Exhibition »

This is a tale of the girl who cried wolf vampire...

TMZ is reporting that the 17-year-old girl who claimed that a fellow moviegoer bit her neck while exiting a screening of New Moon was, as they put it, "lying through her teeth." Erin Westrate gave police her story of the so-called bite, but a witness came forward to say that they saw her leave the theater and saw no biting. After grilling the teen, she confessed: "the alleged culprit was simply kissing her on the neck at the time and she was a 'willing participant.'" What possessed her to make up this extravagant lie is beyond me. Is she an English literature fiend who wanted to play on the never-cry-wolf idea after a movie with wolves and vamps?

Detective Lieutenant Timothy LaVigne says that the teen could now face criminal charges, and if this is all true and she did lie -- I say bring her down. Women have a tough enough time as it is when they are assaulted, crying wolf doesn't help matters.

From the original post:

We keep hearing about the annoying Twilight Saga fans and their ever-loyal fandom, but there are other crazies coming out of the woodwork. An ABC affiliate in Michigan reports that while watching New Moon at the Norton Shores theater, a teen girl was harassed and bitten by an old perv while watching the vampire/werewolf blockbuster.

It seems that in the midst of a screen full of vamps and wolves, an old, short, white dude believed to be about 45 years old starting throwing "sexual comments" at a 17-year-old girl sitting in front of him. But he didn't just assault her with words. When the movie was over, he decided to give her a taste of the "real deal" and allegedly bit the girl on the neck (lucky for her, he didn't break the skin). Right now, the perv is at large, and the police are asking anyone with any information to contact the Norton Shores Police Department.

Would you have liked Terminator Salvation more if Moon Bloodgood's topless bit hadn't been cut out? Would you have been more likely to see the movie in theaters if you knew there was a flash of boob? Probably not, according to a recent psychological study, which looked at 914 movies released between 2001 and 2005 to determine if sex indeed sells at the cinema.

The results of the study say no: "sex and nudity do not, on the average, boost box office performance, earn critical acclaim or win major awards." Well, the research did show that the Golden Globes are more favorable to movies with sex scenes than the Oscars, which might make sense given that many foreign moviegoers (particularly those in Europe) are more accepting of nudity than American viewers, though it's unlikely the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is thinking about sex while determining its nominees.

In contrast, the study actually showed that sex sells even less outside the U.S., which may be because a number of international markets, such as those in Asia and the Middle East, are more censoring of such content.

New York's Museum of Modern Art is hosting a retrospective for Tim Burton that spans the artist's career so far, from doodles on paper, Polaroids, sketches, full-blown paintings, sculptures, and, of course, movies. The MoMA will be showing 14 of his films, and Burton himself curated a collection of films that inspired him, aptly titled "The Lurid Beauty of Monsters." Burton was on hand to talk to the press, comparing his joy at the show to "an out-of-body experience." He said, "In my life, I've had many surreal, great things happen -- meeting my idol, Vincent Price; being able to make movies; and this one, I think, tops it in the sense that it's the most amazing and surreal, and that's what you look for in life, is these great and incredible [experiences]."

The MoMA's Ron Magliozzi, Assistant Curator, and Jenny He, Curatorial Assistant, Department of Film, worked feverishly to uncover work from the artist's 27-year career, even touring his house to find art for the show. Burton also created seven new statues for the exhibit.

The show opens November 22nd and ends April 26th, 2010. You can see a selection of the art on display in the gallery below.

Cinematical: What's the most personal piece in the collection for you?

Tim Burton: Well, it could be any of a number because I noticed the ones that freaked me out so much that I can't look at, which is a lot of it, I think it's a lot of that early stuff. Stuff that I didn't even know I had. I don't even know where they found some of that really early stuff. 'Cause it's, as they [Ron Magliozzi and Jenny He] pointed out, it was all just kind of personal and private, so there's a lot of that in there. Mainly, the early stuff, I'd say. Stuff that – I don't know where you actually found stuff that I actually got decent grades on! Because I don't remember that at all! [Laughs]

You think you're sick of seeing Twilight-centric posts on blogs? Imagine living in Forks, the poor Washington town hugging Olympic National Park which is the setting for the Twilight books and films (though much of it is filmed in Vancouver). As popularity in the series increases, fans flock to the small town to get a peek at the real thing, which means sparkly vamps all the time, everywhere. One day, you're enjoying your forest-thick hometown, and the next you're the focus of fangirl fervor -- your poor Chamber of Commerce having to field questions about safe, vampire-free camping spots.

The Wrap has published a post looking into how the town is dealing with its newfound fame -- we're talking an increase from 8,000 yearly tourists to 67,000 -- and, subsequently, the copyright issues. We all know how far some studios can take copyright protection -- from bearing down on those who make any amount of money on a franchise's fame to fans who just like to make videos and computer wallpaper -- so of course, the big C would become an issue when a town cashes in on their new fame.

But so far? The studio ain't biting! Of course, this is a special case -- you can't exactly expect a town not to cash in or appease the masses descending on the area all of a sudden (not to mention the town has been hit real hard by the recession). If they have to deal with the fans, they should get something out of it, right? Empty storefronts have been replaced with Twilight-themed fare, and as we recently learned, a Volterra-themed restaurant is in the works.

One could hope this would change some of the other studios' iron-hand attitude towards copyright, but I doubt it. What do you think? How far should Forks be able to cash in on the situation before they've taken it too far?

Dear Alamo Drafthouse or any other movie theater that serves food with movies,

I just saw Fantastic Mr. Fox and afterwards I realized something that no one seems to have mentioned so far: This is totally a foodie movie. It's not foodie like Julie & Julia, where the characters are baking desserts and decapitating ducks and invoking the spirit of Julia Child ... but food is a central part of the story . The three main bad guys each are rumored to only consume a single type of food or drink, and Mr. Fox is obsessed with getting his paws on some of these delicacies. There are feasts, there are large plates of French toast and desserts, there is a significant cider incident -- in short, this movie is awash in food and drink.

Therefore, I strongly suggest that you offer a feast to accompany some screenings of Fantastic Mr. Fox. It took me days to recuperate from Alamo's feast for The Simpsons Movie, but boy was it worthwhile. Alamo does feasts for all kinds of fancy foodie movies, and any other movie it likes ... this is one I hope is not forgotten, even though it is opening in Austin around Thanksgiving, when people have turkey feasts on the brain.

A quiet storm has been brewing on the Internet over the ethics of spoilers, all in response to The Fourth Kind. It started when Cole Abaius at Film School Rejects took arms against the myriad of bloggers, critics, and tweeters who had been relishing in discussing the veracity of Universal's new alien abduction movie. His post was in part a reaction to a new column started at SciFi Squad that addresses the actual science behind science fiction, which is a perfect podium for an article titled What's The Real Truth Behind The Fourth Kind?

Long story short, Cole feels that to address the claims of the movie (whether or not it is indeed "based on real events") is to spoil the director's vision of how the movie should be seen, and even though you're not spoiling anything that happens during the film's run time, you're ruining the experience. Obviously I disagree. I think there are people who actively want to know whether or not its documentary footage is actual footage or the flights of fancy of screenwriters and producers. It's a fine line to walk, that's for sure, but ultimately the question is whether or not such discussion undermines the suspension of disbelief the director clearly intended to be there. It's an issue Cole and I have been going back on forth on for a few days, but now there's a twist involved, proving even further that the situation surrounding The Fourth Kind is quite unique.

Universal just settled a lawsuit filed against the studio by the Alaska Press Club for the news stories The Fourth Kind PR department manufactured under the guise of being legitimate news articles from the Alaskan Press. So the question I present to you is, are fake news stories crossing the line?

Indie movie lovers of the greater Los Angeles area, take note of a wonderful gem from this year's SXSW festival that's coming your way. Make-Out with Violence is an angsty teenage zombie horror comedy that I caught last year at the Oxford Film Festival, and tonight – November 12 – it screens in Los Angeles. For free!

Ok, technically it's screening in Alhambra. But this one-night only engagement will likely be your only chance to see the underappreciated indie film that our own Scott Weinberg called "pretty damn good" – and if I may add my own endorsement, Make-Out with Violence is original and gorgeously shot, a great alternative to mainstream (i.e. made with way more money) films about either teenage life or zombies. The best part? Make-Out with Violence is about both of those things. (It's also got the most attractive zombie hottie of the year, with apologies to Zombieland's Amber Heard.)

The war for your wallet may be shifting from DVD stores to your living room. Just yesterday, our own Jessica Barnes described the price war between Walmart, Target and Amazon as the three retailers have temporarily slashed their profits and passed the savings on to you. Now comes word that Sony will pre-empt retailers by making their animated hit Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs available exclusively to owners of selected Sony television sets and networked Blu-ray players more than a month before it's released on DVD. Sony, however, expects you to slash your savings and pass the profits on to them, charging $24.95 for a rental.

That's a big chunk of change for a pay-per-view movie, dramatically higher than cable and satellite systems charge for pay-per-view flicks in their window of availability before DVD and Blu-ray release. Details from a business standpoint are provided in The New York Times -- the higher price is meant to avoid angering Walmart, the largest and thus most powerful DVD retailer in the country, and the move is part of Sony's strategy to leverage its ownership of both hardware (TVs, Blu-ray players) and software (movies, television) production. I'm sure Sony shareholders will be pleased.

What about the consumer? In his Home Theater blog for ZDNET, Sean Portnoy wonders: "In this economy, is being able to rent this successful movie a few weeks ahead of the masses really worth an extra $20? In fact, if you're using Netflix or renting at $1 per night through Redbox, the pricing difference is even starker." Sony tried this last year with Will Smith and Hancock, but economic times are even more difficult now. Will you pay $25 for Meatballs?

The final numbers are in, and the estimated $1.8 million earned by Precious in its limited-release opening weekend wasn't an exaggeration. In fact, it was a little short: The Sundance-prize-winning, Oprah-endorsed indie drama actually made $1,872,458 between Friday and Sunday. (Numbers courtesy of Box Office Mojo.) The reason that's so impressive is that it was only playing in 18 theaters, for an average of $104,025 per theater. For comparison's sake, A Christmas Carol made $8,159 per theater.

So let's put on our nerd hats and break down those Precious numbers. While it's only in 18 theaters, it played on 35 screens, because most cineplexes, anticipating the demand, booked two prints. (The per-screen average, therefore, was $53,499.) I looked at each theater's listings and added up how many showings the movie had over the weekend. That number was 507.

Then the math: It made $1,872,458 in 507 showings, for an average of $3,693 per showing. The average ticket price at the theaters in question is $11 (disregarding things like senior discounts and slightly cheaper prices for Friday matinees). That means each screening sold an average of about 335 tickets, which is surely the capacity for a lot of those theaters. That means a sell-out crowd for almost every screening. I guess I could have found out how many people each theater seats and determined exactly how many sell-outs there were, but that would be silly.

Box Office Mojo says the $104,025 per-theater average is the 12th highest ever -- but the 11 films ahead of it were all playing in no more than six locations. Precious played in 18 and still had a huge per-theater average. Any way you slice it, the delightful feel-good romp of the year opened with a splash.