Quantcast
Channel: Movies – Den of Geek
Viewing all 23983 articles
Browse latest View live

The First Teaser Trailer for Divergent is Here!

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini8/22/2013 at 7:50PM

The first trailer for Divergent, the latest dystopian sci-fi flick that hungers for your attention is here! And it sure is quick!

The first teaser for Divergent, the upcoming science fiction adventure film directed by Neil Burger (who also directed 2006's underrated The Illusionist) is certainly...well...brief! At thirteen seconds, it's just enough time to showcase a little action and to hint at the premise of the movie, but not enough for the viewer to get much of a look at the world or the cast.

Divergentis based on Veronica Roth's 2011 science fiction novel about a humanity that's been divided up into factions based on personality types. Divergentstars Shailene "Don't Call Me Mary Jane Watson" Woodley as the "divergent" protagonist Beatrice Prior and hits theaters on March 21st, 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!

The Next Batman is Ben Affleck

$
0
0
NewsRobert BernsteinMike Cecchini8/22/2013 at 11:04PM

Nobody saw this coming, but Warner Bros. has confirmed that Ben Affleck will play the Dark Knight in 2015's Man Of Steel sequel, Batman vs. Superman.

Warner Bros. announced today that Ben Affleck will be the next man to wear the Batman cowl.  Affleck is set to star in Zack Snyder's Man of Steel sequel, tentatively known as Batman vs. Superman

“Ben provides an interesting counter-balance to Henry’s Superman. He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne. I can’t wait to work with him," said Snyder.

It seems like only yesterday that the announcement was made that not only would Man Of Steel 2 be out in time to compete with Avengers: Age of Ultron for the Summer 2015 blockbuster season, but that it would be much more than just a Superman film.The bombshell that the next Superman movie would feature the first live-action meeting between the Man of Steel and the Dark Knight nearly drove fans insane, and the internet (including us...boy, were we wrong!) has been abuzz with casting rumors and speculation ever since. But nobody would have called this one. 

Affleck fits the mold of the older, more experienced Batman that Warner Bros. had been hinting at, especially considering their citing of the Dark Knight Returns comics as inspiration. Of course, this isn't Affleck's first brush with the comic book world. Fans may remember him as Matt Murdock in Daredevil, he portrayed Superman actor George Reeves in Hollywoodland, at one point his name was connected with the director's chair for the Justice League film, and Argo, the multi-Oscar winning film which Affleck directed, co-produced, and starred in, was based on a true story which involved art created by King of Comics, Jack Kirby.

Man of Steel 2 (or is it Batman vs. Superman?), is slated for worldwide release on July 17, 2015.

What are your thoughts on Ben Affleck as Batman? Better choice than Orlando Bloom at least, right? Sound off below in the comments!

 

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!

Disqus - noscript

He was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!

In other news, WB has announced the CGI cloud of Galactus from the second "Fantastic Four" movie has been cast as Lex Luthor.

Twitter Reacts to Ben Affleck as Batman

$
0
0
NewsDen Of Geek8/23/2013 at 12:38AM

As expected, the internet had PLENTY to say about the casting of Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight in the upcoming Man of Steel sequel. We're just gonna keep a running tally of our favorites...

While tonight has been full of surprises, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Ben Affleck as Batman in the Man of Steel sequel, Batman vs. Superman movie (for cryin' out loud...we have a cast and a release date, can you PLEASE give us a real title now, Warner Bros?) sent Twitter into a frenzy. We're rounding up our favorite reactions from the geek community, from comic book writers and artists to movie stars to politicians...to The Batman himself! So, if Twitter is too much for you right now, just keep checking back with us and we'll sift through it and try to find you the best bits. No promises, though. As Mr. Affleck and the casting department are about to learn, there's just no pleasing some folks!

Ben Affleck is Batman: Den of Geek Staff Reactions

$
0
0

The Den of Geek staff reacts to what is sure to be a controversial choice among comic fans and film buffs alike! Like it or not, Ben Affleck is The Dark Knight in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie!

Sometimes, even the internet can surprise you, and that's just what happened with the announcement that Ben Affleck, former Daredevil, almost-Superman (see: Hollywoodland), current Oscar winner and critical darling, would be donning the cape and cowl to take on the Man of Steel in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie. While the phrase "broke the internet in half" should probably be put out to pasture, this is still one of those moves that is absolutely certain to be divisive among hardcore fans. This news even hit Den of Geek HQ just as hard as anywhere else, so we had to take a moment to collect our thoughts. Unfortunately, you have to read them.

Mike Cecchini: I almost can't believe I'm saying this, but this makes perfect sense. Considering that Batman vs. Superman (certainly, they're going to find us a better title than this between now and 2015) will have big time competition from The Avengers: Age of Ultron and a new Star Wars movie, Warner Bros. needs all the box-office firepower they can muster, and Affleck's name carries more Oscar wins and nominations than ANY of Marvel's big screen superheroes. This is a guy who has come a long way over the last decade, and he certainly understands the stakes (and the paycheck) involved, especially considering what happened the last time he played a superhero. Say what you will about Daredevil, but Affleck's rather sincere performance as Matt Murdock was the absolute least of that film's problems. And really, playing Bruce Wayne isn't exactly King Lear.

Robert Bernstein: Affleck as Batman is definitely an interesting choice, I'll give Warner Bros. that. I can see it going either way, really. Look at how everyone reacted when Heath Ledger was announced as the Joker; there was outrage and complete skepticism, and look how that turned out. I'm not going to write him off so quickly, as he definitely has the acting chops.  On the one hand, he has a few gems like ArgoThe Town, and Smokin' Aces (loved it), and big box office success capability with Pearl Harbor. But on the other hand, yes--he was in Gigli (let it go, people!).  More significantly, though, he ruined Daredevil for a lot of die hard comic book fans. Let's hope he doesn't ruin Batman.

David Crow: I can safely say that nobody really saw this coming. Sure six months ago, after the success of Argo, everyone and their mother (especially the mothers) wanted to see Ben Affleck DIRECT a Justice League/World's Finest/The Wonder Twins and Robin flick...but to STAR in one? As The Batman, no less? It certainly is a unique choice. Understandably, Ben Affleck is the new Hollywood underdog story. Just as Robert Downey Jr. astoundingly rebuilt his image with Iron Man and Tropic Thunder in 2008, Affleck has been on the long road with Gone Baby GoneThe Town and finally Argo; the last one even nabbed Affleck and, more importantly, WB an Oscar for Best Picture.

Indeed, WB's brand as of late seems to be built around three filmmakers: Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, and Ben Affleck. So why is it surprising that they turned to the last untapped one for a new DC film? Still, as intriguing as the decision is from a business and franchise-building standpoint, I can honestly say that it leaves me a little artistically cold. I have seen Ben Affleck give strong performances: Good Will HuntingShakespeare in LoveBoiler RoomDogmaHollywoodland. But what do they all have in common? He's in a supporting role. So unless they want Affleck to play complete second fiddle to Henry Cavill (doubtful), I wll approach this with a healthy does of caution. Yet, there has to be some optimism in that this makes the second Batman in a row to win an Oscar! Mind you Christian Bale won for acting, as opposed to writing....

Marc Buxton: Affleck can put together a nuanced performance as proven by Hollywoodland (you know, the movie where he kinda played Superman), and he ruled in The Town and Argo,proving that he not only was an amazing director, but he is more than just the scene chewing pretty boy many claim he is. That being said, I would have much rather them go the Henry Cavill route and cast an almost unknown. Unfortunately, anything but a perfect script and directorial job by Zack Snyder will make this Batman just Ben Affleck dressed in a Bat suit. While Affleck certainly has the chops to kick ass as Bruce Wayne, he might be too big a star to hide in the shadows.

Well those are our initial reactions. What of your own? Can you hardly wait to see how Affleck measures up to the storied tradition of this iconic role or do you feel like Jason Lee, in a 1990s mall, having just spotted that guy from Fashionable Male with the love of your life? Leave a comment and let us know.


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!

Disqus - noscript

THIS IS RIDICULOUS. First of all Ben affleck is talented but how can u put a new face behind the cape, that is basically a reboot of batman but what about his origins. Last 3 batman movies are not his origins as its a new face. You can't just put a new batman without telling the audience how he got there n u also have to build his story up before putting him alongside superman. Christian bale let us down, he would have been perfect as he is ageing himself and if not bale then at least make a standalone movie of batman before this superman and batman.

It's actually three Oscar-winning Batmen in a row, as Clooney also won for Syriana. Then again, look how his turn in the suit turned out.

Tore my shirt and rubbed ashes in my hair. Coworkers thought I was crazy until I told them the news.

The Frozen Ground, Review

$
0
0
ReviewGabe Toro8/23/2013 at 2:09AM

Nicholas Cage and John Cusack surprise in capable, restrained performances as a hero cop and serial killer with Vanessa Hudgens selling a traumatized victim. Too bad it is all for a rote procedural.

Nicolas Cage and John Cusack star in The Frozen Ground, an Alaskan serial killer drama from first-time director Scott Walker. Both stars have fallen on hard times, appearing in films below their talent level, frequently looking ridiculous in the process. It seemed like Cage was in freefall, in a series of increasingly ridiculous movies where eventually even he couldn’t hide his own indifference to the material. But Cusack hasn’t even had the benefit of leading man roles to sink to a certain level, instead popping up in dubious supporting work. His slurred-voice yokel in The Paperboy and his President Nixon in The Butler both feel like absurd Simpsons caricatures that belie Cusack’s natural intelligence. Maybe it’s fitting that Cusack and Cage get out of their ruts and appear in something a little more highbrow, despite the fact that their last collaboration, Con Air, reached near-poetic heights of stupidity.
 
Fortunately, they don’t look ridiculous during the course of this true crime procedural. For one, they’re not bad: Cage is dialed-down and certainly functional in a role that requires a steady compass, not a scenery-chewing jackass or a quietly intense neurotic. Cusack is quite good, as a small town killer with a common home, a common wife, common kids, and a common attraction to kidnapping and torturing young girls. Fortunately, there’s someone else around to embarrass themselves, and that is 50 Cent, here playing antagonistic pimp Clate Johnson. Mr. Cent has developed a semi-interesting onscreen presence, downbeat and appropriate for undemanding secondary roles. Here, he’s adequate, with the exception of the dubious bob he wears, one that makes him look like President Camacho’s long-lost uncle.


 
It’s one of a few cheaper distractions that limit the ability of The Frozen Ground to deliver on a few levels. The story involves State Trooper Jack Halcombe (Cage) in his attempts to solve a notorious serial killer case that has left body parts strewn all over the woodlands in different directions, suggesting a collector who knows full well that, during some seasons, locating missing persons is close to impossible. The work is predictably gnawing at him, creating tension at home with his wife Allie (Radha Mitchell, wasted). Eventually, the stack of evidence he’s procured is deemed circumstantial and flimsy by his higher ups, though he knows exactly who is to blame.
 
Everything suggests that local resident Robert Hansen (Cusack) is the culprit. Bookish and unassuming, Hansen is respected enough in the community to be able to hide in plain sight, even with lackeys employed by the local strip clubs. Cusack gives Hansen a smile that seems forced, almost as if his public life is an elaborate mask for the sexual damage he causes to the strippers, prostitutes, and wayward women he abducts before taking them to his cabin. The Frozen Ground admirably avoids the seedier details of these encounters, opting instead to normalize Hansen as a hobbyist with unsavory pet projects, but a severe disdain for chaos or messiness.


 
The attention to detail somehow doesn’t include Cindy (Vanessa Hudgens), a stripper who manages to escape with her life, though not without traumatic scars. What’s heartbreaking is the empathy that the film shows towards Cindy, who comes from a decidedly un-promising background, stumbling into dancing as much as she falls into drugs and drink. Being abducted and saving herself doesn’t change her outlook: to her, it’s just further proof that she’s circling down the toilet, and Halcombe soon learns that, despite being a witness, she still needs saving. Rather than be a damsel in distress, Hudgens actually gives this character layers, suggesting a woman with a self-awareness that complicates her reliance on unreliable men, her need to stick a finger in the flame.
 
Most of The Frozen Ground is turgid procedural nonsense. Halcombe’s dedication to the case borders on saintly, his need to catch Hansen and bring Hansen to justice first questioned, then wholeheartedly embraced by his stay-at-home wife. It brings him into conflict with superiors, a tiresome back-and-forth that’s one of the film’s few naked concessions to genre, portraying an indifferent bureaucracy versus One Good Cop. These are characters that don’t exist beyond the narrative, breathing only to bring justice to the world or corrupt it. The film’s allegiance is to the facts of the case, with Hansen being a villain that needs to be apprehended and cuffed, in the end result in a roll call of the lost lives involved in the case (accompanied, poorly, by an uptempto rock song).


 
Ultimately, The Frozen Ground has no aspiration to be anything beyond an episode of Law & Order. That’s a fine, if modest goal, though director Walker lacks the chops to give the story the appropriate scope. It feels like there are half-hearted stab towards a polluted community, one where a “respected member of society” can be enabled by the town’s criminal forces (wigs and all!), though Walker doesn’t know whether to make it an issue of class, sex, or any other system. Instead, it’s a two-hander of sorts, as the film makes no secret of the killer’s identity. This results in just involves waiting for the bad guy to slip up, and the knowledge that this is a true story only reminds us that the expected moment beckons in the celluloid distance. The Frozen Ground is like walking on a treadmill: you’re not really going anywhere, but it certainly feels like you are, even if everything stops and you’re in the exact same place.
 
Den of Geek Rating: 2 out of 5 Stars
 
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!
4

Drinking Buddies, Review

$
0
0
ReviewDavid Crow8/23/2013 at 2:20AM

With a talented cast that includes Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick and Ron Livingston, there is not a moment in this mostly improvised film that doesn't feel raw or authentic. Yet, there is such a thing as a brew being too hoppy.

I have always loved a good handcrafted beer. The taste of a perfectly grained White Ale or Hefeweizen in the summer with a hint (a HINT) of banana or orange cannot be topped by anything, save for a Russian Imperial Stout in those last days of autumn as only the solitary leaf remains on its branch and the cool winds come.
 
Yet, like everything in life, the sumptuous joy derived from an authentic beer is best enjoyed in moderation. And that goes for daring filmmaking too in the case of Joe Swanberg’s wonderfully acted but infinitely frustrated Drinking Buddies.
 
The eclectic filmmaker of projects as varied as Hannah Takes the Stairs and a segment of V/H/S, has charted out an ambitious film set at a microbrewery that has an all-star cast working on a micro-budget. And with players as strong as Olivia Wilde, Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick, Ron Livingston and a cameo-ing Jason Sudeikis, it is no surprise they brew something that you will at least want to sample.
 
The audacious film attempts to chart a course around that scary stage many experience in their late 20s and early 30s: strong coed friendships and an even stronger identity crisis for the single and nervous. However, Swanberg tries to add an extra dose of reality, which is to be the film’s calling card: None of the actors are allowed to read the script.


 
The approach, which captures again some impressive performances, works just as it sounds. The actors are given the general direction of how every scene is supposed to play out, and how their characters are approximately intended to act, before being freed to find the truth and honesty amongst themselves. One of the perks of this style of direction is it creates some tenacious character ownership for the performers.
 
Kate (Wilde) and Luke (Johnson) are longtime drinking buddies. They have worked at the same brewery for a number of years and enjoy that kind of requited friendship that maddens everyone around them. These two relapse into the satisfied-pal roles like a chain smoker that cannot even process the thought of trying out a patch. It likely cannot help Kate that Luke is in a very happy, stable, long-term relationship with Jill (Kendrick).
 
If Jill is as easygoing and smoothly composed as a traditional Bavarian Pilsner, then Kate is a wild Pale Ale. She is a disparate combination of tense emotions that can draw her to someone like Luke with a knowing smile and granite-solid camaraderie before ripping her away with severe annoyance that even she cannot convince herself is actual fury. What they both pretend is flakiness is actually a much more earnest emotion that would occupy a vineyard better than their current place of business.


 
It is not like Kate hasn’t recently found someone for herself. She has Chris (Livingston), an older guy who is more of a single malt Scotch kind of person. Coming from a few more years and a lot more money, Chris attempts to cultivate a sense of serenity in the always tempestuous and extroverted Kate. But when the two couples decide to spend the weekend together at Chris’s cabin, it quickly becomes apparent to everyone that she would rather spend time cracking open a cold one with Luke. And to Jill’s quiet horror, as the youngest of the group who is still patiently waiting for Luke to even agree to discuss marriage, Luke seems to enjoy Kate’s drinking game best of all too.
 
Swanberg’s rare vision on the material is what elevates it, even if that is to a plateau of isolation. This easily sitcom setup could have stumbled into cutesy humor or trite melodrama before the cast even reached the city limits for their weekend getaway. Instead, the film captures an uncomfortably blunt and affecting truthfulness about the age of its two main characters and the conflicting impulses therein. When a random character drives by Luke helping Kate move her couch and calls her his girlfriend, the audience is as offended as the slow-boiling protagonists ready to overflow on the egregious stranger’s mistake.
 
As Luke, Johnson is able to deconstruct his smirking archetype on the always-sunny New Girl. Luke is over 30, but happy to coast with his 21-year-old girlfriend, pretending like he still has an eternity to make a decision about his best friend. Yet, the stress of indecision cannot hide behind even his thickest beard when doubt and trouble starts to creep from the dutifully impatient Chris to the not-so-passive Jill.
 
In supporting player roles, Kendrick and Livingston are fine in their budding dissatisfaction, with Kendrick especially bring a soft-spoken indignation to a role that could be mistaken for timidity on the page.
 
Of course, this may simply be due to the actors never seeing them. The film’s greatest authenticity suffers from its biggest self-imposed hurdle: That it is too lifelike. Drinking Buddies surely attempts to achieve the feeling of grabbing a drink with your oldest friend, and the awkwardness between those two who are always stealing glances. However, the flipside is that it is a little too much like being there. We are with four friends—or at least three friends and one tag-along—who mostly know each other intimately, making the camera feel like a fifth wheel interloper. And as the film continues, that distance is filled in with an indifference to the plight of these people who really need to order some water.


 
Fortunately, the movie is buoyed by its best performance from Ms. Wilde. The actress has never been better than as the interminably hot-and-cold best friend who must look everywhere for her life, except right in front of her. The self-denied despair of that is always present even if it is papered over by the carefully crafted smiles and contrarian joy that comes with being anywhere but in the bedroom you want. Indeed, when Luke crashes at Kate’s after helping move her stuff, the fact that she has to steal her first real moment of happiness by squeezing in beside him is heartbreakingly pathetic.
 
Unfortunately, much as Kate’s mood swings erratically with each new beverage of choice she has far too often (working at a brewery is a seriously great way to hide a problem), so too does the movie’s level of enjoyment. The actors are always captivating in the way they totally inhabit their characters, but eventually even a fly on a wall will want to buzz on well before the awkward pauses end.
 
Den of Geek Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Stars
5

First teaser for Monsters: Dark Continent

$
0
0
NewsRyan Lambie8/23/2013 at 6:55AM

The sequel to Gareth Edwards' sci-fi debut Monsters gets is out next year, so here's Dark Continent's first teaser trailer...

Ordinarily, a 40-second clip of a truck with what looks like giant pieces of rhubarb sticking out of the back of it wouldn't get us in much of a lather. But this isn't just any clip of a truck - this is the first official teaser from Monsters: Dark Continent, the sequel to Gareth Edwards' career-making 2010 sci-fi movie, Monsters.

As teaser trailers go, it's about as vague as they get, but it's certainly thought-provoking, and introduces the sequel's new, Middle-Eastern setting. Edwards, of course, has gone onto direct next year's Godzilla, so it falls to newcomer Tom Green (previously of TV's Misfits) to helm this new movie. It stars Johnny Harris, Joe Dempsie and Sam Keeley, and was shot on location in Jordan.

We're intrigued to see where this continuation of the fledgling Monsters franchise goes next, even without Edwards behind the camera.

Monsters: Dark Continent is due out next year.

Empire

Ben Affleck, Batman, and the need to reserve judgement

$
0
0
NewsSimon Brew8/23/2013 at 6:58AM

One piece of casting news does not a movie make, argues Simon, as Ben Affleck's casting as Batman sets the internet ablaze...

This morning, we set our alarm to allow ourselves a brash extra 15 minutes in bed. Predictably, this happened on the day when Warner Bros decided to announce its choice as the new big screen Batman. As you probably well know by now, Ben Affleck has been chosen to take over the cape and cowl from Christian Bale. The actor will take on the role in 2015's Batman/Superman movie, and if the plan goes ahead for a 2017 Justice League picture, you can conclude he'll be in that too. Barring a major disaster, he's Batman for a good five years at least, probably more.

One side effect of the extra 15 minutes of snoozing was that by the time we got to the news, it seemed as if a chunk of the internet had already decided that this was the worst casting news ever. That Affleck was a terrible choice, that Warner Bros might as well have called back George Clooney. That Batman was ruined.

The Backlash

People have the right to constructive criticism, of course, and the reaction to Affleck's casting - and the casting of a Batman was always going to be contentious anyway - does seem to factor in that this was something of a surprise. He'd been linked - warmly - with directing the Justice League movie at one stage, but few of us saw him actually getting the Batman role as well.

So let's deal with the initial wave of negativity first. Batman on screen has been here before. When Michael Keaton was cast by Tim Burton to be Batman for his 1989 movie, even before the days of the internet, there was an uproar of sorts. That people were going to boycott the movie, because Keaton was completely wrong for the role. Turned out, he proved them wrong, and to many, he's as good a big screen Batman as we've seen.

Then there's Heath Ledger. The internet absolutely was around when the late actor was cast as the Joker by Christopher Nolan in The Dark Knight, and the initial reaction to that news was not positive. That is a bit of an understatement, in fact. Have a search around, and there are still traces of just how badly the news went down. Ledger would go on to win an Oscar for the role, and create one of the definitive big screen villains of recent times, comic book movie based or not.

When any piece of major casting or personnel news on a movie is announced in the modern era, it does inevitably seem that there's a rush on in small quarters to be the first to slam it. And whilst you may or may not be keen on the idea of Ben Affleck taking on Batman, surely the least the man deserves is a chance.

The Affleck Factor

It's not as if Affleck hasn't been putting in some increasingly interesting acting performances. His leading man status was cemented back in the Jack Ryan movie, The Sum Of All Fears, which continues to stand up as a quality contemporary thriller. But take a look at his work portraying one-time Superman George Reeves in 2006's Hollywoodland. There's a strength and control to that performance for which he didn't get enough credit (it does also mean that Affleck has come the closest to playing both Batman and Superman on the big screen).

Furthermore, whilst it's his movie directing of late that's won him plaudits (and an Oscar), he took the lead role too in Argo, and delivered impressive work in front of the camera as well. See also the likes of State Of PlayThe Town and the underappreciated The Company Men. He might not be Ryan Gosling, but Affleck has quietly been impressing as an actor, and maturing as one too. To write him off because he was the lead in a not brilliant Daredevil movie is, we'd argue, just a little disingenuous, and overlooks some of his more recent work. He's a far better actor now. And he wasn't a bad one then (look at Changing Lanes for proof).

Where Affleck ultimately takes Batman remains to be seen, but he's an interesting choice, and one who can take the character towards material that'd be fascinating to see explored on screen. Affleck is 41 now, which already means that we've avoided the trend of a reboot and a young actor to appeal to a lower age demographic. If he stays in the role for a decade or so, then might the eventual standalone Batman movies now be willing to explore the comic book stories where Batman is in his 50s, and struggling not just with the villains of the world, but the limits of his own body?

Even as it stands now, that he's a good decade older than Henry Cavill hopefully provides something that David S Goyer and Zack Snyder will explore in the story they ultimately bring to the screen.

Judgment

Where the story of this particular Batman and Bruce Wayne goes remains to be seen. For now, the lesson that's been taught many times over surely needs to be followed. Whilst there are many in the world who may not go on to like what Ben Affleck does with the role, and may not like the idea of him being Batman, at the very least wait until his work in the movie has been seen before judgment is called.

For whilst there's a small part of us that would have liked to see the role go to a lesser known face, we've a sneaking suspicion that, contrary to some of the negativity surrounding his casting, Ben Affleck might just surprise a few people. And not for the first time. While there's no law saying you have to be happy or sad about the casting of Affleck, it surely makes sense to give the man a chance...

Batman/Superman will be on movie theater screens, whatever it ends up being called, in July 2015.


Grant Morrison on Ben Affleck as Batman

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini8/23/2013 at 1:30PM

While this may qualify as a headline we never thought we'd type, the man who has stewarded Batman's comic book adventures for the last eight years spoke a little about the new actor taking over the role of the Dark Knight.

Grant Morrison, the man who (briefly) killed Batman and brought a fresh, psychedelic sensibility to the character's adventures over a stunning eight year run writing the comics, is probably qualified to talk about the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman for the upcoming Man of Steel sequel, Batman vs. Superman. Speaking to SFX while at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, Morrison seemed cautiously optimistic about Affleck's prospects:

“I’ll have to see him do it. He was in Daredevil as well and that is kind of like Batman. If you just colour in the mask black you’ll get an idea of what he’s going to look like. It depends on his performance at the end of the day – no one believed in Michael Keaton. So, yeah, let’s see what he’s got. He’s a good actor.”

As for the recent Batman films and the changing public face of Batman over the years, Morrison said, “I really enjoyed the Nolan films, especially the second one, which is a great movie. It’s up there with the best films. It’s a great trilogy but I’m happy to see them doing a new take on it because it shows the willingness to embrace the multi-faceted nature of Batman. It’s just like every few years there’s a new Doctor Who. Now there’s a new Batman – and here’s this guy’s gadgets, here’s his Batmobile and his own customised toys.”

You can read more from Morrison over at SFX!

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!

Seven Actors Fans Thought Would Suck

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow8/23/2013 at 4:30PM

In the wake of Ben Affleck's Batman casting breaking the Internet across its knee, we thought it would be best to revisit at least seven other times fans were sure a casting spelled doom and ruination.

Yes, Ben Affleck is Batman [insert Phantoms joke here]. After the roar of Internet rage washes over you like a warm, wet, impotent blanket, stop for a moment and let that sink in. Ben Affleck IS Batman and the world did not end last night, despite what some of the more creative and enterprising snarkers have tweeted. The sun is shining, the birds chirping and as resignation slowly drifts through the fan community, the thought that maybe, just maybe, Ben Affleck can pull off Batman spreads….
 
It’s possible. While Affleck is not my first (or tenth) choice for the role, I have seen him give good supporting performances before and in Batman vs. Superman, he will certainly be sharing half the burden of the film with the already perfectly cast Henry Cavill. Stranger things have happened. Don’t believe me? Well consider this list of seven actors who once upon a time fans were ABSOLUTELY positive would fail. Seven actors whose casting spelled doom in the trades and constituted an assortment of varying handwringing.
 
Here Are Seven Actors Fans Thought Would Suck:


 
7. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games)
Before Jennifer Lawrence went on to win fans’ hearts at the U.S. box office with $408 million (a feat Iron Man 3 only just NOW barely matched) and everyone else’ with her Oscar Winning turn in last fall’s Silver Linings Playbook, she was The Girl Who Couldn’t Catch Fire. At least that is what a very vocal backlash in the fan community, as well as some decidedly harsh critics, had to say.
 
When she was cast over a slew of other fan favorites, including actual teenagers like Hailee Steinfeld, the then-21-year-old Lawrence was ridiculed for being too old, too tall and, most egregiously stupid, too “fat.” The actress who at 19 earned an Oscar nomination for playing a dirt-poor orphan of the Ozarks in Winter’s Bone was considered too well fed to star in a film called The Hunger Games(which was also shot in another humble mountain range setting: Appalachia). Even after the film was released, critics for The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter suggested that she was too womanly and suffered from “lingering baby fat.” Funny how less than a month later, after The Hunger Games became one of the biggest films of 2012, some of the same critics were running glowing pieces about why Lawrence’s Katniss is a “new type of woman warrior” for young girls to admire. Riiiight.


 
6. Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 (Casino Royale)
Remember that one bloke called “James Blond?” He was that one who was cast as Bond back in 2005 when everyone wanted Pierce Brosnan to return. There was absolutely NO WAY he could play Her Majesty’s Loyal Terrier. Whatever happened to that guy?
 
As hard as it is to recollect now, Daniel Craig, arguably the most popular 007 since Sean Connery, was once repelled by a belligerent fan community. It got so bad that in 2006, before Casino Royale was even released, Craig had to speak of how stunning and viscous the calls were for him to be dropped from the role. He was accused of being too ugly, too mean and of course too blond. At least The Daily Mirror was slightly wittier when, after only a day had past since the casting announcement, they pronounced the actor, as if they were writing an obituary, to be James Bland.


 
5. Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly (Breakfast at Tiffany's)
Before the Internet Age, fan skepticism and outrage was kept to the quiet dignity of their own homes or ignored Letters to the Editor. However, sometimes these fans could find a famous champion to carry on their disdain at Hollywood developments. For example, it doesn’t hurt when the author who created a character leads the charge. Look no further than when Truman Capote reacted in disbelief to the casting of Audrey Hepburn in her now most iconic role.
 
When Capote sold the rights to his short novella Breakfast at Tiffany’s to Paramount Pictures, he did so with the express wish that Marilyn Monroe play the part of Holly Golightly, New York’s ultimate Goodtime Girl. After all, Holly is supposed to be seductive, charismatic and able to ensnare any man on her hook, if only ever fleetingly. But when Monroe passed on the part because Lee Strasberg advised Norma Jeane that playing a prostitute would be bad for her image, the part went to the decidedly less bombshell Hepburn. When Capote saw that this thin, gamine waif was going to be his ultimate creation of superficial and jaded femininity, he remarked, “Paramount double-crossed me in every way and cast Audrey.” Thank. God.


 
4. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman (The Dark Knight Rises)
Everyone should recall this: Anne Hathaway cast as Selina Kyle aka Catwoman? What? How? A DISNEY PRINCESS?!
 
Mind you many of those loudest critics likely never saw her riveting work in Brokeback Mountain or Rachel Getting Married (the latter of which got her a well-earned Oscar nomination). And if they wanted seductive, they had to look no further than Havoc. Yet for many, Hathaway was little more than the chick from The Princess Diaries with a very, very bubbly public persona. Hardly the stuff of femme fatale. That’s why all the way up until the film’s release, there were still blogs like this filled with unflattering photoshopped pictures and snap judgments based on movies she did 10 years prior. But lo and behold when the movie came out in July 2012, she was the single best-reviewed facet of the movie. Whether you were Michael Caine or a message board poster, the only thing you could talk about was how good she was in the skintight leather and a mean pout. Even President Obama gave Ms. Hathaway a shout out when he said, “I got a chance to see Batman, and she was the best thing in it.”


 
3. Heath Ledger as The Joker (The Dark Knight)
And before there was Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, there was Heath Ledger as The Joker. Look at the above pic. Let that one roll around for a minute. Still not satisfied? Here is a page of fans whining about why it should have been Christopher Walken, Crispin Glover or anybody else. In 2006, nobody thought anyone save for Jack Nicholson could be The Joker. Then this trailer hit, followed shortly by similar images:


 
Even after Ledger’s tragic passing, the role continues to be recognized as a benchmark of villainy not only in comic book films, but in ALL OF CINEMA, thus earning Ledger a posthumous Oscar, which was the first time the Academy had handed one out in the 32 years following Network. ‘Nuff said.


 
2. Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara (Gone with the Wind)
Casting a Brit in an iconic American role always earns a whisper of chagrin from U.S. audiences and press prior to release. However, none was more thunderous than when Vivien Leigh, an obscure English actress born in British India, was cast as Southern belle and revisionist history heroine Scarlett O’Hara in David O. Selznick’s adaptation of Gone with the Wind. Often cited as one of the most beloved novels of the Depression, particularly in states south of Missouri and east of Oklahoma, Gone with the Wind was practically American heritage in its few short years of existence. As the ultimate soap opera epic, it captured idyllic daydreams with a mythic, fairy tale quality. And at the center of all that passion was Scarlett O’Hara, everyone’s favorite wicked creature.
 
The casting process, lovingly followed in the press as The Search for Scarlett, lasted two full years. Unsurprisingly, when Selznick finally settled on his admittedly dark horse candidate, Vivien Leigh, there took a lot of coaxing. Angry letters poured in, Gossip columnists were pressured to boost Leigh’s heritage, and a tightrope was long walked all the way until the movie’s Atlanta premiere. Today, whatever inclinations people may have towards its politics 70 years on, there is no denying that Leigh is magnificent. She not only won an Oscar for the picture, she won a place in permanent cinematic immortality as one of the most fiercely realized leading female performances ever committed to celluloid. Fiddle-dee-dee.


 
1. Michael Keaton as Batman (Batman)
Yes the most obvious comparison is still the most fitting. Michael Keaton, America’s official Mr. Mom, was cast by Tim Burton to play the Dark Knight.
 
Keaton is not an assuming man. As a comedian with thin, receding hair and a height of five-feet and nine-inches, a muscular uberman he is not. Also, when he was cast in 1988, many could not get past that this was the guy from Nightshift and Beetlejuice. Were they remaking the campy Adam West TV show? The Wall Street Journalreported on the hundreds (some say tens of thousands) of protest letters they received over the casting. There was literally protesting in the streets. And then this image appeared:


 
The whining stopped. To this day there is still a school of thought that prefers Keaton to all actors who have donned the cowl, even Christian Bale. Not bad for an actor who The Times once described as a prankster.
 
There you have seven actors who fans were once oh-so-sure would suck. But the list is actually much longer. I can recall the skepticism that surrounded Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. One can also note a slew of others in history from Hepburn again as Eliza Dolittle to Ian Fleming’s own misgivings toward Sean Connery. Ultimately, gut-reactions tend to be filled with hyperbole and slight embarrassment from hindsight. Hence, it may be best to take a step back before pulling out the message boards. Then again, I still want to leave you with this one more time:


 
So there is our list. Agree? Disagree? Still worried about Affleck? Leave us a message below!

Related:
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!

Disqus - noscript

One can not forget about all the fans whining over Mark Ruffalo's casting as the Hulk or Chris Evans as Captain America. I'm really looking forward to this, it can be truly awesome!

I was one of those anti-ruffalo's. I was proven wrong.

TEN MISCAST ACTORS FANS THOUGHT WOULD SUCK...AND THEY DID!

Jessica Alba (Fantastic Four)
Julian McMahon (Fantastic Four)
Halle Berry (Catwoman)
Kate Bosworth (Superman Returns)
Kirtsen Dunst (Spiderman)
Topher Grace (Spiderman 3)
Jean Claude van Damme (Street Fighter)
Tom Cruise (Jack Reacher)
Keanu Reeves (Constantine)
Vince Vaughn (Pshycho)

how dare you say jean claude van damme wasn't the best guile you've ever seen! I think he played the role perfectly for what the movie was (it poked fun at itself)

With the exception of Dunst in Spiderman, the thing that all of those movies have in common which the ones in the article don't have, poor writing.

Also, it's spelled Psycho. No hate there, I'm hoping it was just a typo.

I always knew Ruffalo would be good, but I didn't like the politics of how it happened and what they did to Norton.

I guess I am the only one who didn't think Ledger was all that as the Joker. He was good, really good. But when I saw the movie -- it had been so overhyped, ya know, so it just didn't hit me like it should. I do not think he should have gotten the Oscar. It was just guilt for not wanting him to do the role. I think.

Keanu Reeves was awesome in Constantine.

Gotta say I'm not a big Daniel Craig fan. His version of James Bond is basically the antithesis of what James Bond has been. Bond was a suave,debonair proper gentleman who can occasionally do some super spy stuff, Craig is a rough and tumble action person who's trying to do the suave bit while being 007. Casino Royale hardly held my interest, Quantum of Solace I never wanted to see again, the last movie... hell I don't even remember what it was called.

I'm glad this article came out...all of these naysayers need to just accept it and move on. I never get mad about casting even if it's someone I don't really care for. I don't like Jamie Foxx much at all but I'm cool with him being Electro...I mean I'm sure he will do it well.

Also, that list the guy posted about ten miscast actors that sucked is using examples from movies that had many things wrong with them besides the casting. Most of those movies are poor in more ways than one:

Alba was fine, McMahon was fine, Berry was fine, Bosworth was fine, Dunst was fine at first but later became grating as the series went on, Grace was actually good but wasn't given much to do, Van Damme was great for what that movie was, didn't see Reacher or Constantine but I know those movies aren't universally praised...and the less said about Psycho remake the better...that whole movie was a giant finger to Hitchcock...not just Vaughn's take on Norman.

Michael Keaton and Daniel Craig are the only underdogs on that list that were great in their roles. The other ones were overrated as usual. Jack Nicholson is the best joker and people to this very day overrate Heath Ledger's joker because of it's darkness in the role and because he died. People tend to overrate someones legacy when they die young.

Hah, did Daniel Craig really receive "viscous" phone calls? Sure about that one, Crow?

Interesting article. Winter's Bone is set in the Ozarks, not Appalachia, though.

Well, they were dripping with vitriol...

Keep in mind that the Pajiba post with Heath pictured is from April Fool's Day, this year.

Um, that Pajiba article you screencapped? It's an April Fool's joke. Check the date. And pay closer attention, guys.

Appalachia is NOT the Ozarks.

Uhhh...But Anne Hathaway WAS a bad Catwoman...I like her, but she was still a bad Catwoman.

Add Ben Affleck in Daredevil.

The worst Batman ever was Michael Keaton, 2nd was Val Kilmer. As for Affleck as Batman, I don't think it will be so bad since his acting has greatly improved. As for the slamming of the Daredevil movie, I still enjoy it to this day. Mind you, I watch the extended director's cut which answered all my unanswered questions after watching it in the theater. I am more worried about the actor they have cast as Lex Luther, Michael Rosenbaum should have been picked. Matt Damon for Aquaman would be better than picking him for Martian Manhunter in the JLA.

You realize that picture in the article about Nolan's mistake of casting Heath Ledger is dated April 1st, 2013?

Um. that Ledger piece screenshot you posted was written this year.

Ben wasn't the only thing wrong about the movie. The problem was more that there was nothing right about any of it. Or the Elektra spin-off.

Schlockey-schlock-schlock let's make some more shitty hero movies, Hollywood. When's Ghost-rider 3 out?

I think you are mistaking bad acting with bad scripts.

Anne Hathaway did suck.

I thought Keanu was awesome in that movie. Then again, I never read the comic so what do I know.

Oh, shut up.

Mila Kunis (Oz)

Depends. Are you refering to how Bond has been portrayed in the previous movies, or how he was written in Flemming's books? The Craig Bond has been a good representation of the book Bond. Not so much bravery as recklessness that comes from an acute sense of his own mortality and a fair amount of self-loathing that stems from his work.

If you want sleek, sexy, self-assured, supremely confident Bond, you watch the Brosnan and earlier movies. If you want tortured, conflicted, reckless, self-loathing Bond, you watch the Craig movies or read the books.

Ledger was great. His facial expressions, body language, the voice he had going, every time he did that little licking his lips thing...he was perfect. He personified insanity. He actually acted crazy. If I hadn't already known it was him, I never would have guessed. He was the Joker, not an actor playing the Joker, if that makes sense. As for everyone else on this list, they may have been dealing a lot with bad writing and dialogue, but none of them were all that great.

Actually, I was disappointed myself and over-hyped may be the best way to describe it. But I haven't like most comic movies, a few were okay and only one (Captain America) was good. I have high hopes for Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier. We'll see.

I believe Norton made excessive salary demands, which is what caused the change.

Uhh... you know that you liked his performance. That should be enough for anyone. I can't stand when people are unable to separate the book from the movie. They are two different mediums, you can't compare them, and it is pointless to try. I thought he was pretty good that movie too.

In an interesting juxtaposition, the writer has featured a photograph of Affleck with George Clooney - arguably the worst batman ever.

Jean Claude van Damme was awsome as Guile so was Keanu Reeves in Constantine

what the hell you talking about nab?

go eat poo you fat idiot

Are you kidding?!? The worst Barman, hands down, was George Clooney. (which adds a special dose of irony to the photo above)

Damnit ... Batman, not barman. I'm sure Clooney could serve a mean cocktail.

FYI to the authors of this piece. Winter's Bone was not set in Appalachia. It was actually set in the Ozarks.

jack reacher was awesome lol

Keanu Reeves is awesome in everything. Sure he plays everything the same, but that is his style and he is the king of it.

The whole f'n point is don't judge until you see the end result.

You don't think he should have won? Who should have? He still has the most memorable performance out of anyone that was nominated for any Oscar that year....

He's the only person who's playd guile in the movies isn't he?

So yah.. of course he's the best.

This

agreed

I thought Elektra was dope. Daredevil was complete rubbish. Never dug Affleck until The Town, he was pretty badass in that. So fuck it, who knows? ....nah I'm just kidding, this is terrible. But at least I just saved 10 bucks on a ticket.

I disagree with some of this, but I maintain that the worst cast actor of recent history was Tobey Maguire in The Great Gatsby. What a trainwreck.

*inarguably

Like anoyone gives a flying f--k.

Still anti-Ruffalo. He wasn't terrible or anything, but he was no better than mediocre. Watch his work without any CGI Hulk action and it was a pretty boring, lackluster performance.

Is everyone forgetting Val Kilmer and George Clooney?

actually, I thought Clooney was the ONLY actor, thus far, that pulled off both Batman and Bruce Wayne well. He was just saddled with a horrible movie, in my opinion.

If you think the worst Batman was Michael Keaton and you liked and still enjoy the Daredevil movie to this day, then everything else you will ever say is invalid.

You lost all credibility within your first 3 sentences.

Theres NOTHING overrated about Ledgers performance. He brought the darkness to the Joker that Nicholson sorely lacked.

Ill never understand peoples love for that Tim Burton Batman Movie.

Personally I thought it sucked.

Youre not the only one. But those who agree with you are just as wrong as you are.

The Dark Knight is the ONLY Batman movie of the Nolan Trilogy thats worth watching and thats because of Ledgers performance.

Bale made a decent batman but saddle him with a horrible story and an even worse take on a villain ( Bane ) and you end up with three hours of meh ( The Dark Knight Rises )

I could just as easily name seven that DID suck. These are utterly pointless comparisons.

Thanks for the catch. It was corrected. :)

You're right about Ledger, wrong on Burton. You don't have to choose between the two, they were completely different takes and attempts at portraying the character of Batman.

Burton's first 2 bat flicks were dope for their time. Remember that this was before mainstream comic book movies really existed.
And while Soldier is right that people tend to overrate performances based on the behind-the-scenes type of stories, tragedies or info behind them, Ledger's Joker is NOT an accurate example of this.

It may have been over-HYPED - in fact it definitely was in a thousand different ways - but not at all overrated in any way.
Dude was COMPLETELY unrecognizable as himself in that role. He blew the roof off of what that character could have been or was up until that point.

That was an as iconic performance of any larger-than-life character than I've probably ever seen. I'm an incredibly huge fan of great villains, and if Ledger's Joker isn't in your top 3 or at least top 5 of all time then you should slap yourself as hard as you can and rewatch that movie. No joke.

I may sort of agree about the last Nolan bat flick, and I definitely agree that Bale was not great as Batman. He wasn't bad at all, he was okay, maybe even kind of good? But yeah, nothing about his performance in any of the 3 movies stood out to me as being impressive in any way. I believe he was mediocre in the roles of both Wayne and Batman, but I don't mean that to be as bad of a review as it probably sounds. I guess I mostly just mean that Nolan, the writers, the set designers and costume designers made those movies what they are in my mind, way more than anything about Bale's performance in any of them.

Anycrap, you (Diana P) really are wrong about Ledger's Joker (in my opinion, of course). I don't say that to be insulting, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way.
But all I really mean is that your experience should probably make you hate hype more than it should sour you on Ledger's performance.

Nobody can argue that both the film and Ledger's performance were ridiculously over-hyped after Ledger's death. In fact I even hesitated to see it because I started to believe it was all hype, no substance. I knew immediately that I was wrong, and several viewings later have confirmed my initial impression.
Just out of curiosity, have you checked out the movie again since whenever you first saw it under all of they hype?
I feel like if you just tried to watch again, and pretended there was no hype or back story, but that it was just some random movie you stumbled upon, and then evaluated his performance based on that you would probably be more impressed. Although I admit it can be hard to separate.
And more importantly, I'm not that smart, haha, so what do I know?

I really do like Lawrence as Katniss, she's brilliant, but I have to say she actually isn't an accurate physical representation of the character. The character is said to be very short--its hinted that its from malnutrition, as just about everyone is starving. The world, which wasn't portrayed to this severe extent in the movie, is definitely concentration camp-like. With that being said, the character is VERY skinny. Anyone who says Lawrence is fat is an idiot, but she is a healthy, average weight. The character is also described as possibly part Native American. So yes, to readers of the trilogy, Lawrence was an odd choice at first, but she nailed the character.

I love Jennifer Lawrence, but I do believe she is too fat... for that role. If you read the books Katniss and her district are all practically starving. Jennifer Lawrence herself is by no means "fat" but while reading the books I did imagine someone more gaunt. That's why there was fan backlash.

Haha, I like how someone else just thought the same thing I did. It really is nothing against her, but the characters physical description is a big deal because it is a reflection of the society she lives in.

Gone With the Wind was not a novel of the Depression. It was about the Civil War.

yeah that catwoman movie was awful and no amount of awesome acting could fix the terrible story

I think most of those on this list only justify the reasoning people are complaining. Seriously, you're using Anne Hathaway's Cat Woman to say people overreact? Daniel Craig sucks. Jennifer Lawrence was relatively unknown and I don't recall there being an uprising about her playing that role.... One which is no where near as iconic and legendary as Batman. Heath Ledger was ok, but if he didn't pass away near the release time I would doubt his performance could have been as blown up as it has been. Michael Keaton is the only one I would have been surprised by in the entire list.

"... a dirt-poor orphan of the Ozarks in Winter’s Bone was considered too well fed to star in a film called The Hunger Games (which was also shot in another humble mountain range setting: Appalachia)."

got it, aarticle was already fixed when I read it.

The reason for most of those was simply because of bad writing/directing.
VInce Vaughn is a terrible actor overall.

he slept walked that role. He even admitted to it.

Ruffalo was *okay*. He only got the role because of Robert Downey Jr since they had worked together before and he put in a good word for him. There's probably a better fit for the role somewhere out there in the world.

It took me a while to put my finger on why I don't like Affleck for this role...but it's his eyes. He's in a constant state of squint. "So? Vulture you're an idiot." but yea, think back to the 90's animated series with Batman in them. His facial expressions were lead by what his eyes did 99% of the time, and because of that we knew what batman was thinking/feeling based on what his eyes did. It's very subtle. Going into the movies with the same thought...every batman (minus Adam West) wears black around their eyes and rarely shows any facial expressions with their mouth (a smile once or twice, and rage a few times) while they have the mask on. It's all mostly stoic scenes, but there are plenty of times where the eyes are at the center of the frame...focusing on their despair, confusion, anger, etc. This actually explains why they picked Clooney for that particular movie: They wanted someone with eyes that could open up WIDE when he sniffed in that drug from Poison Ivy. And anyone that watches NCIS LA can tell you that Chris O'Donnell's eyes are always changing expressions.

Rooney Mara did suck as Lisbeth Salander. In the original film, Lisbeth is a dynamic badass and easily the main character. In the American version, she's there for Daniel Craig to play off of. Granted that's a decision made by writing team and the director, but she was cast because she wasn't going to steal the show from Daniel Craig. Now, I like Daniel Craig, but my point remains.

Not really digging the Hathaway deal. I hated the thought of her as Catwoman and after watching the movie, I hated her as Catwoman.

the problem with Affleck is the voice. Everyone is expecting him to come out with, "WOOK, IT'S DA JOKAH!" Bruce Wayne is not from Boston's mean streets. So, Ben, you'd better work on your Bruce Wayne voice or you'll get spanked.

While I agree we have no idea if Batfleck will be good or bad, this conveniently forgets that a lot of people said that Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman and Green Lantern and Green Hornet would all suck and they all did. Hard.

To be fair, there wasn't much more you could do with the limited screen time. Hulk in Avengers wasn't supposed to be great, it just had to be good (Avengers being an ensemble piece after all).

I'm surprised Tom Cruise as Lestat didn't make the list. Everyone's problem with Jennifer Lawrence was physical, and I think it was mostly fangirls. Everyone's problem with Tom Cruise, however, was that he was too much of a pretty boy to be Lestat. Anne Rice was horrified and furious. I still can't believe he managed to pull it off.

there is no such thing as bad publicity, maybe, just maybe, that's what this is, make everyone want to see the movie to see how bad he does?

Out of the entire group listed, the only individual I didn't like in the role they played, was Cat-woman, and Michael Keaton was at best a mediocre batman from a mediocre movie.

My problem with Affleck is that like all of his films, his accent will be the same, his performance will be the same, his ability to adopt the role will be the same. Which to sum up, means Ben Affleck will be Ben Affleck as Batman, not an actor portraying Bruce Wayne, or portraying Batman.

Pics of Michael Rooker's Yondu From Guardians of the Galaxy

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow8/23/2013 at 6:52PM

Check out Michael Rooker sporting an oddly cool mohawk under a new shade of blue for Guardians of the Galaxy.

Everyone may still be reeling over news of the caped and cowled variety, but there is plenty of other superhero stuff out there to get jazzed about. For example, look no further than our first glimpses at Michael Rooker as Yondu from Marvel Studios’ Guardians of the Galaxy!
 
Always a popular collaborator with Gunn (who didn’t love his Slither work?), Rooker now plays Yondu, a founding member of the Guardians who possesses a mystical “sixth sense” that allows him to commune with nature and wildlife more readily than higher life forms, such as humans. But thanks to his Centauri IV roots, he has the capacity for good and all sorts of heroics.




 
These picture, courtesy of ComingSoon, showcase a superhero that is just weird enough to fit in with the rest of Gunn’s vision, which includes Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro and Karen Gillan.
 
Guardians of the Galaxy makes landfall in August 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!

Disqus - noscript

this is absolutely badass.

Tony Jaa Cast for Fast And Furious 7

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini8/23/2013 at 8:37PM

The martial artist has just been added to one of the longest-running and most successful action franchises around.

Tony Jaa, the martial arts movie star best known to American audiences for the Ong-Bak series and The Protector has joined the cast of Fast & Furious 7. In an e-mail exchange with The Hollywood Reporter, Jaa wrote: "I have been a big fan of the Fast and Furious franchise. The films are fast paced, fun and keep the audience involved. There is a great mix of humor and action, something I really appreciate. There is no better film to be involved in for a first U.S. studio production."

Fast and Furious 7 is directed by James Wan and boasts an impressive cast of action stars. In addition to franchise stalwart Paul Walker returning as Brian O'Conner, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as Luke Hobbs, Vin Diesel as Dominic Torretto, and Tyrese Gibson as Roman Pearce, this latest installment in the Fast & Furious series will also boast Jason Statham as the villainous Ian Shaw.

The popularity of the Fast & Furious series continues to grow, and the presence of Jaa should not only expand the international appeal of a franchise which has already done ridiculous overseas box-office, but will expose the incredibly talented actor to a wider English-speaking audience than he's ever had. At the very least, if you're a fan of martial arts films, check out the first Ong-Bakfilm, Ong-Bak: Muay Thai Warrior

Fast & Furious 7 drives into theaters on July 6, 2014.

Source:THR

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!


Happy Birthday, W. Lee Wilder

$
0
0
RetroJim Knipfel8/23/2013 at 9:34PM

W. Lee Wilder may have died in 1982, but we celebrate his 109th birthday by looking back at the career of a criminally ignored cult film visionary.

There are several strata of cult filmmakers in the world, directors who generally worked on low-budget, independent genre pictures, but did so with enough personal style and pizazz that their films have earned them a following among obsessive film geeks.

At the top there are those few whose followings have become so large, like John Waters, Roger Corman, Russ Meyer, Ray Harryhausen, even Ed Wood, that they eventually came to earn mainstream recognition, even a certain level of respect in Hollywood. Roger Corman and Ray Harryhausen both received lifetime achievement Oscars, and Ed Wood got an all-star biopic directed by Tim Burton.

Below them are filmmakers like Ray Dennis Steckler, Jess Franco, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Doris Wishman and that awful Paul Naschy, who, while never receiving that widespread recognition or respect, have nevertheless generated enough enthusiasm among the film geek crowd that you can count on commercial releases of most of their films.

Then there are the others who so often remain anonymous and forgotten, even at the height of their careers. Sometimes this is justified, given that most filmmakers are just plain awful. But every once in a while I come across a real treasure, a body of work that is so unique that I have no choice but to pay attention, perhaps even become a little creepy and nutty and pushy about it.

His name was never bandied about elite Hollywood circles, where he remains not just unheralded, but virtually unknown today. He’s not even well-known among the hardcore movie geeks, who so often pride themselves on singing the praises of obscurities. Those few who do know of him certainly don’t hold much respect for him (proof of this lies in the unavailability of most of his films, even in bootleg form), but that’s only because they haven’t been watching carefully enough. For my money, W. Lee Wilder is much more than “Billy Wilder’s less talented older brother,” as he’s usually known by jackanapes and smug dullards who never took more than a cursory glance at the 16 films he produced and directed between 1945 and 1968. To the naysayers, he was just a hack on a par with Ed Wood, but to my mind W. Lee was a much more interesting and adventurous filmmaker than his brother, even though, or perhaps because, he was working with microscopic budgets. He made films that weren’t quite like anything anyone else was making at the time (or since).

The sets tended to be non-descript, the special effects were cheap and obvious, the acting pedestrian. But he did have some fine, sharp little scripts (often written by his son Myles) and an undeniable cinematic flair. Somehow, perhaps pure chutzpah was behind it, or a touch of dark alchemy, or simple madness, all those sub-par onscreen elements came together into some mighty spellbinding wholes.

Part of it might be the fact that Wilder not only made films in nearly every conceivable genre (crime dramas, Westerns, horror, melodramas, comedies, adventure films, noir, science fiction), he made films that seemed to be in nearly every conceivable genre at the same time. And even after blending all these genres together, there was still something else in the mix, something about each film that was just a little askew, a little strange and dizzying, often in ways that aren’t immediately apparent unless you’re paying close attention.

These aren’t films for moonpies to laugh at the way they laugh at Ed Wood. There is nothing incompetent about them, though they may lack the usual Hollywood gloss. At the same time there’s just something wrong with them, something you wouldn’t find in other movies, but it’s usually so subtle it becomes fascinating. Beyond that—Wilder was also a quiet innovator and prescient visionary trapped within the bounds of traditional mid-century filmmaking, probably without even realizing it.

He was born in Austria in 1904 and moved to New York when he was still relatively young. While there he began manufacturing his own line of high quality handbags. By the mid-’40s the original zip-bang thrill ride of purse-making had started to grow a little thin. So he packed up and moved to LA like his brother (who referred to W. Lee as a “boring son of a bitch”) to start producing pictures.

In ‘45 and ‘46 he produced two of Anthony Mann’s first films, long before Mann would go on to direct classics like Side Street, El Cid, and all those Jimmy Stewart Westerns. Then with two Mann films under his belt he decided to start trying his hand at directing his own features. That’s about when things started getting kind of weird.

On the surface, Yankee Fakir seems like light but typical Wilder fare. That is to say it’s almost a romantic comedy, almost a Western, almost a con man film, and almost a murder mystery, but isn’t quite any of those things. It’s a lighthearted little small-town romp, yet as I watched it I kept thinking that something was deeply and deceptively off. Then during the final scenes of the film, I realized what it was. If you look at the script, the acting style, the pacing, the cinematography, even the opening credit sequence, you’d swear you were watching a film made in the early 1930s. But Yankee Fakir was actually made in 1947. In ’47, a film like this would be completely out of place. A quaint anachronism compared with everything else in theaters at the time. Who knows what he was thinking? And then there’s that title. Although the term “Yankee faker” pops up at the end of the film, there are no fakirs among the cast of characters. There are no references to fakirs. The film contains nary a whiff of fakirs of any kind. No one even wears a turban. A friend of mine offered up a very wise and logical explanation for this, but I forget it now. Personally I think they just misspelled the title.

Over the next few years Wilder wrote, produced, and directed a long string of musical short subjects. Then in ‘53 he brought on his 20-year-old son Myles as a screenwriter and perhaps with Myles’ encouragement moved into science fiction. Or at least what appeared to be science fiction. The Wilders were maybe a quarter-step ahead of the curve, and their next several films, while no less screwy, would go on to become their best known.

Like so many other low-budget science fiction films from the ‘50s, 1953’s Phantom from Space opens with a lot of stock footage of military installations and radar screens, together with a long bit of explanatory narration to set the scene. (There’s also a lot of Theremin music in the score, which just confirms you’re watching a sci-fi film.) Taken from the secret files of “The Central Bureau,” we’re told, it’s the story of how “a small group of people, over the course of one long night, held back a wave of panic and hysteria.”

Okay, so that’s not really true, but we’ll ignore that. Military radar stations pick up a UFO near the Arctic Circle and track it across Alaska, south through Canada, then down the West Coast where it disappears in Southern California. Shortly thereafter people living near the beach begin reporting terrible interference with their radio, TV, and phone reception, so crews of communications workers are sent out to find the trouble.

One of the crews is approached by a strangely calm woman who tells them she was having a picnic with her husband and a friend (in the middle of the night) when they were attacked by a man wearing a diving helmet.

Not much later another man is killed and an oil refinery explodes. When questioned by police, all the witnesses report that there was no head inside the helmet.

It gets pretty tangly, but, working together, the chief of police, three scientists from the local institute and the head of the communications commission determine that they’re looking for an invisible radioactive alien who messes up TV reception everywhere he goes.

For its flaws, occasional gaps in logic, and general low budgetness, the script is quite good, the dialogue naturalistic and believable, complete with a lot of great throwaway lines muttered by side characters. And though the actors are for the most part complete unknowns, they’re several cuts above what most sci-fi from the era could offer, easily talking over each other a la the Howard Hawks school for that added bit of realism.

More than most of Wilder’s pictures, it pretty much sticks to form as a sci-fi film. Well, a sci-fi mystery, with a crowd of oddball minor characters and a deeply tragic alien who spends much of the film slowly suffocating. It’s also one of the few films I can think of in which the hero turns out to be the communications commission. The “heroic utility company” would become almost a trademark through the rest of Wilder’s science fiction films.

As surprisingly intelligent, well-acted, and sharply written as phantom from Space was, for most audience members the picture was noticeably light on action and thrills, so W. Lee and Myles returned the following year with Killers from Space.

Not enough can be said about the innovation and almost precognitive vision on display in Killers from Space, which may explain Wilder’s interest in Nostradamus down the line.

After more narration and stock footage (much of it re-used from Phantom), we meet military scientist Dr. Paul Martin (Peter Graves, who was becoming a standard fixture in early ‘50s science fiction). While gathering data from a nuclear test, the controls on his plane freeze, throwing the aircraft into a perfect nose dive into the desert. When rescue crews arrive they discover the plane’s pilot is, oh boy, really dead, but Dr. Martin is nowhere to be found.

Several days later Martin stumbles out of the desert into the base, perfectly fine save for having no memory of the events and a clean surgical scar on his chest. At the time, of course, most sci-fi pictures were Cold War parables in which the aliens are commie stand-ins. It was rarely discussed onscreen, but everyone knew what was going on. Here, though, they not only make the idea clear, they turn it on its head.

When “Martin” shows up perfectly fine save for that scar, the FBI immediately assumes him to be a commie plant there to steal nuclear secrets, and he’s told to take the proverbial “long vacation” until they can prove he is who he says he is.

At home, Martin is tormented by visions of eyeballs and actually does start stealing nuclear secrets, which he hides under a rock in the desert. When he’s caught, he’s returned to the base and placed under hypnosis. This is where things get interesting.

At first it seems (again) like standard material. Seconds before the crash, see, Martin was spirited out of the plane by aliens who bring him to some kind of underground base. While being held captive, Graves learns the details of the alien invasion plan. He escapes and, with the confused assistance of the local electric company (see what I mean about utilities?), sets out to stop them.

However…

Six years before Betty and Barney Hill shared their true story of alien abduction with the world, Wilder put the details of that abduction up on the screen. In fact, the abduction in Killers from Space has essentially become the prototype of what we think of when we think of “alien abduction,” complete with small, silent aliens with large eyes, a metal examination table, and strange medical procedures. In this case they remove Graves’ heart from his body, fix it, and replace it, which is a detail I’ve heard in several “true” abduction stories. And of course, as is also now standard, Graves has no memory of these events until he’s placed under hypnosis.

But that’s not all. During his escape from the aliens, Graves encounters several giant lizards, spiders, and insects. While giant monsters had made appearances in films since the silent era, this was one of the first times a director filmed real creatures and rear-projected them on a screen so the actors could interact with “giant monsters.” This, too, would become industry standard throughout the ‘50s—but do you see Wilder getting any credit? Hell no! Everyone talks about (the admittedly great) Bert I. Gordon, who didn’t make his first rear projection giant monster picture until 1957—three years after Killers from Space!

Today Killers from Space remains Wilder’s best known picture, but it has little to do with the profound but unsung impact it had on the culture at large. No, it’s known today mostly for its regular appearance in box sets of public domain titles. You can’t turn around without running into a damn Killers from Space.

But anyway. The same year as Killers, the Wilder team moved away from space-based horrors to more earthly ones, as usual with a twist. In most cases, “ape man on the loose” pictures (and I’m well on my way to seeing them all) take place in small towns, wooded areas, or the mountains. But in 1954’s The Snow Creature, Wilder follows the model of King Kong by bringing the creature in question to a major metropolitan area.

Dr. Frank Parrish (Paul Langton) is both a botanist and an asshole, leading an expedition high into the Himalayas to collect specimens. When his chief Sherpa, Subra (Teru Shimada, in a fantastic performance) learns his wife has been kidnapped by a yeti, Parrish refuses to let him go look for her. So Subra does the only thing he can do; he incites a mutiny and takes command of the expedition.

For its first half, The Snow Creature makes for an interesting double bill with Val Guest and Nigel Kneale’s The Abominable Snowman (1957). Working with half the budget, Wilder’s external shots near the top of the mountains (accentuated by some gorgeous cinematography) are much more believable than Guest’s. I would even argue that Wilder has made the far more intriguing and exciting (if less philosophical) picture of the two.

Eventually the expedition, now led by Subra, stumbles across a society of yetis in a cave. When one is stunned by a rock they tie it up and carry it back down the mountain, where that dick Parrish makes plans to fly it back to LA in a specially designed refrigerator. Once again this is where we run into something you won’t find anywhere but a Wilder picture.

Upon arriving at LAX, Dr. Parrish is immediately confronted by a customs official, who won’t let the yeti into the country until the creature’s immigration status is determined and all the proper paperwork is filled out. You never saw anything like that in King Kong, and that was a 50-foot gorilla! As dull as it might sound, it’s a funny scene, and a wonderfully logical detail.

Well, though, as the debate rolls on in the customs office, the yeti breaks out of his refrigerator much more easily than any six year old ever did, and begins a rampage across the city. After the bodies start piling up, it’s clear that it’s time to call on a utility company. And sure enough, some 15 years before Chinatown, LA Water and Sewer comes to the rescue, and the film ends with an homage to The Third Man (and a great closing line).

The whole film is beautifully shot in a hard noir style, and once again it’s populated with weird little side characters who liven things up considerably.

Wilder took a break from sci-fi after that to make some crime/adventure/con man/romance/comedies for a bit before returning to the head scratchers. Those odd but very realistic characters around the edges come even more into play in ‘56’s Fright (again written by Myles). It could have been a standard melodrama about a psychiatrist falling in love with a patient, and that’s what it looks like if you don’t think about it too much, but as it rolls on it just gets more and more baffling.

As the police try to talk an escaped killer down from the Queensboro Bridge, a shrink, Dr. James Hamilton (Eric Fleming from Queen of Outer Space) steps out of the gathered crowd and offers to hypnotize him. It works like a charm (though it’s unclear how many people in the crowd were hypnotized as well), and the ensuing publicity brings him far more attention than he’s comfortable with. Not only are reporters constantly nagging him for interviews, but one day when leaving the office he finds a clearly troubled but attractive young blond (Nancy Malone) sitting in his car.

He tries to throw her out, but she insists on vaguely telling him what her vague problem is. After explaining bluntly that he never takes friends as patients and never makes patients friends, he sets up an appointment and asks her to dinner. Ethics be damned.

During their regular sessions he hypnotizes her and soon discovers she has that old shrink movie standby, a split personality. Clearly influenced by Vertigo, the other personality is a tragic 19th century German princess in a suicide pact with a married prince.

Speaking of ethics, very few people in the film seem to have any. The doctor’s dating his patient. A reporter breaks into his office, listens to recordings of private patient sessions, and prints them in the paper. The cops let a convicted killer (the same one who escapes at the beginning of the film) out unshackled in order to play a part in some psychological parlor game in which they know he will be killed. Oh, it goes on and on. But as ever there’s a parade of people on the street, in restaurants, in bars, who all have something interesting to say. Ultimately it’s not among Wilder’s finest, and I think the problem can be traced back to the simple fact that no major utilities are called upon to save the day.

It was roughly around this point that Myles started moving more into television. He’d write a couple more films for his dad in the ‘60s, but most of his efforts were focused on writing for every TV show on the air, from McHale’s Navy to Bonanza to a long stint as the primary writer on The Dukes of Hazzard for some reason.

While W. Lee’s brother Billy (whose real name was Samuel, by the way—W. Lee was the real Billy of the family). Anyway, while Billy was making ho-hum mainstream crap like Some Like it Hot and The Apartment, in 1957 W. Lee returned to straight science fiction (or whatever the hell it was) with The Man Without a Body. It wasn’t written by Myles, but it’s hands down the strangest picture he ever made, pushing that subconscious weirdness and surreality of the earlier films to remarkable new heights.

Now, disembodied head and brain transplant movies had already become fairly commonplace by that time (Black Friday, etc.), but Wilder’s film was, well, let’s just say a little different.

Karl Brussard (George Coulouris, who somehow found himself making this between Citizen Kane and Papillon) is a wealthy asshole industrialist who seems to be going a little dotty. He keeps forgetting the orders he’s given and starts answering phones that aren’t ringing. Not much of anyone is surprised to learn he has an inoperable brain tumor, but like most wealthy asshole industrialists, he’s not much interested in dying when there’s more money to be made. He learns of a Dr. Merritt (Robert Hutton) who’s doing experimental head transplant research in London, and makes an appointment.

Although the doctor is hesitant to attempt one of his transplants on a human (by that time he’d only gotten as far as monkeys), they sort of agree that if Brussard can bring him a useable head, he’d give it a try.

The film then stops dead for a few minutes as Brussard makes an unexpected stop at Madame Toussaud’s wax museum and we get an impromptu tour of the tourist trap’s greatest hits. Inspired and desperate, Brussard goes to a pub, hires a disgraced and drunken surgeon, and together they fly to France and dig up, yes, Nostradamus’ grave. With Nostradamus’ head, see, Brussard would be able to see into the future and make his business decisions accordingly. Fortunately even after 450 years in the ground Nostradamus’ head is remarkably well preserved, so they lop it off and he smuggles it back to London. Dr. Merritt, having no idea whose head he’s got there, plops it in a pan of solution, attaches a bunch of hoses and electrodes, and before you know it reanimates Nostradamus, who speaks remarkably good English for someone who’s been dead that long. (Nostradamus was played by Michael Golden, a British character actor with a 40-year career. So far as I can tell this was the only time he played a disembodied head.)

Well, Brussard’s scheme to use Nostradamus’ precognitive powers for his own personal gain becomes pretty clear to everyone involved, including Nostradamus who, we find out, isn’t terribly tickled with the idea of becoming a wealthy asshole. Looking into the future, Nostradamus offers Brussard some friendly financial advice which brings down the asshole’s entire empire. Then things get all crazy with murder and, well, just plain craziness. Before you know it Nostradamus’ head has been transplanted onto the body of the doctor’s assistant.

Not being a Myles Wilder script the film is missing all those wonderful side characters and a heroic utility company, but with a storyline this nutty, who cares? The end is abrupt, anticlimactic, and perfectly logical, and the film is packed with references to everything from Frankenstein to (as you might expect given the head in question) films that wouldn’t be made for another eleven years. The most important thing about Man Without a Body, though, is that Wilder approaches the material, as utterly insane as it is, so seriously that you have no choice but to sit back and accept the koo koo ride.

This was his last sort-of science fiction film. Over the next decade he would only make a small handful of films, including a sort-of mystery/thriller, a sort-of Cold War espionage picture, and a jewel heist/cannibal film (after you’ve seen enough of his movies you stop asking questions).

Wilder’s last film, The Omegans, came out in 1968. In it, a painter becomes convinced his wife is having an affair, so decides to kill both her and her suspected paramour. He wants it to look like an accident, see, so he asks them to pose for a portrait next to a radioactive river!

(Like I said, after a while you stop asking.)

After the release of The Omegans, Wilder lived quietly in Hollywood for another 14 years. It’s possible, considering the range and scope of his body of work, that he’d simply said all he needed to say.

No, he never received much recognition or acclaim, never made millions and never won six Academy Awards like his dumb brother. But W. Lee Wilder forged on through those twenty-some years, working with small budgets, small crews, and studios that no longer exist. In that time he made 16 features, and I’ll tell you this: even if no one remembers them or Wilder himself, they were the films he wanted to make, films that are immediately recognizable as W. Lee Wilder films, and that’s something he could take to his grave.

 

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!

5 Things Dark Knight Returns Might Tell us About the Batman vs. Superman Movie

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini8/24/2013 at 7:58AM

Warner Bros. used quotes from Dark Knight Returns to announce the Batman vs. Superman film. What can we learn about the most anticipated movie in fandom from this comics masterpiece?

"I want you to remember, Clark, in all the years to come...in your most private moments...I want you to remember my hand at your throat. I want you to remember the one man who beat you." With those words, Harry Lennix (the actor who played General Swanwick in Man of Steel), quoting directly from the pages of The Dark Knight Returns, sent fans at the San Diego Comic-Con into near hysterics. He isn't quoting Lex Luthor or General Zod gloating over Superman's defeat, but Batman. And, with that, the sequel to Man of Steel was announced.

Later that day, screenwriter David Goyer said, "We don't know if it's going to be titled Batman vs. Superman or Superman vs. Batman, but yes...it's that combination, the two guys onscreen, and that's what's happening." Now, despite the famous quote from The Dark Knight Returns, it should be obvious to any fan that this film won't be an adaptation of that famous work. Director Zack Snyder even stated, "We're not adapting this thing, but it is the thing that will help us tell that story." Still, it isn't accidental that Zack Snyder and David Goyer chose those lines to announce to fans that DC's two most recognizable characters would meet on the big screen.

So what can we learn by revisiting Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, and Lynn Varley's 1986 Batman masterpiece? Somewhere between the pages of The Dark Knight Returns and what has been established in Man of Steel, there might just be a few things that actually will make it into this movie in 2015.


1. Superman is government-sanctioned.

The Superman of Dark Knight Returns is an operative of the United States government. In Man of Steel, we have already seen the beginning of a tentative, uneasy relationship between Superman and the U.S. Army. The idea that Superman could be manipulated by people in charge (especially in an attempt to prove that he's trustworthy after all the damage done in Man of Steel) to investigate a wild card like Batman might translate quite well to the world established by Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan. It also may be indictative of a Batman who may not be so new to this game when Kal-El finally donned his family's pajamas.


2. Batman is a "political liability."

In the world of The Dark Knight Returns, superheroes have been outlawed, making Batman's return to action politically inconvenient. Superman, despite all of the death and destruction brought on by his first public appearance in Man of Steel, operates in the open, wears bright colors, and doesn't wear a mask. It's likely that some people with power might be a little less comfortable with a wild card like Batman, who operates in the shadows. Someone with money, power, and influence might have a lot to gain by letting these two eliminate each other.

3. Kryptonite.
Face it, folks. Batman doesn't stand a chance against Superman...unless he levels the playing field. In chapter four of The Dark Knight Returns, Batman uses a Kryptonite arrow (courtesy of a one-armed Green Arrow...who almost certainly won't be in this film) to make Superman a little more approachable. Since Kryptonite was noticeably absent from Man of Steel, it's a safe bet that Superman's most famous weakness will find its way to the big screen so that he and Bats can go a few rounds. And it's not like someone with Bruce Wayne's resources wouldn't be able to afford it. Indeed, imagine the famed scene of Superman being brought to his knees by a grinning Gene Hackman in Superman: The Movie replaced by a grimacing Dark Knight ready to break some Kryptonian bones.


4. Batman wins.

Hard to believe, but it's true. Bats hands Supes his ass in the comics. Sure, he cheats a little (see #3), and Superman was already weakened by a nuclear explosion, but nevertheless, this is where that "my hand at your throat" line comes from. Batman promptly croaks thanks to a heart-attack, and even in defeat, Superman maintains respect for his former pal, even attending his funeral, where it's revealed that Batman's death wasn't so permanent after all. Which brings me to...

5. Someone is manipulating them.

Here's the thing: The Dark Knight Returns relies on what was, back then, over forty years of fans understanding that there was a friendship between these characters. The upcoming film not only doesn't have that luxury, it positively requires the heroes to eventually patch things up enough to make a Justice League movie happen. The Superman/Batman fight was the climax of The Dark Knight Returns. In this film, in all likelihood, it probably will have to take place in the second act in order to give them time to team up and wail on whoever manipulated them into fighting in the first place. Who would that be? Someone with power, influence, money...I imagine he'd be bald...you see where I'm going with this, right? 

All of this does raise one, final, tantalizing possibility. From a story perspective, the knowledge of an incredibly destructive alien presence on Earth might just be enough to bring Batman out of retirement...a "retirement" that the U.S. government may wish him to return to, since his presence in Gotham has seemingly attracted killer clowns and masked terrorists with a penchant for taking entire cities hostage. Since plenty of other elements of The Dark Knight Returns have found their way into Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise, most notably in The Dark Knight Rises, there would be a certain symmetry to integrating Nolan's Bat-Universe with the newly-minted Man of Steel. With the casting of Ben Affleck as an older, more experienced Batman, we know this won't be another origin story for the Dark Knight, and the implication may still be that the Nolan films serve as a vague history for what we see on screen. 

Batman vs. Superman...or Superman vs. Batman (we presume they're going to come up with a better title) is directed by Zack Snyder, written by David Goyer, and will hit theaters sometime in the Summer of 2015. The question is if/when the characters hit each other, will it be as a case of mistaken allegiances or a mythic clash of ideological resentment?

Thanks to David Crow for giving me an assist (like the grizzled, one-armed Green Arrow coming through in the clutch for ol' Bats) on a few key points.

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!

Disqus - noscript

With the exception of the bit about Christian Bale, I enjoyed the article. But please, let Bale go. He's not coming back. End of story. A lot of fans don't even want him back.

Don't get me wrong, he's great. But we'll need a Batman a little closer to the comics for it to translate well on film. Just try, if you can, to imagine Bale's Batman on screen with the other members of the league. It would be ridiculous. Silly. Laughable.

We need a Batman who is so ingenious and well prepared that he seems to defy the laws of physics. We really do need the Batman from the comic books.

Umm acutally alot of fans want him back and the gneral audience associates Bale with Batman

It makes sense from a marketing stand point

In a world where Superman indiscriminately will kill thousands of civilians in his little brawls, I do not think you have to worry about Bale's Batman being unable to seem smarter than the rest.

The bigger (and insurmountable) hurdle is that Bale more than likely has no interest in continuing the character arc. It is over and he owns the role for much of the general audience. Why risk that, as well as potentially burning a bridge with Nolan, over this?

bale comes back to gotham wracked with guilt over john blake batman dying (replacing the jason todd robin from TDKR) he comes out of retirement leading to supes going after him. it's acually not that hard to bring a lot of the TDKR tropes in.

Agreed. Christian Bale is to WB/DC like Robert Downey Jr. is to Disney/Marvel, their biggest and more popular actor playing a major character of their franchises. And plus, is TOO EARLY for a Batman reboot, people still associate Bale with Batman. BALE MUST RETURN AS OUR DARK KNIGHT!

False Jonathan. Fans and non-comic people still want Bale as Batman. So do I.

I've been fighting this same fight with people online ever since the news was released. Well said Jonathan, I couldn't agree more.

I love The Dark Knight trilogy...but there is a better Batman out there...and it's going to have to be that Batman to take on Superman.

There's a better Batman out there. Expand your mind Edu.

Who fucking cares about marketing by attaching Bale's name to it. When you make a great movie it'll market itself. It's already a movie with the two most well known comic book characters of ALL TIME. They could just release this movie without saying a word and everyone would know about it. Forget Bale and let Batman move on. Be better than Bale.

Nope.

yeah, well in the early 90s people associated michael keaton with batman. so whats your point ? It's time for a more comic book style batman. He's gotta be the comic book batman to be able to fight superman. Bale's batman wouldn't stand a chance against supes

NOPE !!! Not gonna happen and the movie will be better for it.

How did Marvel feel about recasting Spidey so fast? O yea they didnt care at all and its worked out for them great so far.

sony

Wanna See Something Really Scary? Twilight Zone Movie Gathers Speed At Warner Bros.

$
0
0
NewsTony Sokol8/24/2013 at 12:23PM

Warners Bros. is moving ahead with Twilight Zone movie plans.

Warner Bros. is unlocking the door with the key of imagination to the new Twilight Zone movie. The studio announced that Aron Eli Coleite is on board to write the screenplay. The Twilight Zone movie is in the hands of Leonardo DiCaprio’s production house, Appian Way, along with his partner Jennifer Davisson and Michael Ireland. Sarah Schechter is overseeing the project for the studio. Warner Brothers has also been talking with Joseph Kosinski, who made Oblivion, to direct.

Warner Brothers has been working on the new movie version of Twilight Zone since 2009. The first Twilight Zone film, from 1983, had four segments and was marred by the death of Vic Morrow during the section that was directed by Jon Landis. The new movie will follow just one story that has various elements of the Twilight Zone universe.

Aaron Eli Coleite wrote episodes of  the TV shows The River, Heroes and Crossing Jordan as well as the end of the world as we know it movie The End, which is set to be directed by Drew Barrymore on board to direct. Previous version of the script were typed by Anthony Peckham, Rand Ravich and Joby Harold.

The Twilight Zone was created and hosted by Rod Serling, who also created Night Gallery and wrote the screenplay for the classic fight film Requiem for a Heavyweight. The series ran on CBS from 1959 to 1964.  Serling wrote or co-wrote 92 of the 156 episodes that aired and delivered the iconic opening and closing monologues.

SOURCE: VARIETY

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.


Guardians of the Galaxy: Everything We Know

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini8/24/2013 at 6:05PM

Just like the title says, everything we know about Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy movie in one place. UPDATED with additional casting info, photos, and more!

Guardians of the Galaxy hits theaters on August 1st, 2014, and we'll continue reporting everything that comes our way. But until then, we've put everything we know about one of Marvel's riskier films in one place for your reading convenience. 

The cast of Guardians of the Galaxy is pretty impressive for a movie based on a relatively unknown Marvel comic book. Since the Guardians' roster has changed considerably (and constantly) since their introduction in 1969, this particular selection of members, while familiar to readers of recent Marvel Comics, may reveal a bit more about the film's plot and the future of the Marvel Universe than you might expect. Don't worry, though...this is entirely spoiler-free!
We've seen Chris Pratt make a dramatic physical change in order to play the leader of the Guardians, Star-Lord. Michael Rooker is Yondu, one of the few Guardians characters that has been around since the concept was first introduced. There are now multiple reports that Vin Diesel has been cast as the voice of Groot, including this not-so-cryptic update from the actor's own Facebook page! As of now, it looks like Bradley Cooper is in serious talks to voice Rocket Raccoon.

The casting of John C. Reilly as Rhomann Dey (a heroic Nova Corps leader) and Glenn Close as Nova Prime increases both the scope of the film and the reach of the Marvel movie universe. The question is whether or not the Nova Corps still exists, or if they've been wiped out and John C. Reilly is playing a survivor of a bygone era. Still, San Diego Comic-Con attendees did at least get to see the Nova Corps uniforms up close, and nobody (and I mean NOBODY) ever thought that would happen. Just as Marvel has been positioning the Guardians of the Galaxy comic for big things over the last six months, they've been doing the same with Nova. Don't be surprised if Novais one of those mystery Marvel Phase Three projects released between 2016-2017.


The presence of Zoe Saldana as Gamora, a green-skinned beauty known in the comics as "the most dangerous woman in the galaxy," hints at another potential plot point. You see, Gamora is the adopted daughter of Thanos, the cosmic madman who was famously teased at the end of The Avengers. Gamora isn't the only member of the Guardians with ties to Thanos. Drax the Destroyer (played by former WWE Superstar, Dave Bautista) has an origin which, at least in the comics, relies fairly heavily on Thanos' involvement. 

As far as baddies go, Lee Pace is playing Ronan the Accuser and Djimon Hounsou is Korath the Pursuer, both of whom are members of the alien Kree (a race who have played quite heavily into the mythology of the Avengerscomics). Another potential source of villainy for the film comes in the form of Karen Gillan as Nebula. Who is Nebula, you ask? She's a ruthless space-pirate. Not high-stakes enough for you? She's also the granddaughter of Thanos. 

Benicio del Toro as The Collector adds even more potential villainous firepower. Among the Collector's abilities is that of prophesy, and he's the guy who foresaw the coming of, you guessed it, Thanos. Yes...him again. If nothing else, Guardians of the Galaxy is going to make tremendous strides towards establishing Thanos as THE cosmic threat in the cinematic Marvel Universe.

So, with all this Thanos talk, it might be best to let the experts speak. In a recent Empire Magazine interview (courtesy of ScreenCrush), Kevin Feige promised that "Ronan the Accuser is very much the main bad guy. Thanos is lurking above it all. You will learn more about Thanos in Guardians, for sure. Certainly you'll get more than the one turn around and smirk! You'll get much more than that!" Which still leaves the big question. If we're getting "much more" than the brief glimpse in The Avengers, who will be wearing the makeup and/or providing the voice for the Mad Titan? It sounds like there's still one more major casting announcement to be made.

In other recent casting news, Gregg Henry, a veteran of several James Gunn projects has also joined the film. There's been no word yet on what Henry's role might be.


Guardians of the Galaxy is directed by James Gunn (Slither, Super), and written by Gunn and the relatively unknown (although not for much longer!) Nicole Perlman. Marvel Studios' President, Kevin Feige is (unsurprisingly) producing, while Louis D’Esposito (you may know him from the recent Agent Carter short film), Victoria Alonso, Jeremy Latcham, Alan Fine, and Stan Lee all claim Executive Producer credit, with Nik Korda as co-producer. Tyler Bates has signed on to provide the film's score. It's currently shooting in the UK at Shepperton Studios, but will also lens around London, including at Longcross Studios.

If the wait for that first teaser trailer is too much for you, you can see some set pics here and here.

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!


Disqus - noscript

Thanos was confirmed as being in the movie about 2 weeks ago...I don't know why you're saying he's not in it...

Thanks for catching that! Feige did confirm it at Comic-Con, the omnibus of comic book movie news. We'll avoid that in the future.

The new Guardians of the Galaxy spun out of Marvel's "Annihilation: Conquest" story.
Who was the surprise mastermind behind Conquest?
Ultron.
Who's the big bad in Avengers 2?
Ultron.

I can't believe that's coincidental.

Interview with Edgar Wright, Director of The World's End

$
0
0
InterviewMatthew Schuchman8/25/2013 at 2:13PM

To cap off coverage of the epic conclusion to the Cornetto Trilogy, we sit down with Edgar Wright, the filmmaker behind geek classics like Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim.

Even if you’re not a fan, there’s no question that Edgar Wright is a one of a kind filmmaker with a distinct voice like no other. Every second of his films are jam packed with subtle nuisances of beauty crafted ever so carefully to entertain all those in attendance. Sitting down to talk about his new film,The World’s End, Edgar let’s loose on the subject of beer, pubs and twins. Enjoy!
 
Can you talk about the creative process in making this movie? I understand you came up with this when you were 21…
 
Edgar Wright: Well part of it.
 
Part of it, I see. Well, I also noticed the different names of the pubs set up the pace and the subplots of this whole production; can you talk about this a bit?
 
Well the thing I did when I was 21 was I wrote a script about teenagers on a pub crawl—only like the first five minutes of this film—the 1990 bit resembles the script I wrote when I was 21. In fact, the film I wrote when I was 21 was more in the vein of like, an American Graffiti or Superbad; something like that with teens drinking. It wasn’t until way later after Hot Fuzz, I was thinking about that script that I had done nothing with and thought, “Oh, maybe there’s something in the idea of adults trying to recreate their teenage years.” So that idea came after Hot Fuzz. I was literally on a plane with Simon and I was thinking about it and I let it out, “I think I got an idea for the cinema,” and then we started talking about that.
 
In terms of the pub names, all the pub names are real. The World’s End is a pub in North London. Actually there are many World’s Ends; there’s at least four in London, and many across the country. There’s one particular one that Simon and I used to meet in before we’d go to the cinema, and I always thought it was a weird thing to say, “Oh, I’ll see you at The World’s End.” [Laughter] “I’ll meet you at the World’s End” just struck me as a weird thing to say. So I thought, “Hmm, bag that for later.” The other thing is, we always knew once we had the plot of the movie, when we knew it was going to be 12 pubs, we needed one that would be The World’s End, because we had a man who was searching for The World’s End and gets his wish, a thousand fold.
 
 After we did have the plot and everything, we went back and named the pubs after something that happened in the movie, but they are all real pub names. So we looked at the plot of the movie and we had a book of real pub names and say, “Okay, the one with the fight, that’s Crossed Hands. The one where he gets banned, he’s The Famous Cock.” [Laughter] “The one with the sirens, that’s The Mermaid.” The other thing I found funny about English pub names is that they always have these fancy kinds of names that seem steeped in history for what are usually completely shitty bars.  Some of them have some historical significance, like The First Post might have been the first post office, but usually it’s like a pretty mundane bar with a name like, The King’s Head.
 
Yeah, I have some family in England I always notice the pub names.
 
There are some crazy names. We liked the idea of pub signs and thinking about them like tarot cards.
 
Speaking about 1990, I noticed there was a great joke in the background of the soundtrack, that Sunday’s song “Here’s Where the Story Ends.” Did you sit and carefully bring a lot of that ‘90s era music to the table?
 
Yeah, the whole soundtrack. When we were writing the film, one of the first things we did was make this playlist of songs from about 1988-1993, and it was about 200 tracks long. We just used to listen to it on shuffle and then very quickly the songs that really meant something story wise would all come to the top. Even Gary King’s [Simon Pegg] anthems would be hedonistic party anthems like, “Loaded,” “Unfree,” “Step On,” by the Happy Mondays; those kinds of songs were the ones he would live by. All of the songs had something to do with it, even the song titles are totally on the nose. Like “Fool’s Gold,” by The Stone Roses is over the scene where he’s looking over at someone else’s beer. He’s going to drink someone else’s beer, which is fool’s gold [Laughter]. It literally says fool’s gold as he’s looking at the beer saying, “you are fool if you’re going to drink someone else’s lager.’ I always though about the song; what the fool’s gold could be, and so I just though it could be lager.
 
What is your fascination with science fiction?
 
In the way that this film is about nostalgia and looking back, a lot of the sci-fi movies that I would watch on TV when I was very small, before I even knew what the word “genre” meant, even before I could say, “oh yeah, I’m a science fiction fan,” were the films I would gravitate towards. When I was growing up, and not so much anymore sadly, these films would be on network TV in the afternoon or late at night. Films like Invaders From Mars, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, It Came From Outer Space. Those films from the 50s and 60s, especially the really paranoid ones: Village of the Damned, then on TV with things like Doctor Who The Avengers, The Prisoner, always the really extremely paranoid science fiction stories would always be on. Since I came from a small town, any of the ones that were about small towns used to really speak to me, specifically the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I like the one in San Francisco as well, but the original; anything about a small town would really stick with me because I was from a small town.
 
In a way, how that then factored into the movie wasn’t like we wrote half an hour of a pub crawl script and then picked a sci-fi story out of a hat. It was literally an expression of our feelings about the town. There’s a scene in the film when they start to realize that something otherworldly is going on, and you see that Gary is sort of smiling as he’s explaining it. The reason he’s smiling is because he can accept more readily that there might be an invasion than he can the idea that he’s old and the town doesn’t remember him or that maybe the town isn’t all it was cracked up to be in the first place. He’d rather leap to the more fantastical thing. In the very same way, with me and Simon both being from very small towns, having that bittersweet experience, it’s almost like a coping strategy. I used to go back to my home town and I think it’s the same for anyone who has had that experience, you can’t stop the march of time and the town is going to change without you, architecturally, socially; you’ve been the teenager going to the bars and you come back and maybe someone remembers you, but other members of the public don’t remember you at all. I remember saying to my friend a very long time ago, “It’s so weird going back, it’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, like the whole town changed the minute you left.


 
Continuing on that, Nick and Simon were talking about the theme of the loss of identity throughout the movie. What was it about that theme that made you want to explore it further?
 
I think it’s something we had in all of the movies. They’re all movies about growing up. In Shaun of the Dead, it’s all about Shaun having to grow up and take responsibility. In Hot Fuzz, it’s more about Nicholas Angel and Danny Butterman meeting somewhere in the middle, because one of them needs to grow up and the other needs to come down, or if you will, he needs to become more of a human being and less like a robot. In this one, it’s sort of more of a shock and more of a horror story that four of them have grown up and seemingly conformed in Gary’s eyes, and he wants to be the high school rebel forever, and you cannot be that rebel forever unless your willing to go completely off the grid. We draw very sharp lines. The reality of it is that Nick, Simon and myself live happily in the middle where we’re actually happy with our Starbucks and Apple Macs and stuff, but in the movie, there’s a sharp line asking, “Are you going to be with them, or are you going to be with the other guy.” You’re either going to be with Gary King, or you’re going to be with the robots.
 
Along the lines with the science fiction vibe of all three of the movies, I don’t know how you do it, but every single time the creepiness of the infected, or the alien, or the robot appears, they’re always standing and watching in a very specific creepy way…
 
Well in this one particularly, we went a little further where we actually had a choreographer, choreographing all of the crowds. If you notice, there’s that scene where The Door’s “Whiskey Bar” is playing that whole town is walking in time with the song. When they’re running down the street, they’re all running in time. If you actually look at the raw footage you’ll actually hear the choreographer going, “5, 6, 7, 8…left, right, left, right.” So they’re all in time, and I was thinking they should be all syncopated because they’re all supposed to be one man and it would be extremely creepy if they acted like that. Then when you’ve got like, 80 people doing it, it’s really creepy.
 
With all your films really, everything is so meticulous, brilliantly so. I’m sure there are things we’ve never heard you guys speak about that everyone is still missing in all of the films. Is the creative process on all levels the same for you? Do you put the same amount of time and thought into every visual that you do into writing the actual story?
 
I think it’s all about just being really prepared. If it’s going to be meticulous, you can’t just come to work and make that stuff up. This movie took 12 weeks to shoot, which might seem like a long time, but when I mention it to other directors, for instance, last night we had a screening and Darren Aronofsky came, and he said, “How the fuck did you make that in 12 weeks? That’s insane.” So when you only have 12 weeks to shoot something, you have to have everything planned. All the actors are rehearsed, you rehearse it like a play, you rehearse all of the fight scenes, you have the choreographer working with all of the extras. So when you come to set, there’s no discussion of like, “So, what are we doing? What’s happening in this scene? How is this going to work?” Everyone knows what they are doing. So the only thing you can do is to just attack everything on every level with military precision. Everything is storyboarded. There are videos of the choreography and fights.
 
Some directors work in a completely different way. Some directors come to work and just find the scene, like Robert Altman, that was his kind of style, and he did it brilliantly. He could find magic in improvisation. Paul Greengrass is the same, but I approach it more like we know exactly what we need to do. These are the shots, this is how we are going to do the scene, and you rehearse it with the actors, so all of that discussion of what the scene is about, what’s the theme, what’s the motivation, all of that has been sorted out in the rehearsal room and on set, we are going to shoot what we rehearsed. It’s just the way I work I guess. But it’s also the nature of never having enough time to pull off what we’re trying to do.
 
As a director you had sort of a British dream cast; what was is it like to have all those people working on your film?
 
It was great. The only two people I hadn’t worked with before from the main cast was Eddie [Marsan] and Ros [Rosamund Pike], but I am a huge fan of Eddie, particularly from his Mike Leigh films, and both Paddy [Consindine] and Eddie have done a string of very dark parts, and they’re both very funny people. So writing the roles with them in mind was interesting. Particularly Eddie in Paddy’s film Tyrannosaur, Eddie Marsan is terrifying in that movie. I went to see a Q and A for the premiere of Tyrannosaur, and Eddie Marsan said something that made me laugh. Someone said, “Eddie, you’ve played a lot of dark parts…” and he says, “I realize I’ve never had consensual sex onscreen,” [Laughter]. As soon as he said that I thought, “I’m going to give you the most loveable part in this film,” people are going to see the softer side of Eddie Marsan. Then you have Paddy Consindine who usually plays very dark parts, Hot Fuzz aside…
 
Submarine
 
 …Yeah, and Submarine too. Actually, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Le Donk & Scor-zay-zee, I don’t think it was ever released here, but it is so funny. Paddy is like the funniest man who normally has this reputation of being this Daniel Day-Lewis type, but he’s the goofiest, funniest man. For me, the thing is Paddy is essentially the romantic lead, and seeing someone really strong like Paddy getting all soppy like a 14-year-old is sort of really funny to me.


 
Going off of that, because there are so many different genres that are put together so well here, what’s it like crafting these actors and directing them to do so many fight scenes and big things, even though it’s more of a comedy movie?
 
I think the actors have a blast doing it. The thing that I was really lucky in having was everyone wanting to do everything. You have six actors who are really gung-ho. Brad Allen, who was the choreographer did Scott Pilgrim with me, and the actors had seen that. So they see the 20-year-old actors in Scott Pilgrim and say, “We want to do that! Even though we’re 20 years older than Michael Cera, we want to do that.” They really threw themselves into it and Brad and Damien Walters who were the choreographers, they really create an atmosphere where actors really want to impress the stunt men. What’s really good, you probably noticed in the movie that these fight scenes are all done in uninterrupted takes. That would never work if these actors couldn’t pull it off.
 
When you see action scenes and you kind of say, “Oh, the camera work is all jittery, I can’t tell what’s going on,” the reason that that happens is because they’re trying to hide a stunt double or the actor can’t really do it or the actor doesn’t want to do it. There are some action movie actors who are like, “I’ll do this, and this, and everything else is for the stunt double.” In this case, the actors wanted to do as much as they can. For instance, in that bathroom scene, there are only four shots in the whole thing that are stunt doubles. It’s all Nick, Simon, Paddy, Eddie, and Martin and those kids who are doing everything. The kids they’re fighting didn’t have doubles because they’re all gymnasts and marital artists. It made it incredibly exciting viscerally to do those scenes. Same thing in the scene with the twins. The twins are not stunt women, they’re not actresses; they were dancers. We cast them because dancers can learn choreography, and they were absolutely in to do everything else. “You’ve never done a fight scene before, you’ve never acted before; we’re going to train you up.” And they’re amazing. They did a great, great job. It almost takes me back to when I used to make amateur films. I never used to work with actors. It’s an exciting thing to get performances out of non-actors.
 
So will we see all these same kind of things when Ant-Man comes along? That same Edgar Wright nature?
 
Maybe not specifically identical twins [Laughter]. I’m rewriting the script to get identical twins into it. All though, weirdly, I have had identical twins in every single thing I’ve done. Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, Don’t, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim, and in this one, there are two sets of identical twins.
 
Why is that?
 
You know what, I love symmetry. [Laughter]
 
That’s a good answer.
 
I’m very OCD and I love symmetry, so twins for me are just the ultimate. There’s no bad shot with identical twins.
 
So if you were to open a pub yourself, what would you call it?
 
You win the award for the question I’ve never been asked on the entire press tour, that’s amazing. Wow, that’s a good one, let me think. God, I have to come up with something good now. Damn it, you can’t rush me, I want to come up with something good.
 
The Twin Kegs?
 
Haha, let me think about this for a second.
 
Simon mentioned you only made it through four pubs when you tried to recreate your own teenage pub crawl.
 
When I was 19, I got through six! But yeah, when I, Simon and Nick tried to do it, I only got through four. What happened is I am a complete lightweight and I can’t take alcohol. I can’t take my drink; it’s as simple as that. It’s not like a rare medical condition. I just have eyes bigger than my stomach. So yeah, this is where the film goes into pure fantasy, the idea that I could have twelve beers. If I was in the movie, the film would stop at the half hour mark because I would be asleep.
 
What actors or filmmakers would you want to work with in the future?
 
So many, it’s actually a very difficult question. Clint Eastwood. It’s already too late, he’s retired, but he’s one of my absolute screen heroes.
 
What about the name of that pub?
 
Oh yeah, how about, The Lightweight and Blackout.
 
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!

Jodorowsky's Dune Gets a Release Date From Sony

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini8/25/2013 at 5:11PM

The documentary about the Dune film that never was will be distributed in North America by Sony. It can't get here soon enough!

Long before David Lynch brought Frank Herbert's epic novel, Dune, to the cinema, Alejandro Jodorowsky nearly did. The film made it into pre-production, may have featured a prog-rock soundtrack by artists like Pink Floyd and Peter Gabriel, and would have starred Salvador Dali and Orson Welles. Sound crazy? That's only the beginning! Imagine set designs by H.R. Giger and Jean "Moebius" Giraud to add to the overall insanity. Now, a documentary based on this aborted attempt to film one of sci-fi's most famous novels is coming to North America, thanks to Sony Pictures.

Sony Pictures Classics has announced that they will distribute Jodorowsky's Dune(which premiered at Cannes on May 18th) in North America on March 7th, 2014. The documentary, directed by Frank Pavich and produced by Pavich, Donald Rosenfeld, Stephen Scarlata, Michel Seydoux, and Travis Stevens is an in-depth look at the doomed production and features a number of never-before-seen images and interviews. You can watch the trailer for the film below, and you can learn more at their Facebook page
Source: Deadline

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!

Disqus - noscript

Dali is dead now, but maybe H.R. Giger can play the Emperor for the princely sum of 10 MILLION DOLLARS... Get this man a budget! Dune's about due for a remake anyway. (I don't consider the dreadful SciFi channel ones as worthy heirs to Lynch's version.)

Interview with Closed Circuit's Eric Bana

$
0
0
InterviewDavid Crow8/26/2013 at 1:34AM

We sit down with Eric Bana to discuss his new British conspiracy thriller, Closed Circuit, as well as everything from advocacy to his work on Hanna.

Eric Bana is one of those types of versatile leading men who sneak up on you. This is in part because he is such a charming actor. But it’s also largely due to the fact that he is always playing such diversely different characters. Whether he is a Trojan warrior in Troy or a Mossad assassin in Munich, a paranoid parent in Hanna or a Romulan baddie in Star Trek, Bana is always dependably surprising in his role choices and selections.
 
Yet, in his latest film, John Crowley’s riveting British conspiracy drama Closed Circuit, Bana is faced with a new kind of character: a relatively normal, if dubious English advocate, Barrister Martin Rose. In the film, which opens August 28, Bana’s Martin is a successful London-based lawyer who has become relaxed in his ethics and role, both in the courtroom and in the fractured home that follows a divorce. The only thing he can’t compartmentalize is his relationship with Claudia Simmons-Howe (Rebecca Hall), his former lover and current partner in a high-profile case of mass murder and acts of terrorism, which the British government has declared a national security risk.
 
Bana sat down with us several weeks ago to discuss the picture, his previous work and how this one could be kept all in the family.
 
This film comes at a very interesting time. We just had Rebecca here, and she was talking about the fact that this was not called Closed Circuit, but it was called Closed. And it deals with the closed courts, and now also with this surveillance, which for a time people were up in arms about, but have sort of got used to. At least until Eric Snowden and WikiLeaks, which have put people back up in arms. Was the timeliness of these subjects what brought you to this film?
 
Eric Bana: Definitely not. Selfishly, I read the script on a plane actually, and was just riveted the whole time. I just thought it was so well written. I was intrigued, excited, scared; it just read like a great thriller, and I loved the characters and I thought Martin was really interesting. I thought he’d be a fun smartass to play. He was actually more of a smartass in the film prior to how it was cut. The timely nature had nothing to do with it for me. It just read really, really well. And then I met with [director John Crowley] and absolutely fell in love with him, and thought he’d make a really interesting film.
 
Can you talk about your character’s perspective on so much that’s going on in this film: What’s right, what’s wrong, justice, loyalty. The film raises the idea that the government can commit legal crime, and what’s done in the name of patriotism and self-defense for a country is scrutinized. We see your character at a certain point in his life, and I’m wondering if you had any discussion with the writer if his views may have changed from his early days as a writer and how that affects his story in the film.
 
Tim Owen, who’s a great friend of Tim Bevan of Working Title, is how this movie is made. Tim pitched the idea to Tim Bevan. [Owen] I think actually wrote the original treatment for it. He does a lot of human rights for the UK…He’s a really interesting guy. I didn’t talk so much about his early years and in what ways his ideals has changed, but obviously you’ve got the character of Martin who’s pushing back, but I think he’s pushing back as much as Rebecca’s character. I think Claudia is holding the original ideal much closer to her heart. In fact, I think Martin is quite willing to do a couple of deals along the way to keep her safe, which I guess is fair enough.
 
Is there anyone in your family who influenced your performance because you come from a family of lawyers?
 
Yes, not my side, but I married into a legal family. So I’m somewhat anxious, but looking forward to my father-in-law seeing the movie, because he was our chief justice of our high court. He constantly jokes about the fact that every time I go off to do a film, he says, “Is there a role, perhaps, for a conservative, intelligent former judge in your movie?” [Laughter]. For the first time I had to say, “Well actually, there may well be.” So, it was fun to jump into his world. Obviously our legal system mirrors the British one. It’s a lot closer to the British one than the American one. So a lot of that I was familiar with, and it was fun to jump into the world of advocacy.
 
How did you feel that you and Rebecca bonded? How did the chemistry formulate?
 
Well she’s a very easy person to get along with, as you would have gathered. And I always like to head to locations a long time before production begins, and Working Title were okay with that. So I went to London, it must have been six or eight weeks before shooting, to do some research, and hang out with Rebecca and John, and we actually managed to get a big read through done at the same time and some rehearsals. And she’s a dream. I mean she’s just so great to work with, and so smart, and I don’t know if you got that sense, but she is hilarious. She’s very, very funny. And she has a great singing voice too!
 
Would you say Martin is a cad?
 
Actually, he was a bit more of a cad on the page. There was some stuff that we cut. He was definitely a bit more of a smartass than he was in the final cut. And I can definitely see why John cut those moments out, because I think the film would have been a very delicate film to edit. I remember John saying to me during the editing process that this film speaks to him very strongly. It’s telling him exactly what it wants to be. So there were quite a lot of moments along the way that explored the other sides of Martin’s character, which I can see why in the final cut that they’re not there.
 
But at the time as an actor, did you really want them or have to fight for them?
 
Well, I didn’t have to fight for them because they were on the page and I was encouraging it. I enjoyed that there was a real smartass component to him, which can come naturally to me. So I was happy to go down that road. But like I say, there are elements of it there, but it is definitely toned down.


 
Did we ever learn anymore about the relationship, about the affair? Because it’s kind of murky. We don’t know how long ago it took place. Was that purposeful?
 
Yeah, I don’t think it was super-important for us to flesh it out. I guess the most important element was they had been together, there had been a past relationship, and they had lied on oath. Therein lies the drama for the audience, and I guess it sort of helps ramp up the stakes.
 
And they have a place to rendezvous.
 
And they have a place to rendezvous, yes….I always assumed that it wasn’t Claudia that caused his marriage to fail, though. I never had that seed planted. I never felt like there was some crazy affair, and Martin left his wife.
 
Because it was very secretive. Some people knew, but they didn’t reveal that they knew. I got the impression they kept it very quiet, that maybe it wasn’t revealed to the wife until much later after their problems and the divorce.
 
Yeah, I didn’t want to play the idea that she had been this kind of homewrecker.
 
Tell us about your motivation for your character, because from your perspective as an actor, fleshing out this character, we know that Rebecca’s character is motivated by a sense of justice, but we get the sense that you don’t have a family to go home to and you’re not ruthlessly ambitious to get to the top of your profession. So tell us how you portray this character and your motivations.
 
He was already very along in his profession. So, I wasn’t focused on how driven he was, because I took it as a given that he was already a very successful barrister and doing very well. For me, it was more about playing the interesting beat of that character at that point in his life, as opposed to that point of his career. I really enjoyed the fact that—I wouldn’t so much call it a midlife crisis—but that he’s at that really interesting point as a man, and he has the responsibility of a son, he has a very important career, and he’s at a great stage of his life in that regards, but he obviously still has very strong feelings for this woman that for whatever reason they’re not together. And suddenly, he’s thrust into this very high-profile case, and from a human level I found all that really, really interesting.
 
Every time we see these instances occur, we see these lawyers walking in and out of the courtroom, and I don’t think we think much about the fact that they can be representing these super-high-profile criminals, but on the other side of it, they go off living their lives, and go home to wives and children, and pick up their bread and coffee around the corner. And what that must be like for people who take on these high-profile cases all the time. So, I guess I came at that from that more personal human level than the professional side of it.
 
On the subject of advocacy, you play an advocate. The film, I suppose, is some form of advocacy. I’d like to ask you if you think there’s a difference between being an advocate and a barrister. Also, is there anything you feel that is wrong to advocate for?
 
Hm. I’m a very, very unpolitical person. So, while there are charities I support at home, I’ve actually made it my business to not be a political person. I think there are just other people that do a much better job at it than I ever would. So, I’m not ever really drawn to taking super-high-profile stances on things. Advocacy is very interesting, and we had a couple of more scenes in the final film that show more of Martin and Claudia’s side of that work, but I guess in the end, we didn’t need it because of Claudia’s brilliant cross-examination of the agent…but it was really interesting looking into that and just how well prepared they are in that regard. And the fact that you never ask a question you don’t know the answer to, and the minute you do ask a question you don’t know the answer to, is, as the expression they say, it’s like taking a blind shot. Taking a shot in the dark. That was really fascinating to me, and I think it would be a huge adrenaline rush. I can see, sitting on a few cases and watching them, that it must be an incredibly empowering feeling cross-examining these people. I remember talking to my sister-in-law, who’s also a lawyer, and something she said to me, which I thought was really interesting is, “The court is full of people who have lived these really great, noble lives, who have then committed a crime. And it’s like they can’t believe that they’re going to be judged for the act in which they’re presented to the courtroom. It’s almost like they have a firm belief that the positive weight of their life can outweigh why they’re in court. And they’re the best people to go after, and they’re best people to cross-examine, because they’re so easy to tear shreds off of in court,” which I found really fascinating.
 
Can you talk about Director Crowley who has more of a theatre background than a cinema one. Did you sense an adjustment because of that background, and was there a difference in how your preparation for this film?
 
There wasn’t a sense that we got proper rehearsal time. It always feels like there’s never enough time for rehearsal on a film, and on some films there’s no rehearsal time. In this case, we did have a good amount of time. Nowhere near as much as Rebecca and John are used to in their traditional theatre background, however he was very thorough. We had more than enough time to talk about things, and I absolutely loved working with John. He’s such a delightful man, and funny and interesting and intelligent, and I always am completely trusting in him in the process, and same with Rebecca. They would occasionally talk gobbledygook amongst themselves [Laughs], and I would sit and listen. He was wonderful to work with, and a lot of attention to detail, but at the same time really loose on the set. He did not have that control freak element at all, and I thought maybe if you come from a theatre background where you get to rehearse every single thing so much, and you get to the point where everything is so rehearsed and set in stone that that would inform you as a film director. But in fact, it was the opposite, which was really interesting. I’ve worked with a lot of film directors who were a lot more control-oriented in that regard than John was. So, I really enjoyed that process. He was very trusting of us, and I felt very, very free. I didn’t feel at all constrained by his direction or the tone of the set or anything. It was actually the opposite; we had a lot of fun.


 
I recently rewatched Hanna again, and the one long, long scene with the one tracking shot...
 
The subway?
 
Yeah! Was something like that just incredibly difficult? I’ve seen you in so many movies where you’re an actor; you’re working with a script; you’re working with other people. Was something like that totally alien to you?
 
No, I LOVED it so much. It was scary as Hell, because I think I only had two or three days notice of it. It was initially going to be a traditional fight that was going to be cut up into 20 pieces, and I’m sitting on the set one day with [director Joe Wright] and he said [in put-on English accent], “Eric, the scene that we’re doing on Friday: I’m going to shoot that…in one.” And I thought, “Really?! Are you sure? From which bit in one section?” He’s like, “From the minute the bus pulls up to the moment you get on the radio at the end.” [Laughs].
 
I love the camera. What I mean by that is I love the technical side of filmmaking, and the cinematographer is the guy that I chew his ear out on every film. So, I love the relationship between the actor and the A-Camera Operator. I treat that person like a cast member. Your Focus Puller and your A-Camera Operator are, as far as I’m concerned, part of the cast. And so, when you get to steadicam, and you get to a scene with a lot of moving parts where everything has to be perfect or the shot doesn’t work at all, I love that. It’s scary, but at the same time, it’s one of the few moments in film, especially as we’re moving into the digital era, where suddenly everyone’s focus all comes down to that one moment. It’s like a sporting performance. And we’re moving away from that with digital. And there’s an element that the set is losing its sanctity to a degree. Because of digital, there’s this kind of general notion that permeates the set now that we can fix everything. We can fix everything! We can do anything afterwards. We can do reshoots afterwards. We can correct the lighting afterwards. We can correct the exposure. We can fix everything in post! When you get to a sequence like that, it’s the antithesis of it. You can’t fix anything. It all has to be—obviously, I didn’t throw a knife and stab someone—but it has to work in camera. It’s one of the few moments where the adrenaline runs in a way that it doesn’t in other moments. I love that. It’s an honor when the director puts that amount of trust in all the key players, and I was thrilled.
 
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!

Interview with Closed Circuit's Rebecca Hall

$
0
0
InterviewDavid Crow8/26/2013 at 2:13AM

We sit down with Rebecca Hall, star of The Prestige and Iron Man 3, to discuss her new conspiracy thriller, Closed Circuit, as well as what role art should have in the public discourse.

Rebecca Hall is one of the many great British talents that have risen in Hollywood and Broadway in recent years. As the daughter of the founder of the Royal Shakespeare Company and an opera singer, she has always been driven to the arts, where she has excelled in recent films such as The Prestige, Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Town and Iron Man 3; On stage she has worked on everything from a Sam Mendes production of The Winter’s Tale to Twelfth Night, upon which she could collaborate with her father.
 
And it is at these crossroads that she’s met talent with similar passions, such as dual film and stage director John Crowley, who cast has cast her in the conspiracy thriller Closed Circuit with Eric Bana. In that film, which opens August 28, Hall plays Claudia, a determined and idealistic Barrister in the British legal system who must advocate with her former lover and detested colleague, Martin (Bana). However, they find themselves pulled together when a case of national intrigue is threatened with a closed courtroom proceeding due to its terrorist implications.
 
Hall was kind enough to sit down with us one morning last week to discuss the film, as well as being caught in front of the camera, CCTV and otherwise.
 
What was going through your head as you were reading the script and were getting more into it? What did you think it was turning into?
 
That’s a good question. I think nothing, because it was so gripping that I kept getting engaged with it. I think that’s a good indication of something working if you want to keep reading it. I mean my mind wasn’t wondering ‘what did she make for dinner?’ I was struck by a couple of things initially. Firstly, it reminded me of the sort of great conspiracy, paranoia movies that were made, brilliantly, in this country in the late ‘60s and ‘70s, and I didn’t feel like anyone had done that about London, and I felt like that was really exciting; I felt like it was the perfect time. The second thing that really struck me about it was that it felt like a very real cinema world, like this was something that was really going on. Then of course I did a bit of research about it and understood more about closed court procedures and that was a bit eye opening for me.
 
One of the things that struck me about the film was the whole concept of a closed circuit. Of being watched everywhere. It seemed like when London first started having closed circuit cameras there was an outcry. It seems like it has died down. Was that part of what attracted you to the role?
 
Absolutely. At the time it wasn’t called “Closed Circuit,” it was called “Closed,” because it referred to the court procedures more than it did the spying and all that sort of stuff, which of course was a big element of the film. So, there are two separate issues that you’re talking about there, and I do think it is important to draw a distinction, because what is going on in England in regards to secret trials and closed court procedures is specific to cases related to national security. But now they’re trying to extend them to civil discussions. That is sort of the topic of discussion in England. Of course, you have the issues going on here with all the stuff to do with Snowden and what The Guardian released about prison, so it does feel incredibly topical on several counts.
 
I do think it’s a discussion that needs to be had, that needs to be raised and spoken about. I don’t think it’s enough to say that “Well, if I’ve got nothing to hide, then it’s alright to let the government look at everything.” I don’t! I think this film is interesting, as it looks at people who are very much entrenched in the civil services. It’s people who work for the government and with the government, and there’s no bad guy, really. And I think it illustrates very clearly what a complicated area it is to maintain a sense of liberty and free will and all the rights we expect as humans, and also to maintain the standard we want to live and how we want to live and feel safe.
 
Can you talk about bonding with Eric on this film? How you get to know each other?
 
How did we get to know each other? I think we got to know each other like anyone does on any film. You spend a long time hanging over a tea and chatting. [Laughs].
 
I think John Crowley was very clever in that he understood that this was a topic, which needed to be heavily researched. Like we couldn’t go into it not really knowing, and I certainly didn’t want to play a barrister without having an understanding of what a barrister did. So John arranged for us to have a legal advisor. Sort of three months before we started shooting, and we all met up. I think the first time I met Eric was when we met up and went to the Old Bailey and went and sat in on a trial, and then we met a couple of barristers and shadowed them for a while.
 
I self-confess I became a sort of courtroom junkie during those three months. I kept going, I couldn’t stop, it was so fascinating. And I think we definitely all got to know each other during those months of research.


 
How do you, someone who’s comfortable in front of the camera obviously, get into the mindset of someone who isn’t comfortable being watched?
 
Ahh, good question. I don’t know, because I didn’t actually think about that…I suppose I just got on with it really…[I do shy away from cameras]. It is a misconception that every actor is an exhibitionist, and they’re not generally.
 
It is an interesting idea. There’s always a hook with a character. There’s always something that sort of draws you in that you kind of go, “That’s interesting to explore; that’s an avenue I want to understand; that behavior.” With Claudia, it was that sort of, I found something interesting about that level of knowing what’s right and that sort of will of wanting to do the right thing no matter what. Being sort of selfless in that sense, yet ambitious and driven and fiercely intelligent. There’s something really fascinating about people who go into the law, as a sweeping generalization, but there is. I mean they’re really kind of a particular personality type: verbally dexterous and very specific, and yet hugely emotional without looking like they are. That’s interesting that tension, especially in this story where so much of it is to do with this love story that’s over before we start. That tension between being professional and only ever putting your feeling into the language of an argument [while] never presenting your feelings unless you can clearly say what they are.
 
Do you feel that audiences like these movies because they see them as some sort of escapism entertainment? They resonate with a character that not only has the intent to do right, but actually follows through on the action. Because a lot of times in society, following through means your job’s at risk, so they turn to films and characters like this where they can actually fulfill that fantasy?
 
Possibly, yes. Possibly. Society is probably always going through some element of crisis, but when there’s sort of complicated times, films that push those notions to the point of conspiracy and paranoia are sort of cathartic in a way. They kind of raise something…there are times when these films are very popular and there’s probably some correlation there.
 
Speaking of catharsis, given the film has an exasperated sense of misjustice, do you think it ultimately expresses resignation to a close circuited world?
 
No, I don’t. I think it shows the only likely outcome in that particular world the film presents. But [it’s] for a reason, for us to think “is that good enough” or “is that the only option that we have,” and I think that any art form worth it’s salt raises questions, it doesn’t answer them. And I think that is probably where the film ends up.
 
What did you enjoy about working in the UK?
 
I got to be home!
 
Was your life very different being able to go home each day?
 
Yes, it was. It never happens to me! I’m nearly always in location in America playing an American. I got to keep my own accent and be in London. It was Heaven.
 
Can you talk a little bit more about accents and how it works? Even when you use your normal accent, do you sometimes get directors who still say, “Be more British?”
 
Well yeah, for Claudia, I didn’t really let her speak like me. I‘ve got much more of a London accent. It’s sloppy. I noticed there’s no advocate out there that speaks in the sloppy way that I do. They’re all quite precise. I always do a little bit of work on it, even when it’s close to my own. In ways it’s harder when it’s close to my own.
 
Is American a tough accent?
 
It depends where it’s from. There are so many variants. I find it a really fun accent to do because of that. You can make it so specific to a character in America. I haven’t met any American that sounds the same. Everyone’s got accents that are idiosyncratic to their personality, really.


 
There have been a number of films that have utilized the closed circuit camera as a formidable vehicle for storytelling. Did you see any of those others and did you think they had an impact?
 
It’s probably nothing new that we’re all being watched. That’s been around for a long time. What these films raise or these notions they raise is the idea that we’re all very comfortable with it, as opposed to occasionally speaking up and saying, “maybe that’s not such a good idea” and maybe there’s a double standard anywhere. The discussion needs to be had. Personally, I value privacy. I think it’s a good thing, and I get increasingly bewildered at how it’s becoming a devalued commodity these days. People think that if you are private, you are therefore hiding something or you are in some way wrong and that you should be sharing all of your thoughts on Instagram and Twitter. Otherwise, you’re not a valued human being…I’m quite quiet like that and I don’t get it.
 
Did you, Eric or the writer and director fill in the blanks before filming began about the romantic relationship that [Claudia and Martin] had beforehand? Because some people may interpret it that that affair caused the end of his marriage. How did that affect how you portrayed her, knowing that they have this history together?
 
We thought a lot about the concept that these are people who communicate for a living and are terrible at communicating with each other. Essentially, they had an affair, and she assumed that he did it all the time. He was just a cad and a terrible person, but she fell for him, and it destroyed her, and so they stopped it, and she carried on with her life. And then, of course, he was incapable of saying to her that, “actually I don’t do this all the time and I fell in love with you too.” If they had just had an open discussion about that, they might have actually got on…but they don’t. They just sort of end up cross-firing and that’s the situation they’re in at the beginning of the film. They’re sort of thinking the other is a mess.

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!

Viewing all 23983 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>