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

New Teaser Trailer For Star Wars: Rebels

$
0
0
Trailer5/2/2014 at 2:28PM

Check out the latest teaser for an upcoming trailer of Disney XD's Star Wars: Rebels.

And the Star Wars hits keep on coming! After revelations about both the new cast for Star Wars: Episode VII and that the Expanded Universe as we know it is done, comes our latest taste of official canon from the new expanded universe: Star Wars: Rebels.

In the new 20-second teaser for a longer trailer to come, Jedi enthusiasts everywhere will get their first glimpse of Disney XD’s series, which will premiere later this fall.

Star Wars: Rebels will premiere with a two-hour movie event this summer on Disney XD and the Disney Channel, which will be followed by a series of shorts to introduce the characters. The show will make its official debut in the fall.

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!


Watch the Star Wars Cantina Band Audition Video

$
0
0
TrailerMike Cecchini5/2/2014 at 4:57PM

Yes, you read that right. Even the greatest band in all of Star Wars has to audition new members every once in awhile.

With all of the commotion about the casting announcement for Star Wars: Episode VII, it left fans wondering: what about the band? What will this new generation of galactic heroes groove out to on backwater planets like Tattooine? Luckily, the folks at College Humor (with an assist from YouTube Space LA and Lucasfilm) have been pondering the same question, and they've cast a galaxy of rock stars for their latest video. Watch and see who makes the cut for the Star Wars cantina band!

No, your eyes do not deceive you. Those are indeed Chris Daughtry, Ben Folds, Liz Phair, Reggie Watts, Mark McGrath, Jordin Sparks, Rick Springfield, Weird Al, Lisa Loeb, and mc chris, complete with Star Wars appropriate nicknames and movie accurate costumes and sound effects. For extra authenticity, yes, they do refer to the band as Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes. 

Can't help but wish that Weird Al had done a live version of his classic "Yoda" though. 

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!

 

RoboCop Coming to Blu-ray and Home Relase In June

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow5/2/2014 at 5:09PM

RoboCop is coming to Blu-ray, DVD, and VOD on June 3, 2014...

Just in time for a Father’s Day in need of a little rebooted robo, gunplay action, MGM and 20th Century Fox have announced the Blu-ray and other assorted platforms release date for this year’s RoboCop. Hitting shelves on June 3, 2014, fans will be able to pick up the actioner on either Blu-ray, DVD, or VOD.

Directed by José Padilha, the reboot will attempt to win over even the most ardent skeptic with a slew of fan favorite castings, including Michael Keaton, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Ehle, Jackie Earle Haley, Michael K. Williams, Abbie Cornish and Samuel L. Jackson. Of course, the real star will be The Killing’s Joel Kinnaman stepping into the titular big metallic boots. The remake clearly wants to make the brand its own by taking a page from the Rolling Stones and painting it black.

Full description of the Blu-ray special features below:

  • Deleted Scenes
  • OmniCorp Product Announcement
  • Robocop Engineered for the 21st Century
    • The Illusion of Free Will: A New Vision
    • To Serve and Protect: Robocop’s Weapons
    • The Robocop Suit: Form and Function

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!

New Beverly Hills Cop Movie Coming in Spring 2016

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini5/2/2014 at 6:21PM

Have you been wondering what Eddie Murphy's Axel Foley is up to these days? You'll find out soon enough...

For a long-delayed sequel, Beverly Hills Cop 4might make more sense than Goonies 2 or Mrs. Doubtfire 2. On the other hand, well...it's just been an awfully long time since we've had to even think about this franchise. Ready or not (like it or not), Axel Foley is coming back to screens, though, and Paramount has set a release date of March 25th, 2016.

What else do we know? We know Brett Ratner is directing, and he might be the guy to inject a little life into this film. Jerry Bruckheimer is producing, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtlesscribes Josh Applebaum and Andre Nemec are hard at work on the script as we speak.

It's a little interesting, if not confusing, that this is currently titled Beverly Hills Cop, and had been described as a reboot when Brett Ratner's name first came up as director, but now Eddie Murphy is back. That means...it's not a reboot, right? We'll let you know more once our heads stop spinning.

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!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Director on Mary Jane Deleted Scene

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini5/4/2014 at 1:17PM

Wondering where Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson was in The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Will we see her in Amazing Spider-Man 3?

When The Amazing Spider-Man 2was in production, we were told that Shailene Woodley would play Mary Jane Watson. As the release got closer, it was revealed that Ms. Woodley's scenes as Mary Jane were cut from the film...which makes some sense, as The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has its red-gloved hands full with the Peter/Gwen romance as it is. But now, Marc Webb has spoken out about what those Mary Jane scenes might have been like, and about the likelihood that we'll ever see Ms. Woodley in the role. 

There was one little scene at the beginning where she is next door and it took place right around the montage where he comes back and there was another little moment between Gwen and MJ. But it just tipped over. The relationship between them [Peter and Gwen] is so sacred and so powerful, that it just didn't feel right. And it sucks because Shailene is such a f**king great actress and so cool and magical but it was just about having this obligation to this romance that I thought was sacred. It was just one of those things.

As for whether Shailene Woodley will return for another shot in The Amazing Spider-Man 3, Mr. Webb is less hopeful: "Well, Divergent is a massive hit and I think it's going to be tricky for schedules." He does, however, understand the importance of the character to the Spider-Man lore, and intends to introduce her in some form.

You can read the complete interview over at Movies.com.

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 Star Wars Day from J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan

$
0
0
TrailerMike Cecchini5/4/2014 at 4:01PM
Star Wars Episode 7 Cast

Even the guys all the way at the top of Star Wars: Episode VII have decided to get in on the Star Wars Day fun.

J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan have just posted a "video selfie" from London wishing fans a "Happy Star Wars Day." While that's certainly nice, watch the video first...

So, what have we learned? There are more casting announcements on the way, which could be a good or bad thing depending on what line of work you're in. Fair warning: if you're an actor and you're spotted in London this week, chances are we're just going to assume that you're in Star Wars: Episode VII.

Also worth noting is that Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kasdan are also still working on the script. Likely, these are just some tweaks based on last week's table reading, and it's not uncommon for movies of this size to undergo considerable revisions, even this late in the process.

It does make us wonder if the December 18, 2015 release date is still realistic, though...

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 Potential Villains of The Amazing Spider-Man 3 and The Sinister Six

$
0
0
FeatureMike Cecchini5/5/2014 at 8:05AM

Your friendly neighborhood guide to the potential villains of The Amazing Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man 4, and the Sinister Six movie.

This article contains spoilers for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and possibly beyond.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (for better or worse), spends considerable time seeding clues for villains of future Spider-Man films and spin-offs. In a unique cross-promotion with music app, Shazam, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 went without a post-credits sequence, and instead used the app to reveal teaser images of future Spider-Man film villains. Six, to be exact. The Sinister Six have a long history in the comics with a wide roster of potential members to choose from in a big screen version. 

So, what do we know about Spidey's cinematic future? Well, we know that director Marc Webb will return for The Amazing Spider-Man 3, which should arrive in 2016. The producers recently told us that the Spider-Man film slated for 2018 likely isn't The Amazing Spider-Man 4, and that we'll see The Sinister Six and Venombefore we see a fourth proper Spidey flick from Sony. 

The Sinister Sixmovie will be written and directed by Drew Goddard (Cabin in the Woods). Despite the presence of this Six-teasing easter egg sequence in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, it has been reported that Mr. Goddard has yet to finalize the lineup. Rumor has it that the movie could go into production as early as January 2015, which would likely even place it ahead of The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in the queue.

As for The Amazing Spider-Man 4, that's anyone's guess at this point. Once scheduled for a May 4, 2018 release date, that looks like it will give way for one of the villain movies. Marc Webb has confirmed that he won't be back in the director's chair, and Andrew Garfield remains a question mark in that regard since his contract is up with The Amazing Spider-Man 3.

So, let's take a look at who we can expect to see in these next few movies, based solely on what we were shown in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. We'll kick off with the "announced" members of the Sinister Six, and work our way down the line into the further reaches of speculation. 

Green Goblin

While not a founding member of the comic book version of the team, the Green Goblin remains (arguably) Spidey's most recognizable foe. As the Sinister Six movie is unlikely to have any actual Spider-Man in it, the Goblin would be the potential leading bad guy for the filmmakers to hang their hats on. There have been continued hints that the Sinister Six movie will feature a kind of redemption story for at least one of the characters, and Dane DeHaan's Harry Osborn seems like a natural fit for this, with his tragic genetic birthright, personal history with Peter Parker, and his role (indirect or otherwise) in the death of Gwen Stacy. He also is a solid candidate for a leader since The Amazing Spider-Man2 ends with the Goblin forming a group that he wants to "keep small." And after all, it was the comic book's version of the original Green Goblin, Norman Osborn, who created and led the Sinister Twelve.

Doctor Octopus

The only real competition for the "Spider-Man's greatest enemy" spot is Doctor Otto Octavius. Whoever the next Doctor Octopus is will have a bit of a hill to climb if he wants to compete with Alfred Molina in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. However, Doc Ock is absolutely essential to the concept of the Sinister Six: he was the brains behind the original team and served on more incarnations of the squad than any other villain. Ock's arms are displayed prominently in several scenes in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and he's the villain most likely to carry his own weight in The Amazing Spider-Man 3. It would seem absolutely essential that they establish Otto Octavius in that film before moving on to the Sinister Six, but this franchise seems like they're in quite a hurry... 

The Vulture

Speaking of prominent teases, there's always Adrian Toomes, aka the Vulture, to look forward to. His trademark wings can be spotted in the background of several scenes in that creepy Oscorp basement, and they show up in the easter egg sequence, as well. Early rumors even suggested that Colm Feore was was playing Adrian Toomes, but the actual name of the venerable Oscorp executive was Donald Menken.

The Vulture was a founding member of the Six, as well as one of Spidey's earliest villains. He also is a character who has long been on Sony's mind, first as the secondary villain in the original Spider-Man3 (where he was to be played by Sir Ben Kingsley) until Venom's popularity clipped his wings, and then he was to appear again as the central villain of Spider-Man 4 before that entire movie was scrapped. If the modern release schedule lines up, we may see him introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man 3, possibly in "civilian" form, before he joins up with the rest of the team. But there's still the possibility that The Sinister Six will hit before that film.

The Rhino

We can't imagine anyone wants to see more of Paul Giamatti's Rhino to be perfectly honest. But every team needs a tank, and the version of the Rhino introduced in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is, almost literally, just that. The Rhino isn't a traditional member of the team, but he's appeared with them a few times, notably as a member of the Sinister Syndicate in the Deadly Foes of Spider-Man limited series in the early '90s. There, the Rhino was just looking to do "one more job" so he could pay his debts, go straight, and be free of his bonded Rhino skin. Sadly, there appears to be no room for such nuance with the movie version of the character.

Kraven the Hunter

In all likelihood, this represents founding Six member, Kraven the Hunter. There's a reference on a computer screen to an "Australia Project" (see below) that we assume could be a nod to the Sergei Kravinoff from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, a reality TV host who comes to New York to hunt Spidey for publicity. He eventually gains were-cat like abilities thanks to some handy-dandy DNA tampering, and this origin story certainly feels more "movie ready" than the classic version of the character. Then again, a Spider-Man villain who can stand up to the hero without powers or gimmicks? After the last movie, that might be the exact kind of energy bolt that is really needed.

Mysterio (or possibly The Chameleon)

This one is tricky, and subject to debate. The smoke coming out of that eyehole is a hallmark of Mysterio. When you think about it, Mysterio (odd fishbowl head aside) is a pretty natural fit for the movies. But the flat, featureless mask with variation in texture could just as easily signify the Chameleon, the very first proper supervillain that Spidey fought way the heck back in The Amazing Spider-Man#1 in 1963. When you think about it, either character would fulfill a vital skill set for a caper movie. The Chameleon is (duh) a master of disguise, while Mysterio is a special effects guru and master of illusion. Hell, put 'em both in the movie!

We're going to give the edge to Mysterio here, though. He's a founding member of the team and has remained a member through numerous Sinister Six adventures. Plus, he just presents a much better visual.

Then again, considering this franchise's obsession with animal-powered heroes and villains, we're sure there's a tank full of chameleons somewhere in Oscorp tower just waiting to give someone the power to change their appearance and...okay. Sorry. We'll stop now.

Electro

Whether or not you're a fan of Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Max Dillon, there are a few things to keep in mind that make him a logical, practical fit for a Sinister Six movie. First of all, never underestimate the lure of star power when studios are budgeting expensive genre movies, and Jamie Foxx certainly provides that. Second of all, Electro is not only a founding member of the team in the comics, he's also been involved in most Six lineups. Third: the fewer origin stories that the Sinister Sixmovie has to deal with, the better off everyone will be. Don't rule this one out.

Gustav Fiers

The mysterious fella pictured here with Doc Ock's arms and the Vulture's wings is the man pulling the strings. Think of Gustav Fiers (played by Michael Massee) as the sinister equivalent of Nick Fury in the early Marvel Studios movies. What do we know about Gustav Fiers? Very little. I know it's not good form to admit that we aren't familiar with this guy, but we haven't read Adam Troy-Castro's trilogy of Sinister Six prose novels, which is where Mr. Fiers has his origins. Still, from what we gather from this excellent page, the Mr. Fiers we see here not only knows Peter Parker's secret identity (something that was established in the first Amazing Spider-Man film), but he's the guy who was behind the elimination of the Parker family. 

The Black Cat

While Felicia Hardy has never been a Sinister Six member, she's bound to show up again in some fashion in The Amazing Spider-Man 3 or The Sinister Six. Played by Felicity Jones in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Ms. Hardy is a trusted Oscorp employee who seems to know more than she lets on. Given this franchise's fondness for granting people animal-based powers via Oscorp experimentation, we figure it's perfectly reasonable that Felicia could have found her way into the Oscorp cattery...or something. Could Felicia end up as the anti-hero thwarting the plans of the Sinister Six on screen? Also worth considering: would Sony (or their target audience of teenage boys) want to see a movie starring only men over 40 and/or wearing fish bowls?

Note: No, you didn't miss something huge. But this shot of Felicia Hardy spotting Harry Osborn shortly after his Green Goblin transformation was visible in one of the Amazing Spider-Man 2 trailers, but didn't make the final cut. Clearly, Ms. Hardy knows what goes on in the bowels of Oscorp. 

Alistair Smythe and the Spider-Slayers

Unless Alistair Smythe (B.J. Novak) is going to serve as a weapons master for the Six, there's little chance of him actually appearing in the Sinister Six movie. But the Smythe family, known for creating robotic monstrosities called Spider-Slayers (anybody want to take a guess about what they do?) would make good cinematic fun. Smythe and his robots could make fun first act cannon-fodder for Spidey in The Amazing Spider-Man 3, or if the series wants to take a break from trying to breathlessly hit as many important moments in Spidey's history per film as possible, they could even try and craft something more substantial around him. Either way, we've been assured that Smythe will be back, but we're willing to bet it won't be as a member of the Six.

The Man in the Black Suit 

You know what makes a fan suspicious? Putting an actor in a bunch of scenes, in a role only slightly larger than your average movie heavy, and then don't name the character in the credits. Seriously, Sony? You're just gonna call this guy "the Man in the Black Suit" and not expect imaginations to run wild?

We have no idea who Louis Cancelmi is supposed to be, but for a guy to be running around in a black suit in a building where people are constantly asking about where "the venom" is stored, you can understand why this has Spidey senses tingling around here. With Venom earmarked for a solo film from Sony sometime between now and 2020, is Mr. Canelmi the guy to headline that? Or maybe this strong, silent type is a front for the aforementioned Chameleon? Corporate espionage is considerably less tied to the Cold War than the character's original origins...

The Miscellaneous Stuff

Most of the names and hints contained in this graphic are already in relation to characters mentioned above (Eel Lab, Venom Storage, Australia Project etc). But there's also a "Dr. Morbius File" visible here (we'll bet you a large popcorn that it's because he works in the Oscorp Bat House). If Sony were to devote an entire movie (can't imagine we'll see Morbius before The Amazing Spider-Man 4) to Spider-Man and Morbius, the Living Vampire now THAT would be something different.

Well, that's all we've got. What did we miss? Who do you think will annoy Spider-Man for the next few years in this franchise? Let us know!

Note:David Crow helped fill in some gaps in my Spidey knowledge for this piece. Yes, I have to admit, there are a few.

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!

Chef Review

$
0
0
ReviewDavid Crow5/5/2014 at 8:20AM

With his latest movie, Chef, Jon Favreau concocts a delicious comedy about finding art in commerce. Sound familiar?

Jon Favreau’s Carl Casper is at a tough crossroads. Like any successful artist, he worries if mainstream success and popularity has caused him to lose that enigmatic voice from his youth that first put him on the map. In fact, he’s a lot like Jon Favreau himself, whose latest film, Chef, is a beguiling charmer of talent and wit with nary a CGI critter in sight.

Favreau hit the independent and filmmaking world in a big way when he wrote his first starring vehicle, the Gen-X staple Swingers. And much like Favreau’s Mike Peters dealt with the personal and professional issues of trying to be in the entertainment business in his 20s, Chef offers a delicious companion piece to those insecurities nearly 20 years later. But on the other side of success, the question remains: after making it big, whether in a five star film or a nine figure blockbuster franchise, can you still have the passion and drive that first caused you to create? The answer is, thankfully, yes in this crowd pleaser that will feed any appetite.

In his current job, Carl is the respected and terribly bored chef of an American cuisine eatery overseen by conservatism in a suit, Riva (Dustin Hoffman). The personification of money and its mistaken role in creativity, he has strapped Carl to a menu of blandness that can only be enlivened by his Sous Chef Tony (Bobby Cannavale) and up-and-coming culinary saver Martin (John Leguizamo). However, after getting into a disastrous social media war with an LA food blogger and emotions butcher (Oliver Platt), Carl soon finds himself without a restaurant and little to subsist upon other than his distant relationship with friendly ex-wife Inez (Sofia Vergara) and the eagerly estranged son, Percy (Emjay Anthony).

With such a difficult situation, Carl could spend the whole movie wrestling with his existential dilemma. Or, he could open up a food truck with his son and best buddy Martin for a summer road trip of self-discovery and Cuban sandwiches! Thankfully, we all take one of the latter.

Chef is a wonderfully enticing comedy where the laughs are as frequent as the star studded supporting cast that rotates through the kitchen. Practically a backyard party centered around the director’s grill pit where Favreau gets to invite all his friends to come over and play, the movie could be easily mistaken as an excuse to revel in good folks and good food.

And all the food looks incredibly good in this picture. While Carl could be considered a parable for any middle-aged artist, the camera takes a special delight in dwelling on the delicacies that come off of Carl’s cutting board. In LA that means sensuous pasta intended to seduce and blood-red steak that is for those rare moments of pure anger. After Carl is dispatched from the restaurant, he and Percy finally bond on the road from Miami to the West Coast, serving the all-ages comfort of a warm sandwich. But that doesn’t mean they have to ignore the appropriate use of thick Texan barbecue beef when they swing through Austin. It’s enough to make the mouth water, as well as couch some of the juicier elements that are marinating.

Both at home and in the office, this is a movie about living in perpetual flux. Having never been particularly close to his son, Carl continues to find excuses involving the business and avoiding spending time with Percy other than the occasional trip to the farmer’s market or amusement park. Then again, a divorcee’s apartment that is more akin to college dorm room is probably not the best place to be as a dad.

Meanwhile, on the professional side the movie indulges in on specific peculiarity of any business digested by public consumption, taking a very defiant dig at those who unfairly criticize the realities inherent with rising to the top. Of special amusement, or awkward acknowledgement for anyone at my screening room, is Favreau reflecting on the mean-spirited cynicism of critics, captured in the snarkiest of turns by Platt. While I wouldn’t say this creator reaches the level of appreciation for appraisal that his rodent counterpart in the similarly themed Ratatouille did, there is a begrudging acceptance of knowing when well-worded critiques (and praise) can prove worthwhile.

Favreau also pays reluctant respect to the mighty power of social media, albeit with a crooked smile bordering on disdain for the Twitter logo floating throughout the movie. After all, it is the best tool imaginable to reach out to many customers nationwide, turning the food truck into an overnight sensation. However, it is also the media lynch mob of public opinion that can send a career dangerously close to burning in the same parodic flames as Gordon Ramsay.

Still, for all of the movie’s bigger ambitions to deftly craft a state of the union on Favreau’s career, it will be for the party he throws on behalf of it that will have viewers salivating for more. Already the Audience Award Winner for Narrative Film at the Tribeca Film Festival, Chef urges moviegoers to join Vergara, Hoffman, Cannavale, and a particularly convivial Leguizamo for the good times. Hell, Iron Man buddies Robert Downey Jr. and Scarlett Johansson even drop by for a few scenes. Albeit, a foodie or not, Johansson’s hostess having a fling with Carl seems like wishful thinking on Favreau’s part as is the casting of Vergara as his ex. Downey also makes for a truly great cameo as her other ex that Carl must go hat in hand to in order to get that food truck. It’s like Tony Stark never left the director’s lens.

Chef might be a little too warmly light to entirely fill some small pockets of audiences, in particular with its lightly seasoned ending that mildly melts away the conflict. However, as these summer months are about to kick off, it will be just right for any moviegoer looking for something appealingly relaxed and refreshingly adult. It appears that Favreau is one of them.

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!

8

Exclusive: Christopher Mintz-Plasse Doubts There Will Be A Kick-Ass 3

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow5/5/2014 at 8:36AM
kick-ass 3

Christopher Mintz-Plasse confirms his doubts and disappointment about a Kick-Ass 3 movie happening.

Over the weekend Christopher Mintz-Plasse told Den of Geek that he doesn’t think a Kick-Ass 3 movie is going to happen.

On Saturday, we had the chance to sit down with Christopher Mintz-Plasse to discuss his newest movie, Neighbors. Besides being exciting simply because we found Neighbors to be a hilarious raunchy comedy, it also meant the chance to discuss talented actor's upcoming projects, including this summer’s How to Train Your Dragon 2. While we’ll have the full interview for you later in the week, one subject of course also had to come up for any geek worth their green-tinted batons: Kick-Ass.

As fans know, Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays the (possibly?) tragic character of Chris D’Amico in the Kick-Ass films, the Harry Osborn to Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s Peter Parker. And despite going from friend to enemy in last summer’s Kick-Ass 2, Mintz-Plasse’s D’Amico, now aptly called the Motherf**ker, survived the sarcastic carnage, thereby possibly setting up a third Kick-Ass film. Indeed, with Mark Millar and John Romita Jr. currently finishing up the Kick-Ass 3 comic book series, we had to float the idea to Mintz-Plasse. Sadly, his response will not be what fans want to hear.

“I haven’t heard anything,” Mintz-Plasse said. “You know, the second one didn’t make that much money, so it’s hard to make a third one when there’s not a big audience for it. I mean, I would love to put an end to the series, but as of right now, I don’t think anything’s going to happen.” Mintz-Plasse expressed disappointment at the prospect.

Mintz-Plasse starred in the first Kick-Ass in 2010 after shooting the film at the age of 20. The movie was a breakout for leads Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who played Kick-Ass, and Chloe Grace Moretz in the role of Hit-Girl. It was directed by Matthew Vaughn, and on an independently financed budget of $28 million, the movie grossed $96 million worldwide. Its sequel, Kick-Ass 2, was released in August 2013 and was directed by Jeff Wadlow. That picture grossed $60 million worldwide.

Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.’s eighth and final issue of Kick-Ass 3, which is to conclude the comic characters’ storylines, is set to be published by Marvel’s imprint, Icon, on May 14, 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

Heart broken.

Watch the First Clip From Godzilla

$
0
0
TrailerMike Cecchini5/5/2014 at 9:27AM

We've had plenty of trailers and TV spots, but this is the first official clip. And there's plenty to see.

If you're looking to go into Godzillacompletely cold, then this isn't the clip for you. There is definitely a reveal here that might be considered a spoiler, so you may not want to read any further or watch the clip in question. That being said...wow.

So, is that supposed to be Rodan? I think that between this clip and the recent trailers, we can set our minds at ease that this Godzilla isn't just a remake of the 1953 original, nor is it likely to fall prey to the same mistakes as the 1998 American version.

We've got a stack of great Godzillacontent on the way in the next two weeks. Keep up with all the kaiju action right here.

Directed by Gareth Edwards, the new Godzilla stars Bryan Cranston, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathaim, Ken Watanabe, Juliette Binoche, and Sally Hawkins. It opens May 16, 2014 in 2D, 3D, and IMAX.

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!

Marc Webb on The Amazing Spider-Man 2's ending

$
0
0
NewsSimon Brew5/6/2014 at 8:36AM

Spoilers: The Amazing Spider-Man 2's director, Marc Webb, talks to us about the ending of the film.

This story contains spoilers.

Right then.

A couple of weeks ago, we got to chat with Marc Webb, the director of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and as part of that conversation, we had a conversation about the film's ending. We've held this back until some time after the film's UK release, but still, if you don't want the ending spoiled, don't go past the big picture we're about to place.

Still here? Fair enough. We asked Webb about the filming of the ending, specifically the death of Gwen Stacy.

It's done very well in the film, and - even though comic book fans will have known it was coming for some time - the way it was presented was quite brutal when she landed. But were there earlier drafts, where she got to give final words on her death bed?

"We did talk about last words a lot", Webb admitted. "It was ultimately about the reality of it, and given the nature of it, physiologically it would have been impossible". It didn't stop Batman's back break being fixed though, we pointed out. "That's true! But it's a shocking thing for people, but it was deliberate. That's the nature of the tragedy, and that's the nature of the trauma", Webb said.

"In the comics, the last words didn't happen. It's terrifying, it tears you apart, and that's what has to happen to Peter Parker. It decimates him, he's transformed forever. The last words, which we didn't do, [ultimately] come in the form of the speech that he plays back later on".

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is in cinemas now.

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!

Matt Damon reiterates his Jason Bourne position

$
0
0
NewsSimon Brew5/6/2014 at 8:51AM

Matt Damon confirms he'd be interested in a return to the Bourne films - providing two conditions are met...

After the huge success of The Bourne Ultimatum, there was talk for a while that Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass would be back for Bourne 4. They reunited for Green Zone, which - like the Bourne films - was for Universal (it was originally intended to be a smaller project for the pair). But after that, Greengrass dropped out of doing another Bourne, and Matt Damon followed him. The fourth Bourne film, The Bourne Legacy, would mention Jason Bourne a lot, but follow Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross instead.

The Bourne Legacy, to put it mildly, was a bit of a mess. However, it just about did enough for Universal to order up a sequel to it, and that arrives in cinemas in August 2015. But will we ever see Matt Damon back in the series, reprising the role of Jason Bourne? "I've always been up for it if Paul Greengrass is the director", Damon has reiterated, not for the first time, to CNBC. "We've just never been able to come up with a story".

Damon added that "it felt like such a good way to end it last time. Having said that, I love that character, I'd love to see what happened to him".

This has been Damon's position for some time now, although he does sound more open to the idea of a return in this particular interview. Still: no Greengrass, no Damon. As you were...

CNBC.

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!

See The Amazing Spider-Man 2 post-credits scene here

$
0
0
TrailerSimon Brew5/6/2014 at 9:08AM

A teaser for a different movie playing after The Amazing Spider-Man 2's credits. Now you can see it here...

If you don't want to know what scene played at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, then, er, you're probably in the wrong place...

In truth, this was a story that originally we could have handled better. A week or two ago, news landed that The Amazing Spider-Man 2's post-credits sequence wasn't for anything to do with Spider-Man. Instead, it was for X-Men: Days Of Future Past, something we revealed in the original headline for that particular story.

In our weak defence, we didn't give away one detail of the contents of the scene, but do accept that some would have wanted its presence to be a complete surprise. Thus, our apologies, and lesson learned.

For those who missed the scene, we've now got it for you below. And as it turns out, it's more of a brief tease than anything worth deep dissection (although there are clearly clues here for the incoming X-Men movie). It's popped up online, and you can see it below...

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!

Batman vs. Superman: Everything We Know

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini5/6/2014 at 9:17AM

Batman vs. Superman is now two years away from release. Here is everything we currently know about the next DC Comics movie.

When Man of Steel arrived, fans were promised the start of a DC cinematic universe to rival Marvel's. At the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con, the announcement was made that Man of Steel 2 would be more than just a sequel, and instead plant the seeds of a Justice League movie. While the film still doesn't appear to have an official title, here is everything we currently know about Batman vs. Superman.


The Story

Zack Snyder is co-writing the story with David Goyer (who will then pen the screenplay), which is said to draw some inspiration from The Dark Knight Returns, the classic story by Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, and Lynn Varley which climaxed with an impressive street fight between Batman and Superman. While there are likely going to be some similarities, Goyer has stated that the film won't be an adaptation of that work. It seems possible that some of their conflict may stem from the controversial ending to Man of Steel, as Mr. Goyer promised, "we will be dealing with this in coming films...He isn't fully-formed as Superman in [Man of Steel], and he will have to deal with the repercussions of that in the next one." 

As for what else Batman vs. Superman has in store, well...it looks like we're going to get a gathering of heroes. The next film after this one has officially been revealed as a Justice League movie, which will also be directed by Zack Snyder. We figure that whatever differences Bats and Supes have with each other in this one should be resolved by the time they get around to Super Friends: The Movie in 2018.


The Cast

Henry Cavill will return as Superman and Ben Affleck will play Batman/Bruce Wayne. Affleck fits the mold of the "older and wiser" Batman who "bears the scars of a seasoned crimefighter" that Warner Bros. was looking for, which neatly sidesteps the need to re-establish Batman's origins on screen once again.

While the first live-action meeting of Batman and Superman is historic enough, Batman vs. Superman goes even further, by introducing Wonder Woman into the mix, played by Gal Gadot. There's no word yet on just how large her role in the film will be, but this will mark the first appearance of Wonder Woman on the big screen, and her first live-action appearance (not counting an unaired NBC television pilot from a few years back) since Lynda Carter hung up her bracelets in 1979.

At least one villain has finally been cast, though. Jesse Eisenberg is taking on the role of Superman's arch-foe, Lex Luthor. David Goyer has stated that "Lex [Luthor] in this world is more a Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch like character. He's probably a multi, multi billionaire. He's not a crook." While this quote comes from an interview that was conducted well before the Batman vs. Superman announcement, Goyer's vision for Lex would certainly put him in the same social circles as someone like Bruce Wayne. Zack Snyder describes Luthor as "a complicated and sophisticated character whose intellect, wealth and prominence position him as one of the few mortals able to challenge the incredible might of Superman."

Jeremy Irons will play Batman's right-hand man, Alfred Pennyworth. While we don't know how much from previous incarnations of the character Irons will draw on, Alfred is described by Zack Snyder as "Bruce Wayne’s most trusted friend, ally and mentor, a noble guardian and father figure. He is an absolutely critical element in the intricate infrastructure that allows Bruce Wayne to transform himself into Batman."

Recently, the film has added three supporting castmembers in unidentified (but not comic book based) roles. Holly Hunter, Callan Mulvey, and Tao Okamoto have joined the cast in roles created specifically for the film.

The film has apparently also cast Ray Fisher as Vic Stone...who is also known as Justice League member, Cyborg. 

Unconfirmed rumors indicate that the word is out for Dick Grayson, in his secret identity as Nightwing, to make an appearance, with Adam Driver's name initially having surfaced as a contender for the role. However, Driver has denied any involvement with the project, and his current commitments to the new Star Wars trilogy now safely rule him out.

Jason Momoa's name has come up in connection with the film, but it's unclear who he would be playing, with speculation ranging from Doomsday to Hawkman, although Momoa has dismissed all of this talk as rumor and nothing more. Even Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has seen his name come up, and he's made no secret of the fact that he's meeting with Warner Bros. for an unspecified DC-related project. If either actor is playing another superpowered villain (or hero), it does broaden the scope a little further.

The Rest

Principal photography is scheduled to begin any minute now. However, some second-unit filming has already commenced, including at a football game between rival college teams from Metropolis and Gotham (this might be where Vic Stone/Cyborg is introduced), as well as locations in Illinois which have doubled as the Kent farm. Kevin Smith has seen a photo of Ben Affleck in a Batman costume, which he describes as something "you have not seen...in a movie before." Here's hoping that means it has some blue and grey...and maybe a yellow oval. 

Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, and Diane Lane will also reprise their Man of Steel roles. Batman vs. Superman is produced by Charles Roven and Deborah Snyder. Hans Zimmer will return to provide the score for the movie. However, Zack Snyder recently said that they'd want Mr. Zimmer back "as long as he'll have us" but seemed to confirm that Zimmer wouldn't reuse any previous Batman themes, in order to distinguish this version of the character from Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films, which Zimmer also scored.

Batman vs. Superman will open in the US on May 6th, 2016.

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

... Besides the Ben Affleck as Batman part ... It all sounds GREAT!

If they left Batman out and replaced Zack Snyder this would be a great movie!

Agreeing with the "it sounds great except for Ben Affleck" thing. He doesn't fit the mold of an "older and seasoned Batman" let alone just "Batman."

Seriously aren't you people forgetting one thing about Batman. He's a figure that can be constantly reinvented, this version is gonna be different deal with it.

Holy links, Batman!

Zack Syder, please do not change wonder womans origin. Kryptonian amazons is the worst idea. Do not do it. Do not power down wonder woman. Stay true to the comics do not screw wonder woman up. If you want to make the greek gods aliens fine, but not from krypton. Give us the wonder woman we all know and love...if anyone can pull this off it is you, but no kryptonian amazons or de-powered wonder woman. I would rather you not use her than see you screw her whole history up. Stay true to wonder woman.

It's stupid because never ever in her origin has any writer turned her into a Krptionian throughout her 73 something years. I also never ran into any alien versions. That means she would have the same weakness as a Kryptonian same powers and same body structure. No connection to magic and the greek side of DC. ugh smh

True. ZS is pretty flat when it comes to plots and BA isn't great for batman. I personally would build upon the cosmic aspect of DC since Earth was just attacked by aliens. Introduce more of them. Show that Martins and GL were looking at the battle, seeing Earth already has a guardian

it might be a bad version though

a version that has to be able to be on his A game at all times in order to live in a world of aliens and gods? (like the comics) I think we're going to see the best Batman ever in this movie. the world around him is only going to bring out his strengths and true potential

"Here's hoping that means it has some blue and grey...and maybe a yellow oval. " let's hope not. These movies are modern, not Silver Agey.

They wouldn't be Kryptonian Amazons. At best, they could be descendants of Kara Zor-El 18000 years removed from their ancestor. That doesn't make them Kryptonian in the least. Kara's Kryptonian DNA would degrade after 18000 years of mixing with human DNA.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: The Dangers of World-Building

$
0
0
FeatureDavid Crow5/6/2014 at 9:37AM

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 changes gears by becoming an advertisement for a shared universe. Should we care?

This article contains major spoilers in relation to The Amazing Spider-Man 2. You have been warned.

Chances are if you are like any proud, card-carrying geek, then you spent this past weekend watching, digesting…and arguing over Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2. A movie two years in the making, the picture tried to give fans everything they seemed to want out of the first film: bigger battles, more jokes, brighter colors, and iconic comic book moments entirely separate from the web-slinger’s hallowed origin story (and a previous movie incarnation of 10 years ago). It also is intended to be Sony’s kickoff into bigger and better things with a shared universe in which all of Spidey’s rogue gallery and supporting cast have the potential to earn their own franchise treatment, interlocking into something as amazing as that other Marvel Cinematic Universe that doesn’t rely on nominal adjectives.

However, it could be fair to say that this dramatic shift of franchise tone in just one installment missed the skyscrapers for the city. There were plenty of easter eggs to chew on and potential character threads for internet forums to swing from for months. We are glimpsed spin-offs, sequels, and set-ups between the Sinister Six, Spider Slayers, Rhino (a walking advertisement for the Sinister Six movie if there ever was one), Black Cat, possibly Venom, and more shades of Goblin mischief to come. Yet, in The Amazing Spider-Man 2's desire to build an entire world around the wall-crawler, did Sony sacrifice the ability to build an interesting movie about the character? Again?

The Amazing Spider-Man franchise has been borne and cultivated at a strange time for the superhero movie. For the first installment, coming out in the game-changing year of 2012—which saw the end of the Christopher Nolan The Dark Knight Trilogy and the culmination of Marvel’s first phase, The Avengers—had a major full-force impact on the web-head. Still very much a product of Sony’s Columbia Pictures that gave us two of the past decade’s definitive superhero movies, The Amazing Spider-Man was a project haunted by retreading familiar ground from those movies, awkwardly searching for a new voice.

To be fair, three years ago when the last Spidey movie went into production, Marvel Studios had not established near total dominance in the genre. Before The Avengers' multi-franchise approach appeared to be anything other than a huge studio gamble, all of the Phase One Marvel films were indeed origin flicks that were heavily informed by Sam Raimi’s own first Spider-Man picture. In fact, the only other origin movie of possible more importance in the last 25 years was the movie that more or less invented the word “reboot” in the modern studio lexicon: Batman Begins.

An entirely stripped down and unplugged rendering of the caped crusader after Joel Schumaucher’s glammed-out disco conclusion to the previous Batman franchise, Batman Begins took a back to basics approach on the character. Director Christopher Nolan drew inspiration from as many of his favorite crime movies as Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie (1978). And Nolan had a novel approach to making his superhero movies—he treated their source material like great literature and realized his own pictures like the big screen spectacles that inspired him in his youth, with auteurs of such variance as David Lean, George Stevens, Ridley Scott, William Friedkin, and (eventually) Michael Mann, amongst others. Of course, the great take away from his reinvention of Batman for many moviegoers and studio executives was that it was dark and gritty, and realistic.

Granted, the irony in this is that Nolan was initially only following Donner's playbook from that aforementioned Superman movie by grounding it in the buzzy word of verisimilitude. It just so happens that Batman is dark and gritty, at least in every popular interpretation since Frank Miller. Nevertheless, that “Nolan” approach has directly influenced many a franchise in its wake, including but not limited to James Bond (Casino Royale, Skyfall), Star Trek (Star Trek Into Darkness), Superman (Man of Steel), and, very briefly, even your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

The Amazing Spider-Man returned to the origin well because other than Nolan’s own staggering The Dark Knight, the most financially successful superhero movies remained rooted in a story of discovery and powerful wish fulfillment. And circa 2012, that journey needed to appear melancholic, darkly lit, and wholly based on a son in search of his father because, at least in part, it worked so damn well for Bruce Wayne back in 2005. Before you contest this point, recall that Batman Begins opens with a childlike Bruce Wayne playing hide-and-seek with his best friend (who eventually is taken away from him) in a flashback that crescendos into a traumatic event and jarring jump-cut to the young hero now in a ruinous prison. Then rewatch how The Amazing Spider-Man also starts with a young boy playing hide-and-seek with a father whose end-of-sequence disappearance will act as a prelude into the son’s misery, a fact demonstrated when it cuts to teenage Peter Parker in an even worse imaginable hell: a grimly desaturated high school.

Of course that first film was more than just influenced by those elements and enjoyed several staples previously unseen in the Raimi movies, including a Spider-Man with a bigger mouth than Groucho Marx and an attitude that was authentically New York. Also, if Garfield’s Peter Parker brought about some of the wit his comic book counterpart was known for, Emma Stone brought one of the two biggest loves of Peter’s life to the big screen in a memorable and endearing way. Stone’s Gwen Stacy had more captivating energy with Garfield’s Peter than any CGI sequence involving giant lizards, and retroactively makes sense considering Garfield and Stone’s real-life relationship. Undeniably, this new Spidey franchise had two central leads that could certainly grow the series in new directions.

However, something else of note happened in 2012 beyond this big screen pairing that would drive the series’ direction: The Avengers became the first superhero movie to make $1.5 billion. And what a superhero movie it was. Out-grossing that summer’s Dickensian, economic paranoia opus in tights that ended Nolan’s tenure in the genre, The Avengers marked a new kind of superhero model. These movies no longer had to be about beginnings, explanations, or “realism.” They needed to be part of an overarching movie universe where no single film tells a complete story; they only had to tell half of the story, or even a quarter of it. As part of a larger multi-franchise universe, these movies would cross-pollinate into something better than any advertising campaign, because the movies are their own advertising. Each picture acts as a complete marketing bombardment for the next product that can be dropped as early as that same summer if the studio is ambitious enough.

And if there is one thing The Amazing Spider-Man 2's story became, it is ambitious. Throwing away the drab colors and haunted tone of the first movie, the Marc Webb sequel brings back the bright shimmer and gee-whiz bang of previous Spidey movies. But unlike any other Spider-Man flick, it has its eye on more than the next one. Despite Sony only holding the rights to one Marvel property, the studio is determined to make the most out of what is fairly a deep, if specific, bench. By the end of the decade we’re getting The Amazing Spider-Man 3, Sinister Six, Venom, and The Amazing Spider-Man 4. This weekend, we also got an idea about what they’d look like.

If you study the above picture, it is a kaleidoscope of goodies for comic book faithful that know their Ravencrofts from their Morbius files. It also surmises the entirety of this movie, which is a whole lot of comic-based winks that are intended to make fans as giddy as when Samuel L. Jackson first showed up in Tony Stark’s mansion while wearing an eye-patch. But this is not unique.

There are currently four comic book movie universes vying for your hard earned dollars, three of them in some shape or form coming from Marvel. Further, studios are trying to create interconnected movie universes out of anything else, such as G.I. Joe and Transformers. Perhaps, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 should then stand as a warning about where this new kind of blockbuster-building madness lies; the antithesis of Joss Whedon's sparkling Avengers. Because in all its teasing for what is to come, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 directly failed to deliver on the moments at hand, especially in one of the Spidey comic mythos’ greatest events.

Nominally, one could say The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is about “The Night Gwen Stacy Died,” as she does indeed make her fateful fall here. You could also say that it is about Spider-Man discovering the truth that cost the lives of his parents. Or you could suggest that it is about Peter Parker getting his first taste of the Sinister Six since likely three members have their origins in this movie with Electro, Rhino, and the Green Goblin all debuting. The problem is that it’s about none of these aspects. It is about marketing their roles to come.

Indeed, it separates itself from Sam Raimi’s three-ring circus that spilled into the crowd, Spider-Man 3, by not worrying about how it can service its overstuffed plots. In The Amazing Spdier-Man 2, none are serviced beyond surface level. Despite the winsome pairing of Garfield and Stone, as well as Webb’s keen interest in showcasing them, the movie ultimately belongs to Sony’s marketing plan of world and multi-franchise building. It is a self-consuming product line that feeds into the next, but this time, it left nothing for the audience to savor, except maybe frustration.

This is entirely best demonstrated in the most pivotal sequence of the whole movie involving the wall-crawler, darling Gwen, and an inadequate amount of webbing. Like in the comics, Gwen Stacy is thrown from a high place by a cackling Osborn, and like in the comic books, Spider-Man’s web-line fails to save her in time, instead (probably) snapping her neck with a whiplash effect. It is brutal, tragic, and entirely inconsequential to the movie's true purpose.

The event is built out of coincidence and half-hearted writing, because it was determined to squeeze in this death, if only to check off another box in the universe before clearing the deck for the next phase, even at the expense of the franchise's most charismatic lead. In the comics, Gwen's death comes at the hands of Norman Osborn, the original literary Green Goblin, after years of escalating rivalry with the web-head. Changing the murderer to Harry Osborn (and the location from the Brooklyn Bridge to a clocktower) has a certain utilitarian logic to it, thereby differentiating the film from Sam Raimi's original 2002 picture. However, Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has no interest in building any sort of rivalry between Harry and Peter or storytelling compulsion to the two's relationship. Like the subplot about Peter’s father having a posthumous secret that plays a role in his origin, Harry's motivations, and thus Gwen's death, serves no purpose other than to muddle the story and facilitate more franchise-building to come in a movie that is ostensibly about Spidey versus Electro.

Instead, of old Sparky, the film focuses on Peter spending multiple, lethargic scenes in the subway working on dear old dad’s research. These scenes are momentum killers that must be endured only because they tease that Richard Parker created special spider Venom, juicily leaving enough of an easter egg to build an “Ultimate Spider-Man” styled origin and spin-off around for the already announced Venom movie. It also feeds back into Harry’s awkwardly positioned story, which replaces Electro’s as the central conflict for the second half of the movie.

Once Electro is easily defeated by Spider-Man in an admittedly great sequence in Times Square, the movie ungracefully shifts to Peter’s “best friend,” who he shared all of two scenes with. Based on the research of Peter’s father, Harry thinks he has found a cure for an Osborn disease, though it ultimately leads to him becoming the Green Goblin. This motivation makes little sense, supposing that because Harry might die in 35 years from a genetic disease he will want to kill Spider-Man today, but it is a terrific excuse to set-up a slew of movies.

For example, Harry’s Oscorp assistant in this matter is the very lovely Felicity Jones, completely wasted in her three scenes as Felicia Hardy, aka the Black Cat, another Spider-Man love interest for down the road. Also conveniently, one of Harry’s employees is the pre-destined spider slayer inventor Alistair Smythe (B.J. Novak). But they all exist merely to point Harry and the audience toward a room filled with the arms of Doctor Octopus, the wings of the Vulture, and the armor of the Rhino. Surely some geeks found it giggle-inducing, but it is all so much that it overpowers and supplants an end result that comes to very little: Harry turns into the Green Goblin. Rather than being a central story conflict, it curtails into an afterthought in service for the larger film universe. And so too does Harry's actions.

Which brings us back to that ending. The movie spends so much time laying the groundwork for more movies to come that when Harry shows up on a glider for the first time ever following Spidey’s supposedly climactic duel with Electro, it is obligatory and awkward--even more rushed than Venom's storyline in the previous Spider-Man franchise. This is supposed to be this series’ interpretation of Spidey’s absolutely greatest foe, and his inclusion, as well as helping Peter accidentally off Gwen, feels entirely pointless. Much like last summer’s blockbuster disappointment Star Trek Into Darkness, also written in part by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, including a famous scene from the source material (be it comics or Wrath of Khan) will be entirely meaningless if the context is so aimlessly trivial.

Ironically, this might have been one time where paying attention to Nolan again could have served this new Spidey series well. While Rachel Dawes, in either incarnation, is one of the weakest aspects of Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, her death at the hands of the Joker in The Dark Knight felt sudden, but shockingly powerful and merited. For over 90 minutes, that film built up a rising tension between Batman and Joker, as well as Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes. When she is ripped away, it comes at an unexpected moment after the Joker plays a trick on the heroes and the audience. The searing agony is then wallowed in not just for the grieving hero who lost a girlfriend, but for the story which is making a point. The chaos it ushers in for the next sunrise while Heath Ledger’s villain howls into the dawn from a stolen cop car, and the Batman grieves at the location of her demise with more than a hint of Ground Zero imagery, drives the message of this story about the costs of order in a chaotic (and for those off-screen, post-9/11) world.

In comparison, Gwen Stacy, who is a much more captivating character played with genuine appeal by Stone, is robbed of the narrative context for her death that made it so memorable and tragic in the comics. The filmmakers even place the onerous blame on Gwen for ignoring Peter’s warnings about staying away from the battle (how else would Harry’s arbitrary appearance know to target her?). When so much of the rest of the movie is about building up four more movies, this singular story had no actual time to develop into what should have been one of the most defining moments in superhero cinema. Instead, it is just another scene randomly occurring in a movie completely devoid of pace or narrative rhythm, leaving the audience as confused and wounded as the impressively heartbroken Garfield.

Of course, this moment cannot be lingered on for Peter to learn anything. As soon as the funeral and grief montage is over, the picture must move immediately to Harry in prison with absolutely no explanation as to how Peter reacted to Harry, or the world to the death of Gwen Stacy. Rather, Harry is preparing with the shadowy Gustav Fliers (hey look another obscure comic book reference!) to unleash the Sinister Six, dovetailing into another set-up for a future movie when the equally pointless character of Aleksei Sytsevich (Paul Giamatti) becomes the Rhino, forcing a final teasing duel between himself and the web-slinger, a promise of things to come. It is almost a metaphor for the entire film. The approachably pitch perfect Andrew Garfield, whose fast-talking taunts to the Rhino via a cop’s megaphone are pure Spider-Man, must struggle mightily and with all his might against franchise and studio mandates to make something worthwhile. But like the scene, it always appears to be cut short.

I appreciate fan service and the need to sow the seeds for more to come. But nobody wants to see a movie simply about marketing team planters in the field for two hours. Film is not television. Expecting audiences to wait two, three, or four years for a pay-off to your current story is the antithesis of cinema. It is also perhaps the greatest hurdle for any blockbuster film in the post-Avengers world. When studios’ film slates look more akin to multi-year TV show bibles, no project is allowed to be exceptional, lest they all be held to that standard. Indeed, they sometimes can get bogged down in their own mythological self-satisfaction.

Honestly, the narrative muddle of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is no less jumbled than Marvel’s own Iron Man 2, which could be described as a 30-minute story with an extra 90-minute tap dance until The Avengers. But that wasn’t Marvel’s first foray into franchise-building, and the entire system was chugging along well enough to skip over that early stumble. Since this second Marc Webb Spidey movie is in many ways another re-do after 2012’s modestly received “dark” reboot, TASM2 needed to actually make audiences excited about this expanding world. Instead, it will leave many more infuriated that there was barely a point to the last two hours they spent in it.

At this point, I would not be very surprised if 2016’s The Amazing Spider-Man 3 changes the look, approach, and franchise plan yet again.

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!


Son of Batman review

$
0
0
ReviewMike Cecchini5/6/2014 at 9:54AM
son of Batman Robin

Damian Wayne joins the DC Animated Universe in Son of Batman. Here's our review.

This Son of Batman review contains spoilers.

Son of Batman, the latest DC Universe animated movie from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment is the story of, well...exactly what you’d expect from that title, really. Based on the Grant Morrison/Andy Kubert story, “Batman and Son” (which sounds like a thoroughly amusing sitcom), Son of Batman takes some necessary liberties with the source material, piles on the violence, and makes some story and character choices that may annoy some viewers.

The fact that Son of Batman is adapted by comic scribe James Robinson with a teleplay by prolific genre author Joe R. Lansdale means it has an impressive fictional pedigree, much like young Damian Wayne (Stuart Allan), himself. Damian is the son of Bruce Wayne and Talia al Ghul, the daughter of Ra’s al Ghul, the head of the League of Assassins. Raised since birth to be the eventual head of the League, Damian is a terrifyingly competent, arrogant little brat, who ends up dumped unceremoniously in Batman’s lap after Deathstroke raids the League’s headquarters and takes out Ra’s.

Son of Batman takes a number of liberties with the source material, but for the sake of a 75 minute movie, they’re understandable. The opening sequence, which features Deathstroke (who looks and sounds quite a bit like Master Ninja era Lee Van Cleef) leading a veritable army of ninjas on the League headquarters is extraordinarily violent, with certainly the highest body count I’ve ever seen in one of these DCU movies. Imagine the climax of Enter the Dragon but with lots more dead bodies, or a version of the old GI Joe cartoon where folks actually get shot and drop dead, and you’ll get an idea of the vibe here.

The problem here is that the violence is rather gleeful, and this sequence is so extended that it begins to feel a little gratuitous. Yes, I realize I’m a guy who spends much of his time writing about superheroes, low-grade action, and giant monster movies complaining about gratuitous violence, but the scene with young Damian blowing guys away with a pistol was a little disconcerting. Of course the film has to establish what a badass he is, and that he doesn’t share his pointy-eared Dad’s compunctions about killing, but surely, watching young Damian stick a sword in Slade Wilson’s eye should have driven that point home.

The pace rarely lets up throughout. This is Batman presented as a late night '80s cable action movie, with an endless supply of ninjas (and ninja Man-Bats), a scientist forced to work for the bad guys with the lives of his family at stake, several exotic locales, and enough testosterone to break a home run record. A little too much, to tell you the truth. I enjoy Nightwing and Damian's sibling rivalry (one of their early meetings ends in rather hilarious fashion), but Damian's repeated jabs at Dick's sexuality were generally out of line. Damian is many things and many of them aren't all that nice, but there are plenty of ways to illustrate this without resorting to cheap shots. 

The performances are a bit uneven, as well. I found Morena Baccarin's Talia to be a little flat, as was Thomas Gibson's Slade Wilson. I haven't quite warmed to Jason O'Mara's Batman yet, either, but he deserves more time to grow into the role. David McCallum's Alfred Pennyworth is a real treat, though...and he gets all the best lines.

Son of Batmanstarts to fold up a bit by its final act. The aforementioned Ninja Man-Bats, used as a knowing wink to comic book excess and a necessary plot device in Morrison and Kubert's original story seemed almost incidental by the end of this one, so intent was it on evolving Damian from dangerous little psychopath into Batman's son and partner. But the animation is slick, with plenty of "this isn't a kids' cartoon" edge to it, and it's never in danger of becoming boring. 

In most respects, Son of Batman is superior to the surprisingly irritating and one-note Justice League: War. However, I gave Justice League: War a bit of a pass because it was adapting a rather poor comic book story. Son of Batman, on the other hand, is based on much stronger source material, so it’s occasionally tone-deaf dialogue and questionable story decisions are more difficult to stomach. 

When it comes to unbridled bat-action, Son of Batman is almost unmatched. It even delivers some surprising laughs in a few places. As a way to introduce Damian Wayne to a larger audience, though...I'm not sure this is going to open any doors. This still doesn't feel like a character you'll want to root for. That may work in the open-ended context of the comics, but in these DC Universe animated films, the title character's arc should have been a little more defined. Son of Batman isn't for purists, but is a fun way to waste an hour and change.

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

Exclusive Interview With Stage Fright Director Jerome Sable and Composer Eli Batalion

$
0
0
InterviewDavid Crow5/6/2014 at 9:59AM

We sit down with Jerome Sable and Eli Batalion of Stage Fright to chat about bleeding together musicals with slashers.

Screaming your guts out in a horror movie is par for the course, but in Stage Fright, they do it on pitch. The rather nifty concept of bleeding together the genres of old school splatter slashers and big-hearted, honest-to-Broadway musicals marks this month’s newest horror-comedy release—which is now available on VOD—as a unique tap and splat thrill ride. And perhaps only Jerome Sable, who makes his directorial debut on this feature, and Eli Batalion, who co-wrote the music with Sable, could have envisioned it in quite such a way.

We were thus happy when the writer-director and composer sat down with us last week to discuss the musical and slasher influences of Stage Fright, it’s loving hate mail for Broadway, and the necessity to capture all the singing (and all the gore) in-camera. Plus, this is also Meat Loaf’s first movie musical since Rocky Horror Picture Show

When did you first realize you wanted to combine a slasher movie with a musical?

Jerome Sable: A long time ago, now. 1989? We first did theatre for many years, and our weird plays always involved musical numbers and weird musical elements. Then I was in film school, and I was getting into the horror stuff more, and we discussed doing our next project as a film. So we said, “Why don’t we combine creative forces and creative ideas,” and—

Eli Batalion: And we high-fived.

JS: And we high-fived and said, “Let’s do a horror musical.” But the first thing we did at that point actually was a short film called “The Legend of Beaver Dam.” That was our first sort of foray into the combo. The short was well received, and we enjoyed the way people [liked it]. So we said, “Let’s try to do a feature.” But not of that short. Just another thing, a longer thing that combined these elements.

So when you made this short did you know it was a steppingstone to a feature film?

JS: We were hoping that it would be. Not in the way of these characters and that story, because it’s totally different. But in the way of let’s see if we can combine these genres and fantastical elements: musical, comedy, and horror.

EB: It was like a proof of concept for others, but then also to ourselves. We wanted to demonstrate that this could work, and people like producers might be interested in this sort of thing. But for ourselves, we wanted to test this out in the form of a short film.

I’ve seen the short film, and I enjoyed it, but it is very different. It was more of a Freddy Kruger killer than a Jason Voorhees. Was there a reason for that change for the feature?

JS: Well, it wasn’t like a change; these were two different things from a storytelling perspective. Even though one was the ancestor of the other in terms of the combining, and just working with singing and slashing—that aside, one was like campfire tale short story, and the other is a longer story about this girl and the past, and her history, and theatre camp, and what that all means. It was what we sort of thought would give us a more feature-length playground.

EB: There’s a lot more psychological background for the killer role or roles [in Stage Fright] whereas in “The Legend of Beaver Dam,” there is a legend there, but we never really go back into his childhood. Although, maybe we should? Maybe later this afternoon? [Laughs]

According to the press notes, Meat Loaf saw this short film and that is what helped convince him to do it. Could you talk about how it was getting him to do this film, because I believe it is his second movie musical?

JS: Yeah, that’s the fun thing. When we first met Meat Loaf, not too far away from here at one of our New York casting director’s offices, it’s always fun during that first meeting, because there’s a piano in the room, and I had some of the songs for Roger McCall [Meat Loaf’s character], but we didn’t get into any of the singing. He wanted to talk character and he wanted to talk about Roger McCall the character. And it wasn’t what people might think or might guess about discussing “we’ll do it like this and you’ll sing it like this.” No, he just really wanted to get into the background of this character and the way I saw it, and the way I felt it in terms of the story. That was really his approach to the material. So, he approaches singing through character and through fully committing to what this character, this person is saying. He doesn’t see them as lyrics, he doesn’t see them as musical notes. He sees them as emotions that need to be uttered at this time and in this way. That’s his starting point, and that is his process. It is so amazing, and it was unexpected for me, because I thought, “Oh here is this Grammy Award winning musical icon,” but he really sees himself as an actor first. That’s how he works, even musically.

Did he ever talk about parallel between doing this and Rocky Horror. Did you ever have that discussion with him?

JS: Never. Not once even. It was an obvious thing that exists in the background like, “Of course you’re in Rocky Horror, you’re a musical icon, you’re in the iconic and legendary horror musical. The horror musical.” No, it never came up. The discussions, because of the way he approached the material—it’s not like he wanted this to be “Meat Loaf in a movie” or “this is Meat Loaf in a new horror musical.” He just liked the character of Roger McCall and wanted to do that. That is all we discussed when it came to work and then we discussed a whole bunch of other stuff like baseball.

Speaking of Rocky Horror though, what were the musicals and, for that matter, slasher movies that influenced both of you and then which ones influenced this movie?

EB: It’s interesting, because we love musicals, but we don’t necessarily love all musicals. I wouldn’t describe us as Broadway fanboys. Actually, there’s probably a lot of stuff on Broadway that we violently detest. [Laughs] But there’s a bunch of stuff. Our musical influences, going to more traditional music, certainly Kander and Ebb, some Gilbert and Sullivan as well. We were just talking a little earlier about Lionel Bart.

JS: The guy who wrote Oliver! There’s influences there not only in terms of the music, but also in terms of the directing Carol Reed. Just the kids in the lunchroom at the beginning in the orphanage if you’ve seen that version of Oliver! And of course, there’s then the rock influences.

EB: Which I say is less Rocky Horror—we’re influenced by Rocky Horror in terms of it setting the precedent, but in terms of the specific rock sound, I think that’s more along the lines of AC/DC, Black Sabbath, some Led Zeppelin, some of the vocal stylings of Axl Rose. That’s the stuff we listened to in high school, so it was an interesting combination of combining that stuff with stuff we had accumulated as enjoyers of music since our teens, and to then throw them together in one film.

I felt the whole thing had a very obvious nostalgia for the 1980s. The slasher elements were very Friday the 13th and also Carrie—though that’s the ‘70s—but also the musical that it was most parodying was Phantom of the Opera. I bring that up to ask do you have a love/hate relationship with some of this genre? Because you say Led Zeppelin, and I hear Van Halen in “Metal Killer.” People who listen to Van Halen probably did not like Andrew Lloyd Webber in the 1980s.

JS: Yeah, it is love/hate. It’s like our love letter and it’s also like hate mail. So, it’s our love/hate mail to musical theatre. But here’s the thing, Andrew Lloyd Webber does Jesus Christ Superstar, which in itself was more of a rock musical. And then he chose to do his version of Phantom, which is intentionally, and I think he would admit this, high on the cheese factor, high on the romance. He just wanted to take what essentially is a slasher story, because it’s about this guy who offs people in a theatre one-by-one, and takes a slasher and says, “Let me do a slasher completely dripping with romance!” And oozing with this sort of red rose [imagery]. And I think he’d admit that’s exactly what he did. I think on their first draft of the music and lyrics, he thought it was just too haunting or serious. He’s like “let’s just make it more romantic.” Sure Andrew, we can do that.

So, he’s done that, and then we said, “Okay. What about dialing it the other way and making it just more brutal, but also with a sort poking-jabbing at the belly of the beast.” Because of course, it’s such an iconic—when I was young, my mother took us to see Phantom, and the chandelier fell, and it was a hugely impressionable moment. “Oh shit!” [Laughs] So, it makes an impact whether you love it or hate it, it’s a huge part of our culture, which is his take of that story. And by the way, in prepping for this movie, we went back and watched the original movie, the 1925 Phantom of the Opera, and also Brian De Palma’s take, Phantom of the Paradise, which people may not remember proceeds Andrew Lloyd Webber’s take on the Gaston Leroux story.

EB: I guess a lot of people have done that story.

JS: Yeah, even Dario Argento did one. Even Freddy Kruger himself, the actor Robert Englund, was in a weird version of Phantom of the Opera.

To transition a little to the slasher movies, which slasher movies really influenced this? For example, I think you used a lot of in-camera effects for the gore.

JS: Yeah, to your point about there being a lot of nostalgia for the ‘80s and the late ‘70s, yes, there is. I just think those are awesome movies and to name a few others like Black Christmas from ’74, and of course Halloween from John Carpenter, as well as Nightmare on Elm Street, Carrie, Texas Chainsaw, and also Hellraiser. But even the Dario Argento movies, the Giallo, movies like Opera and Susperia; these movies that take place with the ballerinas and opera singers. It’s cool to mix high-class theatre and opera with low-class slashing.

Was it hard to get them to sing or lip-synch with all the fake blood splattering around?

JS: They were really singing! We did all live-singing. That was another thing that was tricky to do in-camera singing and in-camera effects. Once we had our cast, they were so talented they could nail it over and over again, being of that theatre ilk and having those chops. But like you say, practical effects take time, and you can’t control splatter, as much as you would like to, so you’d just have to take your time and go again. There was stuff that could go wrong, and it was a complicated shoot, to say the least.

Why did you approach it with live-singing as opposed to pre-recorded music?

JS: Same reason as the gore. The results that you get have a certain grit and texture, whether it’s live-singing or in-camera gore. We talk about the splatter. With CG blood splatter, the gravity just never quite looks or feels the same. And maybe you only perceive it on a subconscious level, but if something is fake, it might just feel fake. It is the same with singing. You may not know it, but you feel that you connect more to the character, because it was just what they did in that moment. That’s the result part of things. The other is when you’re on set, having the actors not only singing then and there, but also get splashed with something or see something, that just affects their whole emotional performance. It is throwback, but is also just better in general, I find, to do as much as you can in-camera. It just brings more out of the people then and there.

EB: When you have a canned musical like Singin’ in the Rain, and you can tell that they’re clearly not singing, as a viewer and an enjoyer that takes you out of the moment. It’s very distancing.

JS: Imagine this whole interview was lip-synched, and we weren’t saying what we’re saying.

EB: But we’re still saying these things, but it’s pre-recorded. That would be weird.

Were you on-set during the production or were you helping the actors through the music during shooting?

EB: Yes, it’s interesting. I played the role of the maestro in it, but there also was a lot of preparation as well. And part of the reason the actors were able to improvise these scenarios with the blood and splatter is we spent a lot of time with them. It’s a different process from a Mumblecore movie, for example. For months leading up to it, we were beginning to record some of their pre-recorded vocals that they would work with and use later on within the film, and get them to learn these songs, and different parts within these songs. We spent a lot of time actually schooling the talent in this.

JS: It was true, and I would get home from a prep day at the prep office, and there in the condo was Eli the choir master with the whole cast, just conducting and teaching harmonies. So, it was a funny pre-production where we were both building rigs and building jigs! [Laughs]

EB: But yeah, to your point, that was happening before. But on set, not only was there a B-unit, but this was shot in 23 days, which is really quite ambitious in terms of everything we were trying to get done. It wasn’t like there was one event going on. B-unit was also going on in the camp, and there were rehearsals going on as well.

Speaking of making it work, when it came to casting, I imagine finding a lead actress like Allie MacDonald who had to be both the scream queen and the leading lady ingénue was a bit of a challenge. Could you talk about how you cast her and what you were looking for in that role?

JS: We had the luxury of being able to cast out of two countries, both Canada and the U.S. And for the U.S., a lot of our casting took place in New York where we actually got to see a lot of the top talent of Broadway, and the casts of The Book of Mormon and Mamma Mia! were coming in and singing the songs of Stage Fright. And we’re like, “Wow, this is the pick of the litter and very talented!” But in the end for Allie MacDonald, the role of Camilla Swanson, the lead, we actually chose someone who wasn’t a Broadway singer because what we found in Allie was something more special for this movie. Yes, she could sing and do all that, but she also embodied this essence of being on the outside of theatre kids. I found out later, after we cast her, that she actually had a very similar experience where she went to this musical theatre school and didn’t feel like she fit in. And I was like, “Well, that make sense.” We felt that on this unconscious level. Yes, she could sing and she had the same chops, but from an essence perspective, the intangible things that you can’t really describe on paper but you get in terms of a feeling from someone, she really was an outsider to this world and this way.

EB: And the other cast members actually really were Broadway.

JS: Insiders, yeah. So, it was kind of nice like that. So in the end, there are all these intangibles that go into casting, and we were lucky with Allie.

I have to ask about Minnie Driver. How did you approach her for this role and was it a conscious decision because she was in The Phantom of the Opera movie?

JS: Our pool of who we could even approach was limited to begin with, because we knew that we needed a singing actress, so that immediately eliminates all kinds of people that the investors or financers [would be interested in]. Minnie is not only a great singer, but she also gets the satire or send-up of the British mega-musicals. She’s English, she was in Phantom, and in Phantom she plays La Carlotta, so she did that in a very satirical way, and it was great. So, we could appeal to her on that level. And the producers sent her a copy of “The Legend of Beaver Dam,” and with that she understood we were doing something with a bit of a wink. I had a phone call with her, she had watched “The Legend of Beaver Dam,” and she was like “yes, let’s do it.” And I was like “really?”

EB: “Are you sure?” [Laughs]

JS: I was like “don’t mess this up! She said yes.” And she was awesome. Also, here’s the funny thing about Minnie. I don’t think she’s ever necessarily done a horror movie before or even watched one. And she was completely game to do this brutal scene that was so [violent] that even when we were recording ADR with her, doing some additional dialogue, she couldn’t even watch her own scene. It was too violent and too brutal. But she was game for it, which was something outside of the zone for her, and she was fantastic.

Do you view this as more of a horror movie or more as a satire?

JS: Isn’t all horror satire, somewhat?

That’s a good answer. Do you guys have a musical you want to do next? Like a superhero musical, a sci-fi musical? Any other genre bending?

JS: The answer is yes! It’s deep within us…But no, that’s a great idea. We’re going to steal it, thank you! [Laughs]

Thank you for doing this.

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 Amazing Spider-Man 2 Director says We May Never See Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson

$
0
0
NewsMike Cecchini5/6/2014 at 12:23PM

Wondering if you'll get to see Shailene Woodley's Mary Jane Watson scenes on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Blu-ray?

Recently, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 director Marc Webb opened up about what the deleted scenes featuring Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson. You can read Mr. Webb's description of those scenes right here. Of course, the next logical question is whether those few minutes of Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson screen time might ever see the light of day, as deleted scenes usually find their way to home video releases.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's much chance of that happening. “I think we’ll just keep that, it’s so brief,” Webb told MTV. “It was just a couple of days, and we really wanted to focus on the Gwen Stacy storyline.”

This makes some sense. As Mr. Webb pointed out, the romantic focus of the film is Peter and Gwen. Additionally, since it doesn't sound likely that Ms. Woodley will return for Mary Jane's inevitable introduction in The Amazing Spider-Man 3, maybe putting these scenes out for fans to see would appear unfair to whichever young actress ends up in the role. Perhaps they'll surface in some form eventually.

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!

New Interstellar Poster Has Been Released

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow5/6/2014 at 3:04PM

Check out the new poster for Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, starring Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway.

Little has been detailed about Christopher Nolan’s upcoming Interstellar, except that it is out of this world and is one of the absolutely top must-see movies of 2014. And with its first full trailer just around the corner, it is also about time that we get a new poster.

In the elegant new release of the Interstellar promotional art, audiences get a tease of a film free of floating heads or giant actor names above the title. In fact, the title makes an ominous vertical appearance in the jet fumes left by a rocket flying up into the night sky…

Interstellar is a mysterious adventure about a group of scientists and explorers who must go into space to save mankind’s destiny following a negative effect on Earth’s crops. It can sound a bit vague, but you can head over to our Interstellar: Everything We Know article for more details about this intentional mystery.

The movie is based on a script written by Jonathan Nolan (originally meant for Steven Spielberg to direct) and Christopher Nolan, and stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Wes Bentley, Topher Grace, John Lithgow, and Michael Caine.

Interstellar takes off November 7, 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 Hunger Games: Mockingjay Adds Michelle Forbes

$
0
0
NewsDavid Crow5/6/2014 at 3:54PM

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 adds True Blood's Michelle Forbes to its cast of District 13 rebels.

Despite having already begun extensive production on the back-to-back shoots of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay films, casting still continues for the highly anticipated Young Adult franchise two-part closer. And as reported by The Hollywood Reporter, Lionsgate has added a new name to the anticipated film: Michelle Forbes will play Lieutenant Jackson in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2.

Forbes is probably best known for her role on Battlestar Galactica, another future-set series about a world (or universe) at war. However, she also has fan credentials for playing MaryAnn in the first two seasons of True Blood, the demi-goddess baddie that brought vampires and humans alike to heel in Season 2.

Lieutenant Jackson is a rebel leader from the much talked about, mysterious District 13 in Panem and will help fight the revolution against President Snow in the fourth and final Hunger Games movie.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 adapts the first half of Suzanne Collins' book and boasts the cast of Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Natalie Dormer, Julianne Moore, Stanley Stucci and Donald Sutherland.

In the future Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) must fight for her impoverished District 12 in a dystopian North American regime called “Panem.” After several Hunger Games, contests to the death between children, go awry, Katniss finds herself participating in a massive rebellion against the authoritarian government.

Directed by The Hunger Games: Catching Fire helmer Francis Lawrence, both Mockingjay films are being shot concurrently and are scheduled for a Thanksgiving release in November 2014 and 2015, respectively.

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>