The Last Man on Earth has just started up on Fox, and the lonely premise is a fairly unusual one to transplant onto a television show, let alone a comedy. There are many different directions to take this fantastical concept, and it’s the sort of story we’ve seen played with for decades now. It’s safe to say that we’ve been fascinated with this idea and the pangs of isolation that so often accompany it. So, in honor of Will Forte’s new series, we decided to take a look at the 20 best “Last Man on Earth” films  (or some that just focus on an ultra-dwindling population apocalypse).

The Last Man on Earth (1964)

A fitting place to start, and often seen as the “biggest” Last Man on Earth film, is this 1964 adaptation of Richard Matheson’s classic science fiction novel, I Am Legend. Starring a very in-his-element Vincent Price, the film posits a world where biological warfare has wiped out most of the population. Price’s character manages to somehow be immune and survives all of this with the rest of the world being turned into mutants that are essentially vampires.

They come out at night and prey on the living (as well as being weak to sunlight and vulnerable to garlic) while he is forced to stay in his home. This very chilling version of the end of the world focuses on the grueling routine that Price’s character goes through every day as he is forced to hunt and hide. Eventually, he carelessly falls asleep at his wife’s grave, awakening to the mutants being upon him, as the story takes a turn for the worse.

The Omega Man (1971)

Also being an adaptation of Matheson’s I Am Legend, The Omega Man puts Charlton Heston in the leading role and jumps the year forward to 1975. While largely being the same story that’s seen in The Last Man on Earth, it’s interesting to notice the subtle changes between the films. This time around, there’s certainly a less stark, ultra-serious tone to it. The initial threat has also been shifted to the Chinese and Russians, as a means of reflecting the current times.

The film emphasizes the increasing threat of biological warfare, whereas before it was just an unknown plague that had decimated humanity. It’s also worth mentioning that the film contains one of the first interracial onscreen kisses between Heston and Rosalind Cash. It’s especially notable since race issues and equality were heavily part of the make-up from this period. These sorts of films almost became known for re-purposing themselves as parables for what was going on in the times. They almost feel like modern fables.

It’s not surprising then that this same appropriation would happen in 2007’s I Am Legend, this time using a re-engineered measles virus developed to help cure cancer as the bug that got out of hand and wipes out the population. It surely won’t be the last time we see Matheson’s novel getting adapted either.

The Quiet Earth (1985)

In what’s a thoroughly bonkers film, The Quiet Earth (which is based on the New Zealand novel of the same name) really just explores how a man can go mad when he thinks that he’s the last person on Earth. The miniscule population this time is brought about by an electrical grid experiment gone wrong, and it’s one of the more creative angles seen from these films. The movie does not have fun with this idea or try to turn the world into a playground in any sense, but really just focuses on the madness and exhaustion of what this situation would do to you.

If you thought all of this was enough of a mind trip, there’s also a truly ridiculous, what-the-fuck, amazing ending that the film goes out on that you won’t be soon forgetting.

On the Beach (1959)

Set in 1964, a few months in the advent of World War III, a nuclear disaster has wiped out nearly everyone in the world by polluting its atmosphere. With the population now agonizingly low, everyone becomes obsessed with making contact and the hope of there being more people out there that are alive.

The biggest discovery comes in the form of a signal that Anthony Perkins and Gregory Peck (yeah, the cast here is stacked) stumble upon on the other side of the world. What follows is the deeply bleak voyage to this signal to find the other survivors that are out there. But once the signal is reached, it’s ultimately discovered to be bunk. What follows is really all that can follow with Perkins and Peck’s characters sadly and slowly returning home to oblivion. On the Beach is an incredibly cynical, quiet film that isn’t interested in being a super spectacle, but still makes its point and works.

The World, The Flesh, and the Devil (1959)

In a film that bears many similarities to The Quiet Earth, this one sees a man being trapped in a mineshaft when the pivotal apocalyptic event happens. When the man finally emerges from the mine, he finds himself in a deserted NYC.

The World, the Flesh, and the Devil starts out slow but begins to pick up once our protagonist runs into a woman. This is a film that's heavily about race and politics, and so to see things like race be abandoned here as only these two are left to survive is beautiful. This of course becomes more complicated when another man is eventually thrown into the mix.

There are also just tons of great scenes throughout the film like spending the time to fix a phone when there’s only one other person on Earth, and other moments of stability framed in chaos. There are many great (as well as cliché) set-pieces around the whole apocalypse idea. It’s really a thrilling movie that manages to still be deeply optimistic, unlike The Quiet Earth, and explores some fascinating things here.

A Boy and His Dog (1975)

Based on sci-fi heavyweight Harlan Ellison’s stories, the film gets into the overdone territory of the apocalypse but makes it feel fresh with an incredibly unique perspective. What follows is the hauntingly beautiful, almost poem-like film that follows a boy and his telepathic dog who roam the Earth in a post-apocalypse. It’s also easy to see how something as simple as this could be a clear influence to some of the later films in this “genre,” like Oblivion. It’s not as flashy and might not have as much to say as some of the other films on this list, but there’s such a strong voice to it all. It’s quite soothing to watch this minimalistic story play out around the end of world.

La Jetee (1962)

Set in a post-apocalyptic Paris during the fallout of World War III, the film looks at the few remaining humans that are left. These people have resorted to trying to figure out time travel, so someone can be sent back in time to get food, supplies, and maybe even have an answer on how to reverse their fate.

If this all sounds a little familiar, it’s also what Terry Gilliam’s 12 Monkeys pulls from. Gilliam’s adaptation would also fit well on this list, but La Jétee does a better job at playing with the feeling of isolation, and I daresay is the better film.

Oblivion (2013)

Oblivion is actually one of the more refined takes on the Last Man on Earth idea, in spite of it being generally overlooked upon its release (it opened near the very similar, but deeply inferior After Earth from M. Night Shymalan). A very stylistic film, boasting a score entirely done by M83, there’s a heavy ‘70s sci-fi influence coursing through this picture.

Set 60 years in the future, after aliens have not only plagued our planet, but also destroyed our moon, our home has been made into a desolate and tumultuous playground. As a solution, sanctuary is sought on Saturn’s moon, Titan, with a bleak, cold story ensuing.

Much of this is looking at if survival is possible, but after all the loss that’s been seen there’s barely anything left to survive for. There are some really stirring visuals, like how Tom Cruise clings onto any remainders of humanity that he finds on his journey, building a pseudo-nest out of them to feel more at home.

28 Days Later (2002)

Danny Boyle is an incredible filmmaker in his own right, absolutely nailing films from all different genres. This makes his entry into the Last Man on Earth library hold tremendous weight, and truly, 28 Days Later is likely the scariest film on this list. What’s so powerful about this picture is what it starts off as and then what it slowly turns into.

Initially we get an infinitely creepy look at Cillian Murphy waking up from a coma to a world that has emptied out around him. Boyle gets in all of those staples of a man wandering an empty world, but then turns this on its head by essentially switching gears to a zombie movie (albeit a very different one). The product is two separate takes on this idea, both of which are executed perfectly.

Panic in the Year Zero! (aka End of the World) (1962)

This film attempts to show you a regular American family (which includes a young Frankie Avalon as the son) trying to go on vacation as the world ends around them. Rather than taking an even more inspired angle by having this family attempt to maintain their vacation itinerary, it is instead a treaty on chaos, and how men panic when put in a tight situation.

As people are pushed to their limit here, we see some fairly shocking (especially for 1962) measures resorted to, including a lot of murder, sex slaves, and even the rape of one of our main characters. It’s a tough film, but one that still manages to have a hopeful ending where this family at least isn’t infected with radiation. The film closes with the message, “There must be no end –- only a new beginning” in what apparently passes for optimism in the face of utter destruction.

Delicatessen (1991)

A surrealist black comedy from visual extraordinaire, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amélie), Delicatessen has one of the better premises on the list. In a post-apocalyptic society, those that are still alive have turned to looking at food as currency, giving it tremendous value and it even splitting up society.

For instance, those that only deal with grain live underground, and are referred to as troglodytes, where those above ground eat meat, with it often costing people their lives and fostering business arrangements in the process. A truly unique film that has a lot to say about society and class, it’s part of a new branch of French cinema often referred to as “La Nouvelle Vague.”

Reign of Fire (2002)

Surprising I know, but hear me out: It’s 20 years in the future, dragons have been re-awakened and only a few humans are left on the planet. Christian Bale is the leader of these survivors, as they struggle to maintain crops and survive in these apocalyptic settings. A particularly insane Matthew McConaughey then shows up as the new hero to kill these dragons and save the day while some fairly ridiculous stuff goes down.

Gerard Butler is also along for the ride as one of the other questionable heavyweights in this picture that was directed by Rob Bowman, a veteran of the The X-Files. The project was a pretty colossal misfire and Disney even banked for big things from the film, including a theme park extension at Disney World.

Waterworld (1995)

And speaking of failures…the highly over-budget Waterworld saw the polar ice caps melting and most of the world being swallowed up in the process (and what wasn’t subsequently being referred to as Dryland). Kevin Costner stars as the Mariner, who has adapted to all of these changes to the point of having gills, as he fights for life amongst all of this. This was a weird time for Costner with him also doing The Postman in 1997, which put him in another Messianic role after the apocalypse.

Waterworld is a messy if ambitious film that’s still worth checking out for this bizarre aquatic take on Mad Max.

Five (1951)

Aptly enough, an atomic blast goes off and only five people (one woman and four men…eep) are left standing. In what’s a beautiful, bottle episode-esque piece of near-theatre, each of these individuals goes on an interesting journey as they examine the parts of their lives that have left them, and what sort of future they can possible have now. There are some jarring visuals and ideas played with, like how strangely all buildings and architecture remain standing in the wake of humanity disappearing.

The film also nicely uses Cold War logic to get through its problems (like how hiding in a bank vault could keep you safe from radiation annihilation). Frequent thoughts of invincibility flash through these people’s minds only to find themselves faced with situations like burying their children or showing signs of infection after all. Five functions as another intensely pessimistic sort of story as we see this really boiling down to a tug of war between these five people’s egos.

The Day of the Triffids (1963)

In one of the true classics of the genre, a man wakes up in the hospital with his eyes bandaged and he learns that he’s missed an atypical meteor shower that has blinded most of the population. In this small amount of time, a giant plant race has taken over Earth, killing humanity with poisonous stings and only a few people remain. While The Day of the Triffids does feel a little more populated than a lot of other films on here, it's just so damn good, scary, and a large influence on a lot of future zombie fodder that it can’t be passed up.

Night of the Comet (1984)

A comet, which hasn't appeared in 65 million years, is passing Earth, and the last time it reared its head, it rendered the dinosaurs extinct. So this kind of seems like the time to panic. People respond to this in different ways as they watch the event, either celebrating or freaking out, with a haze of crazy being placed over everyone as erraticness reigns free. It’s a really unique and unpredictable take on this sort of premise, and not with the typical sort of causal factors being resorted to. It also has one of the cleanest endings out of all of these films with a solution being very much in sight, and a real feeling of “Boy, wasn’t that a crazy dream?” washing over everyone.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

A monumental picture that was also scripted (in part) by The Twilight Zone’s Rod Serling, some people might consider this film to be a bit of a cheat since Charlton Heston here is very much not the Last Man on Earth. But there are still plenty of apes moving around and in the picture. That being said, the moment of Heston at the Statue of Liberty is so emblematic of this genre (and so is Heston himself, to a degree) that it felt like a necessary inclusion.

Children of Men (2006)

Another film that is a bit of a stretch, Alfonso Cuaron’s movie is just so freaking gorgeous (not enough can be said for that shoot-out in the car) that it’s more than deserving of an inclusion. With a rather inventive twist on the end-of-the-world premise, the Earth has been dealing with human infertility for 20 years, and much of what’s left has been crumbling around them. While they’re not down to the last man on Earth yet, they will be, and they’re approaching that point quickly until a miraculous birth takes place; everyone else is just running out the clock.

Wall-E (2008)

It’s a bit of twist here that this isn't a film about a man stranded or alone, but rather a robot, yet when we eventually see what humanity has become, Wall-E feels far more like the lone human individual. The beginning of this movie is so distant and quiet too, it really captures the feeling of being deserted and is perhaps just as bleak as the On the Beach. That’s pretty incredible and progressive for what ostensibly functions as a children’s film.

The Last Woman on Earth (1960)

Originally released as a double feature with Little Shop of Horrors, with that title being the more memorable of the two, it doesn’t mean that The Last Woman on Earth isn’t still without its charms. In a fairly bizarre set-up that kind of feels right up director Roger Corman’s alley, a man, his wife, and another man go on a scuba diving escapade, and when they re-surface, everyone in their area (and in what appears to be a pretty big leap of an extrapolation, the world) is dead. As these three try to carry on, the film soon reveals that it’s title is a nice bit of trickery with the woman not being the last human on earth, but merely the last female.

A bitter love triangle ensues and tears them apart (as is usually the way in these affairs). Honestly, The Last Woman on Earth is probably the weakest film on this list, but Corman’s tone and classic hammy sensibilities save this film from irrelevancy.

It’s interesting to see that in so many of these disparate films, there are still common themes and ideas that are being fallen on. It might be because we keep turning to the same classic texts to approach these films, or maybe because there’s something inherent about this terrifying premise that we can all connect to. We’re surely not going to stop making Last Man on Earth films anytime soon, but hopefully, as the movies continue to get made, we’ll still have Will Forte on our television screens living out the tragedy for years to come.

Den of Geek is screening the original RoboCop TONIGHT, February 27th, at Videology in NYC.

Click here for details!

Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop is something of a sacred cow among fans. The 1987 film presses so many buttons that it’s almost impossible to look at it objectively anymore, which is why Jose Padilha’s RoboCop remake seemed doomed before it even hit theaters. That's a shame, because it was certainly worth a look on its own.

But the original RoboCop is a nearly perfect blend of action film pyrotechnics, horror movie gore, revenge flick angst, and a superhero origin story. Packed with profanity, satire, incredible sound design (good god, this movie is loud), and charismatic villains, RoboCop seemed destined for cinematic immortality and introduced a main character who practically begged for broader exploitation. Over the next 25 years, there were plenty of attempts to maximize RoboCop’s franchise potential. Whether it was the limitations of the character or the imaginations of the people involved, none of these ever quite managed to put it all together.

RoboCop is a product of its time. Fully loaded with Reagan-era cynicism and endless hallmarks from that golden age of action movie excess, there’s a razor’s edge that RoboCop manages to walk. Neither a total nod-wink satire nor an endorsement of the film’s “future of law enforcement” tagline, RoboCop effortlessly blends over-the-top violence with disturbingly gory practical effects and a cutting sense of humor about consumerism, corporate culture, and the media.

Oh, and those villains! In the course of the film, RoboCop eliminates an endless parade of baddies, from Kurtwood Smith’s Clarence Boddicker (whose casually reptilian utterances like “Bitches, leave” and “Just gimme my fuckin’ phone call” are delivered with such effortless abandon that they sound accidental: like the F-word equivalent of that mysterious chord that opens The Beatles’ “A Hard Day’s Night”) to Miguel Ferrer’s coke sniffing upstart corporate goon to perpetual cinematic nice guy Ronny Cox as the appropriately named Dick Jones. Throw in Clarence's gang of cartoon heavies for good measure and you’d be hard pressed to find a more colorful assortment of reprehensible assholes this side of Gotham City. Box office numbers were solid, reviews were positive, and Detroit had a new superhero.

It’s easy to see how a generation of pre-teens with cable subscriptions and/or permissive parents were able to sink their teeth into this ‘80s icon. The non-stop violence, nearly poetic use of profanity, terrifying giant robots, and a tragic, man/machine hero who wouldn’t be out of place in the pages of Marvel Comics (where he would eventually end up) were like catnip for kids of the era. With all of these elements in place, and a faintly dystopian near-future that with each passing year looks more and more prescient, it seemed like endless adventures for the hero who is “part man, part machine...all cop!” were all but assured. But many of the film’s strengths were either unable to translate to more franchise-friendly mediums (and with good reason), or the folks in charge simply missed the point.

Things got off to a reasonably good start with 1988’s RoboCop arcade game. A fairly standard shoot ‘em up platformer that nevertheless boasted some above average graphics and terrific sound design. With digitized ED-209 sound effects and cast voices, a cool Robo point-of-view target practice bonus level, and what, to the untrained ear, sounds like bad guys saying “shit!” when they get popped, the RoboCop arcade game just feels right. The gleeful violence of the film found a perfect home in this game, which sucked an infinite number of quarters out of the pockets of an infinite number of suburban boys.

From the silver screen to the arcade screen, the next logical step for a superhero like RoboCop in the post-Star Wars era was, naturally, Saturday morning cartoons and the toy aisle! RoboCop: The Animated Series and the Kenner toy line RoboCop and the Ultra Police both got going at roughly the same time. Featuring a mix of characters from the original film (Anne Lewis, Sgt. Reed, Dr. McNamara), generic toy-line-by-numbers bad guys sporting code names like “Headhunter” and “Nitro” and a few half-assed G.I. Joe rejects like “Wheels” Wilson and “Birdman” Barnes, Robocop and the Ultra Police wasn’t exactly looking for any kind of credibility or pointed satire. On the other hand, these action figures actually fired caps, because if you’ve got to get one thing right from the original film, it may as well be its ear-splitting volume. Nevertheless, the toy line did give collectors a rather cool RoboCop figure, complete with removable helmet (that reveals a fairly detailed head-sculpt) and a gun that mounts where his leg-holster would go. The animated series, on the other hand…

RoboCop: The Animated Series. Where do we even begin? Even the most late night HBO-hardened kid could have told you that in order for RoboCop to make the jump to television, in any form, much of the film’s appeal would have to be significantly sanitized. Let’s remember that this is a superhero who, in one of his first acts as a crimestopper, calmly shoots a would-be rapist squarely in the dick. While nobody was expecting the over-the-top violence, rapid-fire displays of virtuosic profanity, or even anything resembling subtlety, RoboCop: The Animated Series still fails to distinguish itself as anything more than an attempt to set Robo up for merchandising success. While faithful to a number of elements of the Robo-mythology, its devotion to one particular element proves to be its undoing, and is also one that plagues future RoboCop installments.

In the original film, it’s unlikely anyone would mistake Peter Weller’s RoboCop for Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. RoboCop’s lack of mobility is primarily out of necessity (Rob Bottin’s impressive RoboCop suit and makeup weighed 80 pounds), but it also served to emphasize the lumbering, tragic, Frankensteinian nature of the character. That ponderous, slow, methodical approach was driven home by the film’s sound design, with Robo’s thumping footsteps as much a signature of the franchise as Darth Vader’s breathing in Star Wars.

But within RoboCop: The Animated Series’ multitude of sins, we see the first indication of something which would hamper the idea of RoboCop as a truly effective franchise hero: Robo is slower than a city bus with a flat tire in crosstown traffic, and he gets his shiny metal ass handed to him at every opportunity. When he’s not too slow to avoid falling heavy objects, he’s powered down, scrambled, remote controlled by the bad guys, or in danger of being replaced by some shinier piece of law enforcement technology (which we’ll also see in later live-action incarnations as well). For a super strong guy made of metal, it doesn’t take much to put Robo out of action.

Someday, we’ll write a comprehensive article about every irritating little setback that effectively defeats and/or immobilizes RoboCop throughout his career, but...then again, we probably won’t do that. There are limits, even at Den of Geek.

Ironically, one of the the best episodes of RoboCop: The Animated Series is the one that fucks the most with the continuity of the original movie. Do you realize that the opening title sequence of this show features a cartoon version of Officer Murphy’s execution at the hands of Clarence Boddicker? Well, here Mr. Boddicker is alive and well, and you see him again in the episode “Menace of the Mind.” The odd standout aside, most episodes of the show are indistinguishable from any number of other animated TV show plots of the era, from G.I. Joe to C.O.P.S. If it's any consolation, it's far better than the virtually unwatchable RoboCop: Alpha Commando animated series that came around in 1998.

We can accept the lack of swear words and the understandable transformation of the film’s gun battles into bloodless, non-lethal laser gun affairs, seriously reminiscent of that other famous animated toy commercial, G.I. Joe. Then again, G.I. Joe managed to have the occasionally subversive episode, like the one that was a tripping balls homage to The Prisoner featuring Shipwreck, but I digress. In the series, Anne Lewis’ transformation from tough, gum-popping badass to an occasionally lovestruck bit of window dressing who GOES ON DATES WITH ROBOCOP is enough to send RoboCop: The Animated Series well over the line from “sanitized” to SNL-style RoboCop parody. On the other hand, RoboCop’s non-lethal weaponry returned for the reboot, so perhaps RoboCop: The Animated Series was simply ahead of the curve.

By the time RoboCop 2 rolled around in 1990, the franchise had already been confused and diluted. Paul Verhoeven was out, opting instead to direct that summer’s brilliant Total Recall, and in was Empire Strikes Back director, Irvin Kirshner, with a screenplay co-written by Frank Miller. Given the first film’s tonal similarities (coincidental though they may have been) to Miller’s seminal The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, and the man who directed the very best Star Wars film, what could possibly go wrong?

Quite a bit, it would turn out.

Much like RoboCop: The Animated Series was the harbinger of Robo’s many weaknesses as an action character, RoboCop 2 exposed how poorly the franchise could fare when the razor sharp wit of the first film was replaced by more on-the-nose fare and an ultimately tedious “drugs are bad” message. RoboCop 2’s best sequence remains the roll-out of potential "RoboCop 2" models, each one more terrifying and prone to malfunction than the last. The scene is played for laughs, but watching it today, the evil scientists’ quest to improve on the intangible formula that made RoboCop the character so effective can almost be seen as a metaphor for how the suits’ desperate desire to turn RoboCop the concept into a viable franchise misfired at every turn. Kurtwood Smith and Miguel Ferrer are sorely missed, as is anything resembling the title character’s growth after his breakthrough final word of the first film: “Murphy.”

Which brings us to another issue that has hampered the growth of a RoboCop franchise. The first film deals with Alex Murphy’s violent transformation from man into machine, and his painful crawl back to humanity, and really, all the rotten bastards he annihilates along the way are just there to give him something to do and keep the audience awake. By his final line in the film, Alex Murphy has appeared to, at least somewhat, regain his soul. But all future iterations of the character conveniently ignore this, either via necessity or plot device, in order to keep Robo as a monotonous robotic law enforcement machine. To keep this in strictly geeky terms, imagine if Luke Skywalker was the same whiny hothead in Return of the Jedi as he was in the original Star Wars, and you’re getting to the crux of the problem.

While the less said about RoboCop 3, the better, it’s unavoidable. It's unfair to pick on Robert Burke, the actor tasked with replacing Peter Weller (who felt that David Cronenberg's film version of, of all things, Naked Lunch, was a better career move than getting in the metal suit for the third installment), as the writing was already on the wall for this flick. Monster Squad director Fred Dekker stepped in. “I wanted to pay homage to Verhoeven and get back to the roots of what the character was all about,” he said. “I wanted this movie to be a much broader comic book action-adventure than the previous two movies had been...and because kids seem to love this character, we were also aiming for a PG-13 rating. RoboCop 3 is not as violent or brutal as the other two films."

The contradictory nature of this statement, from wanting to pay homage to Verhoeven’s vision to wanting to make a film suitable for kids, certainly encapsulates many of the problems, not just with RoboCop 3, but with the franchise as a whole at this point. The addition of a jetpack may help with RoboCop’s mobility issues, and as the remake has proven, making an effective PG-13 RoboCop film is certainly within the realm of possibility, that wasn't the case with this unfortunate entry, ninja robots and all. 

Interlaced throughout RoboCop’s career were a number of comic books (of varying quality) from publishers as diverse as Marvel, Dark Horse, Avatar Press, BOOM! Studios, and Dynamite. At least Marvel’s Judge Dredd-lite 23 issue ongoing series was weirder and more violent than the cartoon it ran at the same time with. Avatar published a comic book adaptation of an early draft of the Frank Miller RoboCop 2 screenplay. Indeed, the only one that truly distinguishes itself is Frank Miller and Walt Simonson’s 1992 Robocop vs. Terminator for Dark Horse Comics, which is every bit as awesome as the title makes it sound (and which spawned a decent Sega Genesis game, too!). However, Robo’s comic history is a tangled web of its own, and perhaps we’ll give it a shot in a future article.

[related article: The Complete History of RoboCop Comics]

Still, In six short years, RoboCop had gone from a franchise that started out with such promise to...well...not very promising. It might just be that the character simply wasn’t built to sustain the kind of multi-media storytelling that his corporate masters envisioned for him. Robo only fared marginally better in two live-action television versions of his story.

The first, RoboCop: The Series, ran for 22 episodes, toned down the violence, and amped up the satire...to mixed results. RoboCop: The Series came from the minds of Ed Neumier and Michael Miner, writers of the first film, and the show borrowed elements from their unproduced sequel, RoboCop: The Corporate Wars. While the show had some reasonable production values for a syndicated show, ratings were poor, recognizable characters beyond Robo were noticeably absent, and the series often took bizarre turns...like the time RoboCop took on a superhero named Commander Cash, played by “Rowdy” Roddy Piper.

The next, RoboCop: Prime Directives, a mini-series of four feature length episodes fares little better, despite being less bashful about the occasional bit of ultra-violence. Just as RoboCop: The Series ignores the events of the sequels, the exact relationship Prime Directives has to the previous TV series or anything beyond the first film is murky at best. While the animated series and comic books couldn’t be expected to necessarily agree with the more graphically violent films, the constant shuffling of continuity between the live-action interpretations of RoboCop help to illustrate the insurmountable problems of the first film’s legacy.

So, taking all of this into account, it’s easy to see how a studio might be willing to take a different road with the RoboCop concept. Jose Padilha’s RoboCop remake elicited strong feelings from fans (before any had even seen a single frame of film), simply because the original is such a revered piece of genre filmmaking. And while the new RoboCop is a conflicted and not entirely effective film, there is one thing it inarguably does much better than the original: this RoboCop has all of its franchise ducks in a row, right out of the gate.

(fair warning: from here on out, there will be spoilers for the RoboCop remake)

Setting aside the toned down violence and profanity, and the decidedly unsubtle (but still effective) FOX News jabs, Joel Kinnaman’s RoboCop is a more franchise-friendly character than Peter Weller’s RoboCop ever could have been. The film itself even seems to engage in a little meta-commentary on this, as RoboCop is never sold to the public as “product” but as Alex Murphy, the heroic cop who has been transformed into a machine in order to continue to serve the community that he nearly gave his life for.

Other than the film’s middle act, where Murphy’s emotions and personality are chemically suppressed in order to make him a more effective fighting machine, there’s very little doubt that the man in the machine will eventually emerge. Murphy awakens fully (and horrifyingly) aware of what he has lost and can never regain. While this makes for a far less conflicted RoboCop film than its 1987 progenitor, it does allow the lead actor’s face and unaltered voice more prominence throughout the film and its potential sequels, as well as more “personality.” So, that issue with Murphy struggling to regain his humanity, only to accept that he’s as human as he’s going to get at the end of the original RoboCop, and then have that all be promptly forgotten in the sequels? “Fixed.” This doesn't negate this version of the character's arc in the film, but there's less room for confusion going forward.

And then there’s the mobility issue. A quick look at any of the trailers show how this sleek, “tactical” Robo is able to run at top speed, leap from high places, and essentially run circles around his Frankenstein’s monster forebear. Is it possible that previous Robo-incarnations would have taken this route were Rob Bottin’s incredible prosthetic suit not so cumbersome? Perhaps. Would it have added anything to the story other than some visual pizazz? Probably not. Does it work here? Absolutely.

What we’re left with is a film that manages to slip a few ambitious (although somewhat muddled) messages in that would be worthy of any RoboCop update, reboot or otherwise. But these same themes are equally susceptible to being as completely mishandled by future writers and directors as those in the original. However, this RoboCop is also unashamedly a PG-13 action movie, one designed specifically to sell toys, video games, and comics in order to make its deeper themes easier to swallow. The film occasionally plays like a slick TV pilot, and one could easily envision Joel Kinnaman’s RoboCop, still capable of cracking tough guy wise, going far on some adventurous cable channel’s budget.

The RoboCop concept is too good not to exploit. The original film will stand the test of time, and nothing that this new franchise can do could possibly diminish that legacy more than what the sequels and other attempts to cash in already have, although there hasn't been much of a scramble to get a sequel or animated series back on the air since the reboot was released. RoboCop 1987 may have to remain preserved as a virtually perfect action film, but RoboCop 2014 may eventually prove to be a much more effective and efficient way to launch a franchise. 

This article originally ran on February 14th, 2014. It has been slightly updated.

Your move, creeps. The next installment of Den of Geek Presents will be a screening of Paul Verhoeven's nightmarish sci-fi action masterpiece, RoboCop. Last year's remake was better than expected, but nothing can match the perfection of the 1987 film. The only thing that improves it? Rounding up some rowdy Den of Geekreaders in a place that serves adult beverages.

That place happens to be our pals at Videology, who have an intimate screening room, a menu full of munchies, and a license to serve you alcohol. We'll be bringing cool prizes, some video highlights (or...not so highlights) from the rest of RoboCop's career, and our winning personalities. Well, two out of three ain't bad.

So, your Prime Directive is to get to Videology at 308 Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn, NY on February 27th at 6:30. The screening will start promptly at 7 (they run a tight ship), so come straight from work and think of it like an extended happy hour. But, you know, a happy hour with a cybernetic Frankenstein-ian superhero and the Dad from That '70s Show in foul-mouthed glory playing one of the best villains of all-time.

We'll update this if we think of anything else.

In an industry about appearances and the most fanciful of illusions, is it really any wonder that there are so many films on the subject of Hollywood’s own self-worth complex? Granted, Maps to the Stars is far from a Hollywood production, despite its across-the-board A-list talent. That really never could be when it is so fanged in its multi-prong takedown of a community that covers up teenage narcotic abuse and multi-generational incest. No, David Cronenberg’s latest, which is independently financed, is deep from screenwriter Bruce Wagner’s wheelhouse of insider knowledge about the smug and smut that keeps more stars than there are in the heavens twinkling up above.

Thus in the tradition of the author’s own subgenre, which is meant to peak behind the curtain (think I’m Losing You), Maps to the Stars is a brilliantly acted and mercilessly acerbic satire of Tinseltown. Unfortunately, that’s also just the first 15 minutes, and from there things start to get really nasty.

With a glossy title that only ever entices the most docile of LA visitors, Maps to the Stars builds an admittedly impressive web of broken lives and self-deluded narcissists from every walk of life along Beverly Hills. There are the movie stars, both young and “old” (Evan Bird and Julianne Moore), as well as the parasitic parents who feed off their golden calves (John Cusack and Olivia Williams). There are the struggling wannnabes trying to break into the business while chauffering celebrities (Robert Pattinson), and then there are the mystery folks—the kind who seem to come to LA just to chase the shooting stars, such as the enigmatic Agatha (Mia Wasikowska).

Fresh off the bus from “Jupiter” (or at least Jupiter, Florida), Agatha opens the film as an outsider that insolates herself within the system ridiculously easy. This is an especially impressive feat since throughout the whole picture her arms and hands are completely covered with black cloth due to a mystifying burn from her childhood. It’s apparently not enough to keep her from wanting to dance with the movie gods, or at least their children. Thanks to a humorous connection, Agatha finds herself employed as a personal assistant to Havana Segrand (Moore), faded movie star royalty who longs to surpass the shadow of her late legendary mother, Clarice Taggart (Sarah Gadon), a long-lost Natalie Wood type with a dark secret.

Clarice’s probable malevolence in her abuse of a young Havana is awakened throughout the movie in vintage Cronenberg sequences of surrealism that borders on horror. In several scenes, a ghostly Clarice haunts Havana’s mind and bedroom, albeit not enough for Havana to avoid a remake of one of her mother’s most treasured films. Havana covets playing the same role as her mother, a fixation likely exacerbated by her opportunistic “therapist.” The self-help guru is named Stafford Weiss (Cusack) and he along with his terrifying stage-mother wife (Williams) manages the next Justin Bieber-in-waiting, Benjie Weiss (Bird).

Benjie’s sequences will undoubtedly be the audience favorite. The star of a hit TV series, Benjie has become a brand name with his own raunchy film comedy franchise, Bad Babysitter. Only 13-years-old and already serving a stint in rehab for drug abuse, Benjie is the precocious adolescent id that one minute is visiting a “Make a Wish” child in the hospital and is in the next moment calling his personal assistant a “Jew faggot.” In one of the movie’s best scenes, Benjie and his mother sit before a sterile board of studio executive plastic smiles as he is needled about how he can stay sober for Bad Babysitter 2. Caring more about his PR appeal than his actual health, the execs have all the genuine concern of Christopher Lee staring at the next Wicker Man.

However, as mean-spiritedly amusing as Maps to the Stars can be, eventually it becomes apparent that self-satisfied cruelty is all the picture is trading on. Traditionally, Cronenberg finds an unquenchable humanity in his subject matter, no matter how ugly or obscured by make-up prosthetics or Russian mafia tattoos. Conversely, the far more lightly-touched Maps feels shockingly removed from the authenticity usually sought by a filmmaker who once made a term paper on Freud and Jung into a masterpiece of understated drama. Pattinson who proved to be an untapped resource in Cronenberg’s last film, Cosmopolis, only exists here to reinforce there are no nice people in this business. A chuckle about how he intends to convert to Scientology to help his career is all he has to go on as a character builder.

To be sure, the best roles in the film belong to Moore and Wasikowska. The latter finds an eerily otherworldly sunshine to project when her insides must look more like the Northeast in January, as opposed to her summertime Southern California surroundings. Moore, meanwhile, devours the part of an industry veteran who still mistakes sex for negotiation and employees as playthings. There is a wordless desperation in every strained laugh and joy that when true happiness finally comes, in the grimmest of contexts, it is a terror to behold.

But much like Benjie’s far more contemporary deconstruction of vapidity and self- aggrandizement, it comes to little when the third act devolves into lurid plot twists of soap operatic proportions. There is a film-within-a-film bandied about between screenwriters on the subject of a “mythical” and beautiful indie flick centered on incest. But when the actual incest revelations come tumbling out of this movie, their shock stems solely from the blatantly miscalculated manipulation of Maps’ own screenplay.

Early on in Maps to the Stars, Carrie Fisher appears as herself in a delicious cameo that embodies all the cynicism the rest of the movie strains for. As an actress who has teased an encyclopedic knowledge of Golden Age immorality that might even make this film blush, she appears as a friend and confidant to Moore’s fictional daughter of Hollywood aristocracy. And it strikes one that Fisher, no stranger to movie star mothers (or illicit affairs from any number of family members), could one day craft the perfect show biz caricature that so many other efforts long to be.

But for this picture, it really is like being on a tour bus to the stars. You think you’re going somewhere celestial or salacious but wind up with that barren feeling of disappointment by journey’s end.

***This review was first published on September 27, 2014.

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for all news updates related to the world of geek. And Google+, if that's your thing!

Leonard Nimoy, the actor beloved to millions died today. He was 83 years old. 

Despite an acting career that spanned decades, he will forever be known as Mr. Spock, the half-Vulcan science officer for the Enterprise on Star Trek. It's worth noting that when Star Trek's first pilot, "The Cage" was rejected by the networks, the entire thing was recast for a second pilot...except for Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy became uncomfortable with the close association he had with his most famous role, even titling his autobiography I Am Not Spock, but in recent years he seemed to embrace it to the fullest, returning to the role in the JJ Abrams films Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness and often signing off on social media with Spock's famous "live long an prosper."

A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP

— Leonard Nimoy (@TheRealNimoy) February 23, 2015

Mr. Nimoy's career in film and television extended well beyond Star Trek, he returned to the stage, and appeared in genre films like 1978's excellent remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. He directed two Star Trek feature films, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

Fans may also remember Nimoy as the host of In Search Of... where he leant his extraordinary presence and unmistakable voice to an exploration of subjects like the Bermuda Triangle and ancient aliens. He famously voiced Galvatron in the animated Transformers: The Movie, uniting generations of fans raised on Star Trek's original airings, and children familiar with him through the inescapable Trek re-runs. He later returned to acting in genre TV for an impressive turn on Fringe.

Mr. Nimoy had been suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which he only recently disclosed that he was suffering from. Mr. Nimoy quit smoking over thirty years ago. After his diagnosis, he urged his fans to quit, with a surprisingly good-natured, "Smokers, please understand. If you quit after you're diagnosed with lung damage it's too late. Grandpa says learn my lesson. Quit now."

Without Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek probably never would have become the iconic success that it was. Without Star Trek, the shape of science fiction in popular culture would look very different. We owe him an incalculable debt.

He will be missed.

Shannon Lee, daughter of legendary actor and martial artist Bruce Lee, is getting set to produce a new biopic about her father with Lawrence Grey (Last Vegas), Ben Everard, and Janet Yang. They're looking to make a "definitive" biographical look at Mr. Lee's life on film.

“There have been projects out there involving my father, but they’ve lacked a complete understanding of his philosophies and artistry,” Ms. Lee said in a statement. “They haven’t captured the essence of his beliefs in martial arts or storytelling. The only way to get audiences to understand the depth and uniqueness of my father is to generate our own material and find amazing like-minded partners to work with…many don’t know that Bruce Lee was also a prolific writer and a creator of his own unique art and philosophy. That’s what we want to show, not just his kick-ass physicality, but the depth of his character and beliefs.”

The last time a version of the Bruce Lee story made it to the screen it was the heavily fictionalized Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story in 1993. It's not great. While Lee starred in just four feature films, their impact, particularly Enter the Dragon is immeasurable. The Green Hornet TV series, where Lee co-starred as Kato, is worth a look, too. Lee left thousands of pages of writings on physical fitness, martial arts, and philosophy behind, and it will be interesting to see if a new movie can capture all the sides of this fascinating man.

Source: Deadline

There's presumably, somewhere, an essay to be written on how the story of The Running Man was the latest to offer a tantalising prediction of the reality television epidemic that would have taken over TV schedules within 20 years of its release. Is it prescience on the level of The Truman Show? Probably not. But to the best of our knowledge, The Truman Show didn't feature a major action superstar clad in lycra. We ask you: who's the real winner there?

That said, a TV show where you just watch people get killed - a kind of Gladiators with a chainsaw rather than a foam hammer - has surely caused at least one meeting to happen at Channel Five.

The Running Man, though, continues to be one of the least talked about Arnold Schwarzenegger films of the 1980s, when it's comfortably one of the most fun. In an era when Conan, Twins, The Terminator, and Predator are all getting new sequels, nobody's gone back for another look at The Running Man. That said, as a monument to gaudy 80s action cinema - violent, colourful, over the top, not afraid of an 18 certificate - it's somewhat refreshing that it's not been meddled with.

Furthermore, The Running Man was clearly made at a time when Schwarzenegger's clout was growing, but still not at the level to veto wearing a silly yellow spandex costume for most of the film. A further reason to love it: it kicks off with a gloriously dated credits roll, where heavily pixelated text that I'm not even sure looked futuristic when I first saw the film. It's a smashing font, that no human being since has used by choice, and there's a Track & Field style graphic of men running too. Stop the film at that point, it's still getting four stars.

But then it begins, and we're once more in a dark, scary future. This particular future has been dreamed up by Stephen King, writing as Richard Bachman. The film is a loose adaptation of his book.

RELATED ARTICLE: Every Stephen King Film and TV Adaptation Currently in Development

The scenario, then, is explained via text - in another badly chosen yet conversely quite brilliant font - on a black screen. It is 2019, we learn. And in this happy, modern society, if you break the law, it's not prison you have to fear. It's being told to put on the aforementioned silly outfit, and then go into a massive 400 block arena (which looks nothing close to that size on film, of course) and basically get torn to shreds in a reality TV show. This is all going to happen FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. It is all bound to come true. 

Ben Richards, played by Arnie, is, of course, an innocent caught up in all of this. Just as Stallone was in Lock Up, he's a man who's found himself on the wrong side of the law by doing the right thing.

I love how the movies do this: there's no way in hell a big star can even have a smite of a stain on their characters, and thus The Running Man goes to great lengths to show us that Ben Richards is A Great Guy (there are many other examples of action heroes being wrongfully accused here). When he refuses to fire on a crowd of protestors rioting on the streets below his helicopter (and if you can find a less convincing helicopter flying backdrop than the one we get here, then I'd love to see it), he's arrested and sent off to prison. Meanwhile, he's framed for the eventual massacre of the people on the streets too, and footage is duly edited to show that it's all his fault.

No wonder he looks so sad. He even grows facial hair, one of the rare times that Arnie does so on the big screen (see also: Kindergaten Cop). Still, even while captive, we are left in no doubt that Ben Richards is also A Very Strong Man.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Stephen King Movie Universe: Warner Bros.' Big Opportunity

It takes a jail break to bring Richards to the attention of Damon Killian. Killian is the creator and host of the top-rated show "The Running Man," where he takes convicted felons and has them killed on prime time TV. In need of a boost for the show, he sees the footage of Richards, and goes off to get his man. Richards, of course, only agrees to go on when Killian says if he doesn't, his three fellow convicts will instead. Because Richards is A Good Man. Killian then sends all four of them down into the game zone. The cad.

What I loved about The Running Man from the early stages, apart from the fun that's clearly been had with the baying-for-blood studio audience (which includes an alarming number of respectable pensioners) and the betting going on outside, is the character of Killian. Played by Richard Dawson, we know that he's A Nasty Man when he gets a cleaner sacked after an innocuous incident in the foyer of the studio building. But as a crowd whooper-upper and all round shit, he's a brilliant creation.

Dawson, clearly, is having a whale of a time, playing on his experience of hosting game shows on TV to brilliant effect (not forgetting his long-running stint on Hogan's Heroes). That said, he's not wise to scoff when Arnie declares, "I'll be back." Has the man not seen The Terminator?

Game Time

In the game zone itself, the wonderfully ludicrous moments then keep coming.

Firstly, the four contestants have those aforementioned suits on, which also seem to have protective padding on the arms. That'll come in handy, when someone runs towards them with a chainsaw later. Also, Killian has managed to send a nerdy computer hacker in with them, who - before being killed - manages to extract vital access codes from the clearly very sophisticated 2019 computer system. The extraction of the codes just seems to involve playing Track & Field for a bit, furiously whacking a few keys.

The film then has gleeful fun sending all manner of opponents down to try and kill Richards and his posse. Naturally, all of these are hyped up by Killian, who pulls old women out of the audience to choose who to send down next. In one case, he rewards said audience member with a VCR. That'll come in useful in 2019.

Gladiators Ready!

And here comes the gold. We get Subzero, who slides around with an ice hockey stick complete with blade on the end. Chainsaw-wielder Buzzsaw also has a go, and Captain Freedom ("Captain Freedom to wardrobe, please, Captain Freedom to wardrobe") insists on fighting Richards without all the silly costumes and such like.

But my favourite, without question, is the walking Christmas tree, Dynamo, who sings opera while cheap LEDs glow all over his body. Frankly, I'd have sat through a Dynamo spin-off movie there and then, yet he doesn't make it to the end of the film. The bastard.

Actually, the lightning effects that kill Dynamo, I thought, were quite impressive, and there's also a frequently-used long shot of Los Angeles in the future that works really well. It's easy, to be fair, to take potshots at the effects of a 25-year old modestly-budgeted action film, but there are moments here that still stand up well.

Of course, it's when The Running Man tries to look futuristic that it ends up looking hopelessly out of date.

Back to the game, though, and there's barely a moment where it looks like Ben Richards will lose. In the same year, RoboCop was dragged to the cliff edge of life before he finally got some degree of redemption. Arnie? He breaks sweat a couple of times, but he may as well be playing Call of Duty.

It's little surprise then that Ben Richards survives The Running Man, and sends Killian to his doom. There's some neat audience manipulation work before that, though, as Killian arranges for fake footage of Richards being killed to be broadcast. He has to though: the crowd outside are threatening to switch over to The Hunger Games. Furthermore, said crowd is turning to Richards' side. We know this because they dare to bet on him at the bookies outside. Said bookies seem surprised that someone would bet on anyone other than the assorted gladiators, which suggests the list of odds they offer is quite short. Nonetheless, the fake footage ruse is expose when Richards gets to the studio. Civilisation as we know it breaks down.

For this is when the real footage of the Bakersfield Massacre is shown, with the helicopter material looking no more real, and the world realises that Ben Richards is actually A Great Guy. Killian, of course, gets sent down to his creation, and disappointingly, it's not one of the twisted killers that gets him, instead a billboard for Cadre Cola. Do you think someone was trying to make a point?

Something To Say

Taking aside just how entertaining all of this was, The Running Man - if it had starred a more ‘serious' actor - could still have been seen as a film with more to say than it's given credit for. After all, away from the action, The Running Man is making points that The Truman Show, The Hunger Games, and even My Little Eye would be praised for making a decade or two down the line.

As much as we love the glorious action and fights - it's like a video game with increasingly tricky and garish end of level bosses - there's also something beneath the surface of The Running Man. Taking time to show the reactions of those who watch the programme, as well as the machinations behind the scenes, it still delivers plenty of trademark Arnie moments. And it's also, you suspect, ripe for a remake in the future. Not that we encourage such things.

We'd be surprised if the original director is brought back, though. Because it's none other than Detective Dave Starsky calling the shots, Mr Paul Michael Glaser.

With the help of, natch, a Steven E de Souza screenplay, he does a decent job here, and it's arguably the peak of his movie directing career. Films such as The Air Up There and The Cutting Edge that followed afterwards didn't win many people over, nor do much business, so most of his directing since has been aimed at the small screen (including episodes of Las Vegas). He seems less confident handling the action in The Running Man than he is the media material, but he, in the end, proved to be an okay choice.

Not that Schwarzenegger was too happy with him though. He didn't have many critical words to say about his directors in his recent autobiography, but Arnie did imply that Glaser was out of his depth here. It seems quite a harsh assessment from our side of the fence, and it also doesn't factor in that Glaser was a replacement director.

After all, before he got involved, the project had passed through the hands of Rambo: First Blood Part II helmer George P Cosmatos, Carl Schenkel, Ferdinand Fairfax and Andrew Davis, who would go on to make The Fugitive. Davis did get a week of filming in the can but shot over budget and got his marching orders. Glaser thus had to come in at short notice and get the film made. As he argued in an interview with Express And Star in 2013, "The Running Man was a strange project. I initially turned it down because I didn’t feel there was enough time to prepare. They hired another director, but then he left it. So they came back to me. You know, there were a lot of problems to solve. I learned how to think on my feet. In the beginning, the film was in disarray, but we made it".

Make it he did. And with The Running Man, he helped fashioned a hugely entertaining 80s action movie, with a fair bit under the bonnet, and a ruthless killer dressed as a Christmas tree. And there aren't many of us on Planet Earth that can say that.

Related Articles:

The Importance of Stephen King's Cell Movie

The Legend of the Stephen King Dollar Baby

Stephen King's 10 Greatest Human Villains

A version of this article appeared on our UK site in 2014.

It's not that uncommon for a director to take their name off a film, and to leave the moniker Alan Smithee or whatever the current equivalent is behind. However, what's considerably rarer is when a film is released under the name of one director, but it's later revealed or rumored that, actually, other hands were at work, either for a solid chunk or even the entirety of a production. That a film was, for want of a better phrase, "ghost directed."

Granted, some of these stories that we're about to tell have little chance of ever being fully confirmed, but here are some examples of where the helmer of a film has been called into question. They range from instances of the whole film being reportedly ghost-directed, to swathes on uncredited helming work being done.

TOMBSTONE

Name director: George P. Cosmatos
But was it actually: Kurt Russell

A popular and successful telling of the Wyatt Earp story that thoroughly trumped Kevin Costner's attempts to cover the same ground a few months' later, Tombstonebrought together a majestic cast, led by Kurt Russell, for a film that enjoys regular respins on disc.

However, a few years ago, it emerged that the late George P. Cosmatos, hardly the most visionary director who walked the earth to be fair, might not have been the man calling the shots on the project after all. The real director? The film's star, Kurt Russell.

The story first surfaced in an article in True West magazine by Henry Cabot Beck, who visited the set during the film's production and made the discovery, only to promise Cosmatos that he wouldn't tell the story while the director was still alive.

Cosmatos died in 2005, and Beck subsequently revealed the secret: namely that after Kevin Jarre - the film's original director - left the project, Russell agreed to direct, with Cosmatos hired to basically do what the actor told him to do. As the article quotes Russell saying, "I'm going to give you [Cosmatos] a shot list every night, and that's what's going to be." It's unclear what hand Russell had, if any, in the director's cut of the film that was released on DVD back in 2002.

It's a fabulous and fascinating article, and one that tells the story better than we ever could. You can find it right here.

It also throws into question just who was behind the director's cut of the film that was released on DVD many years ago...

RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II

Named director: George P. Cosmatos
But was it actually: Sylvester Stallone

George again, and this actually ties into the situation with Tombstoneabove.

Back when the Tombstoneproduction was having trouble and the idea was put forward to get a front man in to shoot the shots he was told to, Kurt Russell and Sylvester Stallone - who worked together, of course, on Tango & Cash - had a phone conversation. As reported in the article we've linked to at the end of the Tombstoneentry, Stallone revealed to Russell that Cosmatos served a similar function on the set of First Blood: Part Two. Or, to put it succinctly, that the second Rambomovie was apparently ghost-directed by Stallone, even though he didn't take credit for it. As with most of these stories, there's more smoke than firm fire to it, but we've seen little to refute this particular story either.

Just to stir things up further: we've been on some internet forums that have also speculated that Cobramay well have had Stallone's hand in there somewhere too, although if that's the case, everyone concerned has been keeping mum about it. It's not, to be fair, a movie too many people would be keen to lay claim to.

POLTERGEIST

Named director: Tobe Hooper
But was it actually: Steven Spielberg

A long-running contentious one, this, with arguments either side. Certainly the lack of too much director involvement in the assorted disc releases of Poltergeist has poured some fuel on this particular fire, but the basis of the debate is this: that Tobe Hooper, when directing Poltergeist, was basically interpreting Steven Spielberg's instructions.

The rumor started back when the L.A. Times visited the set during production and noticed that Spielberg appeared to be directing the shots. It's little secret too that the pair didn't get along on the film. Furthermore, talking to AintItCool, one of the film's stars, the late Zelda Rubinstein, told the site, "I only worked six days on the film and Steven was there. Tobe set up the shots and Steven made the adjustments."

A more recent interview with Spielberg certainly gives that impression too. He said that"Tobe isn't... a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration."

There was certainly enough smoke around the time of release for the Director's Guild of America to look into the matter, and one suggestion is that Spielberg was contractually blocked from directing another movie at the time, and thus brought Hooper in to be the face of the film. 

Furthermore, an article in the L.A. Times published in May 1982 gave Hooper the chance to defend his position. "I don't understand why any of these questions have to be raised. I always saw this film as a collaborative situation between my producer, my writer, and myself. Two of those people were Steven Spielberg, but I directed the film and I did fully half of the story boards. I'm quite proud of what I did," he said.

Poltergeistwas, by several accounts, a very, very heavily storyboarded movie, and the story runs that Spielberg was the guiding force behind these. It's also been suggested that once Hooper had finished shooting, he wasn't involved in the editing process. However, on the other side of the coin, it's been stated since that the whole Spielberg-directed-Poltergeistrumor was deliberately leaked to the press as the studio was wary at the time of having a movie from the director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

For far more debate on the matter, here's a terrific link, from which we sourced the above L.A. Times quote.

STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI 

Named director: Richard Marquand
But was it actually: George Lucas

There's a compelling argument that suggests that George Lucas works best when he's in partnership with another strong filmmaker. As such, bringing in Irvin Kershner to directThe Empire Strikes Back, under his stewardship, delivered results that are still talked about more than 30 years later.

But what of Return Of The Jedi? It was credited to Richard Marquand, who would go on to helmJagged Edge before his premature death. Yet, before Star Wars entered his life, he had a low-key resume. Furthermore, the Welsh director was rumoured to not get on particularly well with the actors on Return OfThe Jedi, and according to an interview back in 2004 with Irvin Kershner, Lucas and Kershner's assistant director actually took over in that department.

Since then, Lucas has played down the suggestion that the two had a poor working relationship. Marquand's side of the story, however, was never told, given that he died at the age of just 49 from a heart attack, back in 1987.

Incidentally, Lucas was rumoured to have asked the Director's Guild of America (DGA), an organisation he'd had spats with in the past, to adjust the credits of The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi for the later editions to give him a co-directing credit. The credits remained unchanged, although there was never convincing corroboration to back the story up.

We've a previously lost interview with the late Richard Marquand, where he talks about Return Of The Jedi, right here.

THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD

Named director: Christian Nyby

But was it actually: Howard Hawks

An acclaimed thriller from 1951 starring Margaret Sheridan and Kenneth Tobey, The Thing From Another Worldis based on the a story by John Campbell, about scientific researchers in the Arctic who discover a spaceship in the ice. What's more, they find the pilot of the craft too, take him back to their base, thaw him out, and mayhem inevitably ensues.

The film was credited to Christian Nyby, a director with TV shows such asThe Fugitive,I Spy, Perry Mason, and Rawhidelittering his CV, and who also edited Howard Hawk's pictures for a while. The Thing From Another World was his first directorial credit, however, yet there's a strong core of opinion that suggests it was actually Howard Hawks calling the shots.

Hawks is credited as being producer of the film, but there have been heavy suggestions that he took a far more hands-on role. Nyby himself was said to have conceded that Hawks was influential on set, while Kenneth Tobey reportedly said that the latter was definitely in charge. James Arness, meanwhile, who played The Thing, apparently refuted this and was adamant it was Nyby directing.

The general argument is that the style of the film is more in keeping with the Hawks back catalogue as opposed to what Nyby would go on to make. Yet, as an article at B Monster argues, given that Nyby was schooled in the Hawks way of making films, that's arguably not much of a surprise. That article is here.

As things stand, this one's never been 100% cleared up. IMDb backs out and lists them both, but we may never definitively know whose hand was at the helm. Whoever it was, it's still a terrific film, though.

TANGO & CASH 

Named director: Andrei Konchalovsky
Rumoured directors: Albert Magnoli, Stuart Baird

Andrei Konchalovsky was always an unusual choice to direct what turned out to be a much-loved '80s action vehicle for Kurt Russell and Sylvester Stallone. Yet the production itself was fraught with problems. Konchalovsky eventually took directing credit, but amidst the walkouts and changes in personnel that plagued the film, he was fired by producer Jon Peters. He was in good company: original director of photography Barry Sonnenfeld - who would go on to direct the Men In Black movies, amongst others - was sacked, reportedly at the behest of Stallone.

The film was still in production when Konchalovsky got his marching orders, and it was Albert Magnoli who was brought in to finish the shoot. Even then, though, the job of cutting the movie together went to someone else, with Stuart Baird reportedly overhauling the film in the edit suite (a service he's provided to other productions, too).

With further rumours about more cooks spoiling the broth, it's difficult to come up with a single name as the director of Tango & Cash. And while it's not unusual for a director to lose control of their film in the edit suite, it's far rarer for it to happen while cameras are still rolling.

As such, Konchalovksy gets the credit, but it's hard to say that it was ultimately he who directed the end product. We looked at the movie in more detail here.

A NIGHT AT THE ROXBURY 

Named director: John Fortenberry
But was it actually: Amy Heckerling

A fairly forgettable comedy (although those amongst us who love it, really really love it), A Night At The Roxbury was one of a procession of spin-offs from Saturday Night Live that utterly failed to ignite the box office, or inspire too many laughs. It was the movie that gave Will Ferrell a solid role in a film for the first time, though, and it was the first film script that he wrote that got made as well.

Behind the camera was John Fortenberry, who has earned his stripes before and after with television work (and he clearly gets extra points for working on Greg The Bunny), and he's not helmed a big screen release since. There appears, however, to be some confusion with regards A Night At The Roxbury, though.

We've read in more than one place that Amy Heckerling, the director of the likes of Cluelessand Look Who's Talking, did some directorial work on the picture, although it's hard to ascertain the scale of it. Our best guess is that she did uncredited work on some scenes in the film, which would still make it Fortenberry's movie. Wherever the truth lies, though, the end result doesn't quite have the fanbase for a detailed DVD digging into the real story...

BLACK MAGIC

Named director: Gregory Ratoff
But was it actually: Orson Welles

The 1949 adaptation of the Alexander Dumas novel, Black Magic starred Orson Welles, and if you read the credits, it was directed by Gregory Ratoff. Ratoff was best known for appearing as Max Fabian in All About Eve, and the Russian-born filmmaker was also one of a pair of producers who originally bought the rights to the James Bond series.

In Black Magic, Welles plays 18th century hypnotist, scammer, and magician Joseph Balsamo, in a generally forgettable mix of mystery and romance. This, however, is one of a couple of projects that Welles was reported to have been calling more shots on than the credits may have you believe.

At the very least, it's pretty well known that Welles directed several scenes in the film (and this was a project that had gone through several directors by the time cameras rolled). Ratoff retained the directorial credit for the final cut, even though his overall influence across the project is hard to ascertain.

Welles' hand was also rumoured to be more prevalent than declared in other projects too. Also in some degree of contention wasLa Decade Prodigieuse, a French movie from Claude Chabrol and the 1944 adaptation of Jane Eyrethat was supposedly helmed by Robert Stevenson.

SUPER MARIO BROS

Named directors: Annabel Jankel, Rocky Morton
But was it actually: Dean Semler, Roland Joffe

The very first big screen movie based on a videogame, Super Mario Bros set a trend that pretty much every film based on a game has followed since. It's also a film that has more directors than it may at first appear. The pair credited with helming the big screenMario Bros outing are Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, most famed, of course, for Mr. Max Headroom. 

However, one of the film's producers, Roland Joffe, is widely believed to have done a solid amount of directing work on the film without credit, and likewise its cinematographer Dean Semler has been reported as taking on some helming duties too. Neither got a directing credit for their work, and you'd imagine neither has been particularly keen to get one, either.

It's known that Jankel and Morton were locked out of the editing room. They also weren't involved, according to reports, in the additional photography that was subsequently required to get the film finished.

A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION

Named director: Robert Altman
But was it actually: Paul Thomas Anderson

The influence that director Robert Altman had over Paul Thomas Anderson can be clearly seen when you put the likes of Nashvilleand Magnoliaside by side. Altman was 80 years old and in a frail state when he tackled what would turn out to be his final film, A Prairie Home Companion, and apparently unable to undertake much of the physical side of directing a film.

Reports around the time of the film's production suggested that Anderson was ultimately brought on board to ghost direct the film, but at the very least, he was on set as a back-up. Still, the suggestion was that Altman watched what was happening on monitors and gave out orders, but that Anderson was tackling the hands-on work, and dealing with the actors themselves.

Other reports argue that, as is quite common with directors of advanced age, Anderson was actually on stand-by to take over the film if Altman couldn't. As it stood, Altman got sole directing credit for the film, in line with DGA rules.

THE ROOM

Named director: Tommy Wiseau
But was it really: Sandy Schklair

A regular favourite at London's Prince Charles Cinema is 2003's The Room, Tommy Wiseau's movie that's earned a reputation for, well, not being one of the finest films of all time.

Wiseau is credited as writing, producing and directing The Room, and he stars in it too, of course. But back in 2011, there was some doubt as to whether he'd been calling all of the shots behind the camera.

As Slashfilmreported, Schklair had told Entertainment Weekly that Wiseau hired him to be script supervisor on the movie. But by Schklair's account, the following conversation too place:

Schklair: “Umm…you want me to direct your project?”
Wiseau: “No! I am director!”
Schklair: “Yeah, you’re the director, whatever. But you want me to direct your movie for you?”
Wiseau: “Yes, please.”

Wiseau denies this happened, and has refusted Schklair's claim to directorial credit. But Slashfilmalso quotes an anonymous actor from the film, who argued that "the script supervisor ended up sort of directing the movie. Tommy was so busy being an actor that this other guy directed the whole thing".

Wiseau remains credited with the picture.

Also...

PSYCHO: The Shower Scene

Named director: Alfred Hitchcock
But was it actually: Saul Bass

There's little doubt that Psychois the work of Alfred Hitchcock, but what about its signature scene? The authorship of the shower sequence was thrown into doubt when legendary titles designer Saul Bass - a long-time collaborator of Hitchcock's (also taking on some storyboarding work for the great director) - claimed to have directed it. Since then, the general consensus seems to be that Bass was certainly a contributor, having helped design the scene, but it was absolutely Hitchcock calling the shots (Janet Leigh being among the many who have confirmed this).

Myths & Further Rumours

STRAIGHT TIME

This 1978 thriller was a pet project for its star Dustin Hoffman, who was originally down to direct the film. He did, in fact, take charge for the first few days, yet there was a conflict with the studio over the final cut, and Hoffman ultimately brought in Ulu Grosbard to direct the film instead.

DANCES WITH WOLVES

As Kevin Costner's directorial debut, Dances With Wolves, was reaping acclaim and box office gold, rumours surfaced that a sizeable chunk of the film had actually been steered by Costner's old friend, Kevin Reynolds. Reynolds, who went on to helm Costner in Waterworldand Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, did direct a few sequences, including the terrific buffalo hunt sequence, but it was still Costner's picture. Kevin Reynolds talked about filming that scene in some detail when we had the chance to interview him. You can read the article here.

WATERWORLD

While we're talking about Kevin Costner and Kevin Reynolds, it'd be remiss not to mention the spat between the pair that saw the latter quit the film. As such, it was reportedly Costner who supervised the editing stages of the movie, with no input from Reynolds whatsoever. More on Waterworld, here.

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE

During the film's production, it was rumored that one of its producers, Richard Donner, was more hands-on than might have been expected. However, Fox moved to nix such rumours, and to make it clear that Gavin Hood was very much in charge.

BOLLYWOOD

Dig into the world of Bollywood movies, and stories of ghost directors are equally apparent. Take, for example, last year's action thriller Acid House, where rumours were so rife that director Supern Verma came out and flatly denied that producer and established director Sanjay Gupta was, in fact, calling the shots. Other stories of similar ilk are not too tricky to find, either...

After a brutal winter on the east coast, spring can’t come soon enough. March will likely come in like a frozen, blizzardy lion, and hopefully it will leave like a sunny, 65 degree lamb. But if things don’t heat up, you can escape the blustery, bitter winds at your local movie theater with March’s movie offerings.

This March we’ll be treated to the next innovative sci-fi film Chappie, from Neill Blomkamp, the man who has just been tapped to helm the next installment in the dormant Alien franchise. We’ll also get new comedies from Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell, Disney’s latest live-action fairy tale reimagining, and a new 3D animated adventure from Dreamworks Animation. Head below to see what else will be roaring in this March.

Friday, March 6

Chappie (Nationwide)

Unfinished Business (Nationwide)

Bad Asses on the Bayou (Limited)

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (Limited)

Kidnapping Mr. Heineken (Limited)

Faults (Limited)

Merchants of Doubt (Documentary, Limited)

A Year In Champagne (Documentary, Limited)

Friday, March 13

Cinderella (Nationwide)

Home Sweet Hell (Limited)

Run All Night (Limited)

Before I Go (New York/ L.A.)

The Wrecking Crew (Documentary, Limited)

Anarchy (Limited)

It Follows (Limited)

Friday, March 20

The Divergent Series: Insurgent (Nationwide)

The Gunman (Nationwide)

Do You Believe? (Limited)

Tracers (Limited)

Danny Collins (Limited)

Friday, March 27

Home (Nationwide)

Get Hard (Nationwide)

Serena (Limited)

While We’re Young (Limited)

White God (Limited)

Riot Club (Limited)

Nightlight (Limited)

A Little Chaos (Limited)

The following contains mild spoilers for It Follows.

Although primarily an academic, British writer MR James was a master of the ghost story. His beautifully-written stories often unfold along similar lines: an educated, usually single protagonist unwittingly releases a supernatural force while investigating some ancient book or relic.

One of James's most effective stories was Oh Whistle And I'll Come To Thee, My Lad, published in 1904 and first adapted for television in 1968. In it, a Cambridge professor discovers an old whistle near a deserted beach. Walking back to his hotel, he notices a figure emerging from the hazy distance. The professor thinks little of this at first, until he later notices an inscription on the whistle: "Who is this who is coming?"

It's a taut, bone-chilling story, and made all the more powerful by its economy: the image of an apparition, slowly but inexorably closing in, is unforgettable. Like all great ghost tales, it seems to hover on the boundary between nightmare and reality.

It Follows, the second feature from writer-director David Robert Mitchell, is an unusually observant, literate horror film. This is no less than an MR James tale directed by John Carpenter - an exploration of the usual American horror themes of sex and death, but served up with an assured, intelligent supernatural twist.

The opening’s a great tone-setter. A teenage girl comes running from a quiet suburban house, terrified of something neither we nor her father can see. “What is it?” the father says, as the girl leaps into a car and skitters away at top speed. Later, on a lonely beach, the girl cowers, seemingly resigned to the fate which awaits her.

Like that old Edwardian James tale, It Follows’ victims are stalked by something implacable and terrifying: a figure which appears first in the distance but is always closing in. George Romero used a similar idea to powerful effect in the opening of Night Of The Living Dead: the strange, shuffling figure that at first seems too far away to be a threat, but then, suddenly, it’s in our faces, ghoulish and terrifying. 

Mitchell's original idea for It Follows actually emerged from a recurring dream, as he explained to us in a recent interview:

"I was followed by a monster, and I instinctively knew it was bad," the writer-director told us. "It looked like different people, and it seemed like I was the only person who could see or was reacting to it. It was very slow, and it was always coming towards me. It would walk towards me when I was with friends or family, at all different times. I'd have to run away, or climb out of a window, or run down the street. It was just this constant feeling of dread and anxiety."

The memory of that dream clearly burned itself into Mitchell's mind, because it was only much later that he began to think about using the nightmare as a basis for a screenplay. "I started thinking it would be cool to have it be something that could be passed between people," Mitchell continued. "Then it dawned on me that if it was through sex, then it would connect the characters physically and emotionally. I don't know, it just seemed to tie in to the idea of being followed for me, in some way. That was obviously much later, when I put that altogether. But the basic idea was in the back of my head for a long time."

It Follows attaches supernatural horror ideas to elements from the '70s slasher template, creating a version of Halloween where the threat of impending violence is sustained throughout. Heroine Jay (Mika Monroe) engages in her first bout of backseat automotive passion with her boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary), and is left with the mother of all sexually transmitted diseases: a silent figure which tracks her every movement like a heat-seeking missile. Hugh, she learns, has been stalked and terrorised by this being for some time, and Jay's only option is to have sex with someone and pass it onto them. 

The premise raises one or two logical questions, but they don't necessarily spring to mind while the lights are down. It Follows rolls along on its crashing momentum, its heroine reeling from one terrifying situation to another. It’s like Steven Spielberg’s TV movie masterpiece Duel, but with a polymorphous, malevolent sex demon instead of a 10-tonne truck.

It’s the sex that makes It Follows zing. In some horror films, it often feels as though the makers are fumbling around with the notions of sex and death without really knowing what they’re doing; they have a boy and a girl trysting in the back of a car and then kill them simply because that’s what all the other slasher films have done since Janet Leigh first took a shower back in 1960.

It Follows, by contrast, knows exactly what it’s doing. The buttons it pushes are carefully chosen. When Jay’s fateful night with her boyfriend ends with her crying and dishevelled, it doesn’t take a genius to spot the symbolism: this was a betrayal and a violation, both physically and psychologically. With the damage done, Jay has few choices open to her: spend the rest of her life fleeing the demon, or try to pass the curse onto somebody else.

Mitchell's film is mesmerising when the full force of its inventive lensing and electronic score (the former by Mike Gioulakis, the latter by Rich Vreeland) are brought to bear. Where most horror films of this type assault us with aggressive cuts, Mitchell lets his shots play out in agonisingly long takes. The demon can appear seemingly anywhere and in different guises, and the director torments us with this idea almost as effectively as the poor, haunted Jay. In one dizzying sequence, where a slowly revolving shot takes in a view of Jay inside a school and a view through a window to a playing field outside, we can see the figure walking towards the camera. We can't be sure whether the figure's just another student or Jay's supernatural stalker; all we know is that we can see it and that Jay isn't aware of it.

This is but one example of the way It Follows uses the camera to create suspense in engaging, inventive ways. Guillermo del Toro once remarked that suspense in storytelling comes from the withholding of information - we know something the characters in the movie don't know, or vice versa - and It Follows uses this better than most recent horror films I can think of. One sequence even manages to echo Hitchcock's classic Rear Window while still forming an organic part of the story. 

Unexpectedly, It Follows is also an unusually upbeat, humanistic film. Jay's an interesting heroine not just because she's tough and self-sufficient, like Laurie Strode or Ellen Ripley, but because she has good friends she can rely on, including her younger sister Kelly (Lili Sepe), kooky friend Yara (Olivia Lucardi), childhood sweetheart Paul (Keir Gilchrist), and tearaway neighbour Greg (Daniel Zovatto) who may have been cast because he looks and acts uncannily like Nightmare On Elm Street-era Johnny Depp.

Jay is unusual in that she’s a heroine who embraces the help of others rather than strikes out as a sole survivor. (There’s also a quite funny subtext here, where the young male cast members are so horny that they’re still keen to sleep with Jay even with the threat of a deadly curse coming as part of the package.)

Most of all, It Follows plays on its horror lineage, but not self-aware in an arch way which distances us from the characters or their plight. The quasi-sexual dread is the same on which dripped from Ridley Scott's original Alien in 1979, John Carpenter's Michael Myers, or George Romero's '60s zombies. It's that same unstoppable, relentless force that keeps looming up out of the darkness in horror, both in cinema and in literature.

It Follows takes that age old spectre and dresses it up for a 21st century suburbia, where its group of young characters stand on the cusp of an uncertain future. Beyond their cosy suburban home lies a seemingly endless sea of abandoned homes, factories and city buildings, all brought on by the financial crisis; the demon itself seems to have emerged from this apocalyptic landscape of post-recession malaise.

If a horror writer's job is to come up with interesting new masks for Death to wear, then It Follows is succeeds admirably. Because this, surely, is how the very notion of death looks from the perspective of someone still growing into adulthood: a remote figure, insignificant at first, but closing in with each passing moment. Once again, this is death with a new face - and what a terrifying face it is.

UPDATE: New poster down at the bottom...

It looks like it's finally time to get our first look at the new Hitman film. What is decidedly video gaming's very own secret agent seres (imagine James Bond, but he's a clone and has a much bigger body count), the Hitman games have been around since 2000.

The series also isn't new to the movies. You might remember the 2007 film starring Timothy Olyphant...Now, keep trying to forget.

Anyway, here's the first trailer of the new film:

Will a Jimi Hendrix cover song be able to save this film? I kid. 

Hitman: Agent 47 centers on an elite assassin who was genetically engineered from conception to be the perfect killing machine, and is known only by the last two digits on the barcode tattooed on the back of his neck. He is the culmination of decades of research ­and forty-six earlier Agent clones -- endowing him with unprecedented strength, speed, stamina and intelligence. His latest target is a mega-corporation that plans to unlock the secret of Agent 47's past to create an army of killers whose powers surpass even his own. Teaming up with a young woman who may hold the secret to overcoming their powerful and clandestine enemies, 47 confronts stunning revelations about his own origins and squares off in an epic battle with his deadliest foe. 

The film stars Rupert Friend, Hannah Ware, Zachary Quinto, Ciarán Hinds, and Thomas Kretschmann. It is directed by Aleksander Bach. 

Hitman: Agent 47 hits theaters on Aug. 28.

When the DC Cinematic Universe was "officially" born with 2013's Man of Steel, few of us would have thought that the second film would be a movie that teams Superman up with Batman and Wonder Woman. That seems tame when you consider what the follow up to Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is. That would be the Suicide Squadmovie. The one with the all star cast.

Director David Ayer has been promising big things coming "tomorrow." Well, "tomorrow" is now "today" so we'll be keeping an eye on things.

Something will happen. Tomorrow. #skwad

— David Ayer (@DavidAyerMovies) March 2, 2015

He has also been tweeting some photos from behind the scenes. The first one should be of particular interest to fans, since it's the one that shows off props from the film. I would imagine that's Deadshot's gear, but that's just me.

Tools. #skwadpic.twitter.com/m7lCs4rADb

— David Ayer (@DavidAyerMovies) February 3, 2015

Workshop pic.twitter.com/FZTh6uiQSg

— David Ayer (@DavidAyerMovies) January 31, 2015

This next one shows off the film's secret production title, Bravo 14, but if you look closely there's a logo. It looks like a playing card? A joker, perhaps?

Paperwork pic.twitter.com/QgRsrxYu1Z

— David Ayer (@DavidAyerMovies) January 29, 2015

Jai prepares for battle #SuicideSquadpic.twitter.com/hHQXh9nYzV

— David Ayer (@DavidAyerMovies) January 10, 2015

#writingpic.twitter.com/oZNvAKEh7Q

— David Ayer (@DavidAyerMovies) January 23, 2015

Suicide Squad opens on August 6th, 2016. It stars Will Smith as Deadshot, Jared Leto as the Joker, Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang, and Cara Delevinge as Enchantress. You can read more details about the Suicide Squad movie right here.

Our complete calendar of DC Superhero Movies is here.