Review: The Avengers Finally Assemble On Screen, But Does Joss Whedon Give Fan's Their Dream Team-Up?

The long wait is over; Earth's mightiest heroes have finally assembled together on the big screen. The moment we’ve been waiting for since Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury first meet Tony Stark in the Iron Man after credits scene. Whether you’re a Marvel fan or not, you can't ignore how big of an event and how monumental The Avengers really is. After a series of amazing origin film including Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, Marvel Studios hasn't missed a step while envisioning their ultimate goal; the team up of a lifetime. It's almost hard to believe Marvel Studios has really managed to bring this to the big screen, and more importantly just how perfect it was.

As great as it is seeing the ensemble of amazing characters meet up for the first time, it is also incredible seeing all these excellent actor sharing the screen. Robert Downey Jr., as usual, practically steals the show as Tony Stark. If there is anyone who fit their comic book counterpart perfectly, it’s Downey, and of course he offers the same charisma, humor, and sarcasm he has given throughout all the Iron Man series. Stark’s lines in the movie are some of the best, and it also great seeing how he has grown as a character since Iron Man and how he interacts with other character including Bruce Banner, and of course his rivalry with Steve Rogers. For such a key character to this film, both Downey and Whedon did an excellent job at doing him justice in the film, while still keeping this from being a too Iron Man focused film.

One of the biggest surprises of the film was Black Widow’s importance to the story, considering the fact that both in the marketing and in the actual comics she really doesn’t do much. But Whedon makes sure to give her a lot more to say here, and he gives her character a lot more to do this time around in comparison to in Iron Man 2. While I’ve never been a big fan of Scarlett Johansson being chosen to play Black Widow (Considering the fact she isn’t even Russian like the character is supposed to be), her role in The Avengers pretty much changes my mind, she even actually speaks Russian in the film. Johansson does a great job establishing the chemistry between Black Widow and Hawkeye, as well as her relationship with Stark and Banner.

Believe it or not the actual characters in the film that feels less focused on are Captain America and Thor, both of whom got great solo movies last year, and have been heavily marketed as well. Chris Evans does a pretty good job as Steve Rogers, while we do get to see a lot of Rogers confusion of being in a new time period, we really don’t get the full feel of the man out of time aspect that Rogers is going through because of everything else that is going on. Honestly I though Evans did a better job in The First Avenger, but I think that it helped that he was written more in depth there. What Evans does succeed at very well is pulling off the second half of the Stark/Rogers rivalry. While there was no question the RDJ would do great at it, I was a bit worried that Downey would out do Evans in those scenes, but he managed to pull it off well. Evans also does a great job at showing the natural leadership of Rogers, especially during the battle in the second half of the film.

Similar to Evans, Chris Hemsworth was also not as good as Thor as he was in his solo movie, mainly because he wasn’t as important here. I don’t really blame it on Hemsworth as opposed to how Thor was written in the film, but I’ll talk about that later. While Hemsworth doesn’t get as much chemistry with his teammates in comparison to other characters, we do get to see the famous head butting between Thor and the Hulk throughout the film, although it isn’t nearly as complex as the Stark and Rogers rivalry. Hemsworth really shines in some great scenes opposite Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, both of whom have great chemistry and their brother relationship really feels real, such as how Thor still sympathizes over his brother and still sees good in him.

And now I’ll get to the most important performance in the film, the villain, Tom Hiddlestion’s Loki. While we got to see a sort of preview of just how evil Loki could be in Thor, for the most part of the film he really came off as more of an angered son who was betrayed and was looking for revenge, and he was actually a character who you could sympathize for. While this aspect of the character was good to introduce in an origin, in order for him to be a much more menacing antagonist to the Avengers, both Whedon and Hiddleston have really evolved him into a truly evil rival. It seems hard to go from A to B so quickly, but the film does a good job at showing how Loki has grown and what has really driven him to become what he is now. Hiddleston gives a fantastic performance, which could’ve already been predicted from his work in Thor, but here he really has the chance to go all out with Loki. He is by far one of the better superhero villains that we have seen on screen recently, not nearly on the level of Heath Ledger’s Joker of course, but he really makes for a great threatening and vicious mastermind behind the Avengers problems.

One of the most controversial aspects of The Avengers was the last minute recasting of Bruce Banner/Hulk. I personally was a fan of Edward Norton’s portrayal of Bruce in The Incredible Hulk, and I was excited to him meet paths with Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark. So I must admit I was pretty disappointed to hear the negotiations between him and Marvel fell through. But as soon as I heard Mark Ruffalo was taking his place, I couldn’t have been happier. Ruffalo does a better job then Norton probably would have, he really has great chemistry with the cast, and is able to pull of the shy yet frustrated Bruce Banner. Unlike with Norton he also makes it very believable that when Bruce becomes the Hulk, there is still a little bit of Bruce in there. It helps that the special effects this time around for the Hulk actually carry out a lot of Ruffalo’s features and facial expressions onto Hulk’s face. While it is still Lou Ferrigno voicing Hulk and not Ruffalo, he does get a few lines in there and the size/personality of the Hulk this time around is much more accurate to his comic book counterpart, a version of the character that works much better in the team up with Avengers. Looking back I honestly can’t see Norton’s Hulk working as well as Ruffalo’s, so even if it wasn’t really planned, it ended up working in Marvel’s favor.

The special effects in the movie were really a marvel to watch (No pun intended). Like I said earlier the effect for Hulk this time around weren’t as over the top as The Incredible Hulk, although The Incredible Hulk’s version did look much more muscular and menacing, I think the changes ended up making him much closer to the comic book version (No exactly very tall and ripped, but a more monster like body to him). There are some scenes where the Hulk’s effect do look a little bit shaky, such as when he is in a smaller environment like the Hellacarrier. But by the time we get to the final battle the Hulk couldn’t have been better, providing some of the best action sequences of the film, and even comedic ones.

The aliens in the movie known as the Chitauri have a pretty cool design to them, but while some CGI bits of them were a little bit dodgy, overall the provided a cool and interesting physical opponent for The Avengers. I was a bit disappointed that the Chitauri were sort of generic in the film, not offering as much interest or threat as some other aliens that the Avengers come face to face with in the comics, such as the Skrulls (They can shape shift into anyone and can actually speak). But I can see why Whedon and Marvel didn’t want to go with any aliens that were to big, because due to already having Loki already as the primary villain and time constraints, aliens like the Skrulls couldn’t have been done right in such little time, but they still would’ve been cooler.

A key element to a big blockbuster like this is a score that matches the epic scale of the film, and Alan Silvestri’s score couldn’t have been a better fit. It is able to catch a classic action/adventure vibe to it that will surely be iconic years from now, and while I was nervous that he’s score would be too similar to his Captain America score, it really stand it’s grown as it’s own while still have some hints of Cap’s score in there for some scenes that just involve Rogers. The score slightly reminded me of Henry Jackman’s score for X-Men: First Class which is definitely a good thing because it is the perfect music for a superhero team up film.
Many people will probably say that the hero that didn’t really get their fair share in the film was Hawkeye, considering the fact that he wasn’t even on the team till the end of the film. But honestly I thought the fact that they made him an antagonist for half the film actually helped him get much more screen time than he would’ve if he was just hanging out with the team. So even though he missed out on a lot of the important moments that evolved the team in the first half of the film, his presence there wouldn’t have been of much use anyway. In my opinion the hero that actually didn’t play as a big a role as I was hoping for was Thor. I loved Thor in his solo movie last year, but for some reason here I didn’t feel like he was as involved with the team as he should’ve been. Must of Thor’s standout scenes and dialogue were really between him and Loki, and not him and the team. While I still liked Chris Hemsworth’s portrayal as Thor in the film, and I think he got some great action scenes, I just didn’t feel like he was as big of a part of the team as he should’ve been. Bruce, Tony, Steve, and Natasha all had great dialogue between each other and their relationships with each other were well established, as opposed to Thor who was just sort of there. Maybe it was done on purpose because Thor doesn’t have as much in common with them because he’s a god, but that’s just a guess.

The costumes this time around honestly were a bit disappointing, and they actually felt like a downgrade from their costumes in there solo movies. Captain America’s suit had to be my least favorite, I personally loved Cap’s suit in the First Avenger and I thought it had the right balance between the comic book costumes, as well as actual soldier equipment and a more rough and realistic look. I makes sense that he gets a new suit considering the fact that it’s been seventy years since he last wore it, but I was expecting just slight modifications to the old suit. Unfortunately there was practically nothing left of the old suit, and everything from the helmet to the actual costume looked kind of ridiculous on Chris Evans. I really hope the bring back some of the more realistic and rough design they had the first time around in a sequel.

On the other hand, Iron Man’s suit as usual is fantastic, with many upgrades from his suit in Iron Man 2. We actually get to see two new suits in the film; the Mark VI and Mark VII, but the real main suit in the film is the Mark VII. It definitely offers a much wider variety of weaponry for Stark to us against the Chitauri, including laser beam gauntlets and four missile launchers, which really provide for some great action moments as well as making Iron Man’s physically more equipped to take such powerful enemies. While it is a bit disappointing that we don’t get to see the Hulkbuster armor that was rumored to be in the movie, Whedon makes up for that by making the Mark VII very different from it’s predecessors. Just the way Stark actually puts on the suit is a pretty visually impressive moment in the film, that manages to out do any of the previous ones from the Iron Man franchise.

Hawkeye and Black Widow’s costumes are both pretty basic, considering in the film they are really just agents of SHIELD. Black Widow’s costumes is pretty much identical to her costume in the comics and Iron Man 2, but this time around she has the bullet gauntlets that she uses in the comics. Hawkeye on the other hand doesn’t use his original comic book costume, which is definitely a good thing since the original suit is pretty ridiculous (It’s basically a purple Wolverine suit). It takes influence from Hawkeye’s costume in the ultimate comics, where Hawkeye pretty much just wears sunglasses rather than a mask. Although it did look similar to the Ultimate suit, it actually seemed more simple than that, and in the end his suit was a bit disappointing. His suit looked too much like a basic SHIELD uniform rather than an actual superhero costume, which seemed to have been what they were going for but at the same time kind of misses the point of Hawkeye being considered a superhero in the first place. It did look pretty cool though, for an agent’s uniform, and is was cool to see an upgraded mechanical version of Hawkeye’s arrow dispenser, it was just a little underwhelming.

Thor also had two costumes this time around, one that is more reminiscent of his Ultimate comics’ suit, and the other pretty much the same one he wore in his solo movie. While it was cool to see a version of the Ultimate suit, I was glad that the reverted back to the original suit once we got to the more action packed half of the film. While the first costume was a cool nod to the Ultimate comics, it almost made Thor not even look like a god, as opposed to his original suit that has a lot of more Norse and Viking type armor to it. Thor still doesn’t wear his helmet here, which is a bit disappointing since he wore it for the beginning of Thor, but I wasn’t really expecting him to wear it. Loki’s costume is actually a huge improvement over his previous costume in Thor, unlike Thor he wears his iconic helmet throughout the film. The new costume helps display him as much more godlike and as a leader in comparison to his old suit, and it makes him looks for menacing and royal, which is an actual change Loki’s character has gone through since Thor.

With so many amazing characters fighting side by side, well performed quotable scenes, none stop action, and an after credits scene that will leave some comic book fans speechless, it's safe to say Joss Whedon and Marvel have done it. In the end, Marvel was successfully able to pull off one of the biggest cinematic events ever through The Avengers, meshing all these popular heroes and storylines all into one epic film. This is just the beginning for Marvel's cinematic universe as we now wait for what's to come from the heroes own sequels including Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and of course all the other beloved Marvel characters that have now have had the door to the MCU opened for them including the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Dr. Strange, and many more. The possibilities for the MCU are endless, your move DC.

I give The Avengers 4.5 Out of 5 stars:

And if you haven't seen it yet here's the trailer for The Avengers:

What did you think of The Avengers? Did it live up to your expectations?

Read More

A Helpful Primer for HBO’s Game of Thrones

Guest post by Samantha. If you want to guest post too, see the requirements here. So you only recently paid attention to the buzz surrounding the HBO hit-series Game Of Thrones, and it sounds like something you’d totally watch, but you’re a season behind the current action. Also, you’re intimidated by all the media coverage of the series that describes the series as dense, complex, rich with dozens of characters, and filled with countless settings. Don’t be intimidated! The series is much more approachable than critics would have you think, and it’s definitely worth your time to watch.

That being said, I should warn you: when you start the first season, you will feel intimidated at the sheer number of plots and characters introduced within the first half hour. But don’t despair! The writers of the show do a great job of explaining events and characters as the show progresses. If you want a little extra help understanding people, places, and events in Game of Thrones, consider this straightforward (and spoiler-free) primer.

The basics: setting

Game of Thrones is primarily set on the fictional continent known as Westereos, a world imagined by the author George R. R. Martin, whose books—collectively known as A Song of Ice and Fire—serve as the source material for the series. Westeros is a fantasy realm set in a medieval time, where lords and ladies rule territories, knights fight for honor, and hardships abound for the vast majority of peoples without means. the continent is divided up by the various royal houses that rule them, and are collectively called “The Seven Kingdoms,” all of which swear fealty to the king, Robert Baratheon, who lives in the southern part of the continent in King’s Landing.

The Seven Kingdoms are varied at unique, each one dominated by the distinct personality of their ruling house. For instance, the Lancasters rule the Midwestern area of the continent, whose capital is Casterly Rock. To the north is the wintery land ruled by the Stark family (who are the main characters of the series), and to the very south of Westeros is a desert like country of the Dornish ruled by the rich Martell family. Though The Seven Kingdoms are at peace at the opening of the series, they all have a history of waging wars among each other, for many royal family want to consolidate their power and extend their influence.

To the north of the Seven Kingdoms is the Wall, a huge structure miles long that spans the icy northern wilderness. Much of the series takes place along the Wall, as this is where strange events occur that lead those who defend it, the Night’s Guard, to think that trouble is stirring which could threaten the whole kingdom.

The basics: story

The story begins during a relatively peaceful time in The Seven Kingdoms. Robert Baratheon has ruled for some years since leading a rebellion to oust and kill the then-king, whose daughter and son (Daenerys and Viserys, respectively) are now on the run in a continent outside of Westeros and serve as main characters of the series. The events of the pilot episode are sparked by a death in King’s Landing of the king’s most trusted advisers, which causes him to travel north to ask the head of the house Stark, Lord Eddard Stark, to become his new adviser. Thus the pilot episode focuses on the goings on at Winterfell, the seat for the royal family of Stark as they prepare for the arrival of the king.

You’ll meet a seemingly endless array of characters in the first episode, but there are two main houses to keep in mind as you watch: the Lannisters and the Starks. These two houses are diametrically opposed from the very start, and their conflicts serve as the impetus for many of the events in the series. The Lannisters are a powerful and wealthy family, and Cersei Lannister is the queen of The Seven Kingdoms, married to Robert Baratheon. The Lannister’s wealth, cunning, and elitist attitude have made them the most powerful family in the realm, and none of them are happy at the prospect of doing business with the northern Starks, a comparatively modest and humble family.

The events that unfold between these two families in the first episode will almost definitely make you want to watch the next episode and the one after that. It’s a lot to take in for a one-hour TV show, but the characters are complex and the stories are fascinating, so why not give the series a try?

About the Author:

This guest contribution was submitted by Samantha Gray, who specializes in writing about online bachelors degree. Questions and comments can be sent to: samanthagray024@gmail.com.

Read More

Review: Is The Hunger Games An Unfaithful Adaption Of The Book, Or Are The Odds Really In It's Favor?

Now a days in Hollywood book to movie adaptions are almost as dangerous as video game adaptions. Most of them are negatively received from frustrated fans because of changes and eliminations of certain aspects of the book, and I have to admit to being one of them. Well in recent months I've become a huge fan of The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, and the film adaption has made it's way to one of my most anticipated films. And now it's arrived, and while it's no Harry Potter, it's also no Twilight, and it's probably one of the most faithful book adaptions we've seen yet.

 In the near future, an event known as The Hunger Games is taken place each year in a country known as Panem, which has replaced the now fallen North America. Panem is split into twelve districts, each one making it mandatory that every boy and girl between the ages twelve and eighteen participates in the annual Reaping, where one boy and one girl are chosen from each district (Known as tributes). Then they are trained and prepared before they must battle to the death in an arena controlled and designed by the Gamemakers of the Capitol.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is a teenage girls living in District 12 with her mother and her sister Prim. District 12 is by far the poorest district (1 and 2 being the richest), and the only way Katniss manages to maintain her family's survival, is by hunting with her best friend Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth). But thing take a drastic turn of events when Katniss' sister Prim is chosen as the District 12 tribute, only to have Katniss volunteer to take her place.

It is then that Katniss meet fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), and together the two are brought to the Capitol and are mentored by previous District 12 Hunger Games winner Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), who is more of a drunk than actual help at first. They are also supported by perky chaperon Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), and stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), the two are quickly well supported to share the arena with the likes of fellow tributes Foxface, Rue, and Thresh, and also survive the Career Tributes; Clove, Glimmer, Marvel, and the vicious Cato (Alexander Ludwig).

For the most part the story stays intact and in order, which is something rarely done in most book adaption. What really kept the movie from just being an average teen film was it's spot on casting, especially the casting of some actors other book adaptions would kill for (No pun intended). Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks both gave spot on performances as Effie and Haymitch, bringing the same fun polar-opposites relationship they had in the first book to the big screen. While I had my doubts about Harrelson as Haymitch (Mainly because he didn't fit the character's physical description), he nailed everything from his sarcastic humor to his drunk antics.

While the tributes didn't last too long or have many lines, for the most they all physically fit they're book counterparts, and seemed just as threatening as I had imagined while reading. Two spot on tribute castings were Dayo Okeniyi, who fits Thresh like a glove, and as does Jacqueline Emerson as the sneaky scavenger Foxface (She really does have a fox's face, no offense to her). The career tributes are also all pretty well casted, looking vicious during fight scenes, and physically imposing in comparison to their fellow tributes, especially Alexander Ludwig as Cato. And of course Amandla Stenberg couldn't have been a better choice for Rue, becoming a likable character in an instant despite her lack of screen time.

The people of the Capitol were also just as over the top and crazy as they were described in the book. A big highlight of both the book and movie for me was the character Caesar Flickerman, a TV host played brilliantly here by Stanley Tucci (The man's a chameleon), and he makes the character a complete scene stealer, and one that you'll remember long after the films over. One of the main difference between the book and movie is the fact that we finally get to see the Gamesmaker's at work  behind the scenes of the games, and with that comes the inclusion of new character Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley). While he gets some cool lines with President Snow (Donald Sutherland), he really isn't a necessary character, and his importance is sort of forced onto the audience, when we really want to see more of other characters (Notably Rue and Peeta). Speaking of President Snow, Gary Ross nailed it on the head with the casting of Donald Sutherland, who is Snow in the flesh from his menacing voice to his snake like eyes. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing more of Sutherland in Catching Fire.

As for the main players in the movie, while I was a bit optimistic at first, it seems Gary Ross' unexpected casting choices for Katniss, Peeta, and Gale all turned out to be close to perfect. While I was wondering why the marketing of the film has advertised Gale as a main character (When he really is hardly in the book), the film manages to make Gale a very likable character, he gets quite a lot of screen time in the beginning and even during the games (Via watching that is). Liam Hemsworth actually turned out to be the spitting image of the Gale I imagined, and the relationship he has with Katniss is portrayed perfectly. Jennifer Lawrence was also an excellent fit for Katniss, showing all of Katniss' emotions and anger during the games nearly identically to her book counterpart. 

Peeta on the other hand was probably the character who I was most disappointed with. Not because I think Josh Hutcherson did a bad job, if anything he could've been a perfect Peeta if hadn't been for the fact that Peeta was completely robbed in the film. He was robbed of character development and screen time, and even importance. While some will complain that Rue's screen time wasn't as long as it should have been, I can except that much more than less time for a character as important as Peeta. Towards the beginning of the movie Peeta had equal importance to his book counterpart, and he had many lines and scenes before the games started, but from then on the character sort of faded.

BE CAUTIOUS SPOILERS AHEAD. I've read the book so I understand that Peeta is supposed to disappear when he joins the Careers, but after that his relationship with Katniss felt very rushed, as well as his time being sick. In the book Katniss and Peeta's relationship really flourishes in the cave, and you care much more about him because he's dying of infection. I can understand why some unnecessary time was cut from the cave, but they even cut off some parts that wouldn't have taken too long, and could've really developed his character (Such as him nearly being dead when they win the games, and his leg being amputated). Because of this the pacing felt off since the movie started off at a slow pace, and hardly missing any detail (To the point that it actually got kind of slow at parts) but in reality that time could've been used for much stronger character development for Peeta.



Ultimately, The Hunger Games is a great movie and a great adaption of the novel. Despite some important parts and character screen time being cut from the film, fans of the books shouldn't be disappointed by the film's amazing cast and preservation of the story. It manages to pull off all of the crazyness and evil of the Capitol, hardships and cruelty of the games, and the standard slums of District 12 from Suzanne Collin's book all with pefect balance I'd go as far as to say that The Hunger Games has been my favorite film of the year as of yet. With a whole series still to come, The Hunger Games has a very bright future ahead of it, but unfortanelty Katniss Everdeen doesn't.

I give The Hunger Games 4 out of 5 stars:

And here's the trailer for The Hunger Games:

What did you think if the Hunger Games? Are you going to see it?

Read More

The Killing's Joel Kinnaman Rumored To Be The Next RoboCop

With Hollywood remaking so many movies now, almost none of the classics are safe, and 1987's RoboCop is no exception. The reboot has had many rumored faces attached to it's leading role, including Chris Pine (Star Trek), Russell Crowe (Gladiator), and Michael Fassbender (X-Men First Class). Now, Swedish actor Joel Kinnaman's name can be added to the long list of contenders for our future RoboCop.

Deadline reports that MGM has just made an offer to Kinnaman to star in their upcoming film. Kinnaman  is probably best known for playing detective Stephen Holder on AMC's The Killing. He's also had roles in last December's alien thriller Darkest Hour, the Oscar nominated The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and most recently in the Denzel Washington action film Safe House. Kinnaman was even on Kenneth Branagh's shortlist to star as Thor, and is attached to the upcoming film Arthur and Lancelot as Lancelot himself. So as you can see, Kinnaman is becoming a pretty popular guy in Hollywood.

To be honest, Kinnaman isn't the first to come to mind when thinking of someone to replace Peter Weller as RoboCop. But then again, maybe a different type of RoboCop is just what this film needs, and just what MGM is going for judging by the previous actors they've considered. I haven't seen enough of Kinnaman's work to say he'd be a great Alex Murphy/RoboCop, but as long as he's on par with Weller's performance, he should be fine. My personal choices for RoboCop would probably be Aaron Eckhart or Patrick Wilson, but that's for more of a Weller imitation than a fresh take.

The Brazilian director José Padilha is helming the film, who is best known for his work on the Elite Squad film series (Which first film is still the highest grossing film of all time in Brazil). The Elite Squad films are a bit similar to RoboCop, also being police action dramas. The films is also being scripted by Gran Torino writer Nick Schenk, so it seems to be in good hands. Padilha has discussed his approach on the RoboCop story before, and here is what he had to say on it:

“Wars in the future are going to be fought with drones. We won’t send a plane with a pilot in, it will be drone. It’s getting that way now and ten years from now that’s how wars are going to be fought. But what if a drone goes wrong – who is to blame then? Do you blame the drone? And that problem asks if you can you consider a robot guilty of a crime. Or is it the corporation that made the robot that is guilty? How do you fight back against drones when you don’t have drones?”

The RoboCop reboot will be joining a number of remakes which take place in the future, such as this years Total Recall with Colin Farrell, and Judge Dredd starring Karl Urban. The RoboCop film still has a long way to go, and there's still no telling whether original villains Dick Jones and Clarence Boddicker will return, or a whole new story will be taken on. None the less, there's no doubt some changes have to be made for RoboCop to still feel futuristic, and I would love to see these awesome suit designs:

What do you think of Joel Kinnaman as Robocop? Are you excited for a reboot?

Read More

William Fichtner Replacing Dwight Yoakam As The Lone Ranger Villain

There was a time just a few months ago where it seemed that Gore Verbenski's The Longer Ranger film (Which has been in development hell since way back in 2002) was going to suffer another set back and be delayed, due to an over expensive budget of $250 million dollars. But now it seems that the film is back on track (With a much more reasonable budget I assume), and it's next big move has been replacing country singer Dwight Yoakam for William Fichtner as the title villain.

Fichtner will be replacing Yoakam as the popular Lone Ranger villain Butch Cavendish, a leader of a band of outlaws. In the original tale Cavendish and his crew leave John Reid (Armie Hammer) for dead, that is until he is rescued by the Native American Tonto (Johnny Depp). Tonto trains Reid to become the Lone Ranger, and eventually joins him as his sidekick as they seek revenge on Cavendish. So as you can see, Cavedish plays a pretty important role in the origins of the Lone Ranger.

According to Deadline, principal photography was just about to start up on the film, when Yoakam had to drop out due to scheduling issues. Fichtner will be joining a so far very impressive cast, including leading men Armie Hammer (Social Network) and Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Helena Bonham Carter (Alice in Wonderland), Barry Pepper (True Grit), Ruth Wilson (Luther), Tom Wilkinson (Batman Begins), and James Badge Dale (The Grey).

You might not recognize Fichtner at first, but he's probably been in a lot of your favorite films and you haven't even noticed (He's more of a background guy, but still leaves an impression). His credits include The Dark Knight, Heat, Contact, Black Hawk Down, The Perfect Storm, Crash, Date Night, Armageddon, and most notably as The Accountant in Drive Angry 3D. And he's also had television roles in Prison Break, and Entourage, so basically the guy is the perfect villain for any movie.

Whether you have doubts about the movie because of Verbenski's directing, or Depp as Tonto, there's no denying that the film is rounding up a very impressive cast, who also seem to fit well in a Western genre film (With the exception of Carter, who seems to be a bit out of place here). With all the problems the film has gone through, it'll be very interesting to see how it turns out. Look for The Lone Ranger in theaters May 31, 2013.

What do you think of Fichtner as Cavendish? Are you excited about The Lone Ranger?

Read More

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson May Be Brett Ratner's Hercules

Recently between the release of Tarsem Singh's Immortals, and the upcoming sequel Wrath of the Titans, movie about humans in Greek mythology seems to be more popular than movies about the gods themselves. And now comes another one from X-Men: The Last Stand director Brett Ratner, based on the graphic novel Hercules: The Tharcian Wars, and The Rock himself is being eyed for the starring role.

According to Vareity's Jeff Snyder's Twitter page:

"VARIETY EXCLUSIVE: Can you smell what HERCULES is cooking? TheRock is in talks to star in MGM & Brett Ratner’s HERCULES!!!"

While the story of Hercules is probably mostly known for it's Disney animation portrayal, the graphic novel that the film will be based off of has a completely different approach. Rather than being from Greece, Hercules is actually in the barbarian nation Thrace, where he has to take the Thracian's kings orders and train the Tharcian army for war. Now, while the Rock might not have seemed the best choice for a classic Greek Hercules, he fits this more barbaric version much better. My personal choice for Hercules would be Joe Manganeillo, but while he fits the Greek Hercules perfectly, a think he could also tackle the barbaric version as well.

The Rock has been in the spotlight quite a bit lately, whether for good or bad. He's done a very wide array of movies recently including last years action blockbuster Fast Five, this years kids film Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, and later this year he'll be starring in G.I. Joe Retaliation, which falls somewhere in between the latter and former. If the Rock choses to except the role, it'll really tackle a much more similar role to The Rock's first films including Scorpion King and The Mummy Returns. The Rock may not be award winningly amazing on screen, but he's definitely got a lot of charisma to pull off a leading role like Hercules.

As for the films director Brett Ratner, there's much more room for concern with him. Ratner's work on the not so well recieved X-Men: The Last Stand is enough to have me worried, and then there's this year's highly hyped (But not so successful) Tower Heist, and not to mention his nack for getting in trouble (So much so, that he ruined Eddie Murphy's chance at hosting this years Oscars). While Ratner has definitely had some mishaps, that isn't to say that he can't pull of a decent entertaining action flick. I guess we'll all have to see how this adaption turns out come 2014.

What do you think of the Rock as Hercules? Do you think Brett Ratner can pull it off?

Read More

Christian Bale Drops Out Of Darren Aronofsky's Noah, Michael Fassbender Set To Replace Him

Darren Aronofsky didn't turn down the X-Men Origins: Wolverine sequel The Wolverine for nothing, and that something was the biblical epic Noah, based on a comic book Aronofsky wrote himself. After Christian Bale was recently rumored for the part, it's now official that he has passed on the offer and Aronofsky is now eyeing Michael Fassbender to take his place.

Read More