Actor Paul Walker was killed Saturday afternoon in a car crash in Valencia, north of Los Angeles, according to TMZ. He was 40 years old. Walker was in a Porche that spun out of control and crashed, killing the actor in a fiery explosion. The actor’s representation confirmed that he had passed to Variety and other outlets.

Walker’s reps have since stated that he was a passenger in a friend’s car during a charity event for Reach Out Worldwide, and that both were killed in the crash.

Walker had a wonderful reputation amongst other filmmakers and actors, who praised him as a dedicated performer, a kind person, and a generous friend. He used his fame for charitable interests, and was passionate about shark conservation. He was part of the core of the Fast and the Furious series, which built a tremendous fanbase based not only on action, but through themes of family and friendship. Frankly, there’s nothing I can write at this point that doesn’t seem woefully inadequate; Walker’s passing had an immediate and devastating effect on the Hollywood community, and he will be greatly missed.

 

publicist for actor Paul Walker says the star of the “Fast & Furious” movie series has died in a car crash north of Los Angeles. He was 40. Ame Van Iden says Walker died Saturday afternoon.

A statement on Walker’s Facebook page said Walker was a passenger in a friend’s car, and that the crash happened while he was attending a charity event. 

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department said the crash happened in community of Valencia. The Santa Clarita Signal reports a red Porsche crashed into a light pole and tree and burst into flames.

Walker was working on the latest “Fast & Furious” movie at the time of his death. He also starred in the suspense drama, “Hours”, a movie that is set for release this month. 

When Krantiveera Sangoli Rayanna was under production, the buzz was that the film was being made at an astronomical Rs 29 cr. While this was considered the highest-ever budget for a Kannada film, in recent times, there have been films that were not far behind in terms of production costs.

Films starring A-list heroes like Upendra, Shivarajkumar, Sudeep and Puneeth Rajkumar, among others, require budgets upwards of Rs 10 cr. In fact, Upendra's upcoming film Brahma is reportedly being made at a cost of Rs 20 cr. With producers loosening their purse strings, several questions arise: Is the extra spending justified and is it reflecting in the quality of the product? And, are mega bucks bringing in returns?

Higher spending a must According to Uday Mehta, producer of the recent Sudeep-starrer Bachchan (made at an approx. cost of Rs 11 cr), hiking budgets is justified if you have a star who will ensure a minimum guarantee, on board. "Kannada films are in competition with Tamil, Telugu and Hindi films. These films have bigger markets and are made on far more lavish scales than Kannada movies. People tend to watch them and compare, making it imperative for us to up the quality of the films and the opulence seen onscreen. However, there are only a few actors who can pull crowds to theatres and when you are working with them, a filmmaker can take a chance and make big investments," says Uday. Producer Kamar agrees with Uday that bigger spendings are required to up the quality of Kannada cinema. "Even if you have a big star, if audiences are not satisfied with the treatment of the film — glitz, glamour, action, etc., included — they will not see our films," he says.

Script decides budget The intention, adds Uday, is to make good films. "If you have to stand apart from the 100-120 films made in a year, naturally you need to do something extra. But for that, you need to be able to believe in what you are investing. Everything depends on the script. If your foundation is not good, no matter what you do, it will be of no use," he says. Actor Puneeth Rajkumar, whose family has a production house that has made over 70 films, seconds that, saying, "Budgets can be fixed only based on the script. Depending on the story, you factor in costs for varying aspects, be it songs, action sequences, cast, etc. And if filmmakers are willing to spend money on the presentation of the film, it is a welcome move. One of the outcomes of increased spending that I have noticed is that Sandalwood has grown in terms of the technology used."

Big budgets an eyewash? While costs of production have definitely gone up, distributor Prasad believes that budgets are often unnecessarily exaggerated. "Very often, producers claim to have spent double or more of what they have actually invested on a film. How is that possible when the market itself is not that big? The highest business done by a film is not even close to these hyped budgets. Even superhit movies don't do more than `5-6 cr in the first week, and we are in a day and age in which a film's fate is decided in the first weekend. Claims of mega budgets are often an eyewash, intended to create hype when there is no content to back it up. This is not good for the industry," he says. "Most producers make tall claims about the budget to secure better TV rights," says director Kavitha Lankesh, adding, "A lot of the money that they say has been spent, is often behind the scenes and does not reflect onscreen. "

Content is king Spending big money with no content is also not required, points out Kavitha. And the solution, says Prasad, is to ensure that the content of the film is the most important facet. "If a film like Krantiveera Sangolli Rayanna was made on a big budget it was because it was a historical and required a certain degree of grandiose. Filmmakers shouldn't have expensive action and song sequences just for the sake of spending money. Smaller films like Simplag Ond Love Story, Charminar and Mynaa have proven that you don't need that. The industry should work towards improving the market by making quality films," he sums up.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has just passed $600 million at the worldwide box office, despite mostly really bad reviews. This is nothing new. Mainstream audiences don’t listen to the critics, and big screen spectacle will almost always win over quality entertainment. Nothing was going to stop me from seeing the movie, not all the bad reviews in the world. It’s an event movie — and I needed to see it for myself. It should be noted that box office should never be looked at as an indication of the mainstream public’s thoughts on a movie (it sold tons of tickets so the mainstream public must’ve loved it) but only an indication of the hype (and in later weeks, possibly word of mouth).
The success of Transformers 2 got me thinking. What is the worst reviewed box office success of all time? Could it be Revenge of the Fallen? Find out what I’ve uncovered after the jump.

What is the worst reviewed highest grossing worldwide release of all time? It’s a tough question.

 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest earned $1,066.2 Million and has a 53% on the Tomato-meter, making it the largest grossing film to be negatively reviewed, but not necessarily the “worst reviewed highest grossing worldwide release of all time”.

But how do you compare Dead Man’s Chest‘s 53% against Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen‘s 19%? I had to invent a formula to rank these releases. What I did was take the Box Office total and divide it by the tomato-meter rating, which gives us a more balanced unit which relates Box Office to the Critical Analysis. It’s not the most scientific or mathematical way of handling this, but for our purposes, it works. The films below are listed in descending order based on the $/% number, and guess what — Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the worst reviewed highest grossing film of
 all time.


Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Box Office: $607.7 Million (so far)
Rotten Tomatoes: 19%
$/%: 31.9



The Da Vinci Code
Box Office: $758.2 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 24%
$/%: 31.6


Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Box Office: $961 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 45%
& /%: 21.35



Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Box Office: $1,066.2 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 53%
$/%: 20.11



Shrek The Third
Box Office: $799 million
Rotten Tomatoes: 42%
$/%: 19

Hancock
Box Office: $624.4 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 39%
$/%: 16



Armageddon
Box Office: $553.7 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 40%
$/%: 13.8



Meet the Fockers
Box Office: $516.6 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 38%
$/%: 13.6



Angels & Demons
Box Office: $473.2 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 37%
$/%: 12.8




The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Box Office: $618.6 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 49%
$/%: 12.6



The Day After Tomorrow
Box Office: $544.3 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 45%
$/%: 12.1



Bruce Almighty
Box Office: $484.6 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 49%
$/%: 9.9




Surprises: Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are not on the list because they were actually come-what positively reviewed. Menace has a 63% on the Tomato-meter with 97 fresh reviews and 56 rotten. Crystal Skull received high praise from critics, earning 76% on the Tomato-meter with 186 fresh reviews and 58 rotten. Indy 4 is one of the rare occasions where the mainstream public average was actually a lot lower than the critics, with a 6.7 on IMDb. Spider-Man 3 also received some-what favorable reviews with a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Aside: It should be noted that box office should never be looked at as a rating of the mainstream public’s review of a movie. People vote with their dollars before they see the movie, and thus the box office figure can only account for hype and not analytical review. While there is no accurate account of the mainstream public’s opinion on a movie post-viewing, I often use a combination of IMDb’s user rating, Netflix and Flixter ratings as they are the largest accounting of non-critic opinion of a film.

There’s a vast difference between simply making a movie and taking the time to develop a new idea to make a movie about. It’s the difference between franchises releasing a new sequel every year, and the work of Spike Jonze, a filmmaker who up to this point has only made three movies in 15 years. His fourth film, Her, is the director’s first original screenplay. It’s everything you’d hope for from the mad genius who brought to life Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Where the Wild Things Are.

Her is a dramatic sci-fi romance about a man named Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) who falls in love with his artificially intelligent computer operating system (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). It’s a simple, yet brilliant conceit realized with depth and emotion, two rare traits in mainstream cinema. The depth comes from Jonze’s ideas about technological dependence and loneliness, and the emotion is conveyed as the film raises questions about what it means to love and our capacity to do so. It’s a film that’ll both spark intelligent debate and plenty of tears.

The search for an emotionally fulfilling relationship is one of the few things all humans strive for. Differences develop in how we look for that fulfillment, and with Her, Jonze investigates a new option. What if you could achieve emotional stability on a purely mental level?

Her is set in a futuristic, over-populated Los Angeles. Theodore buys OS 1, a brand-new computer operating system that is artificially intelligent. So, for example, at start-up, the system reads a book in 2 hundredths of a second and names itself Samantha. It can learn, feel, and adapt, yet never assumes physical form. (Jonze gets around this by making computers tiny and accessorized with ear pieces users can wear while walking around.) So when Theodore, who is in the midst of a divorce, meets Samantha, the two become quick friends. Then that becomes something more.

Think about the issues that raises. Do you tell your friends you’re dating a computer? How do you have sex? Can you have sex? How smart is this thing? Do you take it on dates? All these questions and more are considered by Jonze’s brilliant script, which is filled with the kind of philosophical thought usually reserved for much smaller, less flashy movies. But in Jonze’s hands, and in the context of this sprawling and familiar, but definitely futuristicworld, the ideas are easier to digest and ponder.

Eventually, some of these questions become bigger and the movie grows with them. What starts as a boy-meets-computer love story evolves to question the nature of humanity and a person’s capacity for emotion, and whether an artificial intelligence can have those traits. Such thoughts are brought to light with the kind of levity and originality we’ve come to expect from Jonze; they never feel preachy or obvious. The film always feels natural, sweet and relatable.

Credit for that also goes to the actors. Phoenix is awkward and charming. Unlike some of his recent work, though, here he’s sweet, bringing a vulnerable humanity to the character. Supporting turns from Amy Adams and Rooney Mara help propel his journey, and Johansson’s voice work never makes Theodore’s decision seem creepy.

The one, tiny gripe I have about Her is that Jonze raises so many questions, and elicits so many different emotions, it’s hard for the film to cohesively bring them all together. Total closure is obviously not the point in such an ambitious work, but there’s something to be said for a film that can stick the landing. Her is fantastic, but stumbles every so slightly.

That said, Her is the kind of philosophically complex yet narratively straightforward film audiences can enjoy and scholars can study. It works on nearly every single level and I’m dying to see it again, just to let its ideas wash over me one more time.

/Film rating: 8.5 out of 10

Her opens on a limited basis December 18 then expands January 10. Thanks to the AFI Fest presented by Audi for the screening.