Man of Steel Star Henry Cavill Says A Justice League Film Isn't Likely At This Point

We've known for some time of Warner Bros. plans to get a Justice League film off the ground by the year 2015, but it doesn't seem very likely according to Superman himself; Henry Cavill. Since Man of Steel the amount of speculation from DC fans has raised bringing out questions about the other DC heroes and their films. Man of Steel was a box office success which caused rumors about the sequel to the film being released next year and Justice League the year after.

Man of Steel director Zack Snyder has managed to beat around the bush when being confronted with questions about these Justice League rumors in numerous interviews despite indications that he's Warner Bros.' top candidate for bringing the team to the big screen. Well now Superman himself; Henry Cavill, has given his own thoughts on the future of a JL film. Cavill suggests that a Justice League film may be hard to pull off with all the heroes, and insists that fans shouldn't get their hopes up just yet. In an interview with ABC News Cavill claimed there was no rush for a Justice League film and said the following:

“Justice League could be great if done correctly. It’s a very tough one to do because the DC Comics heroes are all godlike in their power so in the real-world setting we’re telling our story in it’s going to be tough to achieve that and it has to be done very delicately and with a lot of thought. So it won’t be right away, certainly not, or I hope it’s not anyway. It may take some time building other movies and other characters and then introduce them together in one way or another.”

“I think it would be great to do but I don’t think it’s around the corner.”

It's more likely that we'll see a sequel to Man of Steel or a Superman and Batman team-up film to introduce the rebooted Batman before Justice League rolls around. I personally believe that WB should look to Marvel as an example, and in order to make each of their characters feel more real and grounded and help audiences connect with them they should have solo films before all teaming up in Justice League. If anything at least have team-up films to introduce rebooted version characters that audiences have already seen on screen solo, such as the Superman/Batman team-up and possibly a Flash and Green Lantern one too (If Ryan Reynolds doesn't return that is).

On another note Zack Snyder has expressed the possibilities of seeing Lex Luthor and Superman's only weakness; kryptonite in a Man of Steel sequel:

“[People have been like ‘there’s no kryptonite in the movie’ and ‘there’s no Lex Luthor in the movie’, and by no means am I saying those things don’t exist, I’m just saying he didn’t run into them here [this time].”

Luthor's company LexCorp was hinted at in the skylines of Metropolis during some action scenes in Man of Steel, so his inclusion in the next film is almost inevitable. As for the kryptonite, it really goes hand in hand with any storyline that involves Luthor and it's really the only thing that he can use to physically threaten Superman. It could also be a hint at the inclusion of popular Superman villain Metallo, who is basically a former soldier who was turned into a cyborg the runs on kryptonite. And guess who funded that project, none other than Lex Luthor himself. So with Snyder hinting that we could be seeing both Lex and kryptonite in a sequel, don't be surprised if we find the Man of Steel facing off against Metallo once the sequel hits theaters.

So what do you think of Warner Bros. taking their time with a Justice League film? Do you think it's a smart move? Also would you like to see Superman face Lex Luthor and Metallo in a sequel? Sound off below.

Read More

New Rumors Regarding Both Black Cat And Green Goblin In The Amazing Spider-Man 2

There's been a lot of speculation surrounding what villains would be seen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and while Jamie Foxx's Electro and Paul Giamatti's Rhino have been the only two confirmed villains for the film, rumor are circling around about numerous other additions to the villain roster. The most recent rumors involve Chris Cooper's Norman Osborn who will presumably transform into the Green Goblin in this film and a source's description of what the villain's costume will look like. There's also rumors surrounding whether the film will include Black Cat, and with both Felicity Jones and Sarah Gadon cast in mystery roles in the film, it's open to assumptions as to who both are playing.

Recently we learned that actress Shailene Woodley's (The Descendants) small part as Mary Jane Watson in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was cut from the film by the choice of director Marc Webb in order to focus more on other aspects of the film's plot. It was also rumored that she could possibly be recast by the time The Amazing Spider-Man 3 rolls around due to her lead role in the film adaption of the series Divergent, and if it turns out the be a success the film's sequels could make her schedule too cluttered for her to return as MJ. She was thought to be recast by Canadian actress Sarah Gadon (Cosmopolis) when it was announced that she had joined the film's cast. Well it turns out these rumors were merely assumptions, and Gadon has confirmed via her Twitter that she is in fact NOT playing the part of Mary Jane.

Now of course this leaves the door open for speculation as to what character Gadon is indeed portraying in TASM 2. There's still two major female Spider-Man characters that Gadon could be playing; Black Cat and Betty Brant. Now this is where things get interesting, since actress Felicity Jones was cast in the film her role has since remained a mystery. Way back when her casting was announced most fans believe the actress could be playing Felicia Hardy a.k.a Black Cat (Presumably because their names are so similar). While the actress bares a striking resemblance to the comic book versions of Betty Brant, in an interview the actress seemingly confirmed she'd be playing a "baddie" in the film. And as we all know, the only female villain Spider-Man has faced is Black Cat, so we can basically put the pieces together from there. While Gadon herself looks more like Felicia Hardy, she could indeed be playing Betty Brant in the film or some other female role to a smaller degree.

As for the Green Goblin rumors, while we already learned months ago that actor Chris Cooper (The Muppets) would be playing Norman Osborn in the film, recent reports have suggested we'll actually be seeing the character's transformation into the Green Goblin in this film, with a set photo of the Goblin's glider seemingly confirming this. Now we finally have two vague descriptions of what the villain might look like post his transformation and it surely wont please to many fans. Here are the separate descriptions from both Movie Web and Comic Book Movie:

CBM: the suit will once again “resemble” some type of armor (though really, short of having him wear spandex or mutating him what other options are there?). We’re told it’ll be a matte black and dark green design with spikes — not too dissimilar to Ultimate Green Goblin’s look apparently, though obviously Osborn will still be human.

MW: We now have a more accurate description of Green Goblin’s suit of armor, and apparently the costume designers are taking both a nod from Tony Stark’s Iron Man and Christopher Nolan‘s Catwoman… Green Goblin’s suit will be made up entirely of matte black armor that resembles a hi-tech motocross suit. The suit will remain open-faced, and there will be no helmet at all. Norman will have green hair that is spiked high up. In his ears, he will be wearing a Bluetooth device that will make it look as though he has the Green Goblin’s signature pointed ears, the same way Selina Kyle’s goggles worked in creating the illusion that she had cat ears. The back of the armor has a spine. At the moment, there are no green accents. From a distance, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Tony Stark’s signature Mark XLII armor had been painted black.

Well there you have it, not exactly what most fans (Or myself for that matter) were hoping for. It seems we'll once again be getting a tech-armored Goblin similar to what we got from Willem Dafoe's version in the original Sam Raimi Spider-Man, and he'll once again remain human as opposed to turning into a full monster like in the Ultimate Comics. Most fans and I were expecting Webb to take the Ultimate route as he's been doing with most of the characters in the rebooted series, but it seems he doesn't want Spider-Man to face a green beast of some sort, which would be very similar to Lizard in the first Amazing Spider-Man film.

As for the route Webb IS taking, I can't say it sounds good at all, and we can only hope it's just a rumor made up by a fan. I at least wanted to see a more accurate translation of the classic Goblin suit and mask from the original comics in this series, but it seems Norman won't even have a mask this time around. Hopefully this rumor ends up being debunked and we get the Goblin we were all hoping for.

So who do you think Felicity Jones and Sarah Gadon are playing? What do you think of the description of Green Goblin's costume?

Read More

Review: World War Z - Going Viral

There's a lot of pressure for the most expensive zombie movie ever made. The only other blockbuster undead movie that I can recall was Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead back in 2004. So, is this a horror movie or an action movie? It's a very interesting question, and one of the ones that was asked by many people in the lead-up to the film's release. You can go two ways with a zombie outbreak movie, the very terrifying 28 Days Later style, or the action-thriller type we see in I Am Legend or the Resident Evil movies. World War Z kinda falls in the middle.

That said, it's more towards the action type. Stabbing and shooting hordes of zombies, crashing planes and helicopters firing miniguns at mountains of the undead, being crushed by masses of the poor fellows. And when there is action, it's good action. I found myself with a huge grin on my face as the zombies got their asses handed to them by Brad and his friends, or the other way round, which happened a fair bit. That said, there's some actual horror in this, with the first act being an absolutely fantastic outbreak of the disease. The first act sees our protagonist, Gerry Lane (Mr. Pitt himself) interacting with his family in some very well-acted scenes with great dialogue.

Then, in the busy streets of Glasgow - UHH I mean Philadelphia, they are thrust into the outbreak of the rabies-like infection that involves people running for their lives, crashing cars into various obstacles and zombies smacking their heads into things. The fact that the child actors in this movie are so good only reinforces the audience's fear, as we go along with the conviction of the kid's terror while the adults try to contain theirs. The movie progresses to an apartment building, where we really get scared, trying to get to the roof and to safety followed by angry zombies with jump-scare a-plenty. It's quite unsettling and very well done. Great start.

After that, it gets more thriller. After having to choose between his family and the greater good with the help of blackmail, our friend Gerry heads off with a scientist to South Korea to find out the source of 'the Infection'. By the way, those terms, 'the Infection' and 'the Infected which is starting to sound really generic and it annoys me. Anyway, that doesn't matter. What matters is, there's some twists and turns which are quite interesting. Oh I should probably say, I haven't read the book, so I'm not going to do any comparing, although I assume the film has taken all the tangled points of view and made a narrative out of it. ANYWAY.

There's some great action and thrills in the second act, set in the dark and threatening setting of South Korea, followed by the bright and harsh environment of walled-off Jerusalem, where as per, all hell breaks loose. We learn some interesting stuff along the way, and it's interesting to see how different countries react to the crisis, America just collapses, Isreal is the safest whilst North Korea rips everyone's teeth out. Pretty effective.

The cast, has to be said, is great. Brad's Gerry Lane is great to watch, determined yet flawed and dedicated to his family. The supporting cast, Fana Mokena as Gerry's friend at the UN, Mireille Enos as Gerry's wife, Daniella Kertesz as a soldier who Gerry helps out in Isreal, even Scottish born and bred Peter Capaldi shows up. It's all lovely.

So where are the problems? You can find most of them in the third act. In the form of a get from A to B horror trope, Brad and chums turn the film into a very differently toned piece, which is quite distracting and flawed. Sure there are some great moments but overall it feels a bit rushed and disjointed. It just leaves everyone with a weird taste in their mouths, even if we do get some classic zombie movie scenes. That said, the other acts weren't completely devoid of plot holes or errors, I just didn't notice them because I was swept by the narrative and punchy action and thrills. The third act really sinks this film down.

There are also some notable...oddities in the film which I want to get into, but alas, spoiler waters ahead there be. These are kinda actual plot points in some cases, although pretty much all of the scenarios they are set in have been seen in the trailer. BUT ANYWAY.

SPOILERS

Quite a few times in the script action or plot points are spurred on by one sole person screwing up completely. This happens four times in the film. Maybe it's a message about how if there's one weak link the entire chain collapses or something, it was more funny than that to be honest. Here, this is what I got:

• Gerry's wife calls Gerry, creating noise and attracting the zombies, killing most people in the process.
• A woman sings into a microphone, encouraging other people to sing, unwittingly attracting zombies to their fortress, killing most people in the process
• A woman opens a cupboard in the plane unnecessarily, unleashing a stowaway zombie, infecting the passengers, killing most people in the process
• A guy partially opens a door, creating large noise, and then continues to OPEN THE DOOR MORE LOUDLY, attracting more zombies, putting everyone in extreme danger

I mean, that's too many counts, right? I dunno, I didn't dislike it, I just found it odd, certainly towards the end where it just came A BIT tedious. Oh and also, there's a moment which was meant to be taken entirely seriously and I just want to know if anyone else got this.

Okay so the scientist guy gets off the plane, zombies attack, he panics, slips and accidentally SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FACE. WHAT. I mean I guess it's possible but it just seems really weird. It was hilarious though. I love unintentional humor.

SPOILERS OVER

There's a great score with many tense pieces that go along well with the way the film is running, most notably Isolated System by Muse, which has a great rhythm and melodic simplicity that adds to the thrills and scares of the movie. 

The zombies themselves are great in this movie, and really reinforces the point made in 28 Days Later, there's nothing more terrifying than fast zombies. There are great awesome shots of waves of zombies cascading down streets and anthill like piles reaching skyward. There's also great make up used for them in the third act, when we're up more close and personal with them, which looks really good. Top marks my friends.

The ending to this movie, or what the characters are trying to achieve, is great, and although it doesn't make up for the oddly placed third act, it really brings home the themes of the film: Hope and Survival. It's feasible, makes sense and is actually quite clever, it portrays the zombies as something more intelligent than we would have previously believed.

So, is World War Z the film the die-hard book fans have been waiting for? I doubt it, but seeing as I haven't read the book I can't say for sure. But what it we have is a tense, action filled zombie movie, maybe less about family as the trailers would have us believe, but more about what something like this would do to people, less about the cause of the infection and more about what people do to ensure it stops. It's great fun for the scares and thrills, with great technical skill involved. Will it go viral in cinemas? Maybe, there's still a lot of risk for a zombie blockbuster. But like those in the zombie apocalypse, let's all hope for the best.

I give World War Z 3.5 stars out of 5

So what are your thoughts on World War Z? If you are a fan of the book, did the movie disappoint you?

Read More

Review: Man of Steel - You'll Believe A Man Can Fly

It was never going to be easy bringing back Ol' Supes. But it's been a certain amount of time since the last try, which popular culture has now decreed to be 'boring', 'bland' and 'not enough punching' (because obviously the original Donner films had loads of that, to which the movie was obviously a homage to), so it's time to have another one. This one went on a different track, re-doing the origin story, the first teasers showing a deep emotional film into the mechanics of making a superhero. Then we get the other trailers, you know the ones that remind you that Zack Snyder made this movie. Y'know, giant buildings collapsing, weird spider octopus thing attacking Superman, miniguns firing at Superman blah blah blah. There was some trepidation at this point, and early critic reviews seemed to show it as a blaring generic blockbuster. How was it I hear you ask? Here I go.

Where to start. The origin story is different from the Donner one, and not in a bad way. It replaces huge iconic factors, maybe, but it replaces them with things that make sense within this new world of Krypton and Earth. While this may annoy some people as a movie it makes sense, so there's no need to complain if something doesn't stick to comic book lore in a movie adaptation (see Iron Man 3).

The movie's first fifteen minutes or so are set on the beautiful world of Krypton. It works in complex and fulfilling back-story whilst setting up the rest of the plot very nicely. The visuals are vivid and rich coupled nicely with some great action blaring from all angles, without robbing any emotion from the scene. We're also introduced to 2 of the best characters in this movie, Russell Crowe's Jor-El and Michael Shannon's General Zod, both of them blending perfectly and making their scenes together astounding. A great start that concludes with the foreboding message from Zod to Kal's mother about her son, 'I WILL FIND HIM!' Lovely.

Once all of that is out of the way, we immediately cut to Henry Cavill's brooding Kal-El/Clark Kent walking about struggling with his emotions and powers which he has to use sparingly, jumping from one place to the other, never showing his face for too long. Interspersed with this we have some GREAT flashbacks of Clark through his childhood years, giving some lovely insight into him trying to helm his raw powers. These come hand in hand with Kevin Costner's amazing performance as Jonathan Kent. These crop up a few times more, one of which could easily bring people to tears. The first act is paced wonderfully, there was never a moment where I thought, "Ok this is nice, but where's Superman?" So far, so good.

Henry Cavill is great. Although never directly being called Superman, he gives a charismatic, intense and charming performance as a much loved and cherished superhero icon. Is he as good as Reeves? Well, my favorite part of Reeves was the bumbling, awkward Clark Kent, and there's no sign of that in this movie. The movies have completely different tones, this one is action-packed and emotional, whereas the original was charming and witty. Both excel in their aims, and thus lead to very different movies, and therefore different performances. If I was to directly compare them? Yes, Reeves was better. Cavill still shows he has what it takes though.

And with Clark Kent comes Lois Lane. Amy Adams does a great performance, with her character being used in a way it hasn't been used before, it pulls an Iron Man in the case of superhero identity. Her character is never the great love interest it was meant to be, she seemed to be more like a close sympathetic friend to Clark rather than a love interest. She serves the plot more than she did before though, which is good, but is seems this happens at the cost of that great romantic chemistry that is as famous as Superman himself. Here's hoping for the sequel.

When there's a hero, there's always a villain. General Zod. As said before, Michael Shannon gives a great performance, always being intense and frightening. He's more outwardly raging than Terence Stamp's sinister kneel-demanding criminal, which serves his character better in the fight sequences. Which there are a lot of. But it's not just endless action for this guy. Whole lotta emotion as well.

The movie in general has a lot of emotion, and is mainly centered around Kal-El and his struggles in choosing between a home that isn't his or one that he never experienced. It's a great focus for a Superman movie, and one that hasn't been touched on that much before, Superman has never felt so alien. I'll go into this a bit but beware of

SPOILERS.

The ending to this movie is brilliant. I can't remember a case where a) a villain was treated this way in a storytelling context and b) when we ever got such great emotion from it. It's one of my favorite superhero endings ever, it doesn't ultimately come down to a pay-off line and a push off something resulting in a happy conclusion, there is a genuine moral complexity to those final actions, and we can see the effects of it on Kal's face. A great ending if you excuse the ENTIRE DESTRUCTION OF THE CITY BEFOREHAND. Did that stick out to no-one as being like overly destructive? Oh well. It's fine.

SPOILERS OVER.

Hans Zimmer once again produces a great soundtrack, which doesn't hark back to the original Williams one. It has great emotional and epic depth to it. Why listen to me? Take a listen to it yourself.

Oh yeah, this movie was made by Snyder. Therefore, quite a lot of action. Superman has never been done before with loads of epic action, they kinda missed out on that chance in Returns. Now, we get high-octane, gut-wrenching, titan-clashing fights and punches and explosions and IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO LIKE. The way they handled the weaknesses of Superman in this movie are very interesting, they go into quite a lot of depth into what actually gives him his powers, which come hand in hand with his weaknesses, which he definitely has. This may not add a lot of tension to the fights, but it definitely helps overall. The fights are wonderful, there's huge amounts of brilliant and astounding special effects, overtaking the previous special effects laden blockbuster, Star Trek Into Darkness, when it comes to CGI masterpieces. There's entire worlds created flawlessly, Superman's powers are created, well, as realistically as an alien superhuman can be. It has a nice gritty, uncontrollable touch to them. One problem with the action sequences is that at one or two points in the final act you can definitely see where Snyder has left his muddy paw-print, just watch out for colossal city-leveling collateral damage or a the weird robot octopus thingy that kinda makes no sense. It just detracts from the overall experience.

One of the best scenes in the film is where Clark first flies after just receiving his Kryptonian costume. It's a great scene, he struggles to control his new found power at first, before gracefully soaring over many different wonderfully created landscapes, midst the sweeping tones of Hans Zimmer, a look of pure glee on Clark's face. To be honest, that pretty much summarizes the viewing experience for Man of Steel. You'll not only believe a man can fly, you'll see him soar. Good to have you back, Supes. 

I give Man of Steel 4 stars out of 5

So what'd you think of Man of Steel? Did it live up to your expectations or disappoint you? Let us know below.

Read More

Aaron Johnson Is A Possible Top Contender For Quicksilver In The Avengers 2

When news first broke that director Joss Whedon would be introducing the Maximoff twins Wanda and Pietro aka Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, the fan base was pretty surprised since the two are most notable for being the children of Magneto. The drama behind it is that Marvel Studios doesn't actually own the rights to Magneto or even the word "mutants", so it seemed to be a bit odd for Marvel to go with two characters who's origin will now be a challenge to explain. But things got even more stirred up just a few weeks ago, when director Bryan Singer shockingly revealed he too would be including the character of Quicksilver in his film X-Men: Days of Future Past. Two different studios, two different interpretations of the character, and only one year apart from each other. But as if that wasn't crazy enough now rumor has hit that Aaron Johnson is the top contender for the Quicksilver role in Avengers 2, where as his Kick-Ass co-star Evan Peters is playing the very same character for Fox. And so the soap opera continues.

The Wrap broke the news that Johnson is the top candidate on Marvel's wishlist for the role, and although there's been some schedule problems brought up they seem pretty set on him for the role. Aaron Johnson isn't exactly a very surprising actor to be considered for the role, having previously been a candidate for numerous other superhero roles including Spider-Man in Marc Webb's reboot, and the roles of both Beast and Cyclops in X-Men: First Class. Johnson's clearly grown and matured as an actor since being considered for those roles, and is now headlining a blockbuster film next summer in Gareth Edward's Godzilla reboot. While it's a bit odd for Marvel to pick up Johnson for such a key superhero role when he's already in the midst of playing the lead in the Kick-Ass series, he's got the look, age, and acting abilities for the Quicksilver role.

It's worth noting just how extensive Marvel gets when considering actors for their superhero lead roles, especially looking at the amount of actors who were speculated for the part of Star-Lord in James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy which included Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Eddie Redmayne, Michael Rossenbaum, Joseph Kasinski, Joel Edgerton, and many more before Chris Pratt eventually landed the role. With such a key new character joining alongside Earth's Mightiest Heroes, it can be assumed that Marvel's looking at a lot more young talent than just simply Aaron Johnson, although the fact that they're considering seems to give us a better idea of what version of the character they're planning to go with. Whedon seems to be going for a more adolescent Quicksilver, which means their probably looking at actresses around the same age for his twin sister Scarlet Witch. It had previously been rumored that Marvel had been looking at Hanna and The Host star Saoirse Ronan for the part of Scarlett Witch, and Johnson's involvement further supports those claims.

Whedon's definitely got the upper hand in my opinion in comparison to Singer with these two characters, as they were both original members of The Avengers, and Whedon's writing talent is sure to explore the character's brother sister relationship much deeper than Singer's would. While Singer may be able to access the Quicksilver's origin and connection with his father Magneto, it seems odd for him to just randomly show up now, especially considering the fact that Ian McKellen's Magneto is arguably way too old to have a teenage son. There's still the possibility that Quicksilver could be the son of the 1970s Magneto played by Michael Fassbender, but that still wouldn't explain his absence from the rest of the series. Singer himself has already pretty much admitted that Quicksilver is really just being featured for a key action sequence that he claims "only Quicksilver himself can perform" so don't expect Singer's Quicksilver to be any more than another mutant in the ensemble of Day of Future Past, where as he'll really be in the spotlight along with his sister in Avengers 2.

It'll be interesting to just see who does the better job handling these characters, and how audiences will react to having two different actors playing the same character in unrelated films. It'll also be ironic if Johnson does end up landing the role, and we'll have two actors whose careers were launched from the same movie (Kick-Ass) now playing the same superhero. We'll also be looking out for just how Whedon is going to explain the two characters origins without even being able to mention their birth father or why they have their powers, but I'm sure Whedon will find a way to beat around the bush while still being able to have it all make sense to audiences. At least I hope he will.

So how would you feel if Aaron Johnson played Quicksilver in Avengers 2? Do you think he'd do a better job in the role than Evan Peter's will?

Read More

Benecio Del Toro Joins Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy As Villain "The Collector"

It's pretty ironic that just a year ago Benecio Del Toro's name was attached to the villain Khan in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness, and now he's finally going to have his turn as a big sci-fi baddie. Del Toro joins an already very impressive cast for James Gunn's adaption of the Marvel comic Guardians of the Galaxy, which includes Chris Pratt (Zero Dark Thirty), Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek), Dave Bautista (The Man With The Iron Fists), and new additions Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs), Michael Rooker (The Walking Dead), Ophelia Lovegood (4.3.2.1.), Lee Pace (The Hobbit series), John C. Reilly (Wreck it Ralph), and Karen Gillan (Doctor Who). But while many of the casted actor's roles have yet to be specified, Del Toro's apparently set to play the central villain of the film who is none other than the previously speculated Collector.

News came in last week courtesy of Deadline that Del Toro (Che, Savages) had been cast in a lead villain role in Guardians, and that his character would also be featured in future Marvel films. This led many to assume that he was probably playing Thanos, which seemed odd since the role was already portrayed by Damion Pottier in The Avengers post credit scene. Well it turn out those assumptions turned out to be false and according to CBM Del Toro is really playing The Collector, who was previously confirmed to be included in the film back when Ophelia Lovegood was cast as the character's aid. Now it can be assumed that she will possibly be playing The Collector's daughter Carina Walters, which could mean we'll be seeing popular character Michael Korvac in the film.

Numerous other actors joined the cast of GOTG this past week, including the surprising pick of John C. Reilly, best known for his more comedic roles in movies like Stepbrothers and Talladega Nights, as well as more dramatic ones in Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and most recently voicing Ralph is Disney's Wreck it Ralph. Reilly will be playing a member of the Nova Corps. known as Rhomann Dey, who's character is said to play a similar role to Agent Coulson in the galactic side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While the original Rhomann Dey was an alien, it seems in this version while he'll still be a member of the Nova Corps, he'll be human and will somehow have a connection with Earth's S.H.I.E.L.D. organization.

The other big name that recently joined the GOTG cast is Glenn Close, best known for her roles in Fatal Attraction and recently in Albert Nobbs. Close was said to be one of numerous big name actors considered for the role which included Alan Rickman (The Harry Potter series), Ken Wantanbe (Inception), and Hugh Laurie (House). Close will be playing the leader of the Nova Corps according to Deadline, so with two members of the Nova Corps. already confirmed it's safe to assume we'll be seeing fan-favorite Richard Rider aka Nova at leas make an appearance in GOTG. 

The other recent cast addition is that of Doctor Who star Karen Gillan who will be playing a central villain of the film as well, yet that role has yet to be confirmed but speculation has suggested she could be playing Thanos' lover "Death". Gillan and Del Toro are two extra villains added to the film, with Lee Pace already previously confirmed as a villain in GOTG that will reportedly switch sides about half way through the film. It's worth noting the insane amount of speculation surrounding his role which includes popular Guardians characters Michael Korvac, Adam Warlock, and Nova/Richard Rider.

So how do you feel about all these new casting additions to Guardians of the Galaxy? Do you feel the movie has too many villains? And who do you guys think Lee Pace and Karen Gillan could be playing?

Read More

Penelope Cruz Could Be Playing The Next Bond Girl In Sam Mendes' Bond 24

The twenty fourth installment to the James Bond series and successor to last year's critically acclaimed Skyfall has been gracing the front pages of countless movie sites recently with all the drama surrounding whether director Sam Mendes (Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road) is set to return this time around or not, to the point even that a list of countless big name replacement directors was released. But now there's finally been a different Bond 24 related rumor circling around, and this one involves the addition of Penelope Cruz (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides) as the next Bond girl.  It's pretty coincidental (Or not) that her husband Javier Bardem just played the last Bond villain Silva in Skyfall, so her chances seem pretty high.

Cruz is a pretty unexpected choice when you compare her to past Bond girls of the franchise. Usually Bond girls aren't as experienced in film or as well known as Cruz, but it could payoff in giving us a much more interesting and less one dimensional love interest for Daniel Craig's Bond. I can definitely see Cruz getting in on all the action alongside Craig as opposed to standing on the sidelines, but my only problem is what this means for the dynamic between Bond and Naomie Harris' Moneypenny. Moneypenny wasn't as heavily featured in Skyfall in order for it to center more on M and Bond's relationship, but we already saw through the end of Skyfall that Moneypenny will now must likely play a larger role in Bond's adventures, something that we can assume was being setup for sequels. But now bringing Cruz in could mean yet another film where we see Bond more invested in a relationship with another female character, and still no screen time developing Moneypenny and Bond duo. Either that or we'll most likely be seeing a love triangle form between the characters, which is something that can definitely lead to a more intriguing situation for our protagonist.

As I said in the beginning of the article, there's been a lot of drama surrounding the twenty fourth Bond film and whether Sam Mendes would be coming back after he originally stated he wouldn't. Last week some huge names were released on the shortlist of directors being considered including Oscar winners Tom Hopper (Les Miserables, King's Speech) and Ang Lee (Life of Pi) as well as Shane Black (Iron Man 3), Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive, Only God Forgives) and David Yates (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and 2). But after all that speculation about who would be replacing Mendes, it looks like the producers are willing to wait for Mendes' schedule to clear up for him to not only direct Bond 24 but possibly even Bond 25.

Bond 25 would seemingly be the conclusion to Daniel Craig's run as Bond, paving the way for both a new director and actor to take on the series (Christopher Nolan and Henry Cavill FTW!). I'm honestly not a big fan of the style Mendes had brough to the Bond franchise, but I understand that many fans have been pretty pleased with the very different type of Bond flick he brought to the table with Skyfall. Having Mendes finish off the series in that style seems like a smart move, rather than just drastically changing the style to another director's vision of 007.  But hey, when Nolan takes over the Bond franchise, trust me that I'll be the first one to buy a ticket.

So do you think Penelope Cruz would make for a good Bond girl? Are excited Sam Mendes is coming back or would you have preferred if another director took the gig?

Read More

Henry Cavill In Talks To Replace Tom Cruise In Guy Ritchie's The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Henry Cavill. If you still don't recognize his name, well who can really blame you. Well with the release of Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is only two weeks away, it's safe to say the beginning of actor Henry Cavill's stardom thanks to his turn as Superman is about to approach it's peak. And it seems director Guy Ritchie (Sherlock Holmes) isn't oblivious to that fact and will be taking advantage of the actor's upcoming popularity. Cavill's now been casted as Ritchie's replacement for the Tom Cruise in his film The Man From U.N.C.L.E. where he'll star opposite The Lone Ranger's Armie Hammer.

It's funny now to think that Henry Cavill was once known as the unluckiest man in Hollywood after loosing out on playing James Bond to Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, Batman to Christian Bale in Batman Begins, both Edward Cullen and Cedric Diggory to Robert Pattinson in Twilight and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and even Superman himself to Brandon Routh in Superman Returns (Pretty ironic now). So now Cavill and put those days behind him as he's already in talks for The Man From U.N.C.L.E. The news comes following Tom Cruise's departure from the project in order to work on Mission Impossible 5, and with Cavill's schedule practically empty and his star power eminent, he definitely seems like a suitable (And smart) choice for Ritchie and Warner Bros.

Partnering Cavill with fellow rising star Armie Hammer seems to be a much smarter pair up than Cruise and Hammer was. Rumors were actually circling that Hammer is under DC's radar to portray the next Batman/Bruce Wayne, where he'd probably end up teaming up with Cavill's Superman eventually in a Justice League or Superman and Batman: World's Finest film. Could this be a test for WB to see if the two actors have enough chemistry together to do the same in a superhero team-up? That might be jumping to conclusions, but it's likely that the film's success could increase Hammer's chances at landing a DC superhero role in some form (Whether it's Batman or not).

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. will be based on the 1960's TV series of the same name, and it followed to secret agents who worked for U.N.C.L.E. (United Network Command for Law Enforcement) one a Russian named Illya Kuryakian (Who Armie Hammer is playing) and the other an American named Napoleon Solo (Who Cavill is in talks to to play). The movie's been through hell trying to get off the ground, with names such as George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Ben Affleck, Channing Tatum, and Bradley Cooper all being attached to star in the project at one point or another. Magic Mike and Contagion director Steven Soderbergh was also on board until the constant drop outs of lead actors caused him to leave as well and he was then replaced with Guy Ritchie. While Cruise's departure was another obstacle for the film, it seems they've finally found their footing with a young rising team-up of both Cavill and Hammer.

Do you think Henry Cavill is a good replacement for Tom Cruise in The Man From Uncle? Are you excited to see Cavill and Hammer together on screen?

Read More