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?
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 ofDeadline 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 (TheHarry 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?
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?
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'sArmie 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?
I think it's safe to assume that as soon as J.J. Abrams' was announced as the director of Disney's Star Wars: Episode VII, fans of his rebooted Star Trek series became worried he wouldn't be coming back for the third installment. Well it seems that those fans' nightmare is coming true, as the first replacement name in the director's chair for Star Trek 3 has already been leaked. So who's the brave director rumored to be taking the reigns from Abrams? None other than British director Joe Cornish, best known for his collaborations with Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) and his directional debut with the critically acclaimed independent sci-fi film Attack the Block back in 2011.
Abrams' sequel to the already successful (Yet extremely risky) reboot of the classic TV show; Star Trek Into Darkness, has already fared well both financially and critically. The momentum for the series next film has already been set in motion, so it's needless to say that the anticipation for Star Trek 3 is definitely apparent by Paramount. With Abrams busy with his directional duties on Star Wars: Episode VII, the question of whether they'll wait for Abrams to return for the third film or will he just be replaced still remain lingering. But rumors suggest that the studio is indeed already looking at a list of candidates to replace Abrams, and the name headlining the list is Joe Cornish.
Cornish isn't exactly the first guy who'd come to mind when thinking of who'd continue Abram's Star Trek films, which has now become a such a massive special effect filled series of summer blockbusters. While Attack the Block has been widely considered by critics to be a return to the classic more low budget sci-fi films of the past which include much more character development and less over the top CGI, is it really a style that fits the current Trek series?
While Abram's Star Trek films do include all the big CGI and action set pieces we expect in summer blockbusters, it's characters have still remained at the heart if it's script, and writer Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci haven't missed a beat with the humor and original traits of these classic characters. Cornish is also a well known writer who's been able to translate his unique sense of humor on screen, and most importantly; people actually find it funny. Bringing someone like Cornish on board could be just what the series needs if Abrams actually departs, and while he may lack the blockbuster helming experience that many people are concerned about, the guy's collaborated in the writing department on some of Edgar Wright's best work to date. Not to mention he'd be reteaming with popular Wright collaborator Simon Pegg as Enterprise crew member Scotty, which could lead to some funny as hell character moments. Even if he doesn't end up directing, having Cornish involved some how with the film's script would definitely me a step in the right direction.
Now it's still open to assumption as to just what other names are on this director shortlist for Star Trek 3. With so many young up and coming sci-fi directors in the game right now including Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy, Oblivion), Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Elysium), Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) my personal favorite Rian Johnson (Looper), and even Edgar Wright himself, Paramount is hopefully at least taking some of these directors into consideration. In other words, expect a lot of new names popping up for the gig left and right in the coming months.
So who would you trust in the director's chair for Star Trek 3 if Abrams doesn't return? Is Joe Cornish a good enough replacement for you? Leave your thoughts below.
Fast and Furious; a movie that has evolved over the course of years from a almost childish and comical film to what is now a full blown saga worth watching. After The Fast and Furious, the series grew more aggressive and built itself into a more mature storyline. Fast Five proved that the Fast and Furious films had potential with the addition of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as a formidable opponent. Now with Fast and Furious 6, we have a film that can serve itself as a stand alone film, yet it proves effective when looking back on the prior films.
Fast and Furious 6 has embellished itself within the best cinematography possible for the region of fast paced story telling director Justin Lin uses. The amazing shots during long race sequences help keep things fresh and exciting rather than the typical dragged and boring car chases of other films. With plot twists, tie ins, and a crazy after credit scene, fans and viewers alike are in for a treat. The action is well paced and well timed, and the villain Owen Shaw is one I would love to see return if possible, and is a threat that to the heroes themselves is a force to be reckoned with.
Another thing well placed throughout the film is comedy. The comedy is light hearted and works well relieving the very emotional tones in some regions. In my opinion the cast did a phenomenal job, yet there is one problem with the film; the brushed over plot, which concerns a military chip that is suppose to power a device known as nightshade. While it's understandable that this a film (And technically the entire series) is relying much more on character personalities and action then actual creative storytelling, Owen's motivations are pretty vague and hard to believe. But Luke Evans' outstanding and menacing performance is able to help overcome the character's significant motivational flaws.
In terms of acting, Sung Kang, Luke Evans, Vin Diesel, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson all gave pretty believable performances. Chris Bridges and Tyrese Gibson helped influence a lot of the comedic portion of the film which worked extremely well amongst the audience, I even caught myself giggling at some of the remarks made (baby oil). Supporting characters held up their end of the roles so the film did not seem as though it were Vin Diesel, The Rock, Paul Walker, and friends, but more of a complete cast of people who portrayed the fact that they were criminals turned heroes at the end of the day.
Another big aspect of these movies are the vehicles, some of the more exotic being seen in the background (The Ferrari Italia 458), some being custom made such as the cool ramp cars used by Owen Shaw, and some not even there like the Ferrari Enzo replica. The ramp cars being custom made for the film were cool, not over used and abused, consistently pointing out the fact that they are one of a kind, but interesting enough to be something noticeable and memorable. Slowly Fast and Furious is improving the car brands displayed which helps improve viewer interest.
So with all said and done, the film makes viewers like myself anxious for what Fast and Furious 7 has in store. Supposedly to be filming in Los Angeles, it will be interesting to see what hot cars, hot women, and deep twist in storyline the Fast and Furious saga has waiting for fans. But for now, it's safe to say this series has definitely proven itself as one of the most successful action sagas currently in production.
I give Fast and Furious 6 4 out of 5:
What are your thoughts and comments on the newest Fast and Furious film? Leave your thoughts below!
Widely considered as the greatest piece of American literature of all time, F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby has been converted to screen countless times, starting in a 1926 stage adaptation, rumored to be the best of the bunch, but alas has been lost, with the trailer only remaining. The most notable is the 1974 version starring Robert Redford, a film I never really liked because it was such a direct adaptation of the source, making it quite dull and bland at times. A very forgettable TV movie was made in the year 2000 starring Paul Rudd which was kind of dire. So it was about time Romeo + Juliet's Baz Luhrmann got his hands on such a classic piece. All looks good then? Oh yes and Jay Z is the executive producer. W-what. I don't mean that's bad, the executive producer has very little creative input in the final product of a film, it just seemed really odd. Oh well, on with the review.
Let's start with the cast. Reading the book for the first time, and about a year before I had seen the film, I imagined the protagonist to be like DiCaprio, and he really fits the character. He can be smug, kind, emotional, angry, just as the character needs. A risk of casting him would be that like, for example, some Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt films where the audience will only see the actor rather than the character because they are so famous. This wasn't really a problem here, with Leo convincingly portraying a much-loved and notorious literature character without us having to relate to his real life famous persona. Which is all lovely.
Tobey Maguire, not so much. He was never really a great actor, one of the reasons Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 worked so well was that they were good despite the fact he was their star. He performs as well as Tobey does, but he suffers just muttering his lines with little emotion, except for anger and awe. That being said, those characteristics are very important to Nick Carraway's character, so there's no real harm done. Not exceptional but by no accounts offensive.
Carey Mulligan performs excellently as Daisy Buchanan, she nails the frivolous innocence and confusion that's vital to the character, and she has great chemistry with all he other cast members, including DiCaprio, which only strengthens her scenes and her relationships onscreen. Very nice.
Her husband Tom, as played by Zero Dark Thirty and Warrior's Joel Edgerton, is absolutely brilliant, and I feel that the film lights up when he's onscreen. He's threatening, but in the same way that Christoph Waltz is threatening in Inglourious Basterds, meaning that he doesn't have to be overtly menacing to become sinister. That said, when he does get angry, he really is threatening. Very good acting and great representation of the character, with great chemistry with all, especially his mistress Myrtle (Isla Fisher).
Talking of Isla Fisher, I'll talk about the rest of the supporting cast. Not as strong, I'm afraid, not from an acting perspective but mainly from a writing angle. They're characters never really amount to anything important, except for when the script applies to them, which happens once for each of them. Isla Fisher's Myrtle has very little interaction with her husband Wilson (Zero Dark Thirty's Jason Clarke). The book's love interest for Nick, Jordan (played by Elizabeth Debicki) doesn't actually become romantically involved with Tobey. In fact she doesn't do much, which is because the story is compromised substantially. Let's talk about that more...
The film looks and sounds great. The contemporary soundtrack actually works, it's made to sound near to 20s music enough but has the bold, garish feel of the film. There's a lot of bold, garish effects and sets, which only add to the rushed hectic feel of the film, which in some ways is quite exciting. There's a very nice soundtrack piece, Young and Beautiful by Lana Del Rey, which is the main theme for Daisy and Gatsby. Have a listen.
Baz seems to have tried to replicate the feel of the book rather than the substance. The book wasn't necessarily about just Gatsby, the whole point was about the failure to achieve the American Dream, along with greed and superficiality and whatnot, whereas the film focuses almost completely on the love plot, with little meaning other than the character's motives. There are some symbolic moments, the film opens with a long shot of a green light coming through the mist, which becomes integral to the plot and of Gatsby's emotions. What this means is that characters are left to mill about saying some stuff that doesn't add up to much, meaning there are long periods or scenes which needed not be in there and are kinda there for show (a bit like Gatsby's life actually. SYMBOLISM.) This doesn't make for unenjoyable viewing, it just means that large meaningful sections of the book that made it so good are left out. Not bad, in fact it was necessary for a film adaptation, the problem is there's so much classic substance left out.
The Great Gatsby is near impossible to translate perfectly onto screen, and each of the films have a sort of generic feeling to them, like no ground breaking focus is being achieved. That said, this does well enough, making a highly enjoyable and emotional film that's very well made both technically and dramatically, even if it is not the best adaptation.
I give The Great Gatsby 3.5 stars
What did you think of The Great Gatsby? Would you say it was a good adaption?
