Lionsgate Films »

MGM Studios' financial troubles will soon be coming to a sad end. Back in September, it was reported that MGM was in such poor shape that they might be forced to auction off their assets, including James Bond and The Hobbit. That day has come to pass. Variety reports that MGM Studios is officially on the auction block.

MGM has been given a month of breathing space from their interest payments, time they plan on using to begin "a process to explore various strategic alternatives including operating as a standalone entity, forming strategic partnerships and evaluating a potential sale of the company."

But all hopes of survival may rest on what they sell off from their glorious history, including a library of 4,000 titles, the logo, the United Artists company, James Bond, and half ownership in The Hobbit. Time Warner, News Corp, and Lionsgate are said to be interested in all of the above.

As their library scatters to the four winds, it'll be really interesting to see what remakes and reboots it spawns. Remember, Robocop was on the MGM remake slate, and surely some hungry studio will snap that up. The Cannon Films and ITV Global Entertainment collections are just ripe for harvesting. Perhaps you'll finally see a Lifeforce movie, or a remake of Capricorn One, or an aspiring Tarantino type will buy up all those American International Picture rights and revive motorcycle gang movies. Sure, we all want to know who will wind up with James Bond, but it'll be far more fascinating if someone tries to remake Psych-Out. *


*It's possible this is considered one of AIP's "early" films, though it's unclear where that cut off date is.

Oprah is pushing both Precious and the book it's based on, Push by Sapphire, on her show, and I'm seriously curious to know what her audience will think about it. How many people will be able to watch a film told from the point of view of an illiterate high schooler who is raped by her father, physically (and, in the book, sexually) abused by her mother, hates herself for not being white, has given birth to one child with Down's Syndrome who's nicknamed Mongo (short for Mongoloid), and is pregnant for a second time with her father's child?

Let's assume that Oprah's reach is strong enough and far enough to get her demographic to plunk down their eight to 12 dollars to see Precious – the Oprah Effect in full effect. (You can find out where and when Precious is playing near you on the official movie website.)

I'm not talking about critics and journalists or the people in big cities who like to participate in a friendly Oscar pool or want to be up on what was in the New York Times. They're already seeing the movie in droves; it made $1.8M in limited release its opening weekend. The latest numbers I could find on her demographic are from 2007, back when people were wondering if Oprah could help get a president elected. (Answer: Yes, she can.)

According to Nielsen via MSNBC, "Oprah's audience is predominantly female, white, and over the age of 55. Nationally 7.4 million people watch Oprah daily -- about 2.6% of American households. Four percent of American women (about 5.7 million) watch her daily, compared with 1.2% of men (1.7 million people). Overall, 2% of all 18- to 49-year-olds watch Oprah."

By Eric D. Snider (reprint from 1/19/09 -- Sundance Film Festival)

The premise of Precious is so unsettling and bleak that no one would blame you if you didn't want to see it: It's the story of an obese 16-year-old illiterate Harlem girl who's pregnant (for the second time) by her own father, lives with her monstrously abusive mother, and has almost given up on life. But if you do see it, you'll find that it's compelling and artistic, punctuated with warm humor and masterful performances, and ultimately triumphant and hopeful.

The girl is named Claireece "Precious" Jones (she goes by Precious), and she's played with astonishing rawness by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe. Narrating the film, Precious tells us the grim facts. Beyond the ones already noted, she is still in junior high school (where she's dumbly in love with her kindly math teacher); her first child, born with Down syndrome, is technically in her mother's custody but is actually cared for by her grandmother; and her mother, Mary (Mo'Nique), is a welfare-absorbing harridan who abuses Precious in every possible way, hating her daughter for "stealing" her man. Precious did no such thing, of course -- she was raped by her father -- but Mary is not interested in details.

Precious is directed by her principal to an alternative school called Each One Teach One. Her class is populated by other girls who dropped out or were kicked out of public schools for various reasons; it's telling that even in such a motley group, Precious is still the most timid, the most withdrawn, and the most messed-up. The teacher, Ms. Rain (Paula Patton), is dedicated to her work, perhaps the first adult to ever take a genuine interest in helping Precious. The other students might be Precious' first friends, too.

Sunday over at Cinematical's sister site, Horror Squad, vigilant contributor Brian Salisbury picked up a news story from Arrow in the Head about Saw VI receiving no less than an 'X' rating for violence from the ratings board in Spain. While this might be minor news if the rating board awarded 'X' ratings to its predecessors, or even just some of the other horror films released in recent years that borrowed from the first film's gag-inducing inspiration, evidently Saw VI is the first-ever movie that has been awarded the killer rating for violence in the country's history, which begs makes us wonder what the board saw in, uh, Saw that made it so offensive?

Despite having seen only the first and sixth installments in the Saw series, I can attest that the new film is indeed gross and gory, featuring scenes like a showdown between two victims to shave off enough body mass (or maybe just body parts) to survive, and a merry-go-round fitted with six victims who more or less indiscriminately suffer from direct shotgun blasts to the chest. But personally I'm not sure that the movie is really any more violent or gratuitous than any of its predecessors, even those that I haven't seen; while one could perhaps make the argument that many of Jigsaw's victims were dubiously "guilty" at worst (or even outright innocent), making their deaths more tragic, it seems unlikely that the murkier morality of this film would earn it a harsher rating than any of the others.

Since I'm sure there are plenty of readers who have seen all of the films and are ready to weigh in with their own opinions, we'll put the question to you: Is Saw VI deserving of an 'X' rating?

Sorry to break it to fans of the Saw film series, but Jigsaw, a/k/a John Kramer is a self-righteous dick. In comparison to the Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers of the horror world, whose raison d'être is causing carnage mercifully bereft of deeper moral or instructional value, Jigsaw devotes a ridiculous amount of time thinking about what other people do with themselves, and effectively (if ironically) conceives his traps as object lessons in humility, compassion, and self-awareness. Personally, I find this high-handed moralizing far more painful than any evil device he could possibly design, but then again, that's why I'm not a fan of the series; that said, the latest installment in the Saw franchise appears to fulfill all of the demands of its audience and then some, making it a worthy and faithful entry in a franchise which at this point seems expressly designed to document people dying in increasingly inventive ways.

After a cold-open sequence where two loan officers compete to dismember themselves as an alternative to being literally screwed to death, Saw VI opens as Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) investigates Jigsaw's (Tobin Bell) latest crime – which, coincidentally, he helped execute. As he narrowly eludes discovery by his colleagues, across town a claims adjuster named William (Peter Outerbridge) becomes the victim of Jigsaw's next deadly game, while the long-deceased killer's widow Jill (Betsy Russell) carries out her late husband's final wishes. Soon, the paths of these various players intersect, but despite their various efforts to take control of their lives - and in some cases those of the others, it's Jigsaw himself who comfortably presides over all of them, even from beyond the grave. This time, though, his goal seems to be to drive his deadly game towards its ultimate conclusion.

According to longtime Saw editor and now first-time director Kevin Greutert, coming up with new and interesting ways to kill people is not as easy as one might imagine, especially when you've already come up with a gauntlet of gory deaths in not one but five previous films. "There's no point in trying to hide it," Greutert said in a roundtable interview in Los Angeles last week. "I think the films have this longevity because we've managed to rise to the task, somehow. But, it made me want to cry sometimes, sitting in a room, brainstorming and pounding my head against the wall. You can think of cool ways to kill people, but it still has to fit in with our story."

"It's very complicated, he insisted. "We want to always push the envelope to the end, in terms of insanity and mayhem, but if you go too far, it becomes campy or silly. It's a really tough balancing act." Ironically, Greutert is only the guy who has to bring those death traps to life; screenwriters Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan are the guys who have to actually develop and design them, making sure they're not only inventive and interesting, but that they actually reflect the personalities and storylines of the characters in each film.

Cinematical recently sat down with Dunstan and Melton to discuss Saw VI, the latest installment in the long-running horror franchise, to find out where they get those wonderful – and terrible – toys. In addition to describing their creative process, they talk about challenges of collaborating with a cast and crew filled with Saw experts, and reflect on why and how their debut on Project Greenlight didn't result in a dead end for their careers, as was the case with their predecessors.

Last summer, the trades reported that Bruce Willis was in talks to play Kane in a big screen adaptation of Kane and Lynch. Perhaps you were one of the game fans excited by that prospect, but as the long months wore on, you may have forgotten such a fleeting news item. But Kane and Lynch didn't go anywhere, and GameDaily is confirming that Bruce Willis is ready to go in with his guns blazing, with Simon Crane directing, and that filming will begin in March 2010. They're just looking for their Lynch and their locations.

GameDaily caught up with producer Adrian Askarieh, who confirmed Willis' casting, and shared just what had lured him to the project in the first place. "[Kyle Ward's] script has been incredibly well-received around town. After Bruce Willis read it, he called it one of the best action scripts he's ever read, and Bruce is an expert in terms of action scripts because he's read everything over the last 20 years." Askarieh describes the film as "a great buddy action movie" (nothing's funnier than kidnapping and death row) and promised that'll remain faithful to the game, at least in terms of its plotline. "It's going to have the basic premise. But the details for the movie are going to be different. It's not going to have every sequence from the game, but it's essentially the story of a mercenary teaming up with a schizophrenic psychopath to save his wife and daughter."

While none of us hold out hope for video game adaptations, I would like this one to turn out solid. It's two death-row inmates (one of whom is heavily medicated) doing rotten, sociopathic things in the name of rescue. It's the kind of movie Hollywood should be able to make, but probably won't, even with an action heavy like Willis.

[via Empire]

If you're an aspiring filmmaker hoping to break into the studio system, you'll want to hop on over to Massify.com and create an account. If you're unfamiliar with the site, it's a portal that links together actors, writers, directors and producers for all kinds of in-community projects that result in everything from Internet shorts to TV commercials to actual feature-length films. Now Lionsgate has taken notice of the service, signing a deal with the startup that will hopefully lead to multiple theatrical films down the line.

The collaboration is being dubbed the Lionsgate Incubator Project (LINC) and will kick off later this year with a "high-concept, male-driven comedy short", no doubt inspired by the enormous success of The Hangover, that will serve as a proving ground for future development. If the end product satisfies Lionsgate, they'll usher it into their feature film development program the same way they would any other project.

Lionsgate isn't the first studio to take advantage of the Massify process, either. After Dark Films created the film Perkins 14 by running a competition through the site in which users submitted and then voted on scripts, cast, and even directors. And though Lionsgate doesn't cite ADF's success (Perkins 14 was one of the better reviewed titles of the last Horrorfest), it's clear that they see the bonus inherent to working with thousands of hungry talents. From the Massify press release on their new deal: