The actress Christie Brinkley reportedly told Porter magazine that President Donald Trump once tried to get her to join him on his private jet while he was married to Ivana Trump in the 1980s.
Brinkley reportedly said she declined Trump's offer and described Trump, at the time, as "flirty,""smarmy," and "out chasing skirts."
The actress Christie Brinkley said in a recent interview with Porter magazine (via Page Six) that President Donald Trump once asked her to join him on his private jet — while he was married to his first wife, Ivana, in the 1980s and, as Brinkley described, "out chasing skirts."
Brinkley said the interaction with Trump occurred when she was dating Billy Joel in the early '80s.
"My phone rings and this guy goes, 'Hey, Christie, it's The Donald.' I say, 'Hi, Billy,' because I was dating Billy [Joel] at the time," Brinkley told Porter, according to Page Six. "But the voice goes, 'No, no. It's The Donald! … I hear you're leaving for Aspen tomorrow. I am too. I'd like to give you a ride on my private jet.'"
She continued: "So I reply, 'Thank you, but I have already arranged my flights.' I knew he was married, and there he was asking me to go on his plane. He was kind of flirty about it. He was out chasing skirts."
Brinkley reportedly added that she had "always found him smarmy" and described having dinner with him:
"I'm done being discreet. I've had dinner with him. I've always found him smarmy, as in, 'Watch out, part the waves, the rich people are coming, everything is gold, solid 24-carat gold, the best, the greatest, nobody else has more gold on anything in their house than me. Did you bring a brush? Let's gold-leaf it!'"
A White House representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Quentin Tarantino said in an interview with Deadline that he made Harvey Weinstein apologizing to Uma Thurman a condition of making their 2003 film, "Kill Bill."
Thurman told The New York Times on Saturday that Tarantino "confronted" Weinstein over Thurman's allegations of sexual assault against Weinstein, and that she later received a "half-assed apology" from Weinstein.
Weinstein's representatives told the Times that Weinstein "immediately apologized" to Thurman "after misreading her signals."
In an interview with Deadline published Monday, Quentin Tarantino said he made Harvey Weinstein apologize to Uma Thurman for an incident that she has alleged amounted to sexual assault. Tarantino said the apology was a condition of making their 2003 film "Kill Bill," which Weinstein produced.
Thurman told The New York Times, in an interview published this weekend, that Tarantino "confronted Harvey" over Weinstein's alleged misconduct, and that Weinstein gave her a "half-assed apology" afterward. (Weinstein's representatives told the Times that Weinstein "immediately apologized" to Thurman "after misreading her signals.")
Tarantino detailed to Deadline how he confronted Weinstein after Thurman told him about the alleged assault:
"That was when I realized there was a pattern, in Harvey’s luring and pushing attacks. So I made Harvey apologize to Uma. In the Maureen Dowd [Times] article it says, that is when Quentin confronted Harvey? Well, my confrontation was saying, you have to go to Uma. This happened. You have to apologize to her and she has to accept your apology, if we’re going to do 'Kill Bill' together."
The "Kill Bill" director said that Weinstein tried to "deemphasize" aspects of the incident when confronted on it:
"In this case, I wasn't giving Harvey the benefit of the doubt. I knew he was lying, that everything Uma was saying, was the truth. When he tried to wriggle out of it, and how things actually happened, I never bought his story. I said, I don’t believe you. I believe her. And if you want to do 'Kill Bill,' you need to make this right."
In the Times story Saturday, Thurman also said Tarantino made her do a dangerous car stunt in "Kill Bill" that injured her.
Actor Jim Carrey tweeted that he plans to dump his Facebook stock and delete his Facebook page because, he said, the social network "profited" from Russian interference in US elections.
Facebook testified to Congress in October that Russian-backed content reached as many as 126 million Americans through its network during and after the 2016 presidential election.
Actor Jim Carrey tweeted Tuesday that he plans to dump his Facebook stock and delete his Facebook page because, he said, the social network "profited" from Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
Carrey tweeted the following message with what appears to be his own hand-drawn portrait of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg beside a dislike button emoji:
"I’m dumping my @facebook stock and deleting my page because @facebook profited from Russian interference in our elections and they’re still not doing enough to stop it. I encourage all other investors who care about our future to do the same. #unfriendfacebook"
I’m dumping my @facebook stock and deleting my page because @facebook profited from Russian interference in our elections and they’re still not doing enough to stop it. I encourage all other investors who care about our future to do the same. #unfriendfacebookpic.twitter.com/KHWgZzhhmp
The same text also appeared in a post on Carrey's Facebook page, which previously featured the portrait of Zuckerberg as its header photo, before the page was taken down Tuesday evening:
Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.
The company testified to Congress in October that Russian-backed content on its platform reached as many as 126 million Americans during and after the 2016 presidential election.
Carrey later sent the following statement to Business Insider, elaborating on his position:
"For a long time America enjoyed a geographical advantage in the world with oceans on both sides to protect it. Now, social media has created cyber-bridges over which those who do not have our best interest in mind can cross and we are allowing it. No wall is going to protect us from that. We must encourage more oversight by the owners of these social media platforms. This easy access has to be more responsibly handled. What we need now are activist investors to send a message that responsible oversight is needed. What the world needs now is capitalism with a conscience."
Carrey's latest film appearance came in the 2017 Netflix documentary "Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond," which featured on-set footage of his performance as comedian Andy Kaufman in the 1999 biopic "Man on the Moon."
"Game of Thrones" creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are going to create a "Star Wars" film series.
However, it will be separate from the current Skywalker saga or the trilogy "The Last Jedi" director Rian Johnson is developing.
The guys who brought "Game of Thrones" to the small screen are now heading to the big screen with "Star Wars."
That's right.
Lucasfilm announced on Tuesday that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the creators behind the TV series adaptation of "Game of Thrones" for HBO, will write and produce a new series of "Star Wars" movies.
On Disney's earnings call Tuesday, CEO Bob Iger said the company had been talking to the pair "for a long time” about the film series, and that they had been "focused on a point of time in the 'Star Wars' mythology.”
It's unknown how many titles they will do, or when filming will begin, but Lucasfilm made a point to include in its release that what Benioff and Weiss will create will be separate from the current Skywalker saga, and the trilogy of movies "The Last Jedi" director Rian Johnson is developing.
“In the summer of 1977 we traveled to a galaxy far, far away, and we’ve been dreaming of it ever since,” Benioff and Weiss said in a joint statement. “We are honored by the opportunity, a little terrified by the responsibility, and so excited to get started as soon as the final season of Game of Thrones is complete.”
"Game of Thrones" is currently filming its final season, which will air in 2019. The show has won 38 Primetime Emmys to date.
And don't worry about the "GOT" faucet being closed after season 8. HBO is developing five prequel spin-off series, which will kick off in 2020 (though not all of them will make it to screen).
Valentine’s Day is almost upon us, and whether you’re planning a fancy night out at your favorite restaurant or flopping onto the couch with single friends, let’s face it, at some point you will be watching Netflix.
Nothing breaks the mood more than a dull movie, so we’ve put together a collection of romantic movies on the streaming giant that will keep the night on a high note.
From studio rom-coms like “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” and “13 Going on 30” to romantic classics like “Breakfast at Tiffany's” and “The Great Gatsby,” there’s a lot of passion going on in this list.
Here are 20 romantic movies on Netflix you need to check out:
Note: Numerous Netflix titles drop off the streaming service monthly so the availability of titles below may change. This has been updated since its original posting.
Get ready to do the "Thriller" dance in your living room! This modern-day classic rom-com is back on Netflix. Jennifer Garner plays a girl who wishes to become 30 and then must deal with her adult version's everyday life.
“The African Queen”
Humphrey Bogart plays a boozed-up riverboat captain who falls for a missionary played by Katharine Hepburn in this classic by John Huston.
“America's Sweethearts”
Eddie (John Cusack) and Gwen (Catherine Zeta-Jones) are the latest "it" couple who have broken up, but having to promote their new movie they have to look like they still can tolerate each other. This leads to a wild press junket weekend where the studio publicist Lee (Billy Crystal) tries to keep it all together though Gwen's sister Kiki (Julia Roberts) is falling for Eddie. There's also a cameo by Christopher Walken. Honestly, this movie has everything.
Here's our first look at Josh Brolin in action as Cable in "Deadpool 2."
But, of course, there is also some NSFW hilarity from Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) throughout.
The latest trailer for "Deadpool 2" is out, and it introduces us to the Merc with a Mouth's pal, Cable — in a NSFW way that only the Deadpool franchise can.
This is the first footage we've seen of Josh Brolin playing the beloved character, who is trying to better the world from a future he knows is full of pain. He certainly has the look down, but as the trailer goes on you may notice that not all of Cable's CGI is screen-ready yet.
Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) realizes Cable's metal arm is only a green sleeve and literally pauses the trailer. "It's a metal arm, it's not like we're trying to remove a mustache," Deadpool screams, referring to Henry Cavill's mustache for his role in the upcoming "Mission: Impossible" movie having to be digitally removed when he did reshoots as Superman for "Justice League."
Saying he will handle it himself, the trailer then cuts to Deadpool playing with a Cable toy and a Deadpool toy (dressed as Woody from "Toy Story" as he yells "Reach for the sky!"). Following some, yes, NSFW banter, the trailer returns — now with Cable sporting a metal arm — blowing things up and fighting along with Deadpool, Domino (Zazie Beetz), and recognizable faces from the first movie.
Watch the trailer below. "Deadpool 2" opens in theaters May 18.
During the filming of "Kill Bill" in the early 2000s, star Uma Thurman suffered from a car crash. Tarantino, she says, deserves part of the blame.
But it's complicated.
The frayed relationship between Tarantino and Thurman, and the way the story made its way to the public discourse, is at the crossroads of almost every controversial issue at the center of #MeToo and the fallout in Hollywood following the Harvey Weinstein scandal. It's tangled up in questions about the shaky facts around some of these debates, how the discourse forms swiftly, how that conversation can be at odds with the perspectives of the people involved, and how we're supposed to think about the art created around these situations.
Here's a look at what it's all about.
Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman were collaborators in the 1990s — and Harvey Weinstein helped them succeed.
Harvey Weinstein's place in Tarantino and Thurman's careers shows just how powerful he was in the Hollywood system.
In the 1990s, Weinstein produced hit after hit. His productions companies — Miramax, Dimension, and The Weinstein Company — distributed every Tarantino movie from 1992's "Reservoir Dogs," his directorial debut, to his latest, 2015's "The Hateful Eight."
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Thurman was Tarantino's star actress. She garnered acclaim for starring in 1994's "Pulp Fiction," which made them both household names.
Then she starred in "Kill Bill: Volume 1" and "Kill Bill: Volume 2" in 2003 and 2004 — a two-part, violent epic where Thurman plays an assassin seeking revenge on the people who killed her unborn child and put her into a coma, and her former boss and lover who planned the murder.
"I knew enough to do more than I did," Tarantino said. "There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn't secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things."
On one occasion, after Tarantino began dating Mira Sorvino in 1995, Sorvino told him about Weinstein's alleged behavior towards her. Tarantino said he was appalled and told Weinstein to back off.
"I thought Harvey was hung up on her in this Svengali kind of way," Tarantino told the Times. "Because he was infatuated with her, he horribly crossed the line."
"What I did was marginalize the incidents," he continued. "Anything I say now will sound like a crappy excuse ... I chalked it up to a '50s-'60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk. As if that's OK."
In the Times interview, Tarantino called for a reckoning in Hollywood over its treatment of women.
"[Hollywood is] operating under an almost Jim Crow-like system that us males have almost tolerated," Tarantino said. "We allowed it to exist because that's the way it was."
Thurman, on the other hand, was allegedly attacked by Weinstein.
While Tarantino's professional work blossomed in collaboration with Weinstein and he says he missed signs of any alleged misconduct, Thurman was furious.
"Happy Thanksgiving Everyone!" she wrote on Instagram, alongside a still from "Kill Bill.""Except you Harvey, and all your wicked conspirators — I'm glad it's going slowly — you don't deserve a bullet."
A post shared by Uma Thurman (@ithurman) on Nov 23, 2017 at 12:58pm PST on
Thurman found her venue with Maureen Dowd, a columnist at the New York Times. In an interview published on February 3, she said Weinstein attacked her in a hotel room not long after the release of "Pulp Fiction."
"It was such a bat to the head. He pushed me down. He tried to shove himself on me. He tried to expose himself. He did all kinds of unpleasant things," Thurman said. "But he didn't actually put his back into it and force me. You're like an animal wriggling away, like a lizard. I was doing anything I could to get the train back on the track. My track. Not his track."
Thurman said she felt partly to blame for all of Weinstein's alleged victims. By starring in "Kill Bill," she said she made it seem as if it was OK for women to work with Weinstein.
"I am one of the reasons that a young girl would walk into his room alone, the way I did," Thurman said. "Quentin used Harvey as the executive producer of 'Kill Bill,' a movie that symbolizes female empowerment. And all these lambs walked into slaughter because they were convinced nobody rises to such a position who would do something illegal to you, but they do."
Thurman said she told Tarantino about the incident in 2001. Then, "the penny dropped for him," she said, and he confronted Weinstein. Weinstein gave a "half-assed apology" that resembled his apologies from the past few months, Thurman said.
"In this case, I wasn't giving Harvey the benefit of the doubt,"Tarantino told Deadline in a February 4 interview. "I knew he was lying, that everything Uma was saying, was the truth. When he tried to wriggle out of it, and how things actually happened, I never bought his story. I said, I don't believe you. I believe her. And if you want to do 'Kill Bill,' you need to make this right."
Tarantino and Thurman's relationship fell apart after a car crash on the set of "Kill Bill."
The pivotal incident between Tarantino and Thurman happened on one of the final days of the nine-month shoot for "Kill Bill."
In a scene where she's on her way to commit the titular murder, Thurman's character drives down a straight dirt road. Thurman had reservations about the car's stability and asked if a stuntman could do it. Tarantino persuaded her that it would be safe.
Thurman crashed. She injured herself.
"The steering wheel was at my belly and my legs were jammed under me,"she told the New York Times. "I felt this searing pain and thought, 'Oh my God, I'm never going to walk again.'"
Thurman suffered from a concussion and had neck and knee injuries. She said she fought with Tarantino and accused him of trying to kill her, which made him furious.
Tarantino characterized the incident differently. In the interview with Deadline, he said the danger came from a last-minute decision to change the direction of the drive. The car would go down a road that hadn't been tested by the production team and wasn't as straight as it looked.
"She believed me. Because she trusted me. I told her it would be OK," Tarantino said. "I told her the road was a straight line. I told her it would be safe. And it wasn't. I was wrong. I didn't force her into the car. She got into it because she trusted me."
He said the mistake was the biggest regret of his life.
"As a director, you learn things and sometimes you learn them through horrendous mistakes," Tarantino said. "That was one of my most horrendous mistakes, that I didn't take the time to run the road, one more time, just to see what I would see."
The outrage against Tarantino was swift and harsh.
After Thurman's interview with Dowd was published online, the backlash against Tarantino was harsh. Many users on Twitter held him as an accomplice of Weinstein and a reckless professional.
In addition to the car crash, part of the condemnation was about a scene where Thurman's "Kill Bill" character is choked with a chain. Dowd wrote that Tarantino had "done the honors" himself, as well as spit into her face for a scene that called for it.
Quentin Tarantino choked Uma Thurman, spat in her face, and forced her into a car crash. After the Weinstein revelations Tarantino said, “I knew enough to do more than I did.” He was *part* of the abuse, just as so many other men pretending to be “shocked” or “sorry” are.
I really don't know how Sony can move forward with the new Tarantino movie. He's making Roman Polanski a main character in it. He is a reckless director. Let's imagine a female director in the same boat. She's never work again.
I see people taking the Uma story as two issues: Weinstein & Tarantino's lack of actor safety on set. But it's the same story, about the violence of sexual assault & the violence & betrayal in complicity.
Weinstein and Tarantino, what a pair! A serial rapist and a near murderer. It’s no fucking joke what these abhorrent criminals did to Uma Thurman, before and after #KillBill. They put her life, her dignity, her sanity in danger. Burn in hell you sick fucks. pic.twitter.com/VpD2oT1ETZ
Judd Apatow said Tarantino ignored one of Weinstein's alleged victims.
Tarantino also ignored Daryl Hannah’s complaints when she was harassed by Harvey Weinstein.They kicked her off the press tour.Nobody helped her. And now Tarantino is going to make a movie about Polanski. Why is someone financing this? This is why Weinstein wasn’t stopped. $$$$ https://t.co/WlSVFEoVN4
Jessica Chastain derided the aestheticization of violence in Tarantino's movies, suggesting they enable on-set abuses.
I keep imagining Tarantino spitting in Uma's face and strangling her with a chain for KILL BILL. How many images of women in media do we celebrate that showcase abuse? When did this become normalized 'entertainment'?
When violence against women is used as a plot device to make the characters stronger then we have a problem. It is not empowering to be beaten and raped, yet so many films make it their 'pheonix' moment for women. We don't need abuse in order to be powerful. We already are.
But Thurman's relationship with Tarantino is far more ambivalent.
While the audience outrage against Tarantino exploded quickly, Thurman herself isn't adopting as harsh a tone.
To be clear, she hasn't totally absolved Tarantino for the car crash, but she finds him negligent rather than sadistic.
"The circumstances of this event were negligent to the point of criminality. I do not believe though with malicious intent," she said.
She also said she was grateful that Tarantino took a risk by digging up footage of the crash, which Thurman said Weinstein and other producers on "Kill Bill" had denied to her.
"Quentin Tarantino was deeply regretful and remains remorseful about this sorry event, and gave me the footage years later so I could expose it and let it see the light of day, regardless of it most likely being an event for which justice will never be possible," she said. "He also did so with full knowledge it could cause him personal harm, and I am proud of him for doing the right thing and for his courage."
A post shared by Uma Thurman (@ithurman) on Feb 5, 2018 at 10:15am PST on
In his Deadline interview, Tarantino said spitting on Thurman himself, rather than have the actor Michael Madsen do it, was for practical reasons. They'd also be able to do it in fewer takes, since Tarantino, as the director, knew exactly what he wanted.
"Naturally, I did it. Who else should do it? A grip? One, I didn't trust Michael Madsen because, I don't know where the spit's going to go, if Michael Madsen does it," Tarantino said. "The idea is, I'm doing it, I'm taking responsibility. Also, I'm the director, so I can kind of art direct this spit. I know where I want it to land. I'm right next to the camera. So, boom! I do it. Now, if I screw up and I keep missing, once we get to that third one, if she doesn't want to do it anymore, well then, that's on me."
As for why it had to be real spit, Tarantino explained to Deadline that he tried alternate methods and it didn't achieve the realism he was looking for.
Tarantino also said having him choke her with a chain was her idea.
"I was assuming that when we did it, we would have maybe a pole behind Uma that the chain would be wrapped around so it wouldn't be seen by the camera, at least for the wide shot," Tarantino said. "But then it was Uma's suggestion. To just wrap the thing around her neck, and choke her. Not forever, not for a long time. But it's not going to look right. I can act all strangle-ey, but if you want my face to get red and the tears to come to my eye, then you kind of need to choke me."
It's also worth noting the unique power dynamic between Tarantino and Thurman. While Tarantino was the director, the two worked collaboratively on the movie. They developed the character together, and Tarantino delayed production on the movie for months to account for Thurman's pregnancy at the time.
In the years since the crash, Thurman and Tarantino have reverted back to a friendship, if a tenuous one.
Tarantino confirmed that he assisted Thurman by helping find the footage, which had been in his archive for 15 years. He told Deadline that the two have been "OK."
"Uma was in turmoil about the uprising against me this whole weekend," Tarantino said. "She never meant this to roll over onto me. We've been talking about it ad nauseum."
Tarantino said there was a similar experience with him faux-strangling Diane Kruger in "Inglourious Basterds." On Instagram on February 6, Kruger wrote that Tarantino didn't make her do anything she was uncomfortable with.
"My work experience with Quentin Tarantino was pure joy,"Kruger wrote. "He treated me with utter respect and never abused his power or forced me to do anything I wasn't comfortable with."
Because of his decades-long closeness to Weinstein, he may be lying about his ignorance of his alleged crimes. If not, he may have been criminally negligent.
"He didn't rape a 13-year-old. It was statutory rape ... he had sex with a minor. That's not rape,"Tarantino said. "To me, when you use the word rape, you're talking about violent, throwing them down — it's like one of the most violent crimes in the world."
Samantha Geimer, who Polanski raped, told the New York Daily News that Tarantino is wrong, but says she's willing to forgive Tarantino because of his support of Thurman and other actresses who have been assaulted.
"It's not a big deal to me what people think," Geimer said. "It doesn't make a difference in my life. I know what happened. I do not need other people weighing in on what it's like getting raped at 13."
There is also the perception that, as a filmmaker, Tarantino uses his art as a proxy for an ideal moral universe. His movies are a form of wish fulfillment. He has Jewish actors bash Nazi heads in "Inglourious Basterds" and black actors massacre slaveowners in "Django Unchained," because he thinks that would be a good thing and wants to see that onscreen. To him, what happens onscreen and what happens off-screen are intertwined. (He's also been criticized in those terms for use of racial slurs in his movies.)
With that understanding, critics claim, choking and spitting on an actress has a completely different meaning. If Tarantino is making his movies as a form of wish fulfillment, then choking and spitting on actresses in that process is considerably more ugly.
The venues for each story muddle them even further.
Both major interviews — with Thurman and Tarantino — have been deeply criticized.
Maureen Dowd, who interviewed Thurman for the New York Times, wrote her interview in a way that, to many, minimized the experience. Her story's main focus was on Weinstein as well as a sexual assault Thurman experienced when she was 16 years old. The passage about Tarantino occupied the second half of the article, and included plenty of her own prose but few direct quotations.
In interfering with Thurman's story with her own writing, Dowd made the situation more confusing than it should have been. Her writing robbed the story of some of its power, some argue.
Seriously? This is how she decides to tell her story? Maureen Dowd? I’m disappointed. I’m an assault survivor. This is tabloid shit.
I think it's utterly necessary that everyone read the piece. Thurman's anger & eloquence shines through, although Maureen Dowd remains the completely wrong choice to cover such a story. Her style & focus is all out of whack, but it doesn't diminish Thurman's story.
This is why I’ve had to step back from the news and my usual engagement with all sorts of activism. I opened the Uma Thurman Maureen Dowd piece today and Dowd’s tone was so offputting it felt like I’d been stabbed. I couldn’t take it to read it.
1. I feel really awful for Uma Thurman, this was a horrible experience
2. This was so over-written. I don’t know why Maureen Dowd wrote it this way. Would’ve been better if Uma had done it herself pic.twitter.com/ghFl2Jkpb7
Dowd also wrote her article in a way that Thurman being sexually assaulted, Weinstein's alleged harassment, and Tarantino's responsibility for the car crash were on the same plane. ("She has been raped. She has been sexually assaulted. She has been mangled in hot steel.") Thurman disputed that characterization in her Instagram post.
Tarantino's follow-up interview, too, is framed unevenly. He spoke to Deadline's Mike Fleming Jr., who has a history of commentary that's perceived as sympathetic to men who have been accused of sexual misconduct. He wrote in the introduction to his interview about stories "often getting twisted to suit convenient narratives in this #MeToo moment."
"Convenient narratives." Ugh, no, Mike Fleming. This nonspecific grumbling certainty that good men are getting screwed over...okay. Who? Names, please. Otherwise, all you're doing is undermining. pic.twitter.com/noIq4aZ2vw
It took me a long time to finish that Deadline interview with QT because I got halfway through Mike Fleming's intro and my field of vision whited out with rage, whoops pic.twitter.com/9JF5v3Dkl2
Deadline, please let me know why you keep giving this Mike Fleming guy assignments like this, he always insert hot garbage takes that take away any legitimacy of the piece
Also, Tarantino going out of his way to make himself the good guy/hero here is...an interesting path https://t.co/qSvyahsN3O
at this point, going to *that* movie reporter to tell your side of the story is just acknowledging that you did something so misogynistic, no one else is gonna treat you sympathetically
Michael Douglas interviews, Casey Affleck & Harvey Weinstein "sources", and now this fawning Tarantino charade: We need to talk about how Mike Fleming Jr. has decided to make Deadline the central hub of "what about the men?" in the #metoo age.
Both stories also made it unclear why Tarantino didn't get involved in Dowd's piece. Dowd wrote that Tarantino was unresponsive to her efforts to reach him. Tarantino said he supported Thurman when she told him about the interview, but never got in touch with Dowd.
Dowd later told a New York Times news reporter that she reached out to Tarantino six times. The Times confirmed that Tarantino received the messages and that Thurman encouraged her to participate in the story, but Tarantino didn't respond to Dowd regardless.
"We made a request to reach him six times through various channels," Eileen Murphy, the head of communications at the New York Times, told INSIDER.
Murphy declined to comment on the subject of why Dowd, an opinion columnist, wrote the story instead of a reporter on the news team.
Weinstein, of course, tried to muddle the story even further. In most stories that involve his alleged sexual misconduct, his publicist releases a statement after the story is published with the intention of casting doubt on the story's veracity. In this case, his publicist sent images of Thurman and Weinstein hanging out together, suggesting they were friends.
All of this begs the question: Who can be trusted to tell stories of abuse?
Having a writer with strong preconceptions report on a story of abuse or negligence causes a few problems.
When the reporter values a narrative over facts, significant details become loose. Why didn't Tarantino participate in Dowd's story? Did Thurman hold Tarantino as responsible as she did for Weinstein? Was she bothered by the spitting and choking scenes in "Kill Bill"? What's her relationship with Tarantino like now? How many people saw Thurman's pushback to Dowd's story on Instagram compared to her original article?
Some of those questions took days to answer, and some still don't have answers publicly available.
Because the story wasn't nailed in straightforward terms the first time, Thurman ultimately cast doubt on the reporter who wrote about her own story. Dowd also opened up ambiguities and ambivalences that were exploited by bad-faith critics of both Tarantino and Thurman. And the entire enterprise of reporting on abuse in Hollywood — a massively important project — has been weakened.
Real life is messy.
While some have characterized Tarantino as a Weinstein-enabling monster, Thurman's picture of him is far from black and white.
Was Tarantino negligent? Tarantino says yes. So does Thurman.
Was Tarantino abusive or malicious? Thurman stops short of that.
These are two people with decades of closeness. They've been artistic collaborators, professional colleagues, and personal friends.
Through a representative, Thurman declined INSIDER's request for comment. Representatives for Tarantino and Weinstein didn't immediately respond to INSIDER's requests for comment.
The overlooked people in this story are the producers, the agents, and the movie's insurers.
In her Instagram post, Thurman harshly condemned the Creative Arts Agency (CAA), which represented Thurman, and the producers Lawrence Bender, E. Bennett Walsh, and Weinstein.
"The cover up after the fact is unforgivable," she wrote. "For this, I hold Lawrence Bender, E. Bennett Walsh, and the notorious Harvey Weinstein solely responsible."
Thurman accused them of more than negligence, but of criminally conspiring to cover up harm and withhold justice by keeping the unedited video of the crash out of her hands. It was only published with Dowd's article after Tarantino dug it up from his archives at Thurman's request.
"They lied, destroyed evidence, and continue to lie about the permanent harm they caused and then chose to suppress," Thurman said. "The cover-up did have malicious intent, and shame on these three for all eternity."
After filming "Kill Bill," Tarantino stopped working with Walsh. He stopped working with Bender after 2009's "Inglourious Basterds." Bender recently produced "Hacksaw Ridge," directed by Mel Gibson, who remains unapologetic about his comments widely perceived as sexist and antisemitic.
CAA has also been widely accused of turning a blind eye at Weinstein's alleged misconduct. At least eight talent agents were told of Weinstein's alleged misconduct, according to the New York Times, and did nothing. The company later issued a statement apologizing for neglecting to protect its clients from Weinstein.
Though the CAA has enormous influence over Hollywood, it's easy to overlook. Its role in representing and managing actors, producers, directors, writers, and everyone else in the entertainment industry is relatively obscure to the outside world.
Tarantino told Deadline that Dowd didn't talk about Walsh and Bender in her story because the two "lawyered up and they seemed to keep themselves from being named in the piece" and had their names redacted from the article.
Times representative Eileen Murphy declined to comment on the matter. CAA and representatives for Bender and Walsh didn't immediately respond to INSIDER's request for comment.
Sign uphereto get INSIDER's favorite stories straight to your inbox.
As they continue to work on "Aladdin" and "Mulan," the network has also announced its plans to begin production on a live-action movie version of "Kim Possible."
"Kim Possible" ran on Disney Channel from 2002 to 2007 and followed the life of its titular character, Kim, as she attempted to deal with the usual, run-of-the-mill high school drama while also fighting against villains with a team of friends and allies by her side.
Because so many people grew up rooting for Kim and Team Possible, there are some pretty strong opinions about who should take on their roles. Disney hasn’t yet announced any casting choices, though it has said that original co-creators Mark McCorkle and Robert Schooley will be responsible for the script.
Petsch, who plays the cunning Cheryl Blossom on the CW show, hasn’t spoken out about any interest in taking on the role, but based on both her looks (including Kim Possible’s signature red hair) and her talent, she could definitely play the kick-butt character.
Kenton Duty as Ron Stoppable
Disney Channel viewers also pointed out that "Shake It Up!" actor Kenton Duty would be a perfect fit for the part of Possible's goofy blonde sidekick, Ron Stoppable.
As well as playing Gunther on the Disney Channel's "Shake It Up!," Duty has appeared in shows like "Lost" and "Fresh Off The Boat." A main role in the live-action film could propel his career to the next level.
Nolan Gould as the voice of Rufus
It's likely that Rufus, Ron's pet naked mole rat and a part-time rapper, will be created with the help of CGI or special effects. Trained naked mole rats aren't exactly found on most sets.
Nolan Gould, who plays Luke Dunphy on "Modern Family," has great comedic timing and would be around the same age as some of the proposed/aforementioned co-stars. And, luckily, Gould could help up Rufus' musical skills because he's also a skilled musician with a talent for the banjo.
Warning: There are minor spoilers ahead for "Fifty Shades Freed."
"Fifty Shades Freed" is in theaters Friday and it plays more like a big-budget Lifetime movie than the climax of a huge blockbuster franchise. It's not great, but somehow, that's also not a terrible thing.
If you're just catching up, "Freed" is the final movie in the "Twilight"-inspired "Fifty Shades of Grey" trilogy about two people who, realistically, would never wind up together.
There's billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) who has a penchant for BDSM. He winds up instantly falling for a naive college girl, Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson), who was a virgin before making googly eyes at Mr. Grey.
If you're seeing it opening weekend, that means one of three things: You're genuinely excited for it as a fan of the books, you're planning a ladies' night to make fun of the movie, or you're a man being dragged to one of these for the final time (bless your soul).
If you fit any of those descriptors, you're probably wondering what you're in store for this time around. Well, buckle up because the final installment of "Fifty Shades" is a wild ride.
The third movie starts off with Ana and Christian finally being wed. How is marriage treating the Greys? It's filled with everything from a surprise pregnancy to high-speed car chases, a kidnapping, and lots and lots of sex. You know, your usual marriage stuff. Seriously, the final movie in this trilogy has more twists and turns than a Lifetime movie.
What's Hot
If you're here for the sex (that's why people see these right?), then there's plenty of it. I've watched the first two movies (someone has to do it) and I'd say there are more revealing, sexier scenes than the previous films.
And guess what? It's not all plain vanilla. Sort of. It's not the hot-and-heavy BDSM we're promised, but there are handcuffs, blindfolds, ripped jeans, and, uh, ice cream. Because all foreplay should consist of licking globs of dairy off of your beloved, right? Sure!
After playing Anastasia Steele twice, Johnson nearly convinces me of some real emotion from some of her line delivery. A stand-out moment is when she chews out an architect who gets a bit too flirty with her husband.
I'm actually not sure whether to put this under something to love or hate about the movie, but a highlight of the film that got a lot of laughs at the screening I attended was Dornan sitting at a piano playing and singing along to Paul McCartney's "Maybe I'm Amazed." It was so bizarre and caught the entire theater off guard. You have to give some kudos to Dornan. He looked like he had a fun time doing it.
What's Not
If you went into this third movie hoping Mr. Grey would finally gift you with some frontal nudity, guess again. There's more of the male anatomy shown in "Gone Girl" than in "Fifty Shades Freed."
Look, if I'm a straight woman sitting through one of these movies, I want to see the guy nude, in addition to the woman. That's how it's described in the book and that's how I'd like to see it on screen. The most you get to see are Grey's pants resting very low on his hips.
Other than the mostly vanilla sex, you know how the rest goes. The dialogue is cheesy — but surprisingly maybe a bit less than previous films — and there are a lot of ridiculous laugh-out-loud scenes that should be anything but funny. One of the best? There's a scene early on where the two text while sitting right next to each other on their honeymoon.
There are also a few weirdly cut scenes and edits that make it look like some material didn't make it onscreen. For instance, there's a scene where Ana and Christian are going to sleep. It then cuts to Christian out of bed heading to the kitchen for a late-night snack. Ana is sitting in the dark eating a pint of ice cream and startles him. Christian tells her he was looking everywhere for her. How? You were just lying next to her in bed!
There's so much going on in this movie that it may have more twists and turns than your typical Lifetime movie. It's almost as if "Fifty Shades Freed" isn't sure what genre it wants to be. It goes from romance story to high-stakes thriller. For a moment when Ana is racing through the streets of Washington, I thought we were watching another one of Universal's franchises, "The Fast and the Furious." (If the gang drove Audis, Ana would make an OK addition!)
I forgot how ridiculous the plot of this book was that you may be surprised to learn that the movie actually omits some stuff from the book that would have made even crazier. (Ana's dad getting in a car crash, Christian's ex Elena having even more of a subplot.)
Also, Christian is not the guy you would ever want to bring home to your parents. The dude is so obsessed with Ana and overprotective that I want to hand her a giant red flag and tell her that's not acceptable.
Overall: Unless you're invested, skip it.
This is not a great movie, but you probably know that if you've watched the first two films and are seeing the third.
The screening I attended had fans mixed in with press. They knew what they were getting themselves into and loved every moment of it. People laughed throughout the entirety, but it was clear they didn't all hate it. They were laughing along with it and some even clapped at the film's end. (Or maybe those were the men who felt they were "freed" of "Fifty Shades.")
Some points go to Johnson for finally convincing me she believes in some of the dialogue she's given this time around.
If you're looking for some laughs or have a commitment to finishing the trilogy, then this is your film. You may even enjoy the mediocrity of it all. If not, say "Laters, baby," and wait another week for "Black Panther."
Grade: C- for providing some hearty laughs.
"Fifty Shades Freed" is in theaters February 9. You can watch a trailer for it below.
From the first few clips, it looks like a generic action movie.
Imagine if you saw that Venom teaser in the cinemas, not knowing what it was for and then that title card pops up at the end. I'd have thought I was going crazy. What the fuck was that? lmao
The short video features Hardy as Eddie Brock on a motorcycle, in a store, in either a hospital or a lab, and running through the woods. But the only glimpse of the future Venom is a quick clip of Riz Ahmed's character in possession of the symbiote. Once that merges with Brock, Venom is born.
Venom isn't new to the Marvel Universe and was even featured in "Spider-Man 3," so fans know what he generally looks like.
MoviePass said it bought $110 million worth of tickets in 2017.
The company also boasted that it helped generate close to $130 million in domestic box-office grosses for this year's Oscar-nominated movies.
Analyst Paul Dergarabedian said if MoviePass subscribers continue to give a bump to arthouse movies, it could lead to the company teaming with theaters and distributors to do dynamic pricing and special promotions.
MoviePass, the movie theater subscription service, announced on Wednesday that it had bought $110 million worth of tickets in 2017.
It's the latest highlight for the company that has disrupted the movie exhibition industry since it was bought by Helios and Matheson Analytics Inc. last year, and changed its monthly price to $9.95 per month for essentially unlimited theatergoing.
The company also boasted that it had helped generate $128.7 million in domestic box-office grosses for this year's Oscar-nominated movies in 2017 (via a "halo effect"). This includes the $110 million in ticket sales plus the "halo effect" of MoviePass members bringing non-members to those movies, along with friend recommendations, according to MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe. Roughly half of that boosted revenue went to Oscar-nominated movies.
According to MoviePass, five of the nine best picture Oscar nominees have benefited from its services. They include:
"Call Me by Your Name" at 8.79% of revenue generated "Lady Bird" at 6.18% "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" at 6.89% "The Shape of Water" at 7.87% "The Post" at 5.57%
Other Oscar-nominated titles also helped by MoviePass were "I, Tonya" (11.48%) and "The Square" (7.57%).
People in the movie industry told Business Insider that exhibitors, who of late have been unable to attract audiences to movie theaters outside of "Star Wars" and Marvel movies (2017 saw a 25-year low in movie attendance), should consider working with MoviePass. Along with a growing popularity, MoviePass has also generated a wealth of data that can be useful for theaters.
One executive compared what MoviePass is doing now to the early days of Netflix, with the only difference being that MoviePass is looking to sell the data it collects.
And then there's the consumer side: With a MoviePass subscription, someone is more motivated now to go seek out that arthouse movie that's getting all the Oscar buzz because it's "free" to go to the theater to see one extra film.
"With 9 Best Picture nominees all on everyone’s must-see list and seven of those in theaters, any service that can provide a cost effective way for the average moviegoer to indulge in all that moviegoing is going to be a hit with audiences," comScore box-office analyst Paul Dergarabedian told Business Insider.
Dergarabedian said if arthouse movies continue to have this kind of business through MoviePass, the sky's the limit in terms of attracting more audiences.
"This may open the door to utilizing new and innovative strategies involving perhaps dynamic pricing along with special promotions to drive more business toward specialized films," he said.
One negative review has broken the 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes for "Black Panther."
The review criticizes the film for not showing its hero beating up enough bad guys.
People are not happy.
On Thursday, "Black Panther" got its first and only negative critic review so far.
It was inevitable. Not everyone can like all the same movies (except "Paddington 2," which still has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes).
But "Black Panther" was so close to keeping a perfect score. Reviews came out on Tuesday, and the film had a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes for two days.
Critics have praised the movie for its villain, played by Michael B. Jordan, as well as its political statement and bold departure from the tired superhero-movie formula. A handful called it the best movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
But not everybody loved it. The first negative review came from Ed Power, a film critic who writes for the Irish Independent.
The reason? Power didn't think Black Panther beat up enough bad guys.
"What he doesn't get to do much of is jump around beating up bad guys," Power wrote. "That's a shame. Marvel has finally given us an African superhero. The hope surely was that he would be allowed do superheroic things."
Some people on Twitter criticized the critic for missing the point of the movie, which marks a significant moment in Hollywood and culture. They also questioned Power's taste.
This one negative reviewer of Black Panther gave it a rotten because T’Challa doesn’t beat up enough “bad guys”. Really my dude? pic.twitter.com/8fupQDhTpQ
— Jamie “Is February 16 2018 Here Yet?” Broadnax (@JamieBroadnax) February 8, 2018
This is the first negative review of Black Panther. This brave soul is going to be destroyed. Press F to pay respects. pic.twitter.com/tYK0VzcgIe
Quentin Tarantino apologized Thursday for defending filmmaker Roman Polanski in a 2003 interview with Howard Stern, in which he said the 13-year-old girl with whom Polanski had unlawful sex "was down with it."
Samantha Gailey, Polanski's victim, called Tarantino out after the interview resurfaced this week, saying of the director, "He was wrong. I bet he knows it."
Tarantino reportedly called Gailey to apologize and issued a statement on the matter.
Quentin Tarantino apologized Thursday for comments he made in a 2003 interview on The Howard Stern Show, in which he defended filmmaker Roman Polanski — who in 1977 pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a 13-year-old minor, Samantha Gailey.
On Thursday, Tarantino reportedly called Gailey to apologize and issued a statement to IndieWire, apologizing for his "cavalier remarks" in the interview.
"Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski," Tarantino wrote.
In the 2003 interview, Howard Stern asked Tarantino why Hollywood still embraced Polanski, "this mad man, this director who raped a 13-year-old."
"He didn’t rape a 13-year-old," Tarantino said in response. "It was statutory rape. ... He had sex with a minor. That’s not rape. To me, when you use the word rape, you’re talking about violent, throwing them down — it’s like one of the most violent crimes in the world. You can’t throw the word rape around. It’s like throwing the word 'racist' around. It doesn’t apply to everything people use it for."
When the show's cohost Robin Quivers added that Polanski was charged with giving drugs to Gailey, who "didn't want to have" sex with Polanski, Tarantino became more adamant in his defense, saying that Gailey "wanted to have it and dated the guy" and "was down with it."
Gailey called Tarantino out after the interview resurfaced this week, saying of the director's comments, "He was wrong. I bet he knows it."
Here is Tarantino's full apology statement:
"I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on “The Howard Stern Show” speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her. Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry.
So, Ms. Geimer, I was ignorant, and insensitive, and above all, incorrect.
I am sorry Samantha.
Quentin Tarantino"
Listen to the audio of the Howard Stern interview below:
Joaquin Phoenix is in talks to star in a Joker standalone movie, according to Variety.
Todd Phillips, director of "The Hangover," will direct the film.
As if a "Venom" movie without Spider-Man weren't weird enough, DC and Warner Bros. are gearing up for a Joker standalone movie — and Joaquin Phoenix is reportedly in talks to star as the Clown Prince of Crime.
That's right, Joaquin Phoenix — from such acclaimed films as "Her" and "The Master;" who is known for ignoring studio blockbusters; who pretended to retire from acting for a film that followed his fake retirement from acting —might be donning the pale face and green hair of Batman's most famous enemy.
Variety reports that the actor was director Todd Phillips' ("The Hangover") first choice and that he has agreed to the role.
Last year, it was announced that Warner Bros. and DC were developing a Joker origin film with Phillips directing, Martin Scorsese producing, and Scott Silver ("8 Mile") writing the screenplay. Leonardo DiCaprio, a frequent collaborator with Scorsese, was originally rumored to be eyed for the role. (In 2016, Jared Leto took on the role of the Joker in "Suicide Squad" to less-than-stellar reviews.)
In the wake of a troubling roll-out for their extended universe, including the poorly received "Justice League" and "Suicide Squad," and the massive success of "Wonder Woman,"Vulture reported last year that DC and Warner Bros. were rethinking their approach to the films.
The Joker origin movie would be the first movie under a new DC film series that focuses on solo projects rather than an interconnected universe. Meanwhile, Matt Reeves ("War for the Planet of the Apes") is still on board to direct a Batman solo movie that is involved in the larger DC extended universe.
A release date for the Joker movie has not been announced.
Based on the popular fictional story tale by Beatrix Potter, the film production of "Peter Rabbit" is scheduled to hit theaters on February 9. The new flick follows Peter as he and his gang of furry friends rally together to retrieve their garden back from Mr. McGregor next door.
"Peter Rabbit" is a half animated feature/half 3D action film, meaning that although some characters are real-life people — including Domhnall Gleeson as Thomas McGregor, Rose Byrne as Bea, and Sam Neill as Mr. McGregor — others are CGI created animals voiced by some of Hollywood’s best and brightest.
Before the film hits theaters, here is the voice cast of "Peter Rabbit" in real life.
James Corden as Peter Rabbit
Television host James Corden voiced the title role of Peter Rabbit in the film. Corden, who currently appears as host of "The Late Late Show," is also an experienced actor, singer, and performer.
In 2012, he won the TONY Award for best actor in a play for his performance in "One Man, Two Guvnors." On screen, Corden has also appeared in "Trolls,""The Emoji Movie,""Into The Woods," and "The Three Musketeers."
Daisy Ridley as Cottontail
The role of Cottontail, Peter Rabbit’s youngest sister, is voiced by English actress Daisy Ridley. Ridley is most well-known for her role as Rey in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi." She can also be seen in "Only Yesterday" and "Murder on the Orient Express."
Margot Robbie as Flopsy
Golden Globe nominee Margot Robbie joined the cast as the voice of Flopsy, Peter Rabbit’s awkward sister. Robbie is no stranger to the screen, having appeared in films including "Suicide Squad" as Harley Quinn, "The Legend of Tarzan" as Jane Porter, and "The Wolf of Wall Street" as Naomi Lapaglia.
Most recently, Robbie received critical acclaim for her portrayal of Tonya Harding in the hit film "I, Tonya"that garnered her Academy Award, Golden Globe, and Screen Actors Guild nominations.
As expected, the film has plenty of sex scenes but it also delivers some over-the-top moments like a high-speed car chase, a vengeful ex co-worker, and a lot of inane dialogue.
How cheesy is it? If you’re not going to see the movie, but still want to be in the know, INSIDER rounded up some of the film’s more ludicrous lines below that had fans and critics alike laughing at our screening. Most of the best — or worst, depending on how you look at it — lines go to Christian.
We then compared each line to its book equivalent to see how close it is and it's rather telling to see how much some of the lines were changed to frame Christian in a better light for audiences.
Context: Ana and Christian are on a beach for their Honeymoon and Ana is insistent on sunbathing topless much to Christian's dismay. Book equivalent: Ana never says this. Instead, she gets scolded heavily by Christian for falling asleep accidentally on her back.
2. Christian: "Tomorrow, I'm gonna glue this to you."
Context: Christian tells Ana he's going to glue her bathing suit top to her for defying him out on the beach by going topless. (He doesn't.) Book equivalent: None
3. Liz: "Mr. Roach wanted to welcome the new fiction editor." Ana: "Who's the new fiction editor?" Liz: "You are."
Context: Ana is stumped by something that is extremely obvious when she walks into her own office and sees a welcome message for the new fiction editor. This is not the first or last time this occurs in the movie. Book equivalent: None.
4. Christian: "I tried emailing you. It bounced. There's no Anastasia Grey at this IP."
Context: Christian barges into Ana's office upset that she didn't change her email address from Anastasia Steele to Anastasia Grey the moment she arrived back to work. Book equivalent: Christian doesn't show up to the office in person. Instead, he sends a curt, cold email.
"I sent the e-mail below and it bounced. And it's because you haven't changed your name. Something you want to tell me?"
5. Christian: "You got this through hard work and talent."
Context: Ana tries to tell Christian she was just given her new job because she's married to the man who owns the company. Christian tells her that's not true. (It is.) Book equivalent: It's nothing like this. Christian isn't even crazy about the idea of Ana working and makes it clear to her that she only got this job because of him.
Christian: Do you want to know why you got the job, Anastasia?" Ana: "What? What do you mean?" Christian: "The management here gave you Hyde's job to babysit. They didn't want the expense of hiring a senior executive when the company was mid-sale. They had no idea what the new owner would do with it once it passed into his ownership, and wisely, they didn't want an expensive redundancy. So they gave you Hyde's job to caretake until the new owner, namely me, took over."
6. Christian: "I want to know everything about him ... his shoe size."
Context: When Ana's old boss comes after her for revenge, Christian asks some of his staff to dig up everything they can muster on him. Book equivalent: None
7. One of Christian's security members: "He went to Princeton on scholarship. Graduated summa cum laude." Christian: "Smart guy."
Context: Christian gets some intel on Ana's ex-boss, Jack. He has a lot to say. Book equivalent:
Christian: "Won a scholarship to Princeton." "Princeton?" Kate's curiosity is piqued. "Yep. He's a bright boy." Christian shrugs.
8. "This is where it starts. Babies mean no sex."
Context: A drunk Christian is worried a baby will steal all of Ana's attention away from him once it comes. Book equivalent:
Christian: And so it begins. I've heard about this." Ana: "Heard about what?" Christian: "Babies mean no sex."
9. Ana to Christian: "Babies happen when people have sex and we have a lot of it!"
Context: Ana tells Christian he needs to grow up and be a responsible adult. If he's not, she'll leave him with their child. Book equivalent: None.
10. Ana to Christian: "I know you think you're gonna be a really sh--ty dad, but you're not."
Context: Ana attempts to give Christian some reassurance about parenthood. Book equivalent:
Christian: "I'm scared I'll be a sh--ty father." Ana: "Christian, do you think for one minute I'd let you be a sh--ty father?"
Over the course of 90 years of Oscars, plenty of worthy films have been overlooked in the best-picture race.
We listed the 17 best ones, based on their composite critic scores from reviews aggregator Metacritic.
When it comes to the Oscars, we all remember the shocking and infamous best-picture upsets— like "Crash" over "Brokeback Mountain," or "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan."
But there are also some iconic films that never even got nominated.
Many lauded films have lost out on a best-picture nomination, including 2017's "The Florida Project" in this year's line-up.
We turned to reviews aggregator Metacritic to get a list of the top movies without best-picture Oscar nominations, according to critics. These Academy-snubbed movies span from foreign masterpieces like "A Separation" to animated films like "Wall-E."
And there's a lot of Hitchcock.
Here are the 17 best films not nominated for best picture, based on Metacritic scores:
Richard Linklater closed out his "Before" trilogy with this 2013 film starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy as lovers who reconnect by chance after many years. It was only nominated for best adapted screenplay.
16. "Toy Story" (1995)
Score: 95
Number of reviews: 26
The Oscar for best animated feature was first awarded in 2002, so "Toy Story" missed out on that, as well. However, it was nominated for best original screenplay, best original song, and best original score.
15. "Wall-E" (2008)
Score: 95
Number of reviews: 39
"Wall-E," about a garbage-collecting robot, was nominated for six Oscars, including best musical score and original screenplay. And while it couldn't pull off a best-picture nomination, it did win best animated feature. The Academy expanded the number of best-picture nominees the following year.
The movie theater subscription service reached the milestone less than a month after getting to 1.5 million.
MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe says the company will be profitable at between 3 million and 4 million subscribers.
Another day, another milestone for the company that is disrupting the movie theater business.
MoviePass announced on Thursday that it had exceeded 2 million subscribers. This is less than a month after the company announced it had hit 1.5 million subscribers.
The app has become the talk of the movie business since the summer, when Helios and Matheson Analytics took majority ownership of the company and drastically dropped the monthly fee to a shocking $9.95 per month (to see one movie per day).
Some in the industry believe theater exhibitors should welcome MoviePass with open arms as the data its collecting (and selling to exhibitors and studios) will only help the entire industry know what today's moviegoers want to see. But others aren't so sure.
AMC, the world's largest theater chain, has been playing hardball with MoviePass and not giving it discounted tickets. This likely led to MoviePass recently dropping 10 AMC locations off the app.
But it doesn't seem to have slowed down the growth.
Here's a look at its staggering raise since it changed its monthly subscription price to $9.95:
And though the major question around the industry is how in the world MoviePass is going to continue to stay in business while paying so much for tickets, MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe recently gave The Hollywood Reporter a blunt answer of when they should become profitable.
"We figure between 3 million and 4 million subscribers," he said.
In regards to other means to monetize the business, Lowe added:
"We’re signing five contracts a week with independent theaters where we get a lower cost on tickets and that will ultimately lead to a piece of concession sales, and we have a team in L.A. striking deals with studios."
When asked how much cash they currently have to operate, he answered: "Plenty."
At the rate MoviePass is growing, the company will hit 3 to 4 million subscribers in a few months, but some industry insiders have expressed doubts to Business Insider about whether MoviePass has a path to profitability without discounted tickets from the big chains like AMC and Regal.
We set out to name the most famous movie in every state — a challenging and subjective endeavor. Some states were more obvious than others. While there's no place like Kansas, New York has inspired directors from Martin Scorsese to Rob Reiner.
To pick the most famous, we evaluated the state's prominence in the movie and considered whether it was filmed in that state or not. The movie's lifetime gross, its critical acclaim, and testimonials by our geographically diverse staff also influenced our decisions.
A previous version of this article was written by Melia Robinson and Frank Pallotta. Additional reporting by Melissa Stanger, Ian Phillips, and Kirsten Acuna.
Even though "Forrest Gump" took Tom Hanks from Vietnam to the White House, home was always the fictional town of Greenbow, Alabama. Plus, Forrest was an All-American for the Alabama Crimson Tide.
ALASKA: "Into the Wild" (2007)
"Into the Wild" follows Chris McCandless, played by Emile Hirsch, as he heads to Alaska to find his place in the world. The journey would bring McCandless to many places, but his ultimate destination was the Land of the Midnight Sun.
ARIZONA: "Raising Arizona" (1987)
The Coen brothers' cult classic follows H.I. McDunnough and his wife as they attempt to have a baby, either naturally or through kidnapping. The Coens made the pair all the more real by incorporating a vernacular that Joel called"a mixture of local dialect and a vocabulary we imagined from the likely reading materials of the characters."
People in the movie industry told Business Insider that exhibitors, who of late have been unable to attract audiences to movie theaters outside of "Star Wars" and Marvel movies (2017 saw a 
