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

New Homefront Trailer with Satham and Franco

$
0
0
TrailerDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 4:08PM

New trailer for Homefront shows what happens when James Franco plays a meth dealer who kidnaps Jason Statham's daughter. When will these bad guys ever learn?

Some bad guys just need to learn that if an American badass with a faintly English accent is around, you DO NOT mess with their daughters. I suppose, we all get to enjoy James Franco learning that the hard way.
 
In what looks destined to be a cult favorite amongst action enthusiasts, Jason Statham is Phil Broker, an even-tempered retired DEA agent who comes to a small town to raise a daughter. However, any hope of peace is shattered when his daughter gets on the bad side of a local mother with a chip on her shoulder (Kate Bosworth) with the most skuzzy of friends, such as Gator (James Franco). But when Gator messes with Broker’s daughter, he is going to learn the hard way that there are consequences for messing with Jason Statham, American accent or not.
 
 
With a cast that also includes Winona Ryder and Rachelle Lefevre, this looks like a wonderful time for those who want to see Statham teach manners to supposed down Southern folk. And with Franco already playing one drug dealing loser named Alien in this year’s Spring Breakers, it is nice to see him diversify as a meth dealing loser named Gator. Oh yes.
 
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 Conjuring Will Be on DVD/Blu-ray For Halloween

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 4:31PM

Warner Brothers has announced an Oct. 22 release date for the biggest horror movie of the year. Details of the discs and downloads inside.

For those who want to relive the terror (or missed it the first time), Warner Brothers has proudly announced that The Conjuring will be available to purchase on DVD, Blu-ray and digital download on October 22. This will be just in time for Halloween.
 
A film from director James Wan, The Conjuring is “based on the true story” of Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) who embark on one of the most terrifying cases of their career: a haunting rooted in witchcraft and demonology in a small Rhode Island farmhouse occupied by a family of seven, which includes five daughters. An excerpt from the press release below:
 

Having earned $260 million worldwide on a $20 million budget, the the movie will be available on Blu-ray Combo Pack for $35.99 and on single disc DVD for $28.98. The Blu-ray Combo Pack features the theatrical version of the film in hi-definition on Blu-ray, and the theatrical version in standard definition on DVD. Both the Blu-ray Combo Pack and the single disc DVD include UltraViolet which allows consumers to download and instantly stream the standard definition theatrical version of the film to a wide range of devices including computers and compatible tablets, smartphones, game consoles, Internet-connected TVs and Blu-ray players. 

The Conjuring Blu-ray Combo Pack contains the following special features: - The Conjuring: Face-to-Face with Terror - A Life in Demonology - Scaring the “@$*%” Out of You 
The Conjuring Standard Definition DVD contains the following special features: - Scaring the “@$*%” Out of You

 
The film will also be available on iTunes, Amazon, Xbox and PlayStation on October 22. And if you missed it, Patrick Wilson talked to me in this exclusive about the plot and setting of The Conjuring 2. Enjoy!

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.

First Poster For RoboCop Reboot

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 5:17PM

Dystopian Detroit has never looked so shiny as in the visor of the newest RoboCop film!

Fans of the original RoboCop have been divided about the new trailer for the 2014 film, but there is no denying interest is stirred in the forthcoming reboot. How could it not be with a cast that includes Michael Keaton, Gary Oldman, Samuel L. Jackson, Abbie Cornish and Jennifer Ehle?
 
Thus, no matter what side of the fence you come down on, you’re likely going to want to see this…the new poster for RoboCop:

 
Set in a dystopian future of 2028 Detroit, Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnarman) is a good cop and loving family man when he is whacked and nearly killed by the nefarious forces in his city. Fortunately, he is going to survive and live on (kind of) as the robotically invincible RoboCop!
 
RoboCop will enjoy the release date of February 7, 2014. I suppose that will give him a week to clean up the streets for Valentine’s Day!
 
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 Family, Review

$
0
0
ReviewDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 10:07PM

The Family marks director Luc Besson's first helmed action-comedy in years, but achieves moments of genuine quality when it kisses the ring of another filmmaker: Martin Scorsese.

Other than some Arthurian goodness, Luc Besson has been notoriously hard to get into a director’s chair for the last 10 years. However when The Family, the latest action-comedy fired from the point of his pen, started ensnaring names like Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer and Tommy Lee Jones to its cast, he was faced with an offer he couldn’t refuse. As opposed to scribbling an outline down on a napkin for Taken and Transporter sequels in exchange for generous paycheck portions, The Familymarks the first unapologetically action-oriented English language film Besson’s helmed since the 1990s. Was it worth the wait?
 
It’s hard to say. While all the exaggerated violence and glorified horror that made La Femme Nikita, The Fifth Element and Léon (or The Professional for Americans missing out) such cult classics is on display, it is surely missing that level of playfulness and ingenuity that made those films sparkle. Then again, what Besson does not bring from his own bag of tricks, he gleefully borrows from that of Martin Scorsese for the movie’s most inspired moments.
 
The main ingredient to this layered mob and spaghetti is Robert De Niro as Giovanni Manzoni, a former wiseguy who got wise and turned in his crew for a ticket to the French Riviera. Unfortunately, Giovanni (or Fred Blake) is still just a goombah from Brooklyn and cannot break his violent streak, landing his family perpetually on the move like a group of American nomads. Hence, the film introduces the clan as they drive into the dullest corner of Normandy.


 
Yet, if De Niro is the basis for the dish, the secret key ingredient to the film is the actress who plays his wife. As Maggie Manzoni/Blake, Pfeiffer is the heart of the titular family and the energetic force propelling the movie’s warmth and laughs. Clearly still having an itch for playing mafia dolls 25 years after Jonathan Demme’s underrated Married to the Mob, Pfeiffer slips comfortably into Maggie whether it is by horrifying a priest during a confession about her family or quietly torching the umpteenth grocery store that sneers at her Americanism (clearly she has married her soul mate).
 
Together they are raising two teenage children, Belle (Dianna Agron) and Warren (John D’Leo), a pair of know-it-alls who also share their parents taste for La Cosa Nostra justice, as demonstrated when Belle breaks the heart (as well as a few ribs) of a hairy French date rapist and when Warren hires the bigger kids to break the slightly less big kids. Indeed, the singular thing preventing this family’s dysfunction from blowing up the dinner table is how they all enjoy solving their problems at the end of a baseball bat, tennis racket or other varying pieces of sports equipment.
 
I have not really addressed the plot yet, as there is not necessarily one in the traditional sense. Much like many of Besson’s better films, the conflict is happenstance to how the characters interact with each other. And with a title like The Family, they get along fairly well. De Niro has played so many gangsters and mafiosos at this point that he deserves to have his brass knuckles gilded. Nonetheless, it is apparent as to why he would be attracted to this film. Too often in mob films, including many of his own, the story ends with a protagonist disappearing into the Witness Protection Program. But seeing Henry Hill complain about eggplant and ketch-up surely has enough potential to be its own story. Adding an extra wrinkle to this with the fish-out-of-water framing device, Besson is able to humorously move the narrative to his native France, a markedly unique locale for a mob comedy. Still, seeing De Niro’s Giovanni experience his mid-life crisis through writing a memoir about his life as a gangster (allowing for some hilarious non-sequitur flashbacks) does not feel all that different from the schtick of his Analyze This days. But he provides a serviceable anchor for everyone else’s shenanigans, particularly Belle, who is truly daddy’s little girl.


 
Agron’s visceral pleasure to no longer be in the bipolar hands of Ryan Murphy is bursting at the seams of the frame. As the mafia princess, Agron mostly gets to embody the waifish figures throughout Besson’s milieu, including Milla Jovovich in Fifth Element and Natalie Portman’s star-making turn as Mathilda in Léon. And like the latter, there is more than a whiff of a Lolita element onscreen when the 17-year-old Belle seduces her college-age tutor.
 
The more intriguing returning motif is the director’s penchant for stylized violence. Also like a sequence from Léon, the film opens with the mass mafia slaughter of an entire family sitting down for dinner. Likely introduced to seriously add stakes for the third act, these New York button men eventually seem to cut the population of Normandy down by half with a level of murder so extreme that one ponders why Besson takes so much pleasure in watching his fellow countrymen be slaughtered by Americans, as if this were Taken 3.
 
However, the brutality is effective in making the bad guys seem REALLY BAD, and thus causing even the most jaded audience member to rally around our titular group of New York misanthropes for a sincerely suspenseful and entertaining climax. It’s also greatly enhanced because Besson builds up his big bads by kissing the ring of Scorsese. With Scorsese’s apparent endorsement, press material says that he loved the script, Besson gives a wink and nudge by borrowing liberally from Scorsese’s imprimatur of Italian-American actors to play THE family back east and stateside. Considering that it’s a cheeky plot device and mega-deus ex machina for the villains which brings the betrayed crew knocking at Giovanni and Maggie’s French door, it helps a great deal when actors like Vincent Pastore and Dominic Chianese are there to breathe the menace that comes from decades of cinema and television wiseguy antics.
 
In fact, the self-aware smirk of the whole enterprise for a brief moment achieves a meta-level of brilliance when Giovanni is escorted by his lead G-Man babysitter, Robert Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones), to a French town hall meeting. As with Pfeiffer, De Niro’s good fellow routine is enlivened when around another acting veteran he has previously never shared the screen with. The pair of frenemies who have known each other for half-a-dozen years quarrel like an old married couple, thereby leaving the audience to wish the two titans had more scenes of butting heads.


 
But in this particular moment, they are experiencing their first man-date because Giovanni, woefully miscast in his cover identity as a historian researching the G.I. landings (which he repeatedly confuses for the Marines), was asked by his neighbors to discuss an American film classic starring Frank Sinatra. However, once at the town hall, it turns out that the French Academy has sent another film by mistake, one upon whose authenticity “Fred Blake” is asked to verify as a former New Yorker. The movie? Goodfellas. Of course. The look on De Niro’s face is worth the price of admission. Even his anti-U.S. snob neighbors cannot deny this wholly American artifact’s greatness, which 20 years later still serves as a monument to this leading actor and genre, even if only as a punch line here. One certainly strong enough to lift this borgata off the ground.
 
Den of Geek Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars
6

Disney Confirms Star Wars Spin-Offs Are “Origin Films”

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 11:23PM

In a conference call, the Disney CFO uses the term "origin films" while describing the near limitless franchising and merchandizing possibilities contained in that galaxy far, far away.

In a fascinating window into Disney’s thought process on their latest Lucasfilm/Star Wars acquisition, Variety has run a treasure trove of a story about Disney and a property they view as “evergreen.”
 
During a conference call presentation of Disney’s assets at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference, Jay Rasulo, chief financial officer of the Walt Disney Company, said, “The sky is the limit” when it comes to merchandizing the products. Brushing off concerns that kids today may not be as knowledgeable about the Star Warsuniverse, the CFO pointed to strong toy sales that maintain Star Wars as a top-tier toy license. “This is not a new franchise for kids.”
 
While describing the unbelievable resource that Star Warsrepresents for supersizing and noting its “incredible flexibility,” Rasulo stated something else that should raise any Jedi fan’s eyebrows: “Origin story film.” According to Variety, the Disney executive said that the films being released each year around the new “trilogy,” beginning in 2015, would be “origin stories.”
 
Not really that much of a surprise considering once defunct rumors are buzzing again. Last February, it was gossiped that there would be a Han Solo origin film, which could possibly start its own trilogy. Lawrence Kasdan was even rumored to be writing the script for the project (as the esteemed screenwriter behind Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark). While denied, it looks very intriguing now, as does the story that Joe Johnston (Captain America: The First Avenger) wanted to direct a Boba Fett film. Indeed, he worked on creating Fett’s image in Empireand has since worked with Disney on the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
 
Ultimately, this appears to be a way of turning Star Wars into the multi-annual franchise event that Marvel Studios has become. It’s a brave new world for franchising possibilities and things really do look evergreen (or at least dollar green) for that galaxy far, far away.
 
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.

Ben Affleck's Batman to be "tired, weary and seasoned"

$
0
0
NewsSimon Brew9/13/2013 at 8:13AM

Get ready for a more experienced Batman, as Ben Affleck's take on the caped crusader will feature no origin story...

Dig into the extensive comic book history of Batman, and there are indispensible stories from pretty much every stage of his crime-battling and investigative career. Yet the movies to date have gone with an origin, or aimed young to middle-aged. That said, Christopher Nolan's films obviously spent a lot of time exploring the metaphorical weight of wearing the cape and cowl.

So where will Ben Affleck's Batman sit? Well, according to the CEO of Warner Bros, Kevin Tsujihara, the Batman we're going to see in Zack Snyder's Batman/Superman movie will be "tired and weary and seasoned and been doing it for a while". "We think it's going to be huge", Tsujihara noted.

[related article: 5 Things Dark Knight Returns Tells Us About The Batman vs. Superman Movie]

This is promising. The screen has been shy about portraying ageing and aged superheroes in major blockbuster, and if this paves the way for a live action take on The Dark Knight Returns at some point in the future, then we're all for it.

On the sizeable reaction to the casting of Affleck, incidentally, Tsujihara added that "Ben is perfect for the vision Zack has for that character. The fact that you saw such a passionate response in the blogosphere is really kind of a testament to the love that people have for this character".

[related article: Batman vs. Superman - Everything We Know]

More news on the Batman/Superman movie as we hear it...

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.

Disqus - noscript

"tired and weary and seasoned and been
doing it for a while"

Still doesn't explain the trrrible
casting choice of Aflac.

10 Not So Legendary Robert De Niro Performances

$
0
0
NewsGabe Toro9/13/2013 at 8:35AM

Even the great ones have their less-than-great moments, and Robert De Niro is no exception. A long and prolific career means that they can't all be winners. Here are ten that aren't exactly Jake LaMotta.

This weekend, Robert De Niro lets his hair down in The Family, another quick paycheck for one of the greatest, but busiest actors in show business. De Niro’s got two Oscars to his name, and countless accolades from a career of brilliant performances. But when you work as often as he does, you’re bound to make a few mistakes. Maybe the good roles are disappearing, maybe the screen is shrinking. And maybe one of the hardest working men in the movies is just getting a little lazy. We’ll always love you for the truckload of classics you’ve given us, Bobby. But let’s face it, sometimes you could stand to say no. Here are some of those times.

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein (1994)

Kenneth Branagh’s bold decision was to hew closer to the text this time around, presenting a Frankenstein’s monster that wasn’t a hulking strongman or a fearsome monster, but ultimately a fairly literate, self-questioning soul, trapped in a corporeal form he did not seek. So why hire one of Hollywood’s best actors to slap on a thick coat of theater makeup and monologue with De Niro’s famously plainspoken diction? The best decision would have been to play this Frankenstein as a man, and let the makeup bring the theatricality: instead, De Niro camps it up, as if relishing the first and last horror movie monster he would ever play.

The Score (2001)

Seemed like a good idea on paper: De Niro matching wits with Edward Norton, alongside an aged Marlon Brando, three generations (or two and a half, in Norton’s case) of acting royalty. Turns out, The Score was every bit the low-energy vanity project it sounded like, with Norton playing the wily rookie as a man of multiple identities, mismatched against a sleepwalking De Niro and a living legend who indulged his every urge to do as he pleases. The Score seemed special because Norton was (and still is) notoriously picky with his projects, and Brando was in his final days. To De Niro, it was just another paycheck, as it isn’t clear if he’s rolling when shooting the shit with a clearly-improvising Brando, who literally didn’t wear pants for the entirety of his turn. But really, you can’t blame someone for getting paid to hang out with Brando and Norton, even if they’re not doing their job.

Analyze That (2002)

De Niro’s performance in Analyze This was funny because he found the truth in it. It’s not a comedy performance, simply a reworked, slightly askew version of his gangster persona. But by the time the unasked-for sequel rolled around, he was hamming it up to the rafters, desperate to keep up with the yammering energy of Billy Crystal. The ying-yang chemistry between them suddenly swayed yang-yang, with a preening De Niro singing and dancing at one point while inside an institution, doing a riff on mental instability that’s funny and accurate to zero human beings.

Showtime (2002)

A desperately low-energy film from the days when De Niro thought he was a comedian, the legend was paired with a similarly disinterested Eddie Murphy in what was likely one of the worst sets in Hollywood history. A gag within the narrative, which mocks reality TV in a way that was dated when the film came out, finds De Niro’s character receiving acting tips from William Shatner, the joke being that Shatner is an absolutely terrible actor. And yet, somehow, Shatner’s the only funny bit of a miserable movie, completely outshining his decorated co-stars.

Godsend (2004)

Cloning. Remember that hot-button issue? Godsend was a weak attempt to marry topical issues with Rosemary’s Baby-type horror, ashamed of the scares, but not smart enough to explore the philosophical ideas behind a couple cloning their dead child. As the doctor, De Niro could have given a nuanced, complex characterization, but screw it: he’s done that a couple of times before. Instead, he goes well into mad scientist mode, rambling on about an inane master plan that turns Godsend into a cheap bargain bin offering on “4 in 1” DVD packages.


Hide and Seek (2005)

Sub-sub-sub-sub Shyamalan horror finds De Niro not only playing a typically dopey suburban-dad-who-doesn’t-know-he’s-in-a-horror-movie, but also being forced to disgrace himself by acting out a witless, audience-insulting twist. Spoiler alert: multiple personalities, none of them flattering to the star of Raging Bull.

Stardust (2007)

De Niro took a small supporting role in the British classic Brazil, and his working class charm fits right into that universe. Around twenty years later, De Niro would pop up in support of this magical British fantasy, but that subtlety is gone. As Captain Shakespeare, he first comes across like a tough-guy swashbuckler, giving the role the sort of portrayal best reserved for guest-spots on Sesame Street. Once he reveals himself as a crossdressing ponce who gets to spin and twirl while wearing a boa, you start to think that this acting legend just isn’t taking this shit seriously.

Righteous Kill (2008)

Dat kill… wuz RIGHTEOUS. The long-awaited re-teaming of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino turned out to be a dog. Who knew that two legendary actors known for casually sullying their reputations by starring in garbage would unite for, well...a piece of garbage? Surprises everywhere! Pacino comes off worse, forced to act out an embarrassing twist that no actor could pull off, but De Niro is almost equally bad, giving his sort of grumpy, shruggy performances that suggests he’s looking off-camera for cue-cards. Chances are someone told him he was playing a “been-there, done-that detective” and he said, “You had me at ‘that.’”

The Big Wedding (2013)

One of the most recent bombs on De Niro’s resume, this campy and borderline racist piece of garbage finds the Goodfellas star as a horny old man who can’t keep his paws off his old wife (Diane Keaton) and his on-the-side lover (Susan Sarandon). There’s a good movie to be made out of De Niro as an aging lothario: does it need to be sub-Benny Hill crap smuggled into an ensemble wedding movie where literally everyone is pratfalling over the refusal to tell a Hispanic caricature that her son is marrying into a family with separated parents?


The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (2000)

No, Bobby. We’ll never forget you starring alongside a cartoon moose and a squirrel and reprising your famous Taxi Driver routine in a stupid, high decibel accent for those eight year olds in the audience who just love Travis Bickle. To hear De Niro say it, he keeps his Tribeca Film Institute open from the earnings of movies like this. As much as it brings important arts and entertainment to New York City, maybe it’s a worthy sacrifice to help us all pretend this movie never happened.

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

I thought he was rather charming in Stardust. It must be boring as an actor to have play everything seriously and it was nice to see him ham it up.

C'mon. STARDUST and DeNiro's performance in it were a lot of fun. I've never understood the lack of support for the film.

I will also have to chime in that while I agree with most of this list, the inclusion of Stardust is baffling. Because he is the Raging Bull (we get it), he cannot ever do camp? As much of your list astutely points out (Showtime, Analyze That, the strangely absent Meet The Little Fockers), De Niro has too often in the last decade gotten away coasting on riffs of his wiseguy persona. However, Vaughn and company actually found a funny and clever way to subvert that in Stardust, and De Niro genuinely looked like he was engaged and having fun, which is rarity with many of his "comedic" performances.

Win A Mobster Prize Pack For 'The Family'

$
0
0
NewsDen Of Geek9/13/2013 at 11:19AM

Got an itch for some handgun ice cubes, brass knuckle mug, mug shot shot glasses? Enter to win them all!

Enter now to win a Mobster Prize Pack for The Family, which hits theaters tonight!




The Mobster Prize Pack will include mobster themed items in anticipation for The Family, such as:

  • Classic fedora
  • Mug Shots (infamous mobster shot glasses)
  • A gun-shaped ice cube tray
  • Thumb-shaped USB flash drive
  • Branded "brass knuckle" mug
  • A copy of the novel MALAVITA (which the film is based upon)
  • A poker set
  • Branded BBQ apron
  • Mini 'The Family' poster
 
All you have to do is email Denofgeekgiveaway@gmail.com with your name and address, and we'll randomly pick a winner on Monday!
 


THE FAMILY

 

Release: September 13, 2013

Director:  Luc Besson
Writers: Luc Besson and Michael Caleo (Based on the novel Malavita by Tonino Benacquista)
Cast: Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones, Dianna Agron, John D’Leo
Producers: Virginie Besson-Silla, Ryan Kavanaugh 

In the dark action comedy The Family, a Mafia boss and his family are relocated to a sleepy town in France under the Witness Protection Program after snitching on the mob. Despite Agent Stansfield’s (Tommy Lee Jones) best efforts to keep them in line, Fred Blake (Robert De Niro), his wife Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer) and their children, Belle (Dianna Agron) and Warren (John D’Leo), can’t help resorting to old habits by handling their problems the “family” way. Chaos ensues as their former Mafia cronies try to track them down and scores are settled in the unlikeliest of settings, in this subversively funny film by Luc Besson.

Check out our review of The Family here, and go see The Family this weekend!

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.

First Clip From Machete Kills

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/13/2013 at 1:07PM

Lady Gaga and Sofia Vergara think they can kill Machete. Obviously, they don't know...Machete.

He drives courageously through the desert with a harem of femme-bot decorated baddies gunning for him like he’s an international man of mystery. And he is, because he is FBI, CIA, DEA and a Federale all rolled up into one. He is Machete. And this is the clip for his newest adventure.
 
 
When an eccentric billionaire (Mel Gibson) threatens the world with a missile or some sort of Macguffin, President Charlie Sheen (played by Carlos Estevez) must send in his top agent (Amber Heard) and his even topper ass-kicker, Machete (Danny Trejo) to save the day. Along the way Machete will do battle with assassins (Antonio Banderas), murderers (Sofia Vergara), and monsters (Lady Gaga). But one thing is certain: Machete Kills.
 
Machete Kills on October 11, 2013 at a theater new you.
 
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.

Jamie Foxx Talks Sinister Six, Channing Tatum for Gambit?

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/13/2013 at 1:37PM

In an interview, actor Jamie Foxx lets slip that there have been discussions about doing a Sinister Six film down the road in the The Amazing Spider-Man franchise while Channing Tatum admits that he has his heart set on playing Gambit in the X-Men franchise.

With so many superhero films and franchises whirling around Hollywood these days, it is almost impossible to keep track of who is doing what character, or even which universe that particular iteration of a character is in. Hence, when Total Film sat down with actors Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum, there to chat up White House Down, they ended up on all sorts of interesting potential superhero news.
 
When asked if he’d be interested in returning to the Spider-Man franchise as part of the Sinister Six, Foxx, who plays Electro in next summer’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2, smiled and said, “Yes. They actually talked about it, the Sinister Six, so I’ve got my fingers crossed, because [when] you think about it, electricity never dies, it just goes to a different place.”
 
When the question turned to Tatum about getting into superhero-ing, in the same interview Tatum said, “I would like to play Gambit. Gambit’s my favorite!” Having grown up around New Orleans, Tatum would love to do a Cajun accent and play the “punk rock” of superheroes. Considering that the Gambit of X-Men Origins: Wolverine has since starred in box office bombs like John Carter and Battleship, we think 20th Century Fox would be more than open to speaking with the star of 21 Jump Street about taking over the role.


 
Still, the most interesting thing to come out of this interview is that Foxx has had discussions to do the Sinister Six. For those who have read Spider-Man comics, the Sinister Six is like the all-star team of baddies with rotating rogues that often include Doctor Octopus, Scorpion, Mysterio, Kraven the Hunter, Sandman, Rhino, and, yes, Electro. Of course, the line-up has shifted to the point where every conceivable bad guy has had a turn, including the rumored Green Goblin from The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Why not the Lizard as well?
 
It’s an interesting proposition that shows Sony’s mind is on the closest thing comics have to an Avengers of villainy. Perhaps in the already slated The Amazing Spider-Man 4 for 2018?
 
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.

Julianne Moore Being Reaped for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay

$
0
0
NewsTony Sokol9/13/2013 at 1:59PM

CONFIRMED: Julianne Moore in talks to join The Hunger Games: Mockingjay.

**Julianne Moore's involvement has been officially confirmed**

It is time for the reaping and may the odds be forever in Julianne Moore’s favor. The actress, who most recently played Sarah Palin in HBO’s Game Change (with Woody Harrelson who plays Haymitch in The Hunger Gamesmovie trilogy) and Jack Donaghy’s flame on 30 Rock, is in talks with Lionsgate and director Francis Lawrence to play President Alma Coin in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay. The last two books from the Suzanne Collins book series are being turned to film.

Moore would star in both of the final films. President Alma Coin is in charge of District 13 will use Katniss Everdeen, Jennifer Lawrence, to advance her own ambitions when Katniss becomes a symbol of rebellion against the Capitol government. Moore would star in both of the final films. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth will return for the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman will also be joining the series for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

Julianne Moore is also set to play the bible-thumping mama in the upcoming remake of Stephen King’s Carrie, which will be directed by Kim Peirce. She is also set to star opposite Jeff Bridges in Warner Brothers’ Seventh Son. Moore is also slated to play in Don Juan, which will be directed by Gordon-Levitt and will co-star Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Scarlett Johansson.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is set for released on November 21, 2014. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 will open November 20, 2015.

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

Mockingjay should be one movie.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Mama Director In Talks for The Mummy Reboot

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/13/2013 at 6:27PM

Andres Muschietti, director of horror film Mama, is in talks to replace Len Wiseman as helmer of a new Mummy franchise reboot. Could this signal a return to the brand's horror roots?

Earlier in July, it looked as though Len Wiseman (Underworld) would helm yet another remake/reboot of The Mummy franchise. However, since he has dropped out, Deadline is now reporting that Universal Pictures has entered talks with Andres Muschietti to take the reigns. To date, Muschietti has only one feature length film to his name, but it is an intriguing one: Mama.
 
Originally a 2008 short film he directed, the project was so haunting that it caught the attention of filmmaker Guillermo del Toro who would produce Muschietti’s feature-length adaptation of the short. Also, its undeniable horror element may point to a return to the original roots of The Mummyfranchise.
 
Despite what many millennials might think, The Mummywasn’t always about Brendan Fraser cracking Harrison Ford- wise against blankets of CGI. An original 1932 film (that happens to bear a striking similarity to Bram Stoker’s oft-forgotten The Jewel of Seven Stars), it told the creepy story of a long-dead ghoul (Boris Karloff) coming back to claim a loved one through another’s body. Not that unlike Mama, huh?
 
Could this be a return of classic Universal horror? Universal attempted such a thing before with the 2010 remake of The Wolfman, but just because that approach didn’t quite work does not mean it cannot be done.
 
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.

Goosebumps Being Adapted to the Big Screen…With Jack Black?

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/13/2013 at 6:49PM

Goosebumps film adaptation is exhumed with Jack Black in talks to star in the family-oriented project.

For any child who grew up in the 1990s, Goosebumps was a unique and treasured fad for learning to read. A near limitless series of books written by R.L. Stine, they covered everything from vampires to ghosts to killer dummies and time traveling clocks.
 
Thus it is intriguing to see that the long-gestated attempt to turn the books into a film franchise has resurfaced once and more. More curiously is that it appears Jack Black is circling the project as his next vehicle.
 
According to The Wrap, actor Jack Black has entered negotiations to star in a family-oriented film adaptation of the book series. Director Rob Letterman is also attached to the project. Letterman previously worked with Black on Gulliver’s Travels and Shark Tale.


 
Well tell me book readers of the ‘90s, does this seem like goosebump-inducing idea to you?
 
Goosebumps has sold more than 300 million copies worldwide and was previously adapted into a live-action TV series that ran for four seasons on Fox Kids Network.
 
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.

First Pics of Need For Speed Movie

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow9/14/2013 at 1:49PM

Check out the first official stills of Aaron Paul, Dakota Johnson and Dominic Cooper in a Need For Speed movie adaptation!

We all know the old adage about video game adaptations. Yet, at least judging by the casting, Disney and DreamWorks are aiming to break that rule with next year’s Need For Speed.
 
Based on the addictive racing game franchise of the same name, the first pictures curiously are not based around the cars, but rather the actors they have attached. As Breaking Bad concludes its final season, Aaron Paul has already found work in a different kind of speeding high, one of which does not require cooking in the desert. Also featured are Dominic Cooper and Dakota Johsnon, the latter of whom has made waves and broke many a fangirl’s heart with her casting in the new Fifty Shades of Grey movie. Also, Cooper himself tends to be a credible actor after work such as The Devil’s Doubleand Tamara Drew.


 
The press release promises the film will be a return to the car culture movies of the 1960s and ‘70s (think more Bullit than Fast & Furious) as it chronicles a story of revenge and redemption.
 
I’m sure we’ll find out more as the March 14, 2014 release date nears.
 
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 Leigh Whannell, Writer of Insidious and Saw

$
0
0
InterviewDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 12:32AM

We sit down with Leigh Whannell, an Australian screenwriter with the unique perspective of having penned the screenplays that launched two mega horror franchises. We discuss both, as well as his acting in both in anticipation for Insidious: Chapter 2.

Leigh Whannell is in the unique position of having co-created two of the most enduring horror franchises of the 21st century. Born and raised in Melbourne, Australia, Whannell was always unapologetically enthused by commercial filmmaking when he first worked with his creative partner James Wan. Developing the relationship of Whannell writing the screenplay and Wan directing the picture, their first feature film Saw became one of the most enduring horror icons of the 2000s, even if Whannell only wrote the first two of SIX sequels while Wan directed none of them.
 
After the Australian duo’s next horror film, Dead Silence (2007) failed to live up to expectations, each pursued other creative avenues before reuniting, refreshed and hungry, for Insidious (2011). As the most profitable film of 2011, Insidiousvitalized an entire studio, Film District, on its own accord and unlike the Sawsequels, lured its original creators back for the much-hyped sequel. It may also help that Whannell, also an actor, played the character of Specs in Insidious, a personality that faired better than his protagonist Adam did in Saw.
 
In promotion of Insidious: Chapter 2, Whannell was nice enough to chat with Den of Geek about that rollercoaster ride in Hollywood, the destiny of both franchises and what interests him as a writer and an actor.
 
Den of Geek: When you first wrote Insidious did you already have a sequel in mind?
 
Leigh Whannell: No. When I first wrote Insidious, James and I were both in a very particular place. We were stuck in a rut, I think. We’d just come out with Saw and everybody was congratulating us. It was this big success. I mean I had welts on my back from people patting me on the back. When the whole Saw thing died down, I feel like I had praise withdrawals. I had never been congratulated so much on something in my life. So, it was a really amazing whirlwind when Saw came out. Then we did Dead Silence and got our asses kicked out on that film, and it didn’t turn out to be the film we wanted it to be. And then we spent a few years just in a rut. James went off and did Death Sentence, and I was writing scripts that weren’t getting made. I think all the stories you read about Hollywood and development hell, we kind of experienced it first hand. By the time 2010 rolled around, we hadn’t made a film in a few years and we were really desperate to do something. We basically decided to go back and do Saw all over again. We wanted to go back to our roots and make an indie film just like Saw, but we didn’t want to go back and just remake Saw, so we decided to do a supernatural horror. And that’s where Insidious came from.
 
So when I was writing the film, not only was I not thinking about a sequel, I wasn’t thinking beyond the page. I was obsessed with us reestablishing who we were. I just felt like we had lost something. It had been a few years and we had all this momentum out of Saw that we had kind of lost. So, I’m really happy that Insidious did well, because it basically feels like “Saw: Take Two.”
 
DoG: Did the direction of the Saw franchise inspire James and yourself to assert more creative control over the Insidiousfranchise?
 
Whannell: Perhaps with James. I wrote two Saw sequels, I did [Saw II and Saw III] and then I stepped away and some new people came in. They made some decisions that I wouldn’t have made, but I guess that’s obvious when new people take over: the new guy who moves into your house, he is going to decorate it differently. So, that was interesting. I think for James, he was influenced by what you’re talking about. I think he watched a new team of people take something he had directed and remake it in their own vision and paint their own colors on it, and I think he did want to have a little more control. So, I think you’re probably right in that respect. For me, because I wrote two of the Saw sequels, I didn’t necessarily feel the urgency to hang onto Insidious, but I’m glad that James did.


 
DoG: One more question on Sawthen: Are you happy with the direction Dr. Gordon went?
 
Whannell: [Laughs]. Difficult stuff to talk about, because I’m still friends with people who are involved in the Sawfilms. I’ll say this: There’s definitely things that I wouldn’t have done, but I felt very divorced from it. I’ll tell you about an interesting experience that happened to me with Saw. I was driving, as you often do in LA, down Sunset, and I was pulled up at a stoplight and I was sitting there, and I looked up and there was this giant billboard for SawV. I was looking at this billboard, and I had this really palpable feeling. I was looking at this billboard and I was thinking, “My God, that franchise, that character, that title was invented in the suburbs of Melbourne on the other side of the world.” And now it’s grown into this behemoth on a billboard on Sunset Blvd., and I had nothing to do with it. So, I had this curious mixture of attachment that I created this thing and detachment that I was completely divorced from it. I didn’t visit the set; I didn’t know what the film was like. It was a really interesting feeling. I didn’t feel any malice towards it; it was just a really curious feeling of detachment from something that I created. So maybe, with Insidious there is a reluctance to step away.
 
DoG: Moving onto Insidious, it always seemed to me that you enjoy played with timelines and nonlinear timelines, especially in the Saw sequels you wrote. But now in Insidious 2, you can actually have your characters, your travelers, play around in time and space. How was that?
 
Whannell: That was awesome! [Laughs]. Yeah, you’re very right. Supernatural films allow you to bend the rules of time and space that’s really fun, especially for screenwriters who often get shot down for logic reasons. When you’re writing a supernatural film, you can always be like, “Hey, it’s supernatural.” I really enjoy the aspects of Insidious 2 where we visited the first film. I think that’s the sort of thing that fans of the first film will really love. I think they love seeing those loops that loop the films together. I think true connectivity is something that is rare in sequels. I mean I love the first Die Hard film; you won’t find a bigger Die Hard fan than me. But I feel like with the sequels, they’re just taking that character and dropping him in different scenarios. There’s no real connective tissue.  What we tried to do on Saw and what we tried to do on Insidious is try to have the films play out like they really are connected like a serial. I mean if you edited Insidious 2 against the end of Insidious 1, it’d play almost like a big movie. It’d be like a four-hour movie. So yeah, I like that.


 
DoG: Well, this Insidious is “Chapter 2,” which picks up right where the last one left off. Do you think that if there is a third one, it’d be “Chapter 3?”
 
Whannell: I don’t know. That’s an interesting question because I don’t know if we’d continue with the Lambert family. I think they’ve been hammered enough. If we were to do a sequel, I mean I haven’t really discussed it with the producer, but I almost feel like if we do another sequel to Insidious that we almost should tell a different story. I feel like this world of the Further is ripe for many different stories. So, I guess you could use that world as the basis for some other family’s story.
 
DoG: Speaking of the Further, I really love this astral plane mythology introduced in these films. Did you research that or are there are a lot of people for whom this is their spiritual belief?
 
Whannell: Yeah! I totally did a little bit of reading into it, and James and I had been talking about doing an astral projection horror film for years, even before Saw. That was actually one of the ideas we wanted to do, but we ended up doing Saw…But I remember we used to talk a lot about how astral projection hadn’t really been utilized in a horror film yet, and it’s a subject so ripe for horror films: the idea of your spirit leaving your body. And we did a bit of reading and research into it, and we found that there is this other plane that astral travelers can actually visit that sort of lives on top of our world, and it’s something that we can’t see. In your astral body you can explore this world. Then when it came time to write Insidious, I interviewed a few psychics, and they really echoed a lot of the stuff I featured in the film. One guy I was talking to…he’s a psychic and medium in LA, he was telling me about the personal experiences he had had astral projecting into this other plane and what it looked like. So that was really cool to have someone echo my own ideas back to me after the fact. I’d already written the film and then I talked to him, and he really reiterated these ideas.
 
…You can do a bit of reading online. Even if you just go to the Wikipedia page on this stuff, there’s an astral plane and there’s a thing called the Akashic Records. I think it’s called the Akashic Records, but apparently it’s a book of everything that’s happened in the world and everything that’s going to happen. Astral projectors believe if you travel far enough, you can read this book, and in fact, according to myth, Nostradamus could astral project and the reason he made all those predictions was because he was reading this book.
 
DoG: What I thought was an interesting choice in this film was the demon, which I really like you get to SEE the demon in the first movie and it was part of the marketing of that one. Here, you don’t see him in this movie, but you do hear him at the end…
 
Whannell: Right, we definitely got little references to him in there, but I think we wanted to concentrate on the old woman ghost, and explore more the character of Josh, who Patrick Wilson plays, and who he was haunted by. I think there’s really so many ghostly figures in this world of the Further, I think you can pick and choose.
 
DoG: To go further into that, you play Specs who had an expanded role in this as a bit of a ghostbuster. Any chance that he and Elise and the whole team will be going forward in the future?
 
Whannell: I think so. If we were to do a sequel, if we were to move onto another family, I think you could have those characters be the connective tissue. I think it’d also be an interesting film to do a prequel based on Elise and how she was first introduced to this world of the Further before Specs and Tucker come along.
 
DoG: Could you talk a little bit about playing Specs in these movies?
 
Whannell: Yeah, I have real fun playing Specs, and I treat it like fun. [Angus Sampson] is a good friend of mine and we basically have our schtick. I just did another film with him in Australia called The Mule, which is a film Angus and I wrote, and we shot it in Australia. We have Hugo Weaving, and it’s very different. It’s kind of a drama, almost Fargo-esque crime thriller about a drug mule. It was really interesting to act in that film, because it was so different from doing Specs and Tucker. I really felt like an actor, I was working out how this character walked and talked and smoked. I do have fun playing Specs, but weirdly enough, shooting this film in Australia has really made me want to throw myself into acting more and see where that takes me.


 
DoG: Can you talk a little about what you’re working on now?
 
Whannell: I just shot a film called Cooties that wasn’t actually my idea. I was talking to a friend of mine and he said to me, “I’ve got this friend, and he’s got an idea for a film. He wants to produce it. He’s not a writer, but it’s called Cooties. It’s about a virus that breaks out in an elementary school and turns all the kids into killer zombies.” And it was like a diamond bullet to paraphrase Apocalypse Now. I was like “I want to write that film. Who’s your friend? Call him up!”
 
So he calls up his friend and we went out to dinner, and I’m like, “That movie? I want to write that film.” And he actually said to me, “Yeah, I mean I think it could be really scary.” And I was like, “Yeah, I’m thinking of doing it as a comedy.” And he was like, “I was thinking it was more horror.” And I was like, “It’s called Cooties. Nobody is going to take it seriously! You either have to change the title and make it a serious horror film or you stick with Cooties and it has to be a comedy. And we can’t lose the title that’s one of the best things. Everyone knows what cooties are.” And I eventually convinced him, and we just wrapped shooting that on [two days ago].
 
Is there any chance James could ask you to work on The Conjuring 2?
 
Whannell: Maybe, I don’t know. I loved The Conjuring so much. It’s really scary.  I think he took everything he learned from Insidious and really put it into that film, and it’s so scary. As a horror fan, I’m thankful for that film. I don’t know. If he asked me to do it, I’d definitely be honored.
 
DoG: Well, thanks for being able to do this today.
 
Whannell: Thank you so much. Cheers, mate.
 
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.

Insidious: Chapter 2, Review

$
0
0
ReviewDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 1:38PM

The second Insidious film boldly avoids repeating the first film in every way. Unfortunately those differences include quality as well.

The difficulty with most horror sequels is how do you scare the audience a second time when they know what’s coming? Often, this question is skirted by less discerning producers and filmmakers who are frequently dealing with material that’s hardly frightening to begin with. Should they really care if necking teenagers are terrified of Jason Voorhees and his desperately compensating machete? Here’s the gore, here’s the nudity, thanks for the ten bucks.
 
To Insidious: Chapter 2’s credit, it completely ignores that lazily successful business model. Unlike most horror follow-ups, nearly everyone came back for the Insidious sequel. Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whannell are back; stars Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne returned; even Lin Shaye’s ghost whisperer has been exhumed, and that’s impressive considering she died in the original’s closing minutes. Yet despite the same creative team as the first film, Insidious: Chapter 2 is boldly dissimilar to that flick in one too many ways: Namely quality.
 
Despite having “Chapter 2” in the title, this sequel kickoffs as more of a prequel. Set in the 1980s, we are reintroduced to Lorraine Lambert and Elise Rainer. Played in the previous film, and for much of this installment, by Barbara Hershey and Lin Shaye, respectively, they have taken on the guise of Jocelin Donahue and Lindsay Seim for this sequence. Quickly, audiences are brought up to speed on the haunting of Lorraine’s son, Josh Lambert. Previously seen as an emotionally repressed father (Patrick Wilson), he is now a scared little boy tormented by visions of on an old crone in black coming to him in his dreams. But the real horror is that every time his mother takes his picture, she too can see the woman in black…and in each photograph she is getting closer.


 
With hypnotism, Elise represses Josh’s ability to astral project and the spectral parasite dissipates…until we jump cut to the present where adult Josh has finally projected into “the Further” (New Age Purgatory) to save his son’s soul from a demon. Unfortunately, that same old lady beat Josh back to his body, just in time to strangle an aged Elise to death in the original film’s final moments and…
 
It turns out not a whole lot of blowback for such a decidedly definitive conclusion. As possessed Josh is easily able to talk his way out of killing Elise to his wife Renai (Rose Byrne) and son Dalton (Ty Simpkins), in spite of the fact that Renai has photographic proof that Josh is possessed, he soon even convinces the police someone else did the strangulations. Indeed, we get a thorough background on whom that someone is. With the help of Ghost Elise, the first film’s comic relief of Specs and Tucker (series writer Whannell and Angus Sampson) slowly, and with much slapstick, discover that the woman in black is a Norman Bates wannabe. Named Parker Crane (Tom Fitzpatrick), he/she was the cross-dressing servant of a mommy dearest with a taste for serial killing.
 
This demystification of what was the first film’s creepiest image is more than a bit disappointing, but so too is the new approach to the horror in the Lambert house. After Renai’s son and Lorraine’s grandson spent three months in a coma directly prior to Insidious: Chapter 2, they gallop swiftly back into forced domestic tranquility, if only for the horror machinations to smoothly churn once more. There is a wonderful understatement in Byrne’s performance that shows her acknowledging something is wrong, but she suppresses it for husband in the immediacy, her family’s stability in the long-term and the plot’s forced expediency for the running time. The old haunted house gags return briefly, but only in service of padding the scares until the film’s ultimate conflict, one between crazed father and family.


 
Wilson gets to have the most fun as possessed Josh, because while all the others must rediscover how much they fear ghosts, he is already deep into that territory and enjoying it. While the first relied on heavily surrealist imagery from the haunting Further for its scares, complete with a demon and Norman Rockwell paintings from Hell, the sequel feels more comfortably rooted in The Shining territory: Ghost dad has an axe (or in this case a bat) and needs to be put down. The unique visions of Undead limbo are replaced by a comfortable threat, which is the last thing desired in a horror film.
 
However, there is some benefit to this approach. It is quickly discovered that one of the many ghosts still haunting the poor Lamberts is in fact not a ghost at all, but father Josh trapped in the Further. If Wan and Whannell already displayed a penchant for playing with nonlinear timelines in the Saw films they had a hand in, they really get to run wild in the astral Further where Josh not only travels space, but he also travails his own timeline by returning to the aforementioned prequel sequence, and even some of the more confounding bits of the first film.
 
It is a nifty trick that is aided a great deal by the return of Shaye as a spirited Elise—she alternates between helping Josh and guiding Specs, Tucker, and an old colleague named Carl (Steven Coulter) through the history of Parker Crane. It also admirably avoids any of the relatively iconic money-shots of the Demon from Insidious, as if Wan and Whannell are declaring they will not become lazily predictable as the Sawfilms did after their absence.
 
There is actually quite a bit of originality present in the execution, as well as the now franchise-stapled slapstick camp associated with the first film’s tongue-in-cheek tone. Specs and Tucker especially get quite a few more pratfalls and sight gags while Renai seems almost aware of the absurdity in which she is participating. Ultimately, this levitating spectacle is actually strung up by strong performances from all the principals, continuing to prove that horror can benefit from good acting.


 
Yet since Insidious’s 2011 debut, the genre has changed again. There have been the passable knockoffs like last year’s Sinister with Ethan Hawke, but honestly it all pales in the wake of director Wan’s OTHER 2013 release, The Conjuring. That picture, which also stars Wilson, lacks the cheeky underhand of the Insidious films, but what it misses in self-awareness it makes up for in genuine scares. The Conjuring does not reinvent the wheel, but it does create one of the more horrific experiences to be had in a theater this year, which is incredibly impressive considering it is dealing with the tropes of ghosts, possession and witchcraft that are so wholly ubiquitous in our culture that even Ryan Murphy is pilfering through them on television.
 
Insidious peruses a more uncharted territory in 21st century religion with only some passing influences from Kubrick and Hitchcock. However, when the end result feels so contorted and browbeaten into its horror formula, there is little left to scare, but plenty to induce laughter. It’s a shame that only half of it is intentional.
 
Den of Geek Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Stars
5

New Homefront Trailer with Satham and Franco

$
0
0
TrailerDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 4:08PM

New trailer for Homefront shows what happens when James Franco plays a meth dealer who kidnaps Jason Statham's daughter. When will these bad guys ever learn?

Some bad guys just need to learn that if an American badass with a faintly English accent is around, you DO NOT mess with their daughters. I suppose, we all get to enjoy James Franco learning that the hard way.
 
In what looks destined to be a cult favorite amongst action enthusiasts, Jason Statham is Phil Broker, an even-tempered retired DEA agent who comes to a small town to raise a daughter. However, any hope of peace is shattered when his daughter gets on the bad side of a local mother with a chip on her shoulder (Kate Bosworth) with the most skuzzy of friends, such as Gator (James Franco). But when Gator messes with Broker’s daughter, he is going to learn the hard way that there are consequences for messing with Jason Statham, American accent or not.
 
 
With a cast that also includes Winona Ryder and Rachelle Lefevre, this looks like a wonderful time for those who want to see Statham teach manners to supposed down Southern folk. And with Franco already playing one drug dealing loser named Alien in this year’s Spring Breakers, it is nice to see him diversify as a meth dealing loser named Gator. Oh yes.
 
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

When I saw the headline for this article and more specifically the title "Homefront", complete with the American flag in the graphic, I thought they were referring to a big screen adaptation of the horrible bust of a video game "Homefront", that came out a couple of years ago. My initial response was to equate the flop video game with the flop "Red Dawn" remake. Thank all things holy that this did not turn out to be the case.

The Family, Review

$
0
0
ReviewDavid Crow9/12/2013 at 10:07PM

The Family marks director Luc Besson's first helmed action-comedy in years, but achieves moments of genuine quality when it kisses the ring of another filmmaker: Martin Scorsese.

Other than some Arthurian goodness, Luc Besson has been notoriously hard to get into a director’s chair for the last 10 years. However when The Family, the latest action-comedy fired from the point of his pen, started ensnaring names like Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer and Tommy Lee Jones to its cast, he was faced with an offer he couldn’t refuse. As opposed to scribbling an outline down on a napkin for Taken and Transporter sequels in exchange for generous paycheck portions, The Familymarks the first unapologetically action-oriented English language film Besson’s helmed since the 1990s. Was it worth the wait?
 
It’s hard to say. While all the exaggerated violence and glorified horror that made La Femme Nikita, The Fifth Element and Léon (or The Professional for Americans missing out) such cult classics is on display, it is surely missing that level of playfulness and ingenuity that made those films sparkle. Then again, what Besson does not bring from his own bag of tricks, he gleefully borrows from that of Martin Scorsese for the movie’s most inspired moments.
 
The main ingredient to this layered mob and spaghetti is Robert De Niro as Giovanni Manzoni, a former wiseguy who got wise and turned in his crew for a ticket to the French Riviera. Unfortunately, Giovanni (or Fred Blake) is still just a goombah from Brooklyn and cannot break his violent streak, landing his family perpetually on the move like a group of American nomads. Hence, the film introduces the clan as they drive into the dullest corner of Normandy.


 
Yet, if De Niro is the basis for the dish, the secret key ingredient to the film is the actress who plays his wife. As Maggie Manzoni/Blake, Pfeiffer is the heart of the titular family and the energetic force propelling the movie’s warmth and laughs. Clearly still having an itch for playing mafia dolls 25 years after Jonathan Demme’s underrated Married to the Mob, Pfeiffer slips comfortably into Maggie whether it is by horrifying a priest during a confession about her family or quietly torching the umpteenth grocery store that sneers at her Americanism (clearly she has married her soul mate).
 
Together they are raising two teenage children, Belle (Dianna Agron) and Warren (John D’Leo), a pair of know-it-alls who also share their parents taste for La Cosa Nostra justice, as demonstrated when Belle breaks the heart (as well as a few ribs) of a hairy French date rapist and when Warren hires the bigger kids to break the slightly less big kids. Indeed, the singular thing preventing this family’s dysfunction from blowing up the dinner table is how they all enjoy solving their problems at the end of a baseball bat, tennis racket or other varying pieces of sports equipment.
 
I have not really addressed the plot yet, as there is not necessarily one in the traditional sense. Much like many of Besson’s better films, the conflict is happenstance to how the characters interact with each other. And with a title like The Family, they get along fairly well. De Niro has played so many gangsters and mafiosos at this point that he deserves to have his brass knuckles gilded. Nonetheless, it is apparent as to why he would be attracted to this film. Too often in mob films, including many of his own, the story ends with a protagonist disappearing into the Witness Protection Program. But seeing Henry Hill complain about eggplant and ketch-up surely has enough potential to be its own story. Adding an extra wrinkle to this with the fish-out-of-water framing device, Besson is able to humorously move the narrative to his native France, a markedly unique locale for a mob comedy. Still, seeing De Niro’s Giovanni experience his mid-life crisis through writing a memoir about his life as a gangster (allowing for some hilarious non-sequitur flashbacks) does not feel all that different from the schtick of his Analyze This days. But he provides a serviceable anchor for everyone else’s shenanigans, particularly Belle, who is truly daddy’s little girl.


 
Agron’s visceral pleasure to no longer be in the bipolar hands of Ryan Murphy is bursting at the seams of the frame. As the mafia princess, Agron mostly gets to embody the waifish figures throughout Besson’s milieu, including Milla Jovovich in Fifth Element and Natalie Portman’s star-making turn as Mathilda in Léon. And like the latter, there is more than a whiff of a Lolita element onscreen when the 17-year-old Belle seduces her college-age tutor.
 
The more intriguing returning motif is the director’s penchant for stylized violence. Also like a sequence from Léon, the film opens with the mass mafia slaughter of an entire family sitting down for dinner. Likely introduced to seriously add stakes for the third act, these New York button men eventually seem to cut the population of Normandy down by half with a level of murder so extreme that one ponders why Besson takes so much pleasure in watching his fellow countrymen be slaughtered by Americans, as if this were Taken 3.
 
However, the brutality is effective in making the bad guys seem REALLY BAD, and thus causing even the most jaded audience member to rally around our titular group of New York misanthropes for a sincerely suspenseful and entertaining climax. It’s also greatly enhanced because Besson builds up his big bads by kissing the ring of Scorsese. With Scorsese’s apparent endorsement, press material says that he loved the script, Besson gives a wink and nudge by borrowing liberally from Scorsese’s imprimatur of Italian-American actors to play THE family back east and stateside. Considering that it’s a cheeky plot device and mega-deus ex machina for the villains which brings the betrayed crew knocking at Giovanni and Maggie’s French door, it helps a great deal when actors like Vincent Pastore and Dominic Chianese are there to breathe the menace that comes from decades of cinema and television wiseguy antics.
 
In fact, the self-aware smirk of the whole enterprise for a brief moment achieves a meta-level of brilliance when Giovanni is escorted by his lead G-Man babysitter, Robert Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones), to a French town hall meeting. As with Pfeiffer, De Niro’s good fellow routine is enlivened when around another acting veteran he has previously never shared the screen with. The pair of frenemies who have known each other for half-a-dozen years quarrel like an old married couple, thereby leaving the audience to wish the two titans had more scenes of butting heads.


 
But in this particular moment, they are experiencing their first man-date because Giovanni, woefully miscast in his cover identity as a historian researching the G.I. landings (which he repeatedly confuses for the Marines), was asked by his neighbors to discuss an American film classic starring Frank Sinatra. However, once at the town hall, it turns out that the French Academy has sent another film by mistake, one upon whose authenticity “Fred Blake” is asked to verify as a former New Yorker. The movie? Goodfellas. Of course. The look on De Niro’s face is worth the price of admission. Even his anti-U.S. snob neighbors cannot deny this wholly American artifact’s greatness, which 20 years later still serves as a monument to this leading actor and genre, even if only as a punch line here. One certainly strong enough to lift this borgata off the ground.
 
Den of Geek Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars
6

Disqus - noscript

Nicely written. Dianna Agron needs to be in more stuff.

Blue Caprice, Review

$
0
0
ReviewGabe Toro9/13/2013 at 12:02PM

Some movies try to rationalize and compartmentalize the mindset it takes for some to commit cold-blooded murder. Blue Caprice is not one of them. And for those who can stomach its grotesque voyeurism to slaughter, it is worth the ride.

In considering Blue Caprice, one should note that here comes a point where a rational mind becomes irrational, when explicable circumstances give way to decisions and connections developed in a non-linear fashion. This is usually where most movies about murderers and psychopaths lie; the decision to take a life isn’t exactly a wise one, particularly in an age of maximum surveillance and DNA technology rendering all violent activity relatively witless unless it occurs in the literal hinterlands. This doesn’t detract from the fact that people still get murdered every day, in areas rural, industrial and urban. Sometimes, there is no movie-appropriate way to convey the motives behind these actions, and other times filmmakers strain to make it seem immoral, but vaguely justifiable (it seems as if 90 percent of all Hollywood product worships at the altar of ‘revenge’). Often, you can only take an audience so far, and it’s up to an innate connection with onscreen performers where the taking of a life seems advisable.
 
Blue Caprice is such a film, dedicated towards depicting the chilling events of 2002 when a man and his young recruit opened fire on complete strangers, leaving Washington D.C. in a wake of terror. These incidents sparked outrage, though ultimately people didn’t understand how to react. Speeches were made, and movies were postponed, but other than some half-hearted pressure on gun control laws that lives and dies every time violent murder reaches the big cities, there was no lasting reaction. How could there be? The targets were chosen at random, executed with extreme prejudice and with no clear agenda or strategy at play. Real life had no talking point to offer this heinous event, which captured headlines nearly a year after the horrors of September 11th, further reminding us that millennial life seemed karmically dedicated towards being alone. After all, we are all potential targets.
 
The picture’s emphasis on this point comes from the narrow focus on John Allen Muhammad (Isaiah Washington) and teenaged Lee (Tequan Richmond). A chance encounter brings them together, as Muhammad is in the midst of an ugly battle with his ex-wife, and soft-spoken Lee is absent a father figure while simultaneously being abandoned by his mother. In the docile youth, Muhammad sees not only a potential ally, but a lifeline. He’s grown untethered from this life, and the severe failure of empathy that keeps him from understanding the threat he represents to his own children instead manifests itself with a chance to start over. Muhammad and Lee are soon a traveling family, a nimble-mouthed wayward father preying on the lack of direction in the boy. Lee is not a disruptive child, but he’s clearly at a key moment in his life, where his lack of true ambition gives the opportunity to manipulative forces for seduction. Muhammad hasn’t found a son; he’s found a puppet.


 
Slowly, Lee begins to buy into Muhammad’s victim complex. With little cash to his name, Muhammad is hitting up exes, living off the fat of the land and telling anyone who’ll listen that this obedient young boy is his son. Muhammad doesn’t hesitate to deliver speeches, no matter how meandering or wrongheaded they are. Washington, to his credit, is a forceful, magnetic actor who, if you read the tabloids, has been a victim of his own poor temper and unprofessionalism. If you hadn’t known that going in, you would assume he’s the next mega-viable leading man. His carefully controlled rage is the perfect cover, as his composure is all that’s keeping the derangement from seeping out. Often, he’ll launch into a diatribe about how outside forces are keeping him from legally finding the location of his ex-wife and kids. In other moments, Washington’s eyes will casually drift towards the coverage of military occupation in the Middle East, and it’s the actor’s furrowed brow that tells the tale. Washington brings the right sense of gravity to this role, to the point where his nonsense almost begins to reveal believable connections. When Washington speaks, it’s with an unquestionable authority, and you immediately buy that Muhammad could be smooth enough to make a pretty woman ignore his vagrancy and serious enough to earn the trust of a folksy backwoods-type (Tim Blake Nelson).
 
Muhammad initially seems disorganized and uncertain, as his constant speeches to the mostly-silent Lee veer wildly between broad mentorship and the venting of sour grapes. Once a former fling boots him, he makes the decision to raise this child. Often, he’s putting a couple of coins in the youth’s hand and telling him to get lost while he beds another conquest, but he also begins to train the child and mold him from a boy into a man. Out of context, these sequences work: Muhammad treats the boy as a military man would, and a desperate Lee observes every inch of body language, searching from a sign of approval. You could argue he finds it through Muhammad’s casual shrugs as a sign of confirmation bias. Once guns enter the picture, there’s a queasy realization that things are about to go wrong. Even if you forget the film’s subject matter entering the third act, suspiciously penetrative stabs on the soundtrack are there to awkwardly remind you.
 
Director Alexandre Moors captures Muhammad’s shooting spree as something of a holy war, sending Muhammad and Lee on the warpath. As he explains to his son, their actions are a way to level an unfair playing field. He switches instructions, ordering the shootings to be random, then denying this and deciding that they had to purposely target a new victim each time. The shootings themselves are grotesque in their recreation of a suburban milieu only to puncture the safety bubble with violence. Moors places us inside the crosshairs, forcing the audience to become an unwilling participant in this crime. Frankly, I am comfortable telling you that Moors is clearly a filmmaker with sharp instincts, but I cannot endorse that voyeuristic type of violence. Your mileage may vary.


 
Moors never manages to convey that exact level of engagement that turns Muhammad and Lee from viable protagonists into cold-blooded killers. Lee’s sense of dedication to his new father figure feels assumed rather than earned, as the constant training he endures (including being tied up in the forest) feels like he’s been beaten into submission, not turned on to his father’s worldview. Richmond, in a mostly reactive and often silent role, is good at internalizing his confusion and hormonal sense of rejection. Washington, too, is excellent. Together, they’re an immensely watchable entry into a fairly impenetrable story. The multiple shootings that occurred back in 2002 still don’t make rational sense. Perhaps even the most well-intentioned art just can’t help bridge that divide.
 
Den of Geek Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars
8

Keanu Reeves on what's holding up Bill & Ted 3

$
0
0
NewsSimon Brew9/16/2013 at 7:42AM

There's a "darkness" that's stopping Bill & Ted 3 from happening, admits Keanu Reeves...

Work, if all had gone to plan, was supposed to have started on Bill & Ted 3 by now. Keanu Reeves and Alex Winter are both keen to return, whilst Dean Parisot (Galaxy QuestRED 2) signed on to direct last year. Furthermore, the script to the movie is reportedly locked and in place too. So what's the hold up?

In a new interview with MTV, Keanu Reeves has admitted "it's a long story. There's lots of subterfuge and conspiracy theories". Confirming that the script is in place, he said "there's all sorts of stuff and it just can't... it's just... there's darkness out there that's keeping it from happening. It's not winning right now. It's that part of the story where it's looking grum. It's the dark period of the idea".

What the darkness actually is isn't something that Reeves expanded upon (there had been talk of more script work being done over the summer), but it can't help but shed some doubt on whether Bill & Ted 3 is actually going to happen. The signs don't look too positive, it seems.

We'll keep you posted as we hear more on it.

MTV.

Disqus - noscript

It doesn't have to happen. They went through the future of B&T with the paper and magazine clippings at the end of 2. Leave it be!

By "darkness" he means "common sense".

Viewing all 23983 articles
Browse latest View live