they're going on at the same time. Instead, you would get the feel like one thing happens, and then the next thing happens, instead of one stream lined story with multiple layers. I think the lighting and cinematography was also able to help that along.

Lighting and cinematography may not have been noticed by many. But I think this combination was at one of the highest levels I've seen. The lighting gave the film a gritty and old feeling to the film. I think the lighting gave the impression that their was a film over the camera when shooting began. But I also liked the cinematography. The best shots were found towards the end and middle of the film. I really like how the crooked card game was shot. There were multiple shots of each player's reaction and the angles seemed like you were on a merry-go-round. Towards the end the shots portrayed mostly action and quick reactions. But all in all I found the cinematography and lighting to be one of the best aspects to the film. Plus, both of them enhanced the film and the experience.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an underrated film in America. In fact, when the film came out it only made $3 million domestically. Over the twelve years that the film has been out I still don't think many people have seen it. A $3 million box office return proves that. I'd go out on a limb and say only five hundred thousand to a million more people have seen the film since its release. Unless you study film or have an interest in Guy Ritchie or Jason Statham you wouldn't have any other reason to go out and look for the film. This isn't a film for everyone. But as far as directing, acting, editing, lighting, and cinematography goes this is one of the most exceptional films I've seen yet. There should be an incredible amount of people in the U.S. who have seen this film because I think it'll benefit many filmmakers. Needless to say, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is four stars. This is probably the best-underrated film I've seen.

'Limitless' Debuts With Mediocre Box Office Take

How Did this Film Open With Weak Numbers?

By AMIR ALI SAID

Limitless debuted this weekend at the box office with solid numbers. On Friday, however, the film opened with a weak $6.6 million. But by Sunday the film wrapped up it's run at the weekend box office with $19 million. The film's total at the box office made it's way into first place over Rango and Battle: Los Angeles. However, even though Limitless made $19 million as a total at the box office, I expected more.

Limitless is about a writer who discovers a pill that gives him super human abilities. From the looks of the trailer, that pill is powerful. But what I did get from the trailer was a sense of engagement because of a lack of clarity. All you really see is the pill, and what the character can do, and his new found confidence. But you don't get a feel of what's to come. Which is why, I think the trailer is most effective. However, the numbers at the box office seem to prove the film wasn't that interesting.

'Collateral' Superb Film; Acting, and Editing Still Under the Radar

2005 Oscar's Show Most Important Features Were Overlooked, Haven't Seen Any Change

By AMIR ALI SAID

One of my favorite films starring Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise is Collateral. A Los Angeles cab driver, Max, (Jamie Foxx) finds himself in a situation where he's a getaway driver for a hitman, Vincent (Tom Cruise). Max has two decisions that he has to make, save himself and the very last victim Vincent plans on going after. Max is just a cab driver so he has to be quick on his feet if he wants to stop a trained contract killer. Plus, there's an undercover cop on their tail, Fanning (Mark Ruffalo). The story doesn't stop there by the way.

Max is full of it. He's been a cab driver for about twelve years and he's be working as hard as he can to open a Limo service. On a Taxi driver's salary I suppose it'll take awhile. Vincent comes along and drops $600 on his lap for five different stops one night and Max is very enthusiastic. But after the first job he soon realizes he's doomed for the rest of his life. It's a race against time and Max can't seem to shake Vincent. But both Max and Vincent seem to be in some sort of game because the climatic moment they experience isn't anywhere near their expectations. As a viewer you might not see it coming either. If that isn't enough support of a good storyline I don't know what is.

The hitman narrative has been recycled for years. But I have yet to see a hit man flick besides Collateral that used the vehicle, literally and figuratively of a cab driver. I think that was a clever and innovative way of looking at the hitman tale. The rest of the story is engaging and easy to follow, however, you might not know what's going to happen frame by frame. The storyline also utilizes Cruise and Foxx as very important characters that actually become friends in an awkward way. But as the story unfolds Max finds himself and has a newfound boldness and courage inside him. The whole storyline was effective and then some. I'd have to say the same about the acting.

Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise are both very skilled actors. In Collateral they delivered one of the best performances of their careers. Foxx and Cruise are both a very powerful combination on screen. That's a fact that was proven on screen countless times. Foxx himself delivered a performance that earned him a supporting actor nod at the Oscars. His nomination was seen as an automatic win by many, but there was another film in contention. Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx and company produced a spectacular film with great acting but they didn't win best picture of the year, Crash did. But I believe Collateral should've been in the running. However, Collateral was nominated for best editing.

Jim Miller and Paul Rubell were nominated for best editing for Collateral. I'm not surprised. Collateral featured very good suspenseful, engaging, attention-grabbing editing. If anything supported the story more than acting it would've been the solid editing. During the whole film you could feel the presence of well thought out and planned editing. Usually when a team of two editors get together the final product turns out pretty well. That was the same case with Collateral. The only thing about the editing was that it apparently wasn't as good as the editing in Crash. But at least the cinematography wasn't out voted or outshined by Crash because neither were nominated.

The apparent cinematography gap that Crash and Collateral weren't nominated for seems just a tad odd. In both films I thought that they were worth nominations. Like I've said before, editing and cinematography almost always go hand in hand. In fact, with Collateral at times, the cinematography added a layer of doom. The first job that Vincent did where his work dropped on Max's cab was orchestrated very well. The scene towards the end when Vincent enters the building while Max is trying to find his way was shot very well. The whole story between Max and Vincent was shot in an incredible fashion. But I think this was overlooked by the Oscars.

I think because of the competition Collateral had to deal with in 2005 it was under the radar. At the Oscars I think the competition was even worse. That's why I think Collateral was overlooked for best picture, editing and actor. But even through all of that, the film still managed to make $101 million domestically, and another $116 million worldwide. That's $200,000,00 plus worldwide but I still think it could've made more. Collateral is a four star film featuring big name actors who performed very well. Then the editing and storyline are right there at the forefront as well. As far as under the radar films go, Collateral may be one of the best.

'Domino,' Underrated Film

Future Cult Classic Missed Profit at the Box Office by $20 Million

By AMIR ALI SAID

Keira Knightley's performance in Domino is one of her best. A lot of movie goers got to see the young actress in a completely new light. The film, inspired by a true story, about Domino Harvey. Harvey, the daughter of actor, Laurence Harvey, turned away a career in modeling in order to become a vicious bounty hunter. Going by Domino, she goes through a boring life until she finds her way into a job as a bounty hunter. On the job, she befriends Ed Moseby (Mickey Rourke) and Choco (Édgar Ramírez). A simple bounty hunting job goes horribly wrong one day and everyone on the team is challenged.

When the crew gets mixed up with the Mafia after their money is stolen from an armored truck, an exchange must be put in place. But the trouble quickly spreads and becomes worse when the sons of a rival mobster are kidnapped. As the crew scrambles to figure out what they're next move is going to be, they must first ditch the reality T.V. crew filming them. As the film appears to be a cat and mouse game of who can survive the longest, it proves to be something more. A very well written, engaging story inspired by true events in Domino Harvey's life.

Domino is one of those films that sneak up on you during every scene. What I mean is, the story keeps you on the edge of your seat. The storyline also keeps the audience engaged in a complex storyline with different devices. Sometimes there will be some comedy thrown in. Maybe a glimpse into the past life of one of the characters. Or maybe there will be some gory action that you want to turn away from, but you can't because it can be pivotal to the story. All of these aspects together created a solid story. A story that takes turns in unorthodox directions during the whole film. But I think the editing was able to solidify these facts more than anything.

The editing, like the film and storyline was rather unorthodox. You get to see a lot of fast cuts along with slow motion. There was a solid balance of editing techniques utilized in the film. But above all, the editing established a lot of things. For example, the editing certainly established each conflict that faced Domino and her team. The editing was also able to show the rising action and climatic scenes that needed their respective points to be brought across. Without solid editing, I don't think this film would've been as effective. Which is why, I believe this is one of the most important aspects of the film, besides the storyline and acting.

This film allowed me to see the incredible range that Keira Knightley possesses. The film also showed an emerging actor, Édgar Ramírez (Choco), in a good supporting role. Together, along with Mickey Rourke, this was the team of Bounty Hunters. The rest of the acting crew starred Delroy Lindo, Mo'Nique, Mena Suvari, and Macy Gray. A solid acting core helped propel the storyline and editing along. Domino is truly an all-around film. But out of all the actors, Knightley and Rourke have to be the best. Trust me, you'll know why. Then the cinematography comes around and adds another layer of support to an already solid film.

The film was shot as if it was a reality T.V. show with multiple shows within. There were about three parallel storylines occurring during the film that supported the foundation of Domino and her crew. But above all, the film was shot through the lens of a rugged action hero taping the lives of other "heroes" in a sense, in their pursuit of accomplishing their main goal. I think that's what allowed the cinematography to be seen as something engaging and lifelike, similar to the editing and acting. Each separate facet of the technical part of Domino meshed together to create a good film.

After I watched Domino for the first time late night, it became an instant favorite. I was blown away by the beginning of the film and then the repeated unfolding of the great storyline. Then, my amazement reached new heights when I learned that this film was inspired by a true story. I was beyond shocked, as well as thankful for experiencing such a good film. I believe this film is a solid four stars. But I do wonder who else has seen the film. I've gotten the feeling like Domino is underrated. The film didn't even make a profit. Nevertheless, a solid film.

Expecting 'The Maltese Falcon' Film To Hold Up To Book

Story Adaptation Similar To Original, In Many Ways

By AMIR ALI SAID

After completing The Matlese Falcon I look forward to seeing the film. It'll be a source of comparison. But it will also help me gather some new notes on the genre alone. Besides that, on the film and the book. The structure of both stories being different because of many reasons. Such as, censorship in regards to the film. Certain aspects of the book aren't captured in the film and I look forward to seeing in what way.

Another thing I want to see is how much of the story in the film is based on the book. The time surrounding the film could mean a lot of things. One of which being the story of the detective and the rest of the characters. Ideally, adaptations will be based on the story as much as possible. But some can be completely different from the original. In the case of The Maltese Falcon it would appear that only certain aspects won't be captured in the film.

The structure of The Maltese Falcon (Book) is something that could pose a challenge to any filmmaker. However, I don't think that's the case with John Huston. He's a classic filmmaker. I think I'll be greatly impressed by his work when I get around to seeing the film. But one thing to look for is the producers, director, and screenwriter's decisions. This adaptation seems to be relatively similar to the original, but what will be cut out?

'The Green Hornet' Exceeds Budget At Box Office

$120 Million Budget Unnecessary, Surprisingly Turned Out Well

By AMIR ALI SAID

I think the ideal film budget for a movie including one big name actor or actress today should be $40-50 million. I don't think a film budget over that amount of money is nescessary. Unless, the film is trying to reach boundaries never seen before in film. Or there's no technology being introduced or tested, there's no need to have a $60-100 million budget. It's pointless. The amount of time and effort it will take to make a profit outweighs the benefits of having such a hefty budget.

When I learned that The Green Hornet's budget was $120 million I was surprised. Back in January I said, the reason why I say The Green Hornet won't make a significant profit is because of time. Right out of the box the film did $40 million. But a week-by-week box office with new films and competition coming out really put the film in a box. A box that The Green Hornet will just barely get out of. Remember, this isn't a great adaptation. In fact, I don't even think Seth Rogen is good casting at all. But it's a cliche film that will get views from the surface moviegoers.

Turns out, I was wrong about the significant profit...The film has since gone on to make a significant $90 million plus, and $217,713,000 as a total at the box office. I missed the mark with my prediction, but my reasoning remains the same. I think The Green Hornet is a special case. Plus, I don't think a $120 million budget was necessary for a film of this nature. Where did all the money go? Where did even a substantial portion of it go? Certainly not to the actors because Seth Rogen, Cameron Diaz, and Christoph Waltz were the only notable actors.

'Just Go With It' Shines At Box Office

Acting Trio, Romantic Comedy Factor Helps Gross Revenue

By AMIR ALI SAID

Just Go With It came out with a solid debut at the box office with an estimated $30.5 million out the gate. Led by Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston and two funny kids, the film settles in the category of a romantic comedy. Danny, (Adam Sandler), a happily divorced plastic surgeon convinces his assistant to help him cover up a lie he's been telling his girlfriend. In fact, a lie he told many women since the day he and his wife divorced. But, the trip in Hawaii takes a couple turns and there are a couple jokes to look out for along the way. Maybe even a twist.

From just one clip of the previews my interest was peaked. Sandler himself was enough, and then I also liked Aniston as an supporting actress. But what really sent me over the edge was the very talented young actress Bailee Madison. If you've seen the previews, you know exactly what the stole the stage when she delivered a hillarious joke. I remember Bailee from Bridge to Terabithia, when she delivered a splendid performance as May Belle. So the acting trio, so to speak, is what really got me interested in seeing Just Go with It.

I hope this film does well because I think it's funny already. Plus, I think a lot of people are going to turn out for the film. However, one glaring factor in all of this is the $80 million budget that goes along with the film. Where all of that money needed to go I'll never know. But I do know that's something that must be respected. Especially since the film is off breaking even by $50 million already. However, a steady increase, and late Valentine's day movie goers may propel the film into a profit.