Benedict Cumberbatch seriously got into his role in “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.”
In the “Hobbit” sequel, Cumberbatch plays the role of the perilous dragon, Smaug. However, the “Sherlock” actor didn’t simply voice the dragon. He also acted out the role in a motion-capture suit.
Ahead of the release of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” on Blu-Ray and DVD Nov. 4, Warner Bros. has released video showing the 38-year-old actor immersing himself into the role.
The best footage comes from the L.A. Times which has an exclusive video showing Cumberbatch act out the dragon in the motion capture suit.
It's amazing to see how much Cumberbatch really gets into it.
To get into the role, little motion capture tracking dots were placed onto Cumberbatch's face.
He was fitted with a helmet that has a little camera attached to capture his every facial movement.
"They really like doing very little," added Cumberbatch. "Then, when they act, it can suddenly be very violent or very slow and they really take their time. I tied all that in to the playing I did rolling around on that carpet."
Motion capture king Andy Serkis, who has played Gollum in both “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” films, gave Cumberbatch advice on playing Smaug.
“I said, ‘Treat it like you’re playing the role. Don’t think you’re just providing the voice. Go in there physically. Get what you can out of it,” said Serkis in a Warner Bros. featurette. “There will be head turns. There will be moments from that performance that you give that can be pulled out and extrapolated and will become part of Smaug’s being.”
The actor didn't just roll around on the carpet. He also acted out the character from his own platform.
They built a wooden platform on stilts and they had this hard board that they’d padded with some foam and mats and stuff and on top of that they put this sheepskin," Cumberbatch told the LA Times. "It was literally like 'Baum chicka baum baum,' me up on my Smaug-y platform. I was like, 'This is cool, I can slink around like a porn star dragon.'”
Cumberbatch said he can see pieces of his motion capture performance in the final rendering of the dragon in his eyebrow movements and with the mouth during closeups with Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Thorin (Richard Armitage).
"I absolutely loved it after a minute of stepping on and feeling completely like a nob," said Cumberbatch. "Once you get over that bit of self-consciousness, it’s so freeing. I just played like a kid in a bedroom, just imagining this thing, which is great."
Here's the finished product on screen.
You can watch a portion of Cumberbatch’s motion capture performance below.
We recently got another trailer for "Interstellar," Christopher Nolan's highly-anticipated science fiction epic due out in November. Its star Matthew McConaughey maintains this will be one of the biggest films any of us will be experiencing in our lives. The word is that we will see and experience things unlike ever before as we don our IMAX 3D glasses. Big words. That said, many movies have changed the game and surprised us over the years.
The truth though is that for every over-the-top explosion or 3D effect nobody asked for in the first place, Hollywood has made some truly amazing advancements over the last few decades. We're talking about the kind of advancements that actually make you watch a movie like you would a watch an illusionist — and wonder to yourself, "How the hell did they do that?"
They call it the magic of the movies for a reason, and as such, here’s a look at the top 10 films (in chronological order) that took their craft to an exciting new level and caused a visual revolution in theaters.
"Tron" was the first time CGI was massively used in a movie.
It’s not that "Tron" (1982) was the best movie ever made, but it was one of the most creative. This was the first time computer-generated imagery had ever been used to such a massive extent in a movie. Visual effects group MAGI used a “SynthaVision” process to render the graphics, which basically means it made the computer see simple shapes as solid objects with density.
This occurs mostly in scenes where the Lightcycles and Recognizers are used, which normally corresponded to scenes where live actors weren’t the focus — because at the time, the technology didn’t exist for live-action figures and CGI animation to be used together. Instead, filmmakers needed to use hand-drawn animation with the live-action shots (mixed with editing) to create what you saw on screen.
Here’s the where things get even more fun though: Many Disney animators initially refused to work on "Tron," as they felt computers would put them out of a job. A little more than two decades later, those fears came true and Disney closed their hand-drawn animation studio in favor of CGI. However in the irony of ironies, Pixar guru and industry visionary John Lasseter eventually ordered the facilities re-opened, as he saw the value in both type of releases.
Another fun fact? Tron was disqualified from the 1982 Visual Effects Oscars, as voters felt the film’s computer-aided effects were considered "cheating."
One sequence in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” cost over $5 million to produce.
The irony of a movie like "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991) is that it stands on its own so well that you forget it’s a sequel. Nobody talks about the original to the same extent they do this one — and if we're being honest, the less said about the later sequels, the better.
A large part of that "T2" success is because of the visual effects used that earned the team an Oscar. Unlike something like "Avatar" that is mostly CGI, only a fraction of "T2" is comprised of effect shots. The most famous of them all, though, is the T-1000 morphing sequence, which cost over $5 million to produce over an eight-month period.
Not since "Tron"nearly a decade earlier had a film looked to change the game in the same way "T2" did — and it was noticeable. Utilizing Industrial Light and Magic’s “Cyberscan” (photorealistic CGI) technology, they projected a laser over the face of Robert Patrick, who played the T-1000 model, and then they were able to build the 3D visuals over the scan.
They then paid extreme attention to how Patrick carried himself while shooting the scene and matched up his movements with the character’s movements. Director James Cameron also borrowed the liquid effects from his 1989 hit "The Abyss," to fully round out the impressiveness of the scene.
There are only 4 minutes of CGI dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park,” but it was revolutionary in 1993.
The movie brought dinosaurs to life on-screen … freaking dinosaurs. How is this not an accomplishment? Believe it or not, though, while "Jurassic Park" (1993) is thought of as CGI-heavy movie, it’s really not! Director Steven Spielberg had several actual audio-animatronic dinosaur models built, because they brought a sense of depth and actual realism to this film. However, there were some shots that CGI had to be used for, and those were very much among the first of their kind.
As many critics have pointed out, this was a movie about dinosaurs — and if the grand reveal the first time you really see one wasn’t spectacular, the movie would be seen as a failure. As a result, Spielberg had to ensure those first moments when the extinct creatures made their debut were nothing short of magical and he conspired with the famed Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) group to pull off the illusion. It worked!
"The Avengers: Age of Ultron" trailer leaked online Wednesday evening and it is hauntingly terrifying and awesome.
Tuesday evening, Marvel announced the trailer would debut during next week's episode of "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." on ABC.
After the leak, the teaser was quickly removed from the internet. Marvel issued a quick, clever response blaming fictional terrorist organization Hydra.
In an unexpected move, Marvel decided to reveal the trailer early. It's a pretty smart tactic to prevent people from circulating around a poor quality version.
Enjoy!
Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, and Cobie Smulders all reprise their roles from the first film which grossed over $1.5 billion worldwide.
The sequel will follow Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) as he attempts to implement a peacekeeping program to fill in for the superheroes called the Iron Legion.
The result is a drone Ultron (voiced by James Spader) who takes on a life of his own and becomes obsessed with wiping out the human race.
He takes charge of the Iron Legion made up of robotic like cops.
Spader joins the cast along with two more characters with powers, Quicksilver (Adam Taylor-Johnson) and the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen).
They look like they may be in cahoots with Ultron.
From the trailer, it's not looking so great for the Avengers.
"The Avengers: Age of Ultron" will be in theaters May 1, 2015.
That was immediately followed by the official teaser poster for the film.
It's a smart move by Marvel and parent company Disney.
Normally, they'll pull a leak and call it a day. We've seen that when the end-credits sequence for "Guardians of the Galaxy"found its way online right before the film's release in August. Otherwise, you're usually hard pressed to find a leak from the studio.
This time was a little different. Instead of trying to shy away from the leak, the company totally embraced it.
Marvel knew the trailer was circulating fast. They also know this is arguably going to be the biggest film of 2015 (other than Disney's other movie, "Star Wars").
Give the fans what they want.
If you don't, they'll just find another way to watch. And Disney and Marvel don't need GIFs and screengrabs of a blurry leaked trailer circulating around the internet.
Did you happen to watch the absolutely magnificent first trailer for Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron, which leaked online Wednesday? I’m betting ABC is hoping that you didn’t, because that effectively eerie preview was supposed to make its television debut during next Tuesday’s episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. And now what might have been a ratings bonanza for the series will be just another episode.
Marvel never made it clear if they would be sneaking an Avengers 2 trailer anywhere else in the meantime, only saying it would be a TV debut during Agents. Marvel Cinematic Universe fanatics were already going to be tuned into Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on Tuesday night anyway, but less intensive superhero fans now have little to no reason to watch the show if they weren’t already invested in it. It’s impossible to negate how important roping the casual fanbase in with this trailer was for ABC, as an Avengers 2 trailer would even have brought mass audiences to Fox’s Mulaney. But it’s now all basically a moot point, since the trailer is already out there.
It’s not assumed that the leak will actually diminish the audience that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. already had, but it’s an audience that has been gradually declining since the show began, even without a disaster like this happening. The first season averaged over 8.3 million viewers for its duration, with peak results for its series premiere, which brought in over 12.1 million pairs of eyes. But its second season has been far less successful, averaging just 4.9 million viewers through the first five episodes. Considering the seemingly infinite number of people going gaga over the Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer right now, I have to assume that many millions of potential viewers were lost. Here’s how Marvel reacted to the leak.
They also went ahead and "officially" put the trailer out there. The leaked one appeared to be an international version, which likely wouldn’t have been the one used for ABC’s broadcast. So there was the smallest of chances that a different version of the trailer will play for TV audiences, but there's not even a good chance of that anymore. It's hard to feel good about anything when Ultron’s voice is so goddamned frightening. Officially check the trailer out below.
Will you still be watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s next episode, “A Fractured House,” when it airs on Tuesday?
Keanu Reeves has performed many unique roles over his career, from Ted Logan in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure to Jack Traven in Speed to John Wick in...well, the movie of the same name that comes out this Friday. However, despite his diverse background, there’s still one movie role he’s never gotten the chance to tackle: superheroes. Sure, he used an assortment of superhuman abilities as Neo in The Matrix trilogy, but he’s never gotten the opportunity to wear a form-fitting costume and fight evildoers with an unusual code name. It’s a shame because Reeves had his eye on playing two especially popular superheroes that are audience favorites.
Currently doing the press rounds for his upcoming film (which is why you've been seeing his name pop up so much recently), Reeves expressed his superhero aspirations to Moviefone, and unfortunately it looks like these dreams may never come true. Asked if he thinks he'll get the chance someday to play a costumed crimefighter, the actor said,
"No. I think I missed that one. I always wanted to play Wolverine. But I didn't get that. And they have a great Wolverine now. I always wanted to play The Dark Knight. But I didn't get that one. They've had some great Batmans. So now I'm just enjoying them as an audience."
With Hugh Jackman set to reprise Wolverine in X-Men: Apocalypse and a third Wolverine solo film, and Ben Affleck locked in as the DC Cinematic Universe’s Batman, Reeves won’t be able to take on those roles anytime soon - and by the time they could open, the studios will probably cast younger actors to play them. After all, portraying Wolverine requires a great deal of ferocity, and while Reeves has pulled off tough characters in the past, it’s hard to imagine him pulling off the feral mutant’s berserker rage. Batman, on the other hand, seems like a better fit. One could imagine the action star pulling off the quiet and intimidating presence of Gotham City’s protector - and we know he has the moves to take down criminals. That being said, he just doesn’t have the Bruce Wayne look going.
While Reeves has never gotten the opportunity to play a superhero, he does have experience with comic book films, previously playing DC Comics character and paranormal investigator John Constantine in the 2005 film Constantine. He’s also one of the actors that’s been rumored to play the titular protagonist in Marvel Studio’s 2016 film Doctor Strange. When asked if he would be interested in playing the Sorcerer Supreme, Reeves expressed enthusiasm in reading more about the character, but admitted that at this stage of his career he’s not keen on signing a long-term contract that working with Marvel would require. He brings up a good point. The comic book company is keen on keeping their actors tied down to the franchise, and if Reeves' main goal is to make quality films, he may not be able to do that as efficiently if he keeps having to appear in sequels and follow-ups for years and years.
One thing that Reeves doesn’t have to worry about is looking too old when playing a superhero. Seriously, the man just turned 50, and he looks almost exactly like he did 20 years ago. Maybe he has a superpower of his own: immortality!
China is currently on track to have its biggest year at the box-office ever, with revenue estimated to pass the $5 billion mark by year’s end, securing the country’s status as the second-biggest film market in the world after the U.S. It’s readily apparent why Hollywood and other markets outside of China would want their films to play there, but the country has a revenue-share quota system in place that only allocates 34 spots per year for foreign releases.
As of today, China has filled the final six spots on its 2014 foreign-release slate, scheduling a bunch of Hollywood releases and one Korean blockbuster: Interstellar, Penguins Of Madagascar, Ice Age: The Meltdown, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, and Korea’s Roaring Currents. There’s also something called African Safari, according to The Hollywood Reporter, though it’s unclear what exactly that is: There’s no 2014 movie, Hollywood or otherwise, by that name that I can find. (Based on the rest of the list, perhaps it’s a rebranded Blended, but that’s just a wild guess, and not a particularly good one, given that American comedy usually doesn’t play well in China.)
Also potentially confusing: The inclusion of Ice Age: The Meltdown on the list, considering that film came out in 2006 and already played in China, where the Ice Age movies are huge. It appears this is a 3-D re-release, though, which is an increasingly common strategy for Chinese foreign releases; a 3-D Titanic earned over $150 million when it played in China in 2012.This announcement got me wondering about the other 28 foreign films deemed suitable for Chinese release this year. The Chinese film industry is not exactly known for being especially transparent, so there’s no readily available list online; but they’re tucked away within Box Office Mojo’s breakdown of the country’s 2013 box-office numbers. Based on that and previously announced films, here are the 34 foreign films adding some of that sweet Chinese yuan to their grosses this year:
Penguins Of Madagascar (upcoming) Interstellar (upcoming) The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (upcoming) The Maze Runner (upcoming) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (upcoming) Hercules (upcoming) African Safari (???) Roaring Currents (Korea) Ice Age: The Meltdown (3-D re-release) Guardians Of The Galaxy Transformers: Age Of Extinction X-Men: Days Of Future Past Captain America: The Winter Soldier Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Godzilla The Expendables 3 Need For Speed Edge Of Tomorrow How To Train Your Dragon 2 Robocop Maleficent Rio 2 Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Ender’s Game Transcendence Mr. Peabody & Sherman Into The Storm Non-Stop Pompei Divergent The Monuments Men The Legend Of Hercules Brick Mansions
There are also several holdovers from 2013 that added to Chinese box-office grosses this year, including Frozen, The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug, Despicable Me 2, and Snowpiercer.
True to form, Hollywood releases dominate the country’s foreign-film slate. Transformers: Age Of Extinction is currently the country’s top-grossing film of the year, and Guardians Of The Galaxy just debuted at No. 1 this week, despite what’s apparently a problematic translation.Guardians is the only foreign film currently in the Chinese box-office top 10, though Hollywood releases currently make up half of the country’s yearly top 10. The country’s revenue-sharing system allows the U.S. film industry to take 25 percent of the profits for its films.
It’s easy to look at this list, with its heavy emphasis on franchises and big, shiny family releases, and feel cynical about the state of international moviegoing. But aside from the fact that there are quite a few legitimately good films in the mix here (in addition to some legitimately terrible ones), it’s worth taking into account the cultural factors that go into determining what films will play well in China. Science-fiction, superheroes, and cartoons are all much more universally appreciated prospects than something more rooted in specifically American culture, like, say, 22 Jump Street or The Fault In Our Stars. (Though I am a little curious why The Lego Movie isn’t in the mix; perhaps because Lego is just now starting to gain a cultural foothold in China.)
China’s foreign-film quota was raised from 14 in 2012, and THR claims there are rumblings about increasing that number to 44, in order to include more prestige and arthouse movies. Although, the publication has been saying that since February, and China’s Xinhua News reported then that there are no such plans in place.
Wall Street is the kind of place where sometimes truth is better than fiction.
Remember, Martin Scorcese's 2013 smash 'Wolf of Wall Street' was based on one former financier's memoir, proving sometimes you can't make this stuff up.
And there are a million of these stories all over The Street. They run the gamut from multi-billion trading losses to messy divorces and millionaire madams.
So here are the 10 true Wall Street sagas — and the corresponding must-cast actors — that should be movies.
This story was first published on November 19th, 2013.
10. 'The Rise and Fall of Jon Corzine.' Corzine went from top dog at Goldman Sachs to a senator and governor to seeing his firm MF Global collapse in spectacular fashion.
Starring Charles Dance (AKA Tywin Lannister)
9. 'The Collapse of Bear Stearns.' The top brass at Bear were known for their wild boys club, but it all came crashing down when JP Morgan almost bought the bank for $2 a share as the market crashed.
The architecture featured in a film is just as important as the actors on screen.
Most of the time, films are made in studios because things are easier to control or because what the director wants just doesn't exist. Houses like the ones in "Jumanji,""The Wizard of Oz," and "Beetlejuice" are awesome works of art, but when the projects wrap, they are usually destroyed.
While making our Real-World Locations of Iconic TV Homes list, we thought it would be a good idea to take a look at some of the iconic movie homes that existed before the films were made and remained standing long after the credits rolled.
This list is by no means definitive, but we tried to pick films from various genres and decades so that there is something for everyone.
The Overlook Hotel from "The Shining" is in Oregon.
Location: Mount Hood, Ore. Movie: "The Shining"
Stephen King was inspired to write "The Shining" while staying at The Stanley Hotel in Colorado, but for the hotel's exterior shots in the 1980 film, Stanley Kubrick used the Timberline Hotel in all it's snow-covered glory. The lodge building is a national landmark, but there are also luxury condos on the property that are not as creepy. There is no hedge maze, unfortunately, but we wouldn't want to get stuck in that thing anyway.
Luna Schlosser's House in "Sleeper" can be found in Denver.
Location: Denver, CO. Movie: "Sleeper"
Built by Charles Deaton in 1963, the “Structured House” became known as the “Sleeper House” when Woody Allen's sci-fi comedy released 10 years later. The concrete clamshell house was used for the film because it looks like it belongs 200 years in the future. It sold at a foreclosure auction in 2010 for only $1.5 million, four years after someone paid $3.4 million for it.
The 4-bedroom McCallister house in "Home Alone" is in Illinois.
Location: Winnetka, Ill. Movie: "Home Alone"
If you're going to make your family disappear so that you can be home alone, there are worst places to do it. The 4,250-square-foot Georgian style home was bought in 1988 for $875,000 and sold in 2012 for $1.6 million. Even though it houses a small army in the film, the house only has four bedrooms, and the master suite takes up most of the west side of the house. "Home Alone" director Chris Columbus used rooms inside the house for the film as well, but there is no mention of an evil furnace in the basement.
It was originally envisioned as a blockbuster in the vein of “Pirates of the Carribean,” but by the time “Ouija” hits theaters Friday, it will look very different.
When Michael Bay‘s Platinum Dunes came on board to produce the film for Universal Pictures based on the “Ouija” board game we all played as a child, it was going to involve a $100 million plus budget. It also had a plot revolving around armies of undead rising around the world, featuring at least four major international locations.
“It was a big, big movie,” producer Brad Fuller told TheWrap. “Really big.”
But it was never made. In 2011, Universal put the kibosh on that version of “Ouija,” citing budget concerns. It wasn't long before it was back on the table, though this time the project no longer involved international armies of supernatural spirits.
With the help of microbudget horror master Jason Blum and his Blumhouse production company, Universal took apart the risky, potential blockbuster and put it back together, turning it into an intimate, pared down horror flick. It would become the sort of film Blum's company has come to be known for, such as the “Paranormal Activity” franchise, “Insidious” and “The Purge.”
The new film, which shares only the titular board game with its never-realized predecessor, was made for $5 million and stars a group of relatively unknown young actors, led by “Bates Motel's” Olivia Cooke and “Secret Life of the American Teenager” star Daren Kagasoff.
The action takes place mainly in one house, in just a couple of interior rooms, and the scares come from the anticipation of something jumping out rather than highly produced supernatural sequences. And rather than appealing to a wide array of moviegoers, the new “Ouija” has a very specific target audience: 13-19 year old girls.
“Traditionally, that's who's really supported our horror movies,” Fuller said. “We learned that lesson on ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ We were really surprised, since it was such a grisly movie, but girls came out in droves for that.”
To market the film, Universal turned to Snapchat, unveiling the first ad on the social media app used primarily by women in their teens and early 20s. Like they did with the Scarlett Johansson-led “Lucy,” the studio also partnered with a popular Youtube star — Kian Lawley — to produce a series of viral videos to promote the film's release.
The big change in strategy on all fronts seems like it will pay off. “Ouija” is expected to make anywhere from $18-$25 million on opening weekend. That number would already quadruple its budget.
For Blum, the microbudget aspect of the film was the sole reason his company came on board.
“I can imagine what it would look like, and I'm sure it would look really cool,” he said of a potential $200 million “Ouija” movie. “But we're not in that business so that's not a movie we would have added value to help make. I can certainly imagine paying to go see it.”
Fuller doesn't rule out the possibility that a potential sequel to the film could be told on a higher scale, citing Platinum Dunes’ previous collaboration with Blumhouse, “The Purge.” The sequel, “The Purge: Anarchy,” was slightly more expensive and took place on a wider canvas, Fuller revealed, because audiences demanded to see the world of “The Purge” outside of just one house.
“Part of that decision [about 'Ouija's' future] will have to be based on what the audience tells us after they see the film,” Fuller said.
For his part, Blum thinks there are some stories that just can't be told on a microbudget –the “Transformers” franchise,”The Fast and Furious” movies and, of course, “Star Wars.”
Would he make a $200 million “Star Wars” if Disney came calling? “It would be tough to turn that down, but believe me, it's never going to happen,” he laughed.
"John Wick" is everything you hope an R-rated action flick will be. It's stylish, violent and has a great sense of humor when Wick isn't too busy shooting people in the head. The movie is a breath of fresh air that skips the long form set-up and gets right down to the nitty-gritty violence that the audience wants and expects.
The plot is simple — John Wick is a retired hitman. When his wife becomes ill, he gets out of the business to take care of her, but she eventually dies. Before she does, she buys John a dog to remember her by. When some clueless thugs decide to steal John's car and kill his precious dog, it's time for him to come out of retirement and avenge his loved ones.
The opening scenes in "John Wick" are reminiscent of the opening montage in Disney Pixar's "Up" where you watch a couple's relationship from start to finish. Both sequences get the audience emotionally invested in the characters and their story in mere minutes. While "John Wick" may not leave anybody in tears like the Pixar flick, the scenes with Wick and his adorable beagle pup at the beginning of the film are hilarious and do a great job of setting up the mayhem that is to follow. When the baddies show up and wreak havoc, we root for Wick to take them down because we loved that damn dog as much as he did.
Wick has quite the reputation. Anytime his name is mentioned, there's a palpable fear associated with it, and for good reason. The audience gets to know Wick mostly through word-of-mouth; we hear other characters mention his name and see the look of terror in their eyes. Some of the biggest laughs in the film (and there are many) come simply from the way people regard Wick in conversation — he is a force to be reckoned with, and everybody knows it. The world-building here is outstanding and by the end, we realize why everyone knows his name.
Keanu has never been known for his versatility, and his performance is about as 'Keanu' as one would hope. He gets some quality silly one-liners to spout in between bullets, but what's most impressive about the role is his physicality. The film was directed by two veteran stuntmen who have worked with Reeves in the past and who clearly know their way around shooting impressive action. Reeves reportedly spent months training and learning various fighting styles for the role, and his efforts totally paid off — he's an action hero again.
The fight scenes are insanely well-choreographed and impeccably shot; there are no confusing quick-cuts to be found here. It borrows from martial-arts style films like "The Raid" in that the ultraviolence is methodically constructed and exciting. Rather than jump from one jarring angle to the next, longer takes are utilized as the camera pans from one kill to another seamlessly as Wick takes out a staggering number of baddies. There are plenty of "oohs" and "ahhs" that stem from the inventive ways in which he takes them all out.
The biggest surprise of the movie is how funny it is; Michael Nyqvist steals every scene as the crime-boss father of the poor sap who wronged Wick. The ominousness surrounding Wick is consistently played for laughs, and Nyqvist gets the biggest one of the movie with a simple reaction shot and a two-letter word — you'll know it when you see it. The son is played by Alfie Allen, better known as Theon Greyjoy from HBO's "Game of Thrones," and while he isn't given much to do here besides be a jerk, he's perfectly capable in the role.
"John Wick" isn't perfect. There are some pacing issues towards the end — a big moment happens about 10 minutes too early, and after that it kind of just limps to the finish. There's another satisfying, hyper-violent gunfight to be had, but after such a climatic (and seemingly mission ending) scene, it feels tacked on and unnecessary.
Besides that minor hiccup, "John Wick" is otherwise very efficient and will restore your faith in both Keanu Reeves and the genre.
Now that the "Avengers: Age of Ultron" trailer has been unveiled after making an appearance at San Diego Comic-Con this summer, fans are wondering when they'll be able to see the first trailer for "Batman V Superman," which also debuted footage at the event.
Well, it doesn't sound like we'll have to wait much longer.
The rumor going around is that we'll see a trailer by December.
Batman site Batman-on-film reports a teaser will be released online and attached to a November or December movie release.
Since "Batman V Superman" is a Warner Bros. film, the most likely contender for the trailer would be holiday film "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" which hits theaters December 17, 2014.
According to the site, the teaser trailer will be "Batman heavy," so expect to see more of Ben Affleck as the Caped Crusader.
We'll still have a while to wait for the film. "Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice" is set for a March 25, 2016 release.
After the "Avengers: Age of Ultron" trailer hit the web late Wednesday evening, fans have been obsessively rewatching the teaser for clues and hints about the upcoming movie.
Almost immediately, eagle-eyed viewers honed in on a scene at the 37 second mark in which the camera pans over the group of "Avengers" plus a few extra women.
It's easy to discern most of the characters. Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow is next to Bruce Banner. Former Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. member Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) is rising out of a seat in front of Captain America.
Here's an annotated version of the scene.
And then there's this mystery woman standing to the left of Thor.
Who is that?
The immediate conclusion of many was to suggest it was Thor's girlfriend Jane Foster played by Natalie Portman in the "Thor" films.
Portman hasn't been confirmed for the sequel yet so it would be an unexpected big cameo, but one that makes sense. At the end of "Thor 2," we see the superhero return to Earth to spend his time with Foster so it wouldn't be a stretch for Portman to make an appearance.
However, a closer inspection of the photo has many believing it's another actress.
Cinemablend and Newsarama believe the mystery woman may be Korean actress Kim Soo-hyun, also known as Claudia Kim.
Then, Kim tweeted an image with "Age of Ultron" director Joss Whedon along with a chair prominently displaying her name on what appears to be the film set.
한국이 정말 정말 그립습니다..! 멋진 Joss 감독님. 마블 만화에서 튀어나온듯한 캐릭터이시다^^ 저에게 우리말도 한마디씩 꼭 연습하시는 유머러스한 분! pic.twitter.com/gIR4FFPDTP
We initially thought the woman standing next to Thor was Portman.
It's not certain how much longer Portman will be a part of Marvel's cinematic universe. We wouldn't be surprised if the "Avengers 2" resulted in the death of her character to make way for future storylines. After all, what else could get Thor so angry that he goes after Tony Stark (other than for creating a killer robot army)?
However, the closeup image just doesn't look like Portman. It's much more likely to be Kim.
Still, we wouldn't be surprised to see Portman pop up in the sequel.
"The Avengers: Age of Ultron" will be released May 1, 2015.
Marvel's holding an event for press Tuesday and some big news is expected.
Various comicblogs have reported receiving invites to a secret event held by Marvel Studios on Friday. The event will be held at the El Capitan Theatre in Los Angeles.
There's no word on what will be announced; however, it's expected that Marvel Studios will reveal some big news about upcoming films.
It also appears the studio has invited some fans, too.
In or around L.A.? Head to our Facebook page for a special event announcement: http://t.co/S4gqtRKa83
Here are a few thoughts and rumors about what Marvel could announce:
1. An extended release schedule
Warner Bros. recently dropped a huge schedule of upcoming films through 2020 ranging from two "Justice League" films to a Wonder Woman film and hints at standalone Batman movies.
We know Marvel has movies planned through 2028, but we only know the studio's schedule up until 2019. The best way to one up DC Comics and Warner Bros. is to unveil a lengthy list of superhero flicks to get the fans talking even more about Marvel.
2. "Doctor Strange" announcement
The movie is reportedly set for a summer 2016 release but we know absolutely nothing about the film other than Scott Derrickson is directing. In the past few weeks, casting rumors of everyone from Benedict Cumberbatch and Colin Farrell to Ewan McGregor and Ryan Gosling have had their names thrown around for the possible lead.
3. A female-centric superheroine movie
Warner Bros. has made the first move with an announcement for a Wonder Woman film which may have a female director attached. Marvel's move.
4. "Iron Man 4"
Robert Downey, Jr. recently gave Ellen DeGeneres a confirmation about the movie before telling David Letterman it's not happening. We may find out if there's any truth there.
5. The title of the upcoming "Captain America 3" film
Variety reported the next installment of Captain America will not only contain Robert Downey, Jr. but that it will also center around the popular Civil War comic. The storyline has Downey Jr.'s Iron Man and Chris Evan's Captain America go toe-to-toe on their stances of superhero registration with the government. Fans know Spider-Man is also a critical part of the story.
So, this wouldn't be enough of news to really warrant an entire press event though unless ...
6. It's something regarding Spider-Man
This is a long shot, but a recent report from Hitfix suggests some meetings may be taking place between Sony and Marvel to get Spider-Man to appear in its cinematic universe.
"I'm hearing that there are some very cool "Spider-Man" plans being discussed that would help Sony refocus their enormously important franchise while also opening up some connections in the onscreen Marvel movie universe that would blow fandom's minds."
It's no secret Sony's latest attempt to reboot the Spider-Man franchise hasn't been as successful at theaters as the original trilogy with Tobey Maguire.
That would be absolutely huge news. However, I don't think Sony's ready to give up on Spidey JUST yet.
Michael Keaton may be best known for his 1989 role as Batman, but he's revealed that he turned down another huge role as the lead in "Groundhog Day" because he simply "didn't get it."
Keaton's not alone.
Harrison Ford wasn't originally sought out to play Han Solo, nor was Scarlett Johansson the original choice for Marvel's Black Widow.
And we might have seen Brad Pitt in a very different role if it wasn't for his kids.
We rounded up 23 actors and actresses who turned down possible career-changing roles.
Michael Keaton regrets passing on the chance to star in "Groundhog Day."
Role was played by: Bill Murray
Michael Keaton told Entertainment Weekly he turned down the lead in 1993's "Groundhog Day" because he simply "didn't get it."
"This guy sounds like the kind of wry, sardonic, glib young man I've played — and it ended up being so great," Keaton tells EW. "But you can't do it better than Bill Murray did it."
Bill Murray declined to play the lead in "Forrest Gump."
Disaster movies usually adhere to a strictly prescribed formula: Introduce a large cast of sympathetic characters up front, then, after three acts of buildup and foreshadowing, kill the majority of them off in a grandly staged climactic catastrophe, while a few hardy souls struggle heroically to survive.
"Force Majeure," the pitiless and brilliant fourth feature from the Swedish writer/director Ruben Östlund, deliberately upends just about every one of these rules. Only a few minutes after introducing a very small cast of fairly unsympathetic characters, the movie cuts straight to a distinctly unclimactic disaster, which doesn’t kill anyone.
That’s because the real catastrophe in "Force Majeure," unfolding in slow motion before our ever-more-horrified eyes, is the collapsing marriage of Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli) and Tomas (Johannes Bah Kuhnke), a handsome, well-off couple who’ve come to a posh ski resort in the French Alps with their two catalog-perfect blond children.
A remark Ebba makes to a fellow guest at check-in suggests that Tomas has been too caught up in his work of late and that the trip is a bid to bring the family closer. Other than that, we learn very little about their life back in Sweden, not even what line of work Tomas is so absorbed by (though he’s evidently successful at it—this family travels in style, awash in electronic gizmos and fancy ski gear).
Over the course of their five-day vacation—each one marked off by its own numbered chapter—the family will approach the brink of disintegration and teeter there for a long, tense moment, like a skier poised at the top of a sickeningly vertiginous slope.
“Don’t worry, they’ve got it under control,” Tomas assures his wife and kids as they watch a wall of snow approaching the stunning deck where they’re having breakfast in advance of their second day out on the trails. He’s correct that the snowslide began as a controlled one; we see a cannon setting it off as part of the ski resort’s ongoing safety maintenance. But “control” is a slippery concept when it comes to harnessing the forces of nature, human or geological.
As the white mass races toward the cafe (and, in a simple but terrifying special effect, directly at the audience), the diners snapping photos from the deck start to fear they might be in real danger. For a long half-minute or so, the screen goes white, the only sound that of screaming and confusion. Then, as the air begins to clear, we see that the avalanche has in fact stopped well short of swamping the actual resort—everyone and everything is fine. The cloud of what Ebba will later refer to as “avalanche smoke” rapidly subsides, leaving both kids asking the question that will become the crux of the movie: Where did Daddy go?
Tomas soon reappears at the table and sits down with his family to finish breakfast, snow still dusting their plates. But the question of how her husband could have bolted during those seconds of panic eats away at Ebba and threatens the rest of the trip.
As they have a drink in the hotel bar with a couple they’ve just met, Ebba can’t stop poking barbed fun at Tomas’ momentary abandonment, leaving him humiliated and indignant. (His only defense is to deny his wife’s account without providing a credible alternative—if, as he claims, he wasn’t running away to save himself, what exactly was he doing?)
When they’re alone, though, the couple can barely bring themselves to discuss the event, so radically do their versions of it differ. The next few days are spent in literal and figurative blankness, skiing the blinding white peaks in silence all day and passing the evening in awkward half-confrontations about who did what, and why, in that moment of terror.
“I don’t recognize you. I don’t recognize myself,” Ebba tells Tomas during one argument. Östlund, an unstinting observer of human social behavior, mines that uncanny feeling of sudden dissociation from the familiar for all it’s worth, both verbally and visually.
The looming Alpine vistas, frequently seen from a great distance, are less post card–pretty than they are starkly menacing, as though another avalanche, a deadly one this time, could start at any moment. The camera’s remote perspective sometimes seems to ask how much the travails of these tiny human beings could possibly matter in an indifferently destructive universe.
Yet the moral riddle posed by Ebba’s and Tomas’ divergent responses on the deck that morning does matter, and not only because it could end this particular relationship. As the couple’s widening rift exposes the gender and class assumptions that underlie their marriage—Who’s the protector? Who’s the provider? Who, if anyone, can be trusted as far as you can throw them?—"Force Majeure" morphs into a biting critique of modern masculinity, of traditional parenting roles, and possibly of the institution of marriage itself.
"Force Majeure" (the title comes from a legal term for an act of God that frees both parties from a contract) is intellectually and visually enthralling and often savagely funny, but it also demands a significant investment of both patience and stamina on the viewer’s part.
There are long stretches of silence broken by scenes of grueling emotional rawness, played with go-for-broke intensity by the fearless Kongsli and Kuhnke. Several times, children are placed in situations of either physical danger or emotional violence. Clara and Vincent Wettergren, the young siblings (11 and 8 at the time of filming) who play Tomas and Ebba’s kids, don’t talk much, in the convenient way of movie children—but boy, do they convey that they’re miserably attuned to what’s going on.
Östlund’s style is chilly and hypercontrolled, with both dialogue and image constructed in such a way as to pack meaning into every detail. In one extended take, Ebba bustles around serving dinner to her family and some guests, gushing all the while about what a perfect vacation they’re having—the wonderful views, the ideal ski conditions. The entire time, the top of the frame cuts her head off at the neck, as if to emphasize her violent disconnection from the people seated around her table.
Later, a long, wine-fueled conversation with a younger couple, Mats and Fanny (Kristofer Hivju and Fanni Metelius), turns into an impromptu trial on the actions of the squirming, hedging Tomas. As alliances shift and accusations and self-justifications multiply, this four-person fiesta of soul-baring begins to resemble "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" filtered through Bergman’s "Scenes From a Marriage."
There’s one very late scene in which—to keep things vague—the family is placed in another potentially dangerous situation. Though arguably superfluous to the arc of the story that’s just been told, this ending is both unexpected and white-knuckle thrilling, and will provide an extra dash of salt to the post-movie dinner conversation "Force Majeure" is sure to inspire in any couple (or other closely bonded kinship unit) foolhardy enough to risk seeing it on a date.
“What would you do if that happened?” Fanny demands of her semi-serious boyfriend after they’ve finally extricated themselves from their evening spent refereeing Tomas and Ebba’s marital standoff. The younger couple then stays up the rest of the night debating the precise significance of every detail in this purely hypothetical life-or-death scenario. May you and whomever you see "Force Majeure" with end up doing the same.
John Carter is widely regarded as one of the biggest cinematic flops of recent years. It was previously believed that it lost Disney just under $300 million, but this figure has just increased after it was revealed that the Disney blockbuster actually cost Walt Disney Company $306.6 million to make.
Disney had previously withheld the true cost of John Carter, with many experts having previously suggested that its production value was in the $250 million range. The fact that it actually eclipsed this sum by $56.6 million means that Disney’s losses on the film are even more substantial than previously estimated. According toForbes, these new figures were gathered after the British tax authority revealed they had paid Disney $42.9 million to film John Carter in London. Disney was forced to declare their John Carter costs because of Britain’s tax credit scheme. They had tried to hide how much they spent on the film by giving it the code name Think Thark Productions. But Think Thark Productions is actually named after Martians that are in the John Carter book, so it was easy to spot that the total costs to this fake company over four sets of financial statements between 2010 and 2013 came to $306.6 million.
Director Andrew Stanton began shooting his adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ A Princess Of Mars, with Taylor Kitsch as the eponymous lead, in the English capital back in January 2010. However production problems, which allegedly saw Stanton re-shoot much of the movie twice, soon saw the budget spiral out of control. In fact when the film was finally completed, it was estimated that (after marketing costs)John Carter would have needed to gross more than $600 million just to break even.
This was a figure that it didn’t even come close to reaching. A poor marketing campaign, early release date, and mediocre reviews, which praised its visual flair but criticized its dense plotting and tepid characteriaation, resulted in moviegoers avoiding John Carterat the multiplexes. In the U.S., it only grossed $73.1 million during its run. However, its international appeal actually saw it take in $211 million across other countries. In Russia, John Carter even went on to break the all-time opening-day record, while it recorded the second-best opening weekend for a Disney film in China too.
But its dismal performance in the United States meant that gossip and rumor surrounding its actual budget and total loss soon started to become ferocious. Experts and passive movie fans couldn’t help but be intrigued by the amount of money that the studio lost. The personal cost of the film was also massive. Rich Ross, the former chairman of Walt Disney Studios, decided to resign just a month after the film was released, while Disney also lost the rights to the rest of Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc’s back catalogue after they refused to produce sequels to John Carterbecause of its failure. However the fact that The Avengers went on to gross $1.5 billion just two months after John Carter’s release meant that Disney were able to quickly get over its dismal performance.
Joaquin Phoenix, Ryan Gosling, Colin Farrell, and Jared Leto were also rumored to star.
Scott Derrickson ("Sinister") is set to direct the upcoming "Doctor Strange" film.
What you should know about Doctor Strange:
Also known as Stephen Strange, the character is a wealthy neurosurgeon with a huge ego who loses the ability to perform surgery after a car wreck leaves nerve damage in his hands. Afterward, Strange becomes obsessed with finding a cure to fix his hands.
After hunting down a sorcerer known as the Ancient One he eventually gets taken under his wing and becomes a powerful sorcerer in his own right with the abilities to teleport, time travel, transform matter, and more.
Doctor Strange has recently appeared in the "New Avengers" comics.
It's expected that Doctor Strange will come into play in phase 3 of Marvel's cinematic universe.
Marvel is holding a press event Tuesday in Los Angeles where a big announcement was expected to come. We're sure there will be more from the event tomorrow.
While Batman doesn't have the incredible superpowers that Superman gets as a result of Earth's yellow sun, the reason he stands a chance in a one-on-one battle is because of his smarts. Bruce Wayne doesn't have laser vision and he can't fly, but he can build a kick-ass suit covered in the special alien material that weakens his opponent. And that's exactly what the Dark Knight reportedly does in Zack Snyder's upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
This new bit of info comes courtesy of a Batman-News reader, who got some inside knowledge about the upcoming blockbuster from Rehan Jalali, the trainer who has been working with Ben Affleck on the movie. There are a few details about the actor having shirtless scenes in the film, but the most interesting bits are specifically about the Batsuit. No, I'm not talking about the one you see above - I'm talking about the armor-plated version that was featured in the Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice footage that was shown at San Diego Comic-Con this past summer. According to Jalali, the armored batsuit is not only covered in Kryptonite, but can also shoot missiles.
Many of you will probably recognize certain aspects of this description. That's because it sounds almost exactly like the batsuit that Bruce Wayne created to fight Superman in Frank Miller's classic The Dark Knight Returns:
It's pretty clear at this point that Zack Snyder is drawing a lot of inspiration from that particular book, as Miller's work is now clearly responsible for both of the Batsuitdesigns. How deep into the production those references will go is unknown at this point, however. Are these just aesthetic touches, or is the movie going to practically be an adaptation? We can't really say at this point.
And while I suspect that some fans may be a bit miffed about the idea of Batman strapping missiles to his suit, given the whole "no killing" thing - let's not forget who the Dark Knight's opponent is in this case. Sure, Superman would be blown back by the force of a missile, but it's not going to kill him. Just look at them as defense missiles on Batman's part.
Production on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is still rolling, as it has been for the past couple of months (it's starting to become clear why this film needs so much time for post-production work). Surely the finish line must be in sight, however, and at that point Snyder will switch over to working with his editors and get the finished movie ready for its March 25, 2016 release date.
"Avengers" director Joss Whedon is also at the event.
No one seems to know what the announcement will be. The most obvious news would be an official confirmation on the “Doctor Strange” film after reports Monday that “Sherlock” actor Benedict Cumberbatch is in final negotiations for the role.
However, the consensus is that this is too big of an event to purely confirm what could easily be sent out in a press release.
Fanboys are hoping for news that the Spider-Man film rights are coming home to Marvel from Sony. It seems a bit too soon for that but that would be MASSIVE.