Film School Rejects » Cinematic Uprisings

Stop the Presses: Fanboys Hits Theaters Today!

Paul Sileo — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:18:22 +0000

There is no need to adjust your monitor, wonder if you swallowed too many of Grandpa’s happy pills, or even be afraid that you have somehow entered into a Finnegan’s Wake-like world where up is down, left is right, and James Joyce is actually relevant. That’s right – Kyle Newman’s Fanboys has actually seen the light of limited release.

Am I the only one who wondered if this day would ever come? I remember when I first heard about Fanboys. I think it was sometime in early 2007, you know, the year when the movie was supposed to come out the first time. But, alas, it was not so. And neither was it so for April 2008, September 19, 2008, or November 26, 2008. But now! On February 6, 2009, one can actually go pay money to a movie theater and sit down to watch the moving images that comprise it. You can watch the trailer right here.

In case you have forgotten, and I assume some have since I am shocked this actually happened before I was a Grandpa and needed my own pills, Fanboys follows the exploits of a group of friends and Star Wars fanatics who decide, since one of their own is seriously ill, to drive to Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch and steal a copy of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace so that he may see it before he dies. And glad we are that it’s still the story. See, that’s one of the main reasons why the movie has taken so long to come out. Apparently, early test audiences thought that premise was a little too sad (even though I would call having The Phantom Menace as the last film you saw on earth a tragedy in and of itself), so it was changed. And the Geeks rose up. And it was changed again. See where I am going here?

Anyway, the film, which stars Sam Huntington, Chris Marquette, Dan Fogler, Jay Baruchel, and Kristen Bell, looks to me like a good time, especially if you are even semi-geeky (like me), a Star Wars fan (me again), or a huge fan of Kristen Bell in as few clothes as possible (guilty as charged). Unfortunately, I won’t be seeing the film anytime soon, because it is only opening in a limited release (see the full list of theaters below), but if you live in Austin, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, or Seattle, go see it for me and be sure to pour one out for those of us not privileged enough to live in or near a real city.

Will you be seeing Fanboys this weekend?

AUSTIN
Alamo Drafthouse Ritz

CHICAGO
AMC River East
AMC Pipers Alley
AMC South Barrington 30

HOUSTON
AMC Gulf Pointe 30 Theatres
AMC Studio 30 Theatres
Angelika Film Center

LOS ANGELES
AMC Century City 15
Mann Chinese 6
AMC Broadway Cinemas
Pacific Beach Cities All Stadium 16
AMC Rolling Hills 20
Regal Long Beach Stadium 26
AMC Burbank 16
AMC Promenade 16
Pacific Winnetka All Stadium 21
AMC Block 30
Pacific Culver City

NEW YORK
AMC Empire 25
AMC Lincoln Square 13
AMC 34th Street 14
Regal Union Square Stadium 14
AMC Raceway 10
Regal Farmingdale Stadium 10
National Amusements Commack Multiplex 15
Regal New Roc City 18
AMC Palisades Center 21
AMC New Brunswick Theatre 18

PHILADELPHIA
Landmark Ritz at the Bourse 5
AMC Neshaminy 24
Regal Marketplace at Oaks 24
Regal Warrington Crossing 22
AMC Cherry Hill 24

SAN FRANCISCO / SAN JOSE
AMC Metreon 15
Century 16 Mountain View
Century 20 Daly City
AMC Bay Street 16
AMC Mercado 20
Century Northgate 15 Cinemas

SEATTLE
AMC Cinerama
AMC Pacific Place 11
Regal Alderwood 7 Theatres
Lincoln Square Stadium 16
Regal Parkway Plaza 12

Man Brings Vigilante Justice to His Local Cineplex

Neil Miller — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:31:46 +0000

File this under “wow.” Also, you could probably file this Philadelphia man, 29-year old James Joseph Cialella Jr. in two categories: (1) he probably reads FSR — we know how angry you all can get and (2) he’s Kevin Carr’s hero. And why would he be Kevin Carr’s hero, you ask? Because Cialella took matters into his own hands on Christmas Day at a screening of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, shooting another man who would not stop talking throughout the movie. What can we say, some people really need their Brad Pitt. The full report below comes to us from The Philadelphia Enquirer:

“It’s truly frightening when you see something like this evolve into such violence,” said police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore.

Police were called to the Riverview Theatre in the 1400 block of Columbus Boulevard about 9:30 p.m. where the gunshot victim, a Philadelphia man who was not identified, told police a man sitting near him told his family to be quiet and threw popcorn at his son.

After exchanging words, Vanore said Cialella allegedly got out of his seat to confront the family when the father got up to protect them. That’s when the victim was shot once in the left arm, sending others in the theatre running to safety.

Cialella then sat down to watch the movie. Police arrived a short time later and arrested Cialella and confiscated his weapon, Vanore said.

Now lets get something straight here, we do not condone shooting your fellow man, no matter how annoying they are. As well, this should serve as a great lesson for all of you gabbers out there — don’t talk though a movie, or else you might get shot. Cialella may have started a trend — don’t make yourself a statistic. All joking aside, this is a very tragic event. And as police Lt. Vanore explains in the above report, it is truly frightening to see such a small thing turn into violence. Then again, people do love their movies.

Source: Philly.com (via /Film)

Have you ever been around someone (in a movie theater) who just wouldn’t stop talking no matter what you did or said?

Studio, Filmmakers Make Statements About ‘Towelhead’ Issue

Neil Miller — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:00:06 +0000

Yesterday I wrote my official response to the issues that have arisen over the upcoming release of Alan Ball’s film Towelhead, presented by the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR-LA has stated that due to the offensive nature of the term “towelhead,” that the distributor of the film, Warner Independent Pictures should have the name changed before the film’s September 12 release. As you can imagine, that isn’t happening, nor should it happen. Today, the studio as well as filmmaker Alan Ball and “Towelhead” novel author Alicia Erian have made their own statements defending the film. Those can be seen below:

“Towelhead” novel author Alicia Erian’s statement:

As an Arab-American woman, I am of course aware that the title of my book is an ethnic slur. Indeed, I selected the title to highlight one of the novel’s major themes: racism. In the tradition of Dick Gregory’s autobiography Nigger, the Jewish magazine Heeb, or the feminist magazine Bitch, the title is rude and shocking, but it is not gratuitous. Besides the fact that the main character must endure taunting about her ethnicity (including being called a towelhead), so much of the novel’s plot is fueled by the characters’ attitudes toward race.

I was not contacted by any organization or group when my novel was released in 2005. I don’t know if this was because no one had heard about my book, or because they didn’t feel it would have as much of an impact as a film. Having lived in a world in which my book has existed without protest for the past three years, however, I feel I have at least some view onto what to expect from the public in terms of a response. The bottom line is, never once have I encountered anyone who didn’t understand the seriousness of the word “towelhead” and all its implications.

This is not to say that I don’t find these concerns legitimate — I absolutely do. We live in a racist society, one in which people continue to use ethnic slurs to delineate those who are different than they are. Realistically speaking, though, these people are neither the audience for my book, nor for the film. They will continue to use whatever language they wish whether or not a movie called “Towelhead” is released. For this reason, I am pleased that Warner Bros. is standing by the title.

Towelhead, like its many cousins — nigger, spic, gook, etc. — is an ugly word. The job of the artist, however, has been, and always will be, to highlight that which is ugly in the hopes of finding something beautiful. This charge, by necessity, will at times put the artist at odds with admirable groups such as CAIR. The solution, it seems to me, is not to force the artist to alter his or her work, but instead to use the occasion of that work as an entry point for meaningful debate and discussion.

Towelhead director and Academy Award winning writer Alan Ball’s statement:

As a gay man, I know how it feels to be called hateful names simply because of who I am. Therefore, I felt it was important to retain the title of Alicia Erian’s novel, in which she so effectively dramatizes the pain inflicted by such language, something many people of non-minority descent never have to face. I believe one of the unintended consequences of forbidding such words to be spoken is imbuing those words with more power than they should ever have, and helping create the illusion that the bigotry and racism expressed by such cruel epithets is less prevalent than it actually is, which we all know is sadly not the case.

Official statement from Warner Independent Pictures, signed by Dr. William Blizek, Founding Editor, Journal of Religion and Film; Professor of Philosophy and Religion, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Dr. Amir Hussain, Associate Professor of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles; Author of “Oil and Water: Two Faiths, One God” (2006), Dr. John Lyden, Professor and Chair of Religion, Dana College; Chair of the Religion, Film, and Visual Culture Group of the American Academy of Religion; Author of “Film as Religion: Myth, Morals, Rituals” (2003), Dr. Rubina Ramji, Film Editor, Journal of Religion and Film; Professor of Religious Studies (Islam and media), Cape Breton University, Rev. Danny Fisher, Doctoral Candidate, University of the West:

The concept of cinema can be described as ‘the cultural transmission of symbolic forms’ which include actions, utterances, images and texts and are embedded in structured social contexts which involve relations of power. These forms are produced by subjects and are recognized as meaningful constructs. As a form of entertainment, it also plays ‘a leading role in shaping attitudes and ideas, including political ideas’. In-depth studies of Arabs and Muslims in Hollywood films over the past eighty years have found that out of the nine hundred films examined, only five percent of all the movies (approximately fifty movies) debunked the barbaric image of Islam.

There are very few films that show Islam in a positive light. Dr. Rubina Ramji, Film Editor for the Journal of Religion and Film, is one the scholars who has researched the images of Islam in Hollywood films. Dr. Ramji screened Towelhead at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival and found that this film is indeed one of those few that promote different faiths and the challenges faced by these groups in America, while offering a much more balanced representation. Using the derogatory term “towelhead” as the film’s title, in the context of this film, provides a different meaning to the term, one that encourages viewers to observe these challenges first-hand and to better understand how Muslim characters have been stereotypically displayed in previous films.

By bringing forth the racist attitudes which have arisen about Muslims living in America, Towelhead openly reveals projected fears about difference and offers a constructive, yet difficult, approach to bring forth understanding. We, the undersigned scholars, have spent years researching and understanding the impact that cinema has had and continues to have on various religious groups in American culture. We hope that the true intentions of the semi-autobiographical novel, written by Alicia Erian, who has encountered such racism as an Arab-American, will continue to be accurately reflected in the film Towelhead, by leaving the title as is – a thought-provoking and difficult term that needs to be deconstructed.

*** The above statements represent the personal views of the signatories and are not attributable to any particular organization.

There you have some statements — now it is your turn to respond below.

The Hollywood Offensive: Islamic Group Offended by Alan Ball’s ‘Towelhead’

Neil Miller — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:03:48 +0000

It has almost come to the point where I could turn this into a regular weekly column, where I single handedly track down all of the activist groups who are needlessly offended by the “art” of mainstream film and set them straight with a simple dose logic. This time we will travel a little wide of the mainstream, to an indie film from a big name director that is getting some attention from the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The film in question is American Beauty writer Alan Ball’s Towelhead, a drama about a young Arab-American girl (Summer Bishil) who struggles with sexual obsession as she goes to live with her very strict father (Peter Macdissi), who just so happens to live next to a bigoted, kid-touching Army reservist (Aaron Eckhart).

The CAIR-LA asked via a press release yesterday that Warner Bros., who is distributing the film under their now-defunct Warner Independent Pictures label, to change the title of the film before its September 12 release. In the statement, CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said in part:

“The title…is of great concern to us, since the word is commonly used in a derogatory manner against people of the Muslim faith or Arab origin…We have no desire to inhibit the creative process or your right to produce any film you wish. However, I ask you to take the above concerns into consideration and examine the social implications of releasing the film under its current title, ‘Towelhead.’”

Now, unlike the issue over the word “retard” related to the recently released Ben Stiller film Tropic Thunder, this one seems to be a bit more straight forward. In fact, once again we see a group who does have the right to be offended, as anyone would. The term “towelhead” is a very derogatory term; I don’t think anyone would argue that. The problem is that once again we are dealing with the right of the artist, in this case Alan Ball, to create art and deliver it uncensored. It has nothing to do with the fact that the film’s title has significant relevance to its message, one that displays many of the struggles that young American Muslims face every day in our country, and more to do with Alan Ball’s right to call his movie whatever he so chooses.

Of course, we are talking about the title of the movie, which is significantly more prominent than a piece of the film’s plot, but either way, having seen the movie it is clear that this film’s intent is not to offend those of the Islamic faith or of Muslim decent, but to paint a picture of the bigotry that exists in America. Then again, I wouldn’t expect anyone petitioning a studio against a film to actually see the film in question — that would be too much to ask.

I suppose the ultimate reason that the studio, who released a statement later saying that while they regret any offense there will be no change made to the title, is that we are mere weeks away from the film’s release. And though Towelhead isn’t getting as much buzz as say, Tropic Thunder, we can safely assume that plenty of money has already been spent on marketing, money that would have to be re-spent should they bow to the requests of CAIR-LA. As well, we are talking about a film that has already been retitled from Nothing is Private, which is the title it held when it debuted at the Toronto Film Festival in 2007, to Towelhead for its second debut at Sundance in January of ‘08. At this point, whether they want to or not, Warner Bros. has to stick with Alan Ball’s title.

As well, I bring up the issue of timing because it seems to be a constant theme with these feats of anti-Hollywood activism. These groups seem to be standing up to studios and their films in the last moments before a film is unleashed to the public. Most likely, it is this way because groups are counting on the weeks leading up to release as the period which will generate the most publicity for their cause. The problem is that such motives are painfully obvious to the rest of us — we knew about a movie called Towelhead back in January. Heck, I wrote a review of it from Sundance. Where was CAIR-LA then? If these groups really expect to have changes made based on the “social implications” of releasing movies with offensive elements, perhaps they should get on their soapboxes a little earlier.

Previously: Sundance Review: ‘Towelhead’ is Uncomfortable to Watch, But Fantastic

Also, view the trailer for Towelhead below:

Ben Stiller, Paramount Learn That You Never Go Full Retard

Neil Miller — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:37:45 +0000

It appears that with Tropic Thunder just over a week away from its theatrical release, not everyone is laughing at its often ridiculous premise. In fact, it appears that some groups have now started to come forward to speak out against elements of the film they feel to be insensitive and inappropriate.

And no, we are not talking about the part where actor Robert Downey Jr. portrays an actor who has his skin dyed black in order to play the role intended for an African American. We are talking about Simple Jack, the parody movie within a movie in which Ben Stiller’s character Tugg Speedman is seen as the big action star taking his goal of winning an Oscar a little too far and ultimately failing miserably. In Simple Jack, Speedman plays quite possibly the most stereotypical mentally handicapped farm aid ever seen on screen, a mixture between Sean Penn in I Am Sam and Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio, but overemphasized to the nth degree for parody effect.

It turns out that this relatively small plot-point has caught the attention of Patricia Bauer, a veteran journalist whose personal blog is dedicated to bringing awareness to news relating to disabilities. In an article posted on August 1, Bauer commented on Tropic Thunder’s sub-story:

It’s just good clean fun, the studio might say, pointing out that the movie also pokes fun at racial stereotypes. It’s a sendup of old Hollywood films that trotted out able-bodied actors in disability drag, like Tom Hanks in “Forrest Gump,” Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man” and Sean Penn in “I am Sam.” Stiller isn’t laughing at people with intellectual disabilities, I can imagine his publicist saying. He’s laughing at the way Hollywood portrays them.

But for the estimated 14.3 million Americans with cognitive disabilities and their families, such arguments may be problematic.

Bauer went on to make an update to her blog on August 2, reporting that disabilities rights groups had begun organizing and contacting Paramount Pictures and Dreamworks Studios to arrange dialog around what they felt to be inappropriate content. As well, Bauer chimed in with more commentary on why exactly this sort of thing was most deplorable, even compared with some of the other potentially offensive devices used in the film:

There will doubtless be statements from studio executives who say the film is an equal opportunity offender. It pokes fun at racial stereotypes, with Robert Downey Jr. dressing in blackface and citing the theme song of “The Jeffersons.” Jack Black does fart jokes. Everybody’s offended, right?

Let’s answer that with some questions. People of different races surely were involved in the making of this film, and were able to express opinions about which references were humorous and which might have gone too far. So were people with different sexual orientations.

How many people with cognitive disabilities were involved in the making of this film? Were any people with cognitive disabilities involved in focus groups for this film? How many are employed by Dreamworks, or by parent company Paramount?

At this point, her argument, which by no means is completely unreasonable, has turned from “this is offensive on a moral level” to “the studio doesn’t employ people with mental disabilities, so it’s really not okay.” Yet because the studio employs a few African Americans, no one should be as offended by the part where Robert Downey Jr. sings the theme from “The Jeffersons.” I’m sorry, but that isn’t how this works — if you are going to be offended to the point of making a big stink about it on the internet and calling for the studio to hold special screenings so that you can approve of the film’s content, then you’d better be prepared to be offended for everyone involved. You don’t get to pick and choose like that. And rationalizing it in such a manner discredits your cause.

Let’s be reasonable for a moment. We can all agree that intentionally degrading someone who cannot defend themselves solely for the purpose of a laugh is wrong. You would never walk up to someone with a mental handicap and start saying inappropriate things, nor would you want to impress upon the youth of America that intolerance is acceptable on any level.

But in defense of Tropic Thunder, there are two things at work. One is that the studio talking points are right, this film is a parody, a send-up of the often absurd lengths to which actors will go in order to further their careers. That is the foundation upon which the comedic elements of the film are built. And having seen the film, I can say without a doubt that all of the inappropriate moments are merely devices used to drive the overall tone of the film — that actors are all assholes who would overstep the bounds of stereotypes to win an award and make an extra buck.

Secondly, and probably most importantly, the film has been given an R-rating by the MPAA. That means that anyone under the age of 17 who would like to see this film must be accompanied by a parental guardian. And I believe therein lies a much bigger issue.

As one commenter on Patricia Bauer’s blog states, “Hollywood has a huge role in setting culture because of their visibility and prevalence…” I would agree to an extent, but would wholeheartedly disagree should someone say that Hollywood has the only role in setting culture. They don’t. In a case like this one, it is up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their children. If those children are too young and impressionable to understand that the film is a parody about actors, then their parents should not allow them to see it. And anyone over the age of 17 is free to choose whether or not they find the film offensive or entertaining. That is the purpose of the R-rating. If Tropic Thunder were rated PG, then we would be looking at a real problem. But in this case we are seeing a film that clearly contains potentially offensive material, no arguments there, but is very clearly not intended for the most impressionable members of society.

The question I would ask to those who are “organizing against” Tropic Thunder is this: Is it right to restrict what some people might find entertaining because it is offensive to some members of society? No, it isn’t. That would be bordering on censorship. What is right is to limit the access to those who are not able to discern for themselves what is intended to be humorous and what might just be blatantly ignorant, offensive material. Personally, I think that the R-rating attached to this film does that. If you are offended by it, don’t go see it. And if you don’t want your kids to grow up being intolerant of the mentally handicapped, don’t let them see it either — or teach them what is right and what is wrong. It seems oddly simple to me.

Then again, I am just trying to process this situation logically. Personally, I’m not offended by the elements of Tropic Thunder that others may find offensive, primarily because I can see the context in which they were meant to be funny. And as Ben Stiller said at the recent press junket for the film, he did put a lot of thought into the idea of playing Simple Jack:

Yes, for sure. Again, it was the same focus through the lens of what would an actor do to try and win an award that would be wrong-headed and playing Simple Jack was an obvious attempt at legitimacy. Obviously, out of context that could seem wrong, but I felt like within the context of the movie, we’ve seen this happen in life and we all know that any time an actor goes out and does that, which is really putting yourself out there, it’s a very tough thing to pull off.

On top of all this, it appears that Paramount Studios and Dreamworks are doing a bit of damage control in the situation, having removed the promotional site SimpleJack.com and the Simple Jack movie poster (seen above right) from the Tugg Speedman viral website.

Ultimately, I believe that this is just another situation that will sadly get blown out of proportion. Instead of personally setting good examples for our kids, teach them right and wrong and having discussions about tolerance within our homes, Americans are always just looking for someone to blame. And Hollywood is an easy target. And by their logic, because Ben Stiller uses mental illness as a plot device in his R-rated comedy, he is the reason that kids pick on the Special Education kids in high school. I think not. I think that the parents of America should take a long look in the mirror and stop pointing at Hollywood to explain all the shortcomings of society.That said, it is my initial response to defend the entertainment value of things like this, not because I think making fun of mentally handicapped folks is funny, but because I have the ability to understand the context. And I would hope that anyone going to see Tropic Thunder next week would be able to do the same.

On the side, below you will find one of the clips in question, in which Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) and Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) discuss Tugg’s performance as Jack, and the fact that “nobody goes full retard.”

Christopher Tolkien to New Line: The Hobbit is Mine!

Robin Ruinsky — Tue, 27 May 2008 00:03:14 +0000

I bet you thought the biggest threat to the world of the Hobbits was Gollum, Sauron and the one Ring. Think again, it’s Christopher Tolkien, son of J.R.R., who wants to shut down Peter Jackson’s two new films based on Tolkien’s The Hobbit directed by Pan’s Labyrinth director Guillermo del Toro.

The 83 year old son of the author is feeling economically slighted by New Line Cinema and claims they owe the estate 80 million pounds under an agreement that gave the family a 7.5 percent share of profits from the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Calling his legal action “one last crusade” he’s going to court on June 6 to ask that the rights to “The Hobbit” be “terminated”. He says that his father sold the film rights in 1969 to pay a tax bill. Now he wants the film rights back.

Even as litigation in a California courtroom moves forward so does the work on the upcoming Hobbit films. Ian McKellan is already confirmed, returning as the Wizard Gandalf. Ian Holm who played Bilbo Baggins is supposed to narrate and somehow Viggo Mortensen is supposed to reprise his role as Aragorn though the reluctant warrior never appears in the Hobbit.

The first film is an adaptation of “The Hobbit” and is about the young Bilbo Baggins wanderings, including how he obtained the Ring. The second is set during the fifty years after Baggins returns from his quest for Dragon’s gold up until the story that unfolded in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. It was that period that Tolkien was writing about in his unfinished novel “The Silmarillion”.

Christopher Tolkien had the notes and stories from the unfinished work published in 1973 after his father’s death. And while he fights to regain control over The Hobbit he also is expected to make the film makers lives difficult by restricting their use of The Silmarillion.

Christopher Tolkien’s relatives call him “cantankerous” and doubt he has ever watched the LOTR Trilogy.

I suspect some kind of settlement between Tolkien and New Line will be hammered out allowing the project to go forward. If not, we’ll see whether it’s New Line or Christopher Tolkien that has the Ring of Power that will rule them all!

Steven Spielberg is Starting the Next Cold War

Neil Miller — Sun, 25 May 2008 18:00:57 +0000

On Friday, Russian Communist Party members condemned Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, saying that it was cruse, anti-Soviet propaganda that distorts history. They also called for it to be banned from Russian screens.

In the film, Cate Blanchett stars as an evil KGB agent who competes with Indiana Jones, played by Harrison Ford, to find a crystal skull that is supposed to have mystic powers. Her goal is to use it for mind warfare, to control the minds of Americans and ultimately turn them into communists. The work of fiction takes some liberties when it comes to the Cold War, including having Russian spies in the United States raiding military bunkers in search of the skulls, but apparently that was enough to enrage the current generation of Commies.

“What galls is how together with America we defeated Hitler, and how we sympathized when Bin Laden hit them. But they go ahead and scare kids with Communists. These people have no shame,” said Viktor Perov, a Communist Party member in Russia’s second city of St. Petersburg.

Their criticisms continued with specific attacks on actors Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett, who are apparently being controlled by the CIA: “Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett (are) second-rate actors, serving as the running dogs of the CIA. We need to deprive these people of the right of entering the country,” said another party member, Andrei Gindos.

And finally, the biggest Russian bomb (pun intended) came on Saturday, when Moscow Communist lawmaker Andrei Andreyev said “it is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War.”

So by their estimations, Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett are puppets of the CIA and director Steven Spielberg is attempting to provoke a new Cold War. I will admit that Hollywood dips its hands into politics more often than they should, but to say that a director made a film solely for the purpose of rekindling long-dead foreign feuds is a little ridiculous.

Russia’s Communist Party, which still seems to not only be active in its government, but also stays pretty competitive when it comes to elections, appears to be seeking some publicity. At least, that is what we can assume based on the fact that their call for a boycott yielded absolutely no other result. According to Reuters, the Russian media is reporting that the film was shown over the weekend on 808 screens in Russia, the widest ever release for a Hollywood movie. Good job Communist Party, your cries for a boycott were heard by absolutely no one — except readers of movie websites in the US. Then again, we are only reporting this because it makes us giggle a little bit. Silly Commies, if we really wanted another Cold War, don’t you think we would have started one by now?

Film School Rejects » Cinematic Uprisings

Stop the Presses: Fanboys Hits Theaters Today!

Related Reading:

Man Brings Vigilante Justice to His Local Cineplex

Related Reading:

Studio, Filmmakers Make Statements About ‘Towelhead’ Issue

Related Reading:

The Hollywood Offensive: Islamic Group Offended by Alan Ball’s ‘Towelhead’

Related Reading:

Ben Stiller, Paramount Learn That You Never Go Full Retard

Related Reading:

Christopher Tolkien to New Line: The Hobbit is Mine!

Related Reading:

Steven Spielberg is Starting the Next Cold War

Related Reading: