Archive for February, 2012

Taylor Kitsch Takes Aim During ‘MTV First: John Carter’

Kitsch will bring a brand-new clip to MTV at 7:56 p.m. ET Thursday, followed by a 30-minute chat on MTV.com.
By Kevin P. Sullivan, with reporting by Josh Horowitz





Taylor Kitsch

Photo: MTV News

Interviewing one of this summer’s biggest stars, like, for instance, Taylor Kitsch, can be difficult. Asking the important questions while he’s shooting hockey pucks at you is an entirely different story.

The star of “John Carter” and “Battleship” took aim at MTV News’ Josh Horowitz while also taking your questions as a part of “MTV First: John Carter.” Though he’s known for his work on the football field in “Friday Night Lights,” Kitsch originally hails from the Great White North, so hockey is in his blood.

That isn’t a problem until you’re the one playing goalie. During their interview, Horowitz strapped himself in and faced down Kitsch for a no-holds-barred round of movie questions and hockey.

But before all that, Kitsch will premiere a never-before-seen clip from “John Carter” on MTV. You’ll have to tune in Thursday, March 1, at 7:56 p.m. ET to see the brand-new footage. Immediately afterward, on MTV.com, Kitsch will answer fan-submitted questions while shooting hockey pucks at his interviewer. It should be a good time.

It’s going to be an epic showdown on the ice, and it’s all going to take place on MTV and MTV.com.

In “John Carter,” Kitsch plays a Confederate officer transported to Barsoom, or Mars, as it’s more commonly referred to by humans. There, Carter finds himself embroiled in an epic war between two races for the fate of the planet.

The film will be released March 9 in digital 3-D and IMAX 3-D.

Catch Taylor Kitsch Thursday, March 1, on MTV at 7:56 p.m. ET, when he’ll debut an exclusive, never-before-seen clip from “John Carter.” Then head over to MTV.com for our 30-minute chat with Rudd and Aniston.

Catch Taylor Kitsch on MTV at 7:56 p.m. ET Thursday, when he’ll debut an exclusive, never-before-seen clip from “John Carter.” Then head over to MTV.com for our 30-minute chat with Kitsch.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Dempsey scores as US beats Italy for first time (AP)

AP – American players applauded each other and their fans. Their supporters cheered loudly and proudly waved the red, white and blue.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Dempsey scores as US beats Italy for first time (AP)

AP – American players applauded each other and their fans. Their supporters cheered loudly and proudly waved the red, white and blue.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Dempsey scores as US beats Italy for first time (AP)

AP – American players applauded each other and their fans. Their supporters cheered loudly and proudly waved the red, white and blue.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Dempsey scores as US beats Italy for first time (AP)

AP – American players applauded each other and their fans. Their supporters cheered loudly and proudly waved the red, white and blue.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Oscars 2012: Red Carpet Highlights

Oscars 2012: Red Carpet Highlights

Join MTV News’ Josh Horowitz and Christina Garibaldi for all the glitz, glamour and mayhem of the Oscars red carpet.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Oscars 2012: Just Like Grammys, But With More Leg

Why the contest between the year’s two biggest awards shows wasn’t really much of a contest at all, in Bigger Than the Sound.
By James Montgomery





Angelina Jolie presents at the 84th annual Academy Awards

Photo: Kevin Winter/ Getty Images

There was a wardrobe malfunction, some racy fashion, a bit of onstage inebriation, a little pre-show punking and even a Justin Bieber sighting … and none of it was enough to spare Sunday’s 84th Academy Awards from being called “as bland as oatmeal” and a “badly paced bore-fest.”

Those criticisms may or may not have been deserved; after all, the three-hour-and-something telecast certainly lagged in spots, most of Billy Crystal’s shtick seemed to have been vacuum-sealed during the latter days of the Carter administration and the most memorable moments centered on supposed nipple sips and Angelina Jolie’s right leg. And, shoot, it’s not like there was a whole lot of suspense involved with the show itself; everyone knew “The Artist” was a lock to win Best Picture, and, lo and behold, it did just that.

Still, there were highlights— Emma Stone’s charming (and well-written) presentation bit opposite Ben Stiller, Octavia Spencer’s gob-smacked Best Supporting Actor acceptance speech (and frequent near spills beforehand), Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis’ cymbal-smashing stunt — but overall, consensus seems to hold that this year’s Oscar telecast was too bloated, too straight-laced and too self-reverent. In other words, it was just like every other Oscar telecast, only with accidental nudity and some Cirque du Soleil thrown in at the last minute.

Which is why, after sifting through the aftermath of the show itself, I can’t help but notice the similarities between the Oscars and the 54th Grammy Awards, which unspooled earlier this month and were greeted with the same basic criticisms immediately afterward: feckless host, lifeless pacing, predictable results. And while comparing Billy Crystal to LL Cool J is basically a futile endeavor (Crystal was funnier, but LL bested him when it came to prayer-leading and headwear), it’s not exactly a stretch to call both telecasts long-winded, or make the connection between “The Artist” and Adele.

Of course, some (like, uh, me) have already floated the notion that the Oscars and the Grammys are basically the same show anyway — both are slightly silly, thoroughly incomprehensible exercises in self congratulation — though, for what it’s worth, I actually enjoyed Sunday’s Oscars way more than this year’s Grammys. I thought the former was a better show, more creatively staged, and certainly more adept playing the hand it was dealt.

To wit: Producers went into Sunday’s Oscarcast having already weathered the Brett Ratner/Eddie Murphy bad-press fiesta, and knowing that a) this year’s crop of nominated-films weren’t exactly compelling, b) a (largely) silent, black-and-white film was the odds-on favorite, c) their host was born in 1948, and d) they were opposite the NBA All-Star Game. Forget about “cool” … about the best thing the Oscars could hope for was “classy,” and in that regard, they definitely delivered.

On the other hand, heading into the Grammys, the presumptive favorite had also sold nearly 7 million albums (about as close as a consensus as you can get these days), one of the most-popular hip-hop artists on the planet was the night’s most-nominated act (that would be Kanye West), and three of the world’s biggest pop stars (Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Rihanna) were all in attendance. Oh, and then, on the night before the show itself, Whitney Houston — one of the greatest singers of all time, and a talent whose entire career was basically interwoven with the history of the award — unexpectedly died. If anything, the show was set up to be one for the ages.

And yet, it largely wasn’t. Sure, Adele soared and scored, but everyone else in the previous paragraph was basically an afterthought. And the tribute to Houston, featuring a very game Jennifer Hudson, was buried in the telecast and largely forgotten by the following morning. Combine all that with an odd Nicki Minaj performance, that whole “EDM” tribute and a thorough bungling of the annual “In Memoriam” piece, and the Grammys were a debacle in just about every conceivable way (except for Dave Grohl, of course, who was awesome as always).

So if these two awards shows really are so similar, well, for one year at least, they weren’t. The Oscars definitely out-gunned, out-shone, and even managed to out-Grammy the Grammys themselves. There was a slight spirit of irreverence (Angelina’s leg show, Sacha Baron Cohen’s ash-spilling stunt, the boozy “Bridesmaids” salute to Marty Scorsese) that permeated throughout the buttoned-up proceedings. They even got Justin Bieber involved, and the last time I checked, he was a musician (or at least that’s what people tell me). Both certainly warranted criticisms, though perhaps that’s just the case with all awards shows these days: They are largely antithetical to the way we operate, after all: throwback, three-hour telecasts where brevity is encouraged but never really enforced. They are practically constructed to be deconstructed by bloggers the following morning, painfully un-hip, unapologetically huge and forced to appeal to the broadest of demographics. And yet (or probably because of all that), they routinely deliver viewership — this year’s Grammys were watched by 39 million folks, the largest audience since 1984 — which means they’re not going anywhere anytime soon … if ever.

So if we’re stuck with them, we might as well come to appreciate them. Neither the Oscars nor the Grammys are ever going to be perfect … and this year, neither were. But when comparison is necessary (and given the scope of both, basically unavoidable), the Oscars came out on top, by a large margin. They did more with less, and did so with style to spare. And less Nicki Minaj. Then again, perhaps all of this just begs a larger question: Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some alternatives out there? I wouldn’t hold my breath for an answer, so in the mean time, I’m left to compare one bloviated, bloated awards show to another, even if they don’t even merit comparison.

What awards show did you enjoy more this year: the Grammys or the Oscars? Leave your comment below!

The MTV Movies team has the 2012 Oscars covered! Keep it locked at MTV.com for updates on the night’s big winners and the best red-carpet fashion.

Related Videos

Related Photos

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Oscars 2013 Predictions: Our Picks For Next Year

Because it’s never too early to start the wild speculation.
By Kevin P. Sullivan





Martin Freeman in “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”

Photo: James Fisher/ New Line Productions

Well, everyone, that’s it for our 2012 Oscars coverage. It’s been a great awards season. Can’t wait to see you next year.



Hello, everyone, and welcome to MTV News’ 2013 Oscars coverage. It seems like just yesterday that “The Artist” won big and took home Best Picture, but who cares about that movie anymore? That’s old news.

This year is sure to be a huge year at the movies, and the nominees for next year’s Oscars are already lining up. MTV News has your first look at the likely nominees for the Academy Awards based on everything we know about the Oscars.

Best Supporting Actor
A rare, wide-open race this late in the game, Best Supporting Actor nominations could go to any number of great actors who were not great enough to be considered for the lead. The one lock at this point has to be Christoph Waltz for his work in Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained.” Waltz won an Academy Award for playing essentially the same character in “Inglourious Basterds,” but this time he’s a good guy. What could be bad about that?

Best Actress
Here’s a category already locked in a dead heat, with a wide variety of potential nominees vying for one of the five spots. The real shock here could be young Quvenzhané Wallis in “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” who won over audiences at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and the Academy will jump at any opportunity to honor a child actor. Other potential nominees include Sandra Bullock in “Gravity,” a largely solo performance from a previous winner, and Keira Knightley in “Anna Karenina” because it’s Keira Knightley in a Joe Wright-directed costume drama. Also, either Charlize Theron or Noomi Rapace could earn nominations for “Prometheus,” depending on whose face doesn’t get eaten first.

Best Actor
For Best Actor, expect to see a lot of familiar faces and perhaps one familiar face that actually belongs to someone else. I’m speaking, of course, about Joseph Gordon-Levitt in “Looper.” It’s unclear whether JGL will be in a more supporting role, but early reports peg his prosthetic-enhanced performance as a young Bruce Willis as a career-best. Also, the Academy loves an actor in makeup. You might see the rest of the category filled out with award favorites because they’re award favorites, like Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln”), Philip Seymour Hoffman (“The Master”), Brad Pitt (“Cogan’s Trade”), and a second nomination for John Hawkes (“The Surrogate”).

Best Picture
The 2013 Best Picture category should shake out like filling out the cast of a heist movie. Everyone has a unique role to play. You have the musical (“Les Miserable”) and the obligatory Tolkien nominee (“The Hobbit”). There’s the populist Ben Affleck film (“Argo”) and the critic-loved Ben Affleck film (“Untitled Terrence Malick Project’). Plus, you need a current affairs film (“Untitled International Thriller,” formerly known as “Kill Bin Laden”) and a movie everyone loved but will never win (“The Dark Knight Rises”). That should just about do it.

Leave your predictions for the 2013 Oscars in the comments section!

The MTV Movies team has the 2012 Oscars covered! Keep it locked at MTV.com for updates on the night’s big winners and the best red-carpet fashion.

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

‘Hunger Games’ And ‘Twilight’ Oddly Absent From Oscars

‘Harry Potter,’ meanwhile, was shut out of its two nominations — but couldn’t the YA franchises’ stars get involved?
By Kara Warner





Jennifer Lawrence in “The Hunger Games”

Photo: Lionsgate

There’s still a lot to discuss and digest from the 2012 Oscars, from the glitz and glamour, to the surprises, snubs and glaring omissions.

Speaking to the snubs and omissions category, MTV News couldn’t help but notice that, for an awards show designed to appeal to all movie fans, three of the most buzz-worthy film franchises of the last decade were mostly left out of the festivities: “Harry Potter,” “Twilight” and “The Hunger Games.”

This is not a story about the lack of nominations for the films; we’ve already complained about the “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2″ shutout and “The Hunger Games” hasn’t even been released yet. But why not involve a few of these noteworthy films’ castmembers in the telecast? We consulted a few experts on the subject.

“I think this year is more glaring than most, for sure,” said Entertainment Weekly senior writer Sara Vilkomerson. “Personally, I’m surprised there was not a lot of ‘Potter’ stuff; that was a very lucrative franchise for a lot of people and really critically acclaimed, the last movie. I feel like there was a definite lack of youth. I know in my house, when the ‘Hunger Games’ ad came on, it felt a little more exciting than certain parts of the telecast.”

“The Academy obviously went out of their way to acknowledge the lack of youth appeal — but a handful of jokes in Billy Crystal’s video montage and a little token Bieber isn’t enough to fix it,” added Brooke Tarnoff, senior editor for NextMovie.com. “It’s a hard line to walk, enticing younger viewers but still voting with integrity. Maybe the answer is expanding Academy membership to more young actors who will be able to choose ‘young people movies’ with a clear conscience.”

“I’m a house divided on the Oscars and the youth audience,” said Shylah Addante, who runs “Hunger Games” fan site Down With the Capitol. “On one hand, as a card-carrying fangirl, I absolutely understand the outrage about last night’s ‘Potter’ snub. For a franchise that has touched the hearts and minds, not to mention the wallets, of so many people around the world for a decade, the absence of Oscar gold left me feeling like the Academy was full of Dementors. On the other hand, the fiercely proud side of me wants a film to win an Oscar because it deserves it — not because it’s a tentpole franchise or because it made one bajillion dollars worldwide. If ‘Hugo’ was any lesson to young Oscar viewers, it is that, in the right hands, a children’s/young adult book can become a film worthy of major awards.”

“It’s a very, very hard line to teeter on. I have full sympathy for the people who are trying to organize it,” Vilkomerson said. “It just shows how challenging it is to put on a really good Oscar telecast that makes everyone happy, that hits everything that everybody wants. It’s a hard, hard show to put on. Maybe next year, ‘The Hunger Games’ will be nominated and that will be the easiest way to interlace these two worlds.”

Addante agreed with next year’s potential for “The Hunger Games.” ” ‘Potter’ and ‘Twilight’ may not have wooed the Academy, but ‘Hunger Games,’ with its decorated cast and crew, contemporary social and political messages and dramatic plot, may just have what it takes to finally give some critical legitimacy to young adult series and their fans.”

The MTV Movies team has the 2012 Oscars covered! Keep it locked at MTV.com for updates on the night’s big winners and the best red-carpet fashion.

Related Videos

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Daytona 500 start pushed back to 7 p.m. Monday (AP)

AP – Are you ready for some racing — some Monday night racing?

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon