One of the funniest/sleaziest dramas of the year had to be the Al Pacino/Noor Alfallah saga. In late May, we learned that 82-year-old Al Pacino was expecting a child with his 29-year-old “girlfriend” Noor Alfallah. Pacino’s people called her a golddigger and suggested openly that she scammed her way into the pregnancy, while Noor’s people were like “she’s not a golddigger, she just loves old people!” It’s true that Noor is seemingly always in the company of a much older man. In any case, the pregnancy story set off a two-week gossip bonanza and finally, Pacino tried to put a bow on it by talking publicly about how he was looking forward to being a father again. Al and Noor made a big show of being “together” and she quietly welcomed a boy, Roman Pacino, in June. Now the “relationship” with Al Pacino is over and Noor has gone to court to establish custody of Roman.

Al Pacino’s girlfriend Noor Alfallah has filed for physical custody of their son, Roman, according to multiple reports. In legal docs obtained by The Blast, Alfallah, 29, requests that Pacino, 83, have “reasonable visitation” of their 3-month-old baby.

Alfallah, a producer who graduated from the University of Southern California’s Cinematic School of Artagrees, also reportedly requested the Academy Award winner have joint legal custody, which would allow him to participate in major decisions concerning their baby, including medical treatment and education.

A specified amount for child support was not listed in the initial filing, according to The Blast, but per California law, the income of each parent is to be established first before ordering child support.

Alfallah is also reportedly asking the court for the House of Gucci star to pay for her legal fees and any costs associated with the case.

A Voluntary Declaration of Parentage (or Paternity) was signed by both parties, according to reports, six days before baby Roman was born. A VDOP is a “government form two parents can sign to create a legal parent-child relationship between a child and parent” and is “often signed at the hospital when a child is born, but it can be signed later,” according to California Courts. The document was signed by Pacino and a third-party witness.

On Wednesday, Pacino and Alfallah were spotted at dinner at Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles with another couple, a source tells PEOPLE. The pair arrived together and enjoyed dinner next to each other, the source added.

[From People]

If you ask me, this is the least scandalous part of the saga? It actually sounds like Al and Noor are on the same page about his involvement and financial responsibilities and that they’re doing everything through the court so it will be above-board and established. Like, we knew that Al and Noor weren’t made to last as a couple, but they can be in each other’s lives for the same of the baby and… whatever. She’ll get some child support and there you go.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instagram.

Although Emily Blunt did an excellent job in Oppenheimer, I did think it was kind of a thankless part. That does not appear to be the case with her next project. Yesterday Netflix released a trailer for Pain Hustlers, coming out in late October and starring Blunt and Chris Evans as pharmaceutical reps. I’m getting Erin Brockovich-meets-Breaking Bad vibes, with an opioid-crisis setting:

Emily Blunt is hustling her way to the top in her latest film.

On Wednesday, Netflix debuted the first trailer for Pain Hustlers, which stars Blunt and Chris Evans as pharmaceutical sales employees pushing opioids in a story based on real events.

Blunt plays Liza Drake, a single mom “at the end of her rope” after losing her job, per a synopsis. “A chance meeting with pharmaceutical sales rep Pete Brenner (Evans) puts her on an upwards trajectory economically but dubious path ethically as she becomes entangled in a dangerous racketeering scheme.”

The film’s trailer teases Liza and Pete’s high-earning, hard-partying lifestyle as title cards read that Pain Hustlers “may cause increased energy, elevated mood, ecstasy, paranoia, aggression [and] greed.”

As Liza deals with “her increasingly unhinged boss, the worsening medical condition of her daughter, and a growing awareness of the devastation the company is causing,” she begins to re-examine her career choices.

Netflix described the film as a “sharp and revealing look at what some people do out of desperation and others do out of greed.”

[From People]

Tis the season for pharmaceutical cinema, I guess. I’m genuinely surprised that Netflix is releasing this so soon after Painkiller, their six-part series with Matthew Broderick as Richard Sackler that just came out last month. Don’t get me wrong, I’m positively gleeful with Big Pharma clocking in so much screen time as the super villains they are. They’ve well and truly earned it. I just find the timing questionable from a content perspective. My general impression of this first trailer was, this story has already been told, so what’s different? I think it’s gonna come down to the solid cast bringing people in, led by Blunt and Evans, and rounded out with Andy Garcia and… Catherine O’Hara! You can’t tell who she’s playing from the trailer, but does it really matter? (Answer: no. Thank you for gifting us with your talent, O Great Catherine.)

Photos credit: Brian Douglas/Netflix

The Oscars and the Golden Globes get a lot of flack for being toxic and prejudiced and that reputation is well earned. This is especially the case for Black women filmmakers and showrunners. As a recent example, The Woman King, directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood, was shut out from the Oscars this year despite being a critical and commercial hit. And in 2021, the HFPA rejected Shonda Rhimes’ requests for press conferences about Bridgerton until it became a surprise hit. In 2019, Ava DuVernay sat through a press conference for When They See Us where only 20 of the 87 HFPA members showed up and none of them had watched the series. But some of the European film festivals like Cannes and Venice are just as bad as the American awards ceremonies. The European festivals still give premieres, awards and standing ovations to the Roman Polanskis and Woody Allens of the world, while ignoring films from BIPOC filmmakers. Ava DuVernay’s upcoming movie Origin was selected to premiere at Venice and it’s the first time in the festival’s eighty year history (!) that they are including a film directed by a Black woman. At a press conference, Ava admitted that people told her not to bother applying to the festival at all because she “won’t get in.” She was told that people in other parts of the world don’t care about stories from BIPOC directors or perspectives. But she hopes this is a door that the festival will “keep open.”

At the Venice Film Festival press conference for Ava DuVernay’s new film “Origin” on Wednesday, the director revealed that she has previously been told not to apply to the festival because “you won’t get in.”

DuVernay is making history this year as the first African American woman in the festival’s 80-year existence to have a film compete for the Golden Lion. “Origin,” starring Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor and Jon Bernthal, “chronicles the remarkable life and work of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Isabel Wilkerson as she investigates the genesis of injustice and uncovers a hidden truth that affects us all,” according to the film’s official synopsis.

“For Black filmmakers, we’re told that people who love films in other parts of the world don’t care about our stories and don’t care about our films. This is something that we are often told: you cannot play international film festivals, no one will come,” DuVernay said. “People will not come to the press conferences, people won’t come to the P&I screenings. They will not be interested in selling tickets. You might not even get into this festival, don’t apply. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told, ‘Don’t apply to Venice, you won’t get in. It won’t happen.’ And this year, something happened that hadn’t happened in eight decades before: an African American woman in competition. So now that’s a door open that I trust and hope the festival will keep open.”

[From Yahoo]

This is one of the things that drives me nuts about Hollywood. The industry presents itself as being progressive, but it never really has been. It’s apparently similar in Venice. I’m not shocked it took this long for them to include a film directed by a Black woman, but it is discouraging. Being so racist and exclusionary is a dumb financial decision for studios and power brokers in the film industry. Like…do they not realize that diverse films like Black Panther and Parasite have done well and made money and made a cultural impact? On a global scale? I’m really happy this happened for Ava, because she has a track record of excellence and her work deserves to be recognized. But this also comes after she has been well-established in the industry and is one of a small number of name-brand directors who is not a white man in his seventies. If she had applied even five years ago, with a little less experience or name recognition, they probably wouldn’t have let her in. Though I share Ava’s hope that this is the start of a new trend prioritizing BIPOC filmmakers, I’m also skeptical that it will continue.

photos credit: IMAGO/Anna Maria Tinghino / Avalon

The Rolling Stones haven’t released an original studio album in nearly twenty years. That blew my mind. I guess I was surprised since it feels like they’re always out on tour. But the septuagenarians (and as of July one octo, Happy Bday Mick!) have finally stopped slacking off and are getting ready to launch a new release. Aside from being momentous for being the first studio album in decades, Hackney Diamonds also marks a sentimental milestone as it has the final recordings from their beloved drummer Charlie Watts, who passed away in August 2021. YouTube hosted a livestream event on Wednesday where the band chatted up their new music from London’s Hackney neighborhood:

For the Rolling Stones’ faithful fans, a very long wait is over: The seminal rock band is back with Hackney Diamonds, their first original studio album since 2005’s A Bigger Bang.

The LP is set to debut worldwide on Wednesday with an exclusive YouTube livestream. The same event will feature Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood chatting on stage with Jimmy Fallon from the London borough of Hackney — a neighborhood “at the heart of” the new album, per the band’s official press release — about the new music and new era ahead.

The announcement follows a teaser campaign along with a sneak preview of a song, “Don’t Get Angry With Me.” Ironically, that promotion did make a few people angry, since the website where you could supposedly hear a snippet of the tune kept crashing. But YouTube, one imagines, is prepared to handle heavy demand.

Richards told Rolling Stone last year that the group’s forthcoming project would include final recordings from longtime drummer Charlie Watts, who died in 2021, and that Steve Jordan, Watts’ live replacement, was filling in elsewhere. Prior to that, the Stones had released a surprise track, “Living in a Ghost Town,” in April 2020, as Covid-19 gripped the planet. Jagger later said that the pandemic had interrupted progress toward finishing a full album.

Hackney Diamonds may also feature a guest appearance from Paul McCartney, though reports that Ringo Starr sat in on recording sessions were not substantiated.

The Rolling Stones toured Europe last summer to celebrate their 60th anniversary, and with another record around the corner, they show no sign of slowing down, despite Richards and Wood being in their late 70s and Jagger turning 80 in July. Keep an eye out for them to hit the road once more next year to support their latest release — while revisiting the classics, of course.

[From Yahoo! Entertainment]

I mean, if you’ve still got it, flaunt it, right? I only wish to be as vital — not to mention spry and nimble — when I reach my 70s (or as Stevie Nicks calls it, the last youthful years). I’ll be honest, my first response to the debut event in Hackney was “Ugh, why Jimmy Fallon?” (I saw all your comments on the Strike Force Five post and thus feel emboldened to speak freely.) But then I remembered Jimmy landed that great cameo in Almost Famous where he says “If you think Mick Jagger will still be out there trying to be a rock star at 50, you’re sadly, sadly mistaken,” and it made more sense. I remember seeing Almost Famous in the movie theater with my mother and her getting a very good chuckle out of that line, and that was when Mick was a wee babe of 57. As for Paul McCartney featuring on the new album, I wonder if his bit was recorded before or after he called the Stones “a blues cover band.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Rolling Stones (@therollingstones)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Rolling Stones (@therollingstones)

Photos credit Hannah Meadows for Avalon/RETNA

Denzel Washington is a bigger star than Tom Cruise? Discuss. [Pajiba]
The Duchess of Sussex and the Beygency. [LaineyGossip]
This is a fantastic look on Diane Kruger. [Go Fug Yourself]
Kanye West ‘banned for life’ from Italian boat company [Socialite Life]
Alec Baldwin shares a photo of Hilaria & their seven kids. [Just Jared]
Forced-birth GQPers worry that they’re coming across as anti-woman. [Jezebel]
I love Sofia Coppola’s outfit here. [RCFA]
Stop turning nursery rhymes into horror stories! [Seriously OMG]
Madelaine Petsch models for Skims. [Egotastic]
No, I would have freaked about this too. NTA. [Buzzfeed]
Janelle Brown is 50 years old and she has “nothing.” [Starcasm]
Tennessee Pride had a great turnout. [Towleroad]

Welp, Joe Jonas has officially filed for divorce from Sophie Turner. We got a little preview during the Labor Day weekend, when Joe’s people briefed TMZ and People Magazine with the news that he had met with divorce lawyers and hired one of them. TMZ’s story was dripping with casual misogyny about Sophie not having a lot going on career-wise (she had two babies in three years) and something about Joe looking after their kids while he was on tour. TMZ also broke the “he filed for divorce” story, and they added some new layers:

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner are headed to divorce court, because TMZ has learned Joe has filed legal docs to end his marriage. Joe is asking for joint custody of their 2 daughters, 3-year-old Willa and their 1-year-old.

Sources with direct knowledge tell TMZ … Joe and Sophie have a prenup — something Joe also addresses in his divorce docs, obtained by TMZ. There’s more in here as it pertains to their kids — including the fact that Joe wants a judge to establish a parenting plan between him and Sophie that allows for “frequent and continuing contact with both parties.”

Another interesting tidbit in his petition … Joe confirms what we’ve known since this weekend — namely, that the two children have been residing with him of late. Here in the docs, though, he makes sure to note where … Miami, as well as “other locations throughout the United States.” In other words, he’s been taking them with him on the road as he’s toured.

The issue of child support is also addressed in Joe’s docs … he says both parents can pay to support their children and that they should both be required to do so. With that said, JJ wants a Florida court to establish what’s fair … and to take health insurance for the kids into consideration in determining that.

TMZ broke the story … the couple has been having problems for around 6 months. Joe has been shopping for divorce lawyers for at least a week. He filed in Florida. He’s repped by Tom Sasser, who handled Tiger Woods’ divorce.

As for why Joe filed for divorce … a source with direct knowledge tells us this … “She likes to party, he likes to stay at home. They have very different lifestyles.”

As we reported, Joe has been taking care of the children pretty much all of the time over the last 3 months. When it comes time to hash out a custody arrangement, he could ask for significantly more than 50% physical custody, and our sources say that’s likely.

[From TMZ]

“She likes to party, he likes to stay at home” – my translation of that is: Joe expected his young, beautiful actress wife to stay at home and raise their kids while he toured and worked. As soon as Sophie went back to work, started hanging out with friends and enjoying herself without him, suddenly Joe wanted a divorce. I mean, that’s just my interpretation – maybe Sophie has been out partying (there have been zero photos of that) and maybe she’s not a super-engaged mother. But this framing feels so dirty to me and I feel sorry for Sophie, because no matter what, he’s trying to paint her as a bad mother from the very start of this divorce.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Never forget that King Charles’s first act as monarch was calling Prince Harry and telling him that Meghan isn’t part of the family, that she was not welcome at Balmoral, and that Harry could not have his wife beside him on the day QEII passed away. The first act of Charles’s reign was a wall-to-wall smear job on Harry and Meghan for having the audacity to simply want to be together on a painful day of mourning. As we come up on QEII’s death-anniversary, there are a lot of pieces about what really happened in the chaos of those first days of Charles’s reign. I’m so glad that Harry wrote about it in Spare too, because it means that “royal sources” can’t lie about what Harry did and said during that hellish two-week hostage situation. Well, Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast has a piece about what happened on that day one year ago, and a huge chunk of the article is devoted to the Sussex drama. Again, seemingly everyone in the family was more focused on snubbing, marginalizing and smearing the Sussexes rather than mourning the queen.

Buckingham Palace announced at 12.50pm that William, Andrew, Edward and Sophie were on their way to Scotland. Things should have now at moved at dizzying speed, with a military jet laid on to whisk the royal party to Scotland reportedly due to take off at 1:30pm. In the event, however, it didn’t take off until 2:40pm. A military source has told The Daily Beast that the delay was caused by a row within the family, who were outraged by a suggestion by Harry that he, and, controversially, Meghan could be given a spot on the plane.

While the Netflix show Harry & Meghan had not yet screened, and Harry’s memoir had not been published, relations were still very bad between the couple and the family, particularly William. Harry said in his memoir that he texted William, asking if he and Meghan could get a lift with him to Scotland.

“It was insane,” a friend of William’s told The Daily Beast. “They had just spent two years slagging off the entire family and calling them racists. Harry had completely betrayed William, and he was holding the memoir [published after the queen’s death] and the Netflix series over them as well. They hadn’t exchanged a cordial word in months. And then he is texting him, saying, ‘Can we get a lift with you.’ I think if it had just been Harry, maybe a way could have been found. But Meghan too? Er, no thanks.”

What Harry and Meghan did next both infuriated the royals and brought matters swiftly to a head: they told their team to publicly announce not only that they would be missing the WellChild Awards, but that they were both going to Balmoral. A former palace staffer told The Daily Beast: “You need an invite to go to Balmoral at any time, let alone a moment of massive constitutional upheaval. They knew Meghan wasn’t wanted. No-one had replied to their messages, no-one had invited her to come. Kate, who had known the queen for decades, wouldn’t have dreamed of being there at her deathbed. But for some reason, Meghan wanted to insert herself into it, so they tried to bounce the [future] king into accepting it by publicly announcing it.”

If that was the Sussexes’ plan, it didn’t work. The moment he heard Harry and Meghan’s statement, Charles knew he had to put his foot down, and he called Harry and told him not to bring Meghan. Harry described the sequence of events in his book: “We told our team to confirm: we’d be missing the WellChildAwards and hurrying up to Scotland. Then came another call from Pa. He said I was welcome at Balmoral, but he didn’t want … her. He started to lay out his reason, which was nonsensical, and disrespectful, and I wasn’t having it. Don’t ever speak about my wife that way. He stammered, apologetic, saying he simply didn’t want a lot of people around. No other wives were coming. Kate wasn’t coming, he said, therefore Meg shouldn’t. Then that’s all you needed to say.”

In Harry’s telling, by the time this unseemly argument with his father concluded, it was “mid-afternoon,” he hadn’t heard from William, who he had texted looking for a lift, and so he had to charter a private plane. Intriguingly, however, a military source told The Daily Beast that the RAF jet—carrying William, Edward, Sophie and Andrew—sat on the tarmac at Northolt airport for up to an hour before taking off at 2:40pm. The source said that they believed the delay was due to uncertainty about whether Harry was expected on the plane.

[From The Daily Beast]

“I think if it had just been Harry, maybe a way could have been found. But Meghan too? Er, no thanks.” “They knew Meghan wasn’t wanted…But for some reason, Meghan wanted to insert herself into it.” This is still utterly disgusting and racist. In QEII’s final minutes on this earth, her heirs were solely focused on being too racist to accept Harry’s Black wife in Scotland. They were focused on isolating Harry, as they have been for years, on punishing him and otherizing him for marrying Meghan and loving Meghan. I’ve said this before, but the Windsors really don’t understand the concept of “you can have disagreements within a family and still put aside your differences to come together for the big events.” What should have been a mournful, grief-stricken time for the family to simply put their differences aside for a week became an exercise in dehumanizing, humiliating, degrading and marginalizing the Sussexes by any means necessary.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

I’ll be honest, I’m really suspicious about the “engagement” some of these Kevin Costner-Christine Baumgartner stories have been getting recently. There’s been a flood of new commenters in the divorce stories and they ALL have an anti-Christine bent. Given Costner’s resources and his anger towards Christine for leaving him, it feels like he and his team asked for “the Johnny Depp special” in bot farms and paid commenters. It’s just something I’m keeping my eye on. To recap, Christine is getting hosed in this divorce – the judge decreased her child support to $60K a month (she was asking for $168K a month) and it’s not looking good for Christine’s attempts to nullify the pre-nup. It feels like Christine knows it’s pretty much over for her too – she told the court that she will get a job.

Kevin Costner and his estranged wife Christine spoke in court about their plans moving forward as their divorce proceedings carry on. The exes showed up to court in Santa Barbara on Thursday and Friday for a child support hearing, which ultimately went in Kevin’s favor as a judge ordered him to pay $63,209 per month instead of the $161,592 Christine sought.

Both Kevin and Christine, who wed in 2004, got emotional while testifying during the proceedings, and shared what they saw as their next steps after the breakup.

Christine — who now lives in a rental that costs $40,000 per month after being court-ordered to move out of their family compound — testified that she is considering going back to school for a college degree.

“I will look into the steps I need to take and any schooling I need to do, and I will enter the workforce,” Christine, 49, said on the stand about how she’ll support herself in the future.

When Kevin, 68, took the stand, he admitted “my world’s been a little shook up” as a result of the split. Addressing how he plans to move forward, the Oscar winner said, “I have to take care of obligations that are already in place, I have a lot of responsibilities I have to take care of.”

[From People]

With three kids at home, she’ll go back to school and re-enter the workforce at the age of 49? Good luck with that. I mean, she’s going to have to do something, I agree. But realistically, she should probably call Andy Cohen and see if she can pitch him The Real Divorcees of Santa Barbara. Like, that’s probably closer to her real post-divorce plans – find a steady reality show gig, find an easy way to make enough money to support herself after she gets hosed in this divorce. Hopefully, she’s got a wealthy jumpoff and maybe she’ll get remarried.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Backgrid.

Kate Beckinsale wore this completely over the top Georges Chakra gown to the amfAR gala at the Venice Film Festival. I kind of love it?? [RCFA]
Does Olga Kurylenko’s gown have tiny milkshakes on it? [GFY]
Rest in peace to Steve Harwell (the lead singer of Smash Mouth). [OMG Blog]
Jennifer Lopez’s latest Coach ad campaign is cute. [Tom & Lorenzo]
What’s Kyle Richards doing here? [LaineyGossip]
How does Suits end? [Pajiba]
I love all of these “you had one job” pics. [Buzzfeed]
Ewan McGregor is auctioning off his clothes. [JustJared]
Ron DeSantis’s campaign manhandled a teen. [Jezebel]
American Horror Story: Delicate is coming soon. [Egotastic]
Oh, new pics of David Gandy. [Socialite Life]

For years now, the Windsors and their British media handlers have been putting Prince Andrew and Prince Harry together, like they’re equally gross or awful. Again, Harry’s crime was marrying a beautiful Black American woman and prioritizing her over his white privilege. Andrew’s crimes were rape, human trafficking, associating with two known predators/pedophiles, and using a governmental “trade ambassador” position to line his pockets and travel around the world, hobnobbing with shady billionaires. Speaking of, government documents related to Andrew’s “trade ambassadorship” are being sealed for the next 42 years.

Government documents about Prince Andrew will be kept secret until 2065, it is revealed today. The Duke of York’s correspondence with Ministers, including details of dealings as a trade ambassador, will not be released in his lifetime unless he lives to be 105.

The timeframe for Andrew, 63, came to light in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made to the Foreign Office.

Under normal rules, records transferred to The National Archives at Kew from government departments are kept secret for 20 years. But special dispensation is awarded to the Royal Family. Documents relating to Andrew’s brother, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, and Princess Alexandra also have the same time gap – 105 years from their birth – for release.

But critics argue it is a disservice to the public to keep Andrew’s files buried for so long. Author Andrew Lownie said: ‘Many questions remain about his role as trade envoy, a public appointment paid for by the taxpayer, and his associations with figures such as Jeffrey Epstein. The delays in release create a vacuum for speculation and fantasists. Their release would go some way to restoring trust in institutions, not least the monarchy.’

[From The Daily Mail]

For years, I’ve tried to wrap my head around how British people “place” their royals within their understanding of a functional government/society. One could argue that the Windsors are simply high-level civil servants, there to represent the national interest in an apolitical way. I think that IS the argument, so why is there this collective shrug at this kind of news? Andrew, a high-level civil servant who held a government position as a trade ambassador, manages to hide his ambassadorial records for the rest of his natural life? This isn’t like keeping Prince Philip’s will a secret for a century, although I find that f–king shady too. Anyway, this is the kind of news which makes me believe that King Charles really is trying to be the Unity King (except when it involves the Sussexes). He really is bringing Andrew back.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.