Sunday, December 20, 2009

'Harry Potter' star is decade's most profitable actress

By Phil Han, CNN

Emma Watson has been crowned the most profitable actress of the decade, earning $5.4 billion for her films.

Emma Watson has been crowned the most profitable actress of the decade, earning $5.4 billion for her films.

London, England (CNN) -- It wasn't Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie or even Meryl Streep that was named the most profitable actress of the decade -- instead, 19-year-old British actress Emma Watson took the title.

Films that the young actress has appeared in have made more money than those of any other Hollywood starlet, despite her being in only the "Harry Potter" series and voicing a character in an animated film.

Over the course of the decade, films that Watson was involved in made $5.4 billion worldwide and these boasted the highest average box office earnings, making roughly $900 million per film.

More notable actresses like Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet were beaten in the list conducted by the Guinness Book of World Records.

Watson got her start at the age of ten, playing a young wizard in the first "Harry Potter" film back in 2001.

Since then, she has starred in five subsequent Potter movies and voiced the character of a young princess in the animated film, "The Tale of Despereaux."

Ali Jaafar, International Editor at Variety Magazine said it was notable that Watson was a big grosser, but it would be interesting to see how her career progressed.

"She's untested apart from the Harry Potter franchise, but these are young actors and it'll be interesting to see how they develop their careers," Jaafar told CNN.

"It's always hard for child actors to develop."

Orlando Bloom was named the highest grossing actor of the decade, taking in more than $7 billion for his role in movies like "Lord of the Rings" and "Pirates of the Caribbean."

Original here


Rock anthem outselling X Factor winner Joe McElderry

Rage Against the Machine's Zack de la Rocha
The band headlined last year's Reading and Leeds festivals

Rock band Rage Against The Machine is ahead of X Factor winner Joe McElderry in the race for the Christmas number one, early sales figures suggest.

A Facebook group aiming to get the band's 1992 hit Killing In The Name to the top of the festive chart has attracted more than 750,000 members.

But McElderry's debut The Climb, out on CD on Wednesday, is expected to catch up by the weekend.

The Official Charts Company (OCC) said it is "a very exciting battle".

Campaign criticism

It is understood that there is a 10% margin in sales between the two singles after Sunday and Monday.

McElderry's song was only released digitally after his victory in the X Factor final at midnight on Sunday, giving it less time to rack up sales for this week's chart than Rage Against The Machine.

X Factor judge Simon Cowell has criticised the internet campaign, calling it "stupid".

Prior to the final of the ITV talent show, he said: "I think the campaign's aimed directly at me."

The Facebook page includes a link to homeless charity site Shelter, which has raised nearly £30,000 in donations.

Rage Against The Machine, meanwhile, are signed to Epic Records, which is part of Sony BMG, the same label as McElderry.

Ladbrokes has re-opened its betting for the number one Christmas single just 24 hours after closing it.

Ladbrokes spokesman, Nick Weinberg, said: "Earlier this week it looked a done deal. Now Joe appears to be facing an almighty battle for top spot.

"This Christmas could be the first time in a long while that we see a genuine competition."

McElderry is at 1/3 with Rage Against the Machine at 2/1.

The OCC's Martin Talbot said "two different records have captured the nation's imagination".

"According to our initial sales estimates, there is no doubt that this tussle is far from over," he added.

Original here

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Millionaire Filmmaker Michael Moore: ‘Capitalism Did Nothing For Me’

By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) -- Documentary film director Michael Moore, who has become a millionaire thanks to the profits from his movies, told CNSNews.com that “capitalism did nothing” for him.

CNSNews.com spoke with Moore on the red carpet at the Uptown Theatre in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday night before the premiere of his upcoming documentary, “Capitalism: A Love Story."

CNSNews.com asked: “Critics may say, when they see this movie, Michael Moore has amassed a fortune of over $50 million, some have said and –”

Moore said: “Really? Are you kidding me? Seriously? Wow. Where did it go?”

CNSNews.com then asked Moore: “Critics would say he’s [Moore] been very successful under a capitalist system. How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

Moore said: “Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.”



“You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal,” he said. “The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there.”

“In fact, in Fahrenheit 9/11 if you remember, capitalism, the Disney Corporation, tried to kill that film--tried to make it so that people couldn’t see it,” said Moore. “My book Stupid White Men--Harper Collins tried to kill that book so that people couldn’t see it. It's only because I put the light of day on it and told people what was going on did people get the chance to see these things.”

According to Fortune Magazine, Moore’s films have grossed over $300 million worldwide. His highest grossing film was “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which critiques the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq and earned over $200 million worldwide.

Moore reportedly was paid $21 million by Disney for producing, directing and creating the film.

Moore also earned 50 percent of the profits of his 2007 film “Sicko,” totaling $25 million plus DVD sales, according to Vanity Fair.

The Los Angeles Times
reported that Moore would receive all of the profits made from DVD sales of “Sicko,” sales of which have been estimated at over $17 million.

“Look, you know, I mean, I make documentary films,” said Moore. “So, clearly, I’m not loaded in the way you described. But I do well, obviously because my films do well.”

“So, that means I have an extra responsibility to make sure I spend my time trying to make things better for the people that don’t have what I have, right? I mean, everybody should do that,” he said.

Original here