Here are some snaps of Keira Knightley whilst filming William Monahan’s upcoming London Boulevard in London.

The film tells the story of an ex-con who becomes involved with a reclusive actress.

(photo source = Bauer-Griffin)

The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce have announced next year’s Hollywood Walk of Fame honorees.

Motion picture honorees will be Russell Crowe, Adam Sandler, James Cameron, John Cusack, Colin Firth, Gale Anne Hurd, Alan Menken, Randy Newman, Emma Thompson and Mark Wahlberg.

The TV honorees are Bill Maher, Chris Berman, Jon Cryer, Peter Graves, Jimmy Kimmel, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Sam Waterston.

Recording artists to be recognized are Ringo Starr, Bryan Adams, the Funk Brothers, Alan Jackson, Chaka Khan, Van Morrison, Marco Antonio Solis, ZZ Top and the late Roy Orbison.

Andrea Bocelli and the Cirque du Soleil’s Guy Liberte will represent live performance and theater.

These all seem fairly well deserved, but Mark Wahlberg, really.  I guess he’s famous, but the only good thing he’s ever done was Boogie Nights, and by all accounts he was a total dick on set.  At least that’s the way John C. Reilly tells it.

[source = The Hollywood Reporter]

Another day and another set of photos of Kristen Stewart and Joan Jett together for work on The Runaways.  I have to say that I like them spending so much time together ‘cos it can really only be a good thing for the movie.  Hopefully it’ll turn out to be another great starring vehicle for Kristen.

I kinda like the t-shirt she’s wearing too.  I wonder if everyone working on the flick gets one.

Paris Hilton is one such person.  I think she’s very attractive, and she seems to have some money, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why she’s famous.  She doesn’t appear to do anything.

But who am I kidding, if I could live the life she does I’d do it in a second, so good for her.

Anyway, these are snaps of Paris and her family as they arrive to have dinner at Mr Chow in Beverly Hills.

Click the images for a larger view.

Jason Biggs

According to Nikke Finke, this is the younger-skewing sitcom written by Mitchell Hurwitz and Jim Vallely, and starring Jason Biggs, that CBS thinks could do well paired with The Big Bang Theory. “The network is happy with the way it came in.” Good thing, too, because this is CBS’ biggest commitment and there’s a giant penalty. Five scripts are already in.

I’m not gonna bother with a full review of the script because frankly it was pretty terrible.  Call me a stickler, but I think a sitcom should actually be funny, and this one isn’t.

I’m sure the casting of Jason Biggs will go towards attracting viewership should it make the schedule, and I’m equally sure that it will appeal to those less demanding of their sitcoms, but for me it’s an utter failure.  It’s almost like the exact opposite of Arrested Development, not only is it not funny, but the actual family dynamic of the characters is reversed.  They’re all in love with each other, caring, supportive, and kissy. Yeah, that’s right, the whole pilot is about kissing between brother and brother, son and mother, and son and father, and none of it is funny.

Now I know you shouldn’t judge a show by it’s pilot episode, it should be given time to grow and adapt, but my standards for comedy are a little higher than most peoples and the script for Community (reviewed here), has shown that a good sitcom can be written right from the get-go.  I often wonder why exec’s can’t fill their lineup with top-to-bottom quality shows, maybe it’s because not all of the pilots are good, or maybe it’s because they choose shitty ones over better ones, but in the end it’s just disheartening to think that this show will probably make it onto the airwaves and garner better ratings than quality sitcoms like The Office or Parks and Recreation.  After Sit Down, Shut Up and now this, it’s seeming more and more likely that Hurwitz’s success on Arrested Development was fluke more than anything else.

Final Grade: D

Who's the leader?

Only next weeks double episode to go, and then no more Lost until January 2010.  That’s a hell of a wait, so these remaining 3 hours had better be good.

With that in mind, I hate to say it, but I’m actually disappointed after an episode of Lost.  That’s not to say that this episode was particularly bad, just not what I expected it to be.

See, there had been rumblings in the last few weeks that this episode, titled “Follow the Leader“, was going to be a Richard Alpert-centric episode.  So naturally I got my hopes up and was ultimately let down.

I guess a fitting parallel would be how I got my hopes up about Star Wars: Episode 1 and was let down by the final product.  It’s no fault of the show, after all, I was the one who decided to read up about upcoming episodes in order to find out who the subject of each one was, but I’m nonetheless disappointed.  The funny thing is, there’s no real reason for me to be disappointed in it, other than it not being entirely Richard-centric, there was actually a decent amount to like.

Pros:

• Phil growing some balls
• Sawyer and Juliet in the sub, only to be interrupted by Kate
• The underwater swim into the tunnels
• Sayid’s reappearance
• Locke’s newfound confidence
• “So I can kill him”

Cons:

• Kate’s attitude
• Not enough Richard/no Richard story
• Sawyer and Juliet leaving on the sub
• The fact that it was a moving-the-pieces episode in preparation for next week

Final Grade: B-

I went into the film knowing next to nothing about the plot, so I’m not going to give too much away here in case anyone’s actually reading my blog, but I will highlight some of my personal pros and cons of the film.

Pros:

• A great reboot that sets the stage for future films without the need for retcon.
• The fight on the drill
• Brilliant choices for the main roles
• Eric Bana as a kick ass villain
• The special effects were absolutely amazing
• So was the score
• The whole scope of it is something that I’ve never seen in a Star Trek film before

Cons:

• The birth of Kirk sequence (that specifically, not the whole opening)
• The little alien hanging around with Scotty (it reminded me of an Ewok)
• The standing ovation for Kirk at the end

Final Grade: A-

So, the script I have for TOY STORY 3 is an early draft which has apparently been discarded for a completely new story.  I think with the standards that Pixar has set for itself with it’s catalogue of films, that this is actually a good thing.  That’s not to say that the story isn’t any good, I just don’t think it matches up to the level of quality that we all expect from a Pixar flick.

The basic plot is that Andy is having his room redecorated, so some of the toys are left at home (in another room I presume), and a group of the more popular ones are taken with Andy while he stays the night at his grandmothers spooky house.  The story then takes on a murder/mystery vibe, with each toy disappearing one by one under the belief that Andy will only have room in his new room for two toys.  Jealousy and distrust play a big part in the story, along with the introduction of two sock monkeys, Hee-Hee and Gladiola.

Pros:

• The opening train scene
• The flirtation between Jessie and Buzz
• “The Deadly Death House of Death”
• Let’s Get Physical recurring gag
• “I shrank in the dryer”

Cons:

• The almost constant element of jealousy
• Buzz losing his head
• The Star Wars compactor gag (it felt like a pop culture reference you’d see in a Shrek film)
• The whole garbage truck/farm truck sequence (it felt too similar to other scenes in the previous films)

Final Grade: C-