Quantcast
Channel: Flickering Myth
Viewing all 7138 articles
Browse latest View live

Doctor Who's Matt Smith to star in Ryan Gosling's How to Catch a Monster

$
0
0
Matt Smith
Doctor Who star Matt Smith will make his U.S. acting debut with the male lead in How to Catch a Monster, the directorial debut of Ryan Gosling (Gangster Squad). The film is also set to star Gosling's The Place Beyond the Pines co-star Eva Mendes (Holy Motors) as well as his Drive co-star Christina Hendricks (Mad Men).

How to Catch a Monster is described as a modern day fairytale combining elements of fantasy and suspense, and "is set against the surreal dreamscape of a vanishing city where Billy (Hendricks), a single mother of two, is swept into a macabre and dark fantasy underworld while her teenage son discovers a secret road leading to an underwater town. She must dive deep into the mystery, if the family is to survive."

How to Catch a Monster is set to go into production this spring ahead of a release in 2014. Meanwhile Matt Smith's Time Lord will return to TV screens on March 30th when the latest series of Doctor Who resumes on BBC One.

Sons of Anarchy Season Five - Episode 1 Review - 'Sovereign'

$
0
0
Paul Risker reviews the first episode of Sons of Anarchy season five...

“Something happens at around 92mph. Thunder headers drown out all sound. Engine vibration travels at a heart’s rate. Field of vision funnels into the immediate, and suddenly you’re not on the road, you are in it, a part of it. Traffic, scenery, cops; just cardboard cut-outs blown over as you pass.” So began ‘Sovereign’, signalling the return of Sons of Anarchy for its fifth season on 5USA, rolling onto our screens with words of poetic motion.

Thus far, seasons 1 to 4 have been a model of consistency, the show anchored by character and plot, as well as any number of fine performances. Past successes aside, all eyes look to see if creator Kurt Sutter can keep up this hallmark of consistency that as defined the show. So with ‘Sovereign’ having now aired for the UK audience, what did the inaugural episode of season five have in store for us?

‘Sovereign’ introduces us to two new characters who will figure prominently across the thirteen episode season. Continuing from where season four left off, Harold Perrineau’s Pope, whose daughter was murdered in Tig’s failed hit on Niner’s head honcho Leroy, assumes the role as the season’s main antagonist.  Meanwhile, Jimmy Smits’ Nero Padilla is introduced as Gemma’s new love interest, expanding to SAMCRO’s latest friend and ally by the episodes conclusion, when he provides Jax and Chibs safe harbour.

Between them, Pope and Nero exhibit what could be seen as Sutter’s inexhaustible capacity for writing great dialogue, as well as his uncanny ability to cast actors seemingly born to play these characters which he incorporates into each new season. It as served to provide the show with a breath of fresh air from season to season, giving us no less than three memorable characters in season four, two of who feature in ‘Sovereign’: Danny Trejo’s Romeo and Benito Martinez’s Luis Torres. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see where Pope ranks amongst the show’s memorable string of antagonists, described by Jax as the man who decides who lives and who dies. What may make him one of the most intriguing of antagonists is the way he has the capability of polarising our sympathies. Whilst loyal to SAMCRO, it is clear we are meant to both understand and sympathise with the motivations for his vendetta against his daughter’s killers. As much as Jax is trapped in that world, the opening of season five positions us in a particularly uncomfortable position, trapped by our loyalty, entrenched with our brothers SAMCRO.

The standout moment came close to the end as the episode built to a shocking crescendo, with Pope taking his initial act of vengeance, robbing Tig not of his life but of his daughter. One father you might say returns the favour to another. It is a moment captured through polarised performances, from Coates’ angry and emotional angst versus Perrineau’s silent emotional grief.

Sutter hits a powerful nerve, the thematic device of the sins of the father, or the sins of the parents revisited on their children, their choices not only responsible for their own fate, but the fate of their offspring. The tragedy of Tig’s daughter’s death from a certain perspective mirrors J.T’s inability to secure a better future for Jax, now forced to survive in the violent world of SAMCRO, more entrenched than ever as President of the charter.

Jax reassures his mother that Clay’s time’s a comin’, affirming that at its heart Sons of Anarchy is Sutter’s Shakespearean drama, the murder of the SAMCRO king at the hands of his wife and best friend, to the attempted murder of the daughter-in-law. Now Jax and Gemma’s plan to dispense family justice on the deposed traitor king reminds us of this narrative focus, a tumultuous and tragic family drama from which all other plots spiral.

The character of particular interest in ‘Sovereign’ is Tara (Maggie Siff), notably the continued physical wear and tear, her harder and less angelic look. She is more world-weary, provoked by her and Jax’s symbiotic journey to escape the life neither desire.

Tara standing behind Jax in the closing shot of season four, the image of Gemma and J.T superimposed was Sutter’s Godfather moment. The opening episode of season four sees the idealistic couple forced to confront the harsh reality of being at the head of the table, the responsibility of intertwined fates in their hands; the compromise of their individual needs versus the needs of the many. Bringing events full circle, now Jax must confront the challenge his father faced, to save the club, but unlike his father he intends not to save it from its sins, but to rather to cleanse himself of his sins and break free once his own and the club’s safety are guaranteed.

For fans of Sons of Anarchy, a show featuring fine performances, anchored by character and plot with a thematic heart, ‘Sovereign’, Nero and Pope are three good omens as we move forward.

Paul Risker is a freelance writer and contributor to Flickering Myth, Scream The Horror Magazine and The London Film Review.

More cast members added to Beverly Hills Cop TV show

$
0
0
David Denman
Casting for the TV version of popular film franchise Beverly Hills Cop is gathering pace. According to The Hollywood Reporter, David Denman (The Office) will join the new show as a character called Brad Fullmer, “a strong, loyal and socially awkward detective and a good guy to have on your side”. It appears this character will be in the vein of the role played by Judge Reinhold (Vice Versa) in the film franchise.

The pilot from Shawn Ryan (The Shield) centres on Aaron (Brandon T. Jackson), the son of Axel Foley, who takes down the criminal elements of the rich and famous in Beverly Hills while working to escape his famous father's shadow. Eddie Murphy (Tower Heist) is set to reprise his role as Axel Foley and will have a recurring role in the series if it gets picked up. Denman joins Kevin Pollak (Shark) who also recently signed on to the pilot as Rodney Daloof, the in-house lawyer for the Beverly Hills Police Department.

The series, which Ryan will co-write and executive produce, is said to be a continuation of the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy, which ran from 1984 to 1994.

Comic Book Review - The Superior Spider-Man #3

$
0
0
Anghus Houvouras reviews the third issue of The Superior Spider-Man...

The Superior Spider-Man #3
It was inevitable.  After making the decision to fundamentally change Spider-Man, there was the lingering suspicion that Marvel Editorial would either try to hit the reset button on the whole concept or give us a more sympathetic and ultimately more endearing Doctor Octopus.  For some reason, Marvel is drilling down on both.

We already know that Peter Parker isn't dead.  He's trapped inside his own mind, a passive passenger while Octavius is behind the wheel.  This dual narrative is effective if not completely original.  The last two issues have fallen into a familiar pattern.  Octavius continues to make radical changes to the way both Spider-Man and Parker do business.  Small suspicions arise forcing the reader to wonder how long this charade will last. 

The third issue sees Ghost Peter dumpster diving through Octavius' memories looking for anything he can use to regain control.  He comes across some disturbing childhood memories of being physically abused.  This ties into the Superior Spider-Man’s current predicament, dealing with The Vulture who has started using children as his henchman.  This doesn't sit well with Octavius who channels all his childhood traumas and rage into a brutal beat down of the Vulture.

It's another good issue from writer Dan Slott who provides Octavius with another conundrum.  As Spider-Man, he's facing villains that he used to call friends.  He's sympathetic towards perpetual failures like The Vulture.  It’s easy for Octavius to identify with them, and makes his brutal, near murderous rampage all the more troubling.

Superior Spider-Man #3 is another solid issue.  Slott proves there is still unexplored territory in this premise.  I have no issue freely admitting how much more of enjoy this comic without Ghost Peter offering his ongoing commentary on everything.  This book works well when it’s focused on Octavius dealing with the role of reluctant hero.  Ghost Peter hanging around dispensing his opinion every thirty seconds does a lot to take the wind out of The Superior Spider-Man’s sails.

Anghus Houvouras

New Star Trek Into Darkness images, and Benedict Cumberbatch's bad guy finally revealed?

$
0
0
Warning - potentially huge Star Trek Into Darkness spoiler to follow...

The latest issue of Entertainment Weekly is set to deliver an inside look into J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness, and in addition to a batch of new images from the hotly-anticipated sci-fi sequel, EW's website may have just dropped a huge reveal about the true identity of Benedict Cumberbatch's mystery villain; if you want to know, read on past the new images...







Still here? Okay then... Well, according to EW's back issue store, Benedict Cumberbatch's bad guy 'John Harrison' is really... wait for it... Khhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnn!


Yes, according to the description for this week's EW cover, Cumberbatch will be portraying none other than the 20th century warlord Khan Noonien Singh, who was of course portrayed by Ricardo Montalban in the Star Trek: TOS episode 'Space Seed' and 1982's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Naturally, there is the possibility that EW has made a mistake (and either way, I imagine that's the line that Paramount Pictures will take), but of all the rumours about the identity of the film's antagonist, Khan's name has popped up most frequently, and considering the hints in the theatrical trailer, it shouldn't come as much surprise if this does turn out to be the case. So, does this mean the mystery has finally been solved, and if so, what the hell is Khan doing in a Starfleet uniform?

Star Trek Into Darkness sees Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin all returning to crew the USS Enterprise, while Bruce Greenwood reprises his role as Christopher Pike and Alice Eve (Men in Black 3) joins the cast as Dr. Carol Marcus. Other franchise newcomers include Peter Weller (RoboCop), Nazneen Contractor (24), Noel Clarke (Doctor Who) and Nolan North (Young Justice).

Star Trek Into Darkness is set for release on May 17th, 2013.

2D movies hurt 3D takings says RealD CEO

$
0
0
People have been saying it for a long time, but it appears that the 3D revolution is coming to an end. Rather than being "the next big thing", it seems that the takings of 2D movies far outweigh that of movies with an extra dimension.

RealD, the company who provides most cinemas with 3D screens and benefits from a surcharge of the ticket sales, filed its third quarter takings which showed that they lost $4.2 million compared to the net profit of $2.8 million they made in the same quarter last year. With only a years difference, what has changed?

Chairman and CEO of RealD Michael Lewis claimed that the dominance of non-3D blockbusters such as Skyfall and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 attributed to the downturn of their takings.

But it's not all doom and gloom according to Lewis who also said that 3D continues to perform well abroad and their technology is increasing. He also pointed out that the company is escalating its stock-repurchase program and that its strategy, "underscore[s] our confidence in RealD's future growth opportunities".

Well, one person happy to hear this news was critic Mark Kermode who tweeted "Surprise! 2D kicking 3D's butt, apparently."

What do you think of the 3D downturn? Have you been turned off by the quote unquote 3D revolution?

Ultimate Spider-Man clip sees Spidey teaming up with Hawkeye

$
0
0
Ultimate Spider-Man Hawkeye
So far season two of Ultimate Spider-Man has seen the web-slinger going up against some of his most iconic villains in The Lizard, Electro, The Rhino and Kraven the Hunter, but this week it's the turn of one of Earth's Mightiest Heroes to make their debut as Hawkeye teams up with our friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man to take on The Beetle.

Not only does the coming episode mark Hawkeye's first appearance in Ultimate Spider-Man, but it will also give us our first look at the character as he will be portrayed in the forthcoming Avengers Assemble series, which is set to arrive on Disney XD later this year. Hawkeye is voiced by Troy Baker (LEGO Batman: The Movie - DC Superheroes Unite), who previously lent his voice to Loki in Ultimate Spider-Man season one.

"Ultimate Heroes. Ultimate Villains. Ultimate Responsibility. Season Two of the hit series ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN continues as the Avenger, Hawkeye, makes his arrow slinging debut! Spidey and Hawkeye find themselves in sticky situation as they team up to take on The Beetle, who has returned to New York City to seek revenge on our wall crawling hero."


Don’t miss the next amazing episode of ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN debuts this Sunday at 11a/10c inside Marvel Universe on Disney XD.

Justice League looking for new writer - may never happen?

$
0
0
Last week we reported how Warner Bros. were concerned about the possibility of Justice League and felt that the movies progression hinged on the box office success of Zack Snyder's upcoming Man of Steel. According to Badass Digest, it seems WB may not be pushing forward with the project at all.

Although the movie was announced for a 2015 release, Badass Digest's Devin Faraci's multiple sources claim that the Will Beall (Gangster Squad) script has now been scrapped and Warner Bros. are looking for new writers to come on board. Faraci writes that, "the story from each source is the same: it's terrible. Some sources seem to think the whole movie is going to fall apart and never happen, while some believe that Warner Bros. will keep moving forward, unwilling to lose the superhero arms race."

He continues to say that the Beall script was "half-baked from the beginning", did contain Darkseid and a heavy cosmic force but that the characters (beyond the main five of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash and Green Lantern) have been cut and added at the studio's will. Many directors have turned the job down, apparently due to the script, and this has also spurred Warner's decision to shelve the project for the time being.

It seems Warner will now play their cards close to their chest to see how well Man of Steel does. But even if the movie does strike box office gold and Justice League moves forward, it will be with a completely new script.

What are your thoughts on Warner Bros. shelving Justice League? Can they get it right?

Movie Review - A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III (2012)

$
0
0
A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III, 2012.

Directed by Roman Coppola.

Starring Charlie Sheen, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Patricia Arquette, Katheryn Winnick, Aubrey Plaza, Dermot Mulroney and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.


SYNOPSIS:

A 1970s graphic designer is thrown into psychological turmoil when his girlfriend breaks up with him.


Upon discovering compromising pictures of Charles Swan III (Charlie Sheen) with other women, a distraught Ivana (Katheryn Winnick) leaves with the slam of a door.  In an effort to throw away the collection of shoes left behind by his ex-girlfriend, the hapless and stressed out Charles ends up with his car in the swimming pool of a record producer.

Taken to a hospital for examination, Charles is visited by his sister Izzy (Patricia Arquette) and her two sons, his best friend Kirby Star (Jason Schwartzman), and his business manager Saul (Bill Murray).  As he waits for the doctor (Dermot Mulroney) to arrive with the test results, Charles flashes between his happy memories with Ivana, and fantasies such as him rising from a coffin like Dracula to dance with his widow dressed ex-girlfriends and another which has him and his buddy Kirby as cowboys being chased by a band of beautiful Native Indians led by Ivana to a cave.  Driven to distraction Charlie plants a microphone to discover whether or not Ivana has left him for another man; however, the more critical question that needs to be answered is whether or not he can move on with his life.

The opening which dissects the brain of the title character features a cut out animation sequence that would fit in nicely with the psychedelic sensibilities of The Beatles' classic Yellow Submarine (1968).  The surreal nature of the settings and satirical humour harkens to something that Wes Anderson would have done which is not surprising as the two filmmakers co-wrote The Darjeeling Limited (2007) and Moonrise Kingdom (2012) together.  Katheryn Winnick (Love and Other Drugs) does an uninspiring portrayal of the elusive love interest while Bill Murray (Hyde Park on Hudson) and Jason Schwartzman (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) are reliable sidekicks with deadpan wit.  It is shame that Mary Elizabeth Winstead (A Good Day to Die Hard) only has a small part as I sense that the movie would have been better if she had been give more of a role to play.  As for Charlie Sheen (Wall Street) all the media coverage dealing with him having a mental meltdown makes the part of the self-absorbed womaniser midst an existential crisis feel like old news.

Flickering Myth Rating - Film: ★ / Movie: ★ 

Second Opinion - Hitchcock (2012)

$
0
0
Hitchcock, 2012.

Directed by Sacha Gervasi.
Starring Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Biel, James D'Arcy, Michael Stuhlbarg, Ralph Macchio, Danny Huston and Toni Collette.

Hitchcock movie poster

SYNOPSIS:

The story of Alfred Hitchcock's struggles to make and distribute Psycho is told as the backdrop to a love story between Hitch and his wife Alma Reville.

Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock is not a biopic of the Master of Suspense, but rather a look at the events post North by Northwest as Alfred Hitchcock worked on getting Psycho funded and filmed. The film really deals with the relationship between 'Hitch' and his wife Alma, and the struggles that they endure as a married couple in the limelight.

Unlike the majority of the Hitch's films Hitchcock itself is not a brilliant film. In fact, parts of it left me wondering what the reason for their inclusion were, and in some cases I was left annoyed.

I am no Hitchcock buff; I do not know much about his personal life nor who he was as a man, only that he has made some incredible films which are some of my favourites. So I can't make much of a judgement on how Hitch is himself portrayed with any historical accuracy, only on how I thought it worked in the film. To that end I was left appalled by the notion that Hitch had psychological problems of his own. The film has a subplot which sees Hitch hallucinate and dream of meetings with Ed Gein, the man on whom the book Psycho is loosely based. These to me felt distasteful and out of place, and served nothing to the story other that to lead the audience into believing that Hitch was as difficult to work with as some suggest because deep down he was a bit of a nutjob!

All artists have their thing. With Hitch they seem to suggest he is a pervert - from what I am aware he had obsessions with leading ladies - and an element of psychosis, and I did not care for it.

That aside, the film actually is made thoroughly enjoyable by its two lead actors - Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock and Helen Mirren as his wife Alma Reville. The chemistry between these two is fantastic, and it is only these two which give the film the gravitas it strives for in their relationship. Mirren in particular is outstanding; an elegant, unwavering class act from beginning to end, much like her character as she supports Hitch through the difficult times with unwavering support and dedication.

Scarlett Johansson is charming, and not to mention beautiful, as Janet Leigh and James D'Arcy is uncanny as Anthony Perkins. Not only does he look like Perkins but he also acts like the shy and timid Norman Bates. It really is uncanny.

Is Hitchcock a fitting tribute to the 'great and glorious genius Alfred Hitchcock'? No, not really. It portrays him in far too negative of a light at times for it to be. However there are some warm moments in there and the relationship between he and Alma tugs at the heart strings as a couple going through the struggles of a long marriage and his devotion to her - despite his obsession with his young female cast members - was plain to see. And how fitting that he dedicated his AFI Lifetime Achievement Award to her, of which we are reminded.

It was interesting to see - if it is accurate of course - what Hitchock went through to Psycho made by having to fund it himself and 'tricking' the MPAA in to giving the film its seal of approval for release. It really was quite an achivement, and as we know Psycho went on to change the landscape of cinema. To see it become such a success given the backlash and condemnation he received pre-screening - especially after Vertigo, which weighs heavily on him - was a delight as a film fan. Critics and censors be damned!

While I have shown my displeasure in regards to Hitch's characterisation and the mental issues and volatile nature the film suggests, they do portray Hitch for the most part as a charming and sweet man with a great love of film. A scene in which Hitch recalls the joys of the risk taking nature of youth is particularly touching, so it isn't all bad. It is actually a rather lovely look at him, with some sour notes you wish weren't there.

Not great, but definitely enjoyable enough to see if you're a fan of Hitchcock.

Flickering Myth Rating: Film ★ ★ / Movie ★ ★ ★ 

Martin Deer

Second Opinion - Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

$
0
0
Wreck-It Ralph, 2012. 

Directed by Rich Moore.
Featuring the voice talents of John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, Mindy Kaling, Jack McBrayer, Joe Lo Truglio, Ed O'Neill and Dennis Haysbert.

Wreck-It Ralph poster

SYNOPSIS:

A video game character looks to change his image as he tires of being "the bad guy".

Wreck-It Ralph Hero's Duty

When I saw the trailers for Wreck-It Ralph it seemed fun, but not overwhelmingly 'funny', and whilst it isn't the funniest animated film I've seen there are a great number of laughs to be had.

The film follows the title character, Ralph, who is the villain of an 80s arcade game, 'Fix-It Felix, Jr'. Ralph feels unappreciated in his role as once the arcade closes down for the evening, Felix is championed by the games other characters whilst Ralph is shunned and lives in the garbage heap. After a party is held in Felix's honour on the game's anniversary and Ralph isn't invited, he decides to prove everyone wrong and seeks to change his image and earn a 'winner's medal', which all the heroes of their respective games receive. And so Ralph leaves the 'Fix-It Felix, Jr' game and heads off in search of a new life in another game to earn his medal. Which is the start of much chaos - you can die and regenerate in your own game, but die in another game and your code is history.

A lot of the game references and the concept for the film in general is pretty genius - how the characters transport out of their games and to others is a great little touch. Game Central (a play on Grand Central Station) is the main hub where the game characters from all of the arcades games meet and go to visit other worlds and so it is from here that Ralph heads off in to new games to try and win himself that hero's medal. This is where I think the film misses a big trick, as Ralph only visits two other worlds. I was hoping Ralph would visit a greater number of game worlds - or at the least one more - however with just the two I was left a little disappointed. I was picturing Ralph in a game like Crash Bandicoot which would have been brilliant!

The first game Ralph takes off to is a First Person Shooter called 'Hero's Duty'. This is where we are introduced to possibly the film's best character, Calhoun, who is voiced by the endlessly funny Jane Lynch - her backstory reveal will leave you in stitches. Calhoun is the leader of the Hero's Duty team and her job is to lead the other characters of the game through it to aid the real life person actually playing the game. I saw Wreck-It Ralph in 3D, which for the majority of the film added absolutely nothing to it, and was a terrible use of 3D. However for the time we spent in this world the 3D was great as certain scenes showed the HUD as the 3D element with the game action in the background, which really did bring something to the film. But that's what 3D should be used for - games, not films. But I digress.

After a brief stint as a Ranger in Hero's Duty, Ralph ends up in 'Sugar Rush', a racing car game in the vein of Super Mario Kart. It is here that the main portion of the film takes place and we meet the rather sweet, Vanellope, voiced by Sarah Silverman, who is both adorable and heartwarming and a cool character I imagine everyone will be rooting for. But it is also here that the film really slows down in the second act, and it kind of drags its heels. That being said a friendship is struck up between Vanellope and Ralph which gives the film a lot of heart to take the place of any fun game action we were perhaps expecting. There are actually a lot of twists in the film which I didn't see coming, expecting the narrative and Ralph and Vanellope's relationship to go one way when they both went another.

There is a good supporting cast in Wreck-It Ralph; Jack McBrayer as Felix is thoroughly enjoyable along with King Candy, and Turbo-Tastic will provide a guaranteed laugh. There are some genuinely good moments, but not enough I feel to cement this as a really great animated film. There is a nice story in there about acceptance and trying to be a good person, but with some of the developments in the final act I'm not sure I feel it hammered those points home enough.

Regardless, Wreck-It-Ralph is entertaining, charming and will put a smile on your face and quite possibly a tear in your eye too.

Flickering Myth Rating: Film ★ ★  / Movie ★ ★ ★ ★ 

Martin Deer

Zombieland TV show adds cast members

$
0
0
The new TV series based on Ruben Fleischer's popular 2009 horror comedy Zombieland has added some main cast members. According to Deadline, Tyler Ross (Milkshake) and newcomer Izabela Vidovic will be joining the new zombie / comedy drama.

Fleischer’s original Zombieland starred Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Emma Stone (The Amazing Spider-Man), Woody Harrelson (The Hunger Games), and Abigail Breslin (My Sister’s Keeper). The film revolved around a shy student (Eisenberg) trying to reach his family in Ohio and a gun-toting tough guy (Harrelson) looking for the last Twinkie, as well as two sisters (Stone & Breslin) who were trying to get to an amusement park. The oddball individuals soon join forces to travel across a zombie-filled America.

Ross and Vidovic's roles are thought to be those originally played by Eisenberg and Breslin. Ross has gained widespread praise for his role as Jolie Jolson in Milkshake, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and will be released in the summer. The young actor has also starred in TV shows such as Boss and NCIS.

Special Features - The Amazing Spider-Man 2: All it's missing is a dance routine

$
0
0
Chris Cooper shares some concerns about The Amazing Spider-Man 2...

Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man
This week Sony released the official synopsis for The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I enjoyed the first film, and though it had its problems it was a solid start for the reboot of the franchise.

I’m concerned though, as the synopsis both excites and concerns me. So first, let’s see what exactly Sony has released...

In The Amazing Spider-Man 2, for Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), life is busy - between taking out the bad guys as Spider-Man and spending time with the person he loves, Gwen (Emma Stone), high school graduation can't come quickly enough. Peter hasn't forgotten about the promise he made to Gwen's father to protect her by staying away - but that's a promise he just can't keep. Things will change for Peter when a new villain, Electro (Jamie Foxx), emerges, an old friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), returns, and Peter uncovers new clues about his past.

Also credited so far are Sally Field (back as Aunt May), Shailene Woodley (as Mary Jane Watson), Paul Giamatti (as Rhino), and Colm Feore (no one knows yet). I wouldn’t be surprised if Martin Sheen reappears in flashbacks as Uncle Ben, along with Peter parents, as we are promised new clues.

On first read through you might think this all makes sense and sounds like Sony are ticking all the right boxes.  My overriding concern is that they are ticking too many boxes.

Straight away you have a lot of important characters. Comparing it to the main cast of TASM (see table), you might think “but it’s the same number!” Well you’d be right, but you’re not taking into consideration the importance of each character...

Peter Peter
Gwen Gwen
Captain Stacy Mary Jane
Dr Connors Harry
Rajit Ratha Electro
Uncle Ben Rhino
Aunt May Aunt May

Mary Jane and Harry Osborn are two of the most important characters in Spider-Man’s story. Between them and one villain (plus planting some seeds for villains in future instalments) surely you have enough to fill a film? As they weren’t even mentioned in the first film they would all need introductions. What are their motivations? What are they like? Will they too find out who Spider-Man is (please no)? It would be a pretty safe bet to await a love triangle (or four way?) with the two biggest loves of Peter’s life involved. On top of that Harry will no doubt go onto bigger (and badder?) things, plus we might meet his Father. So just there you have two large plot threads.

Aunt May will always ave a secondary role to play. Ratha's involvement is left unclear,  though he did have a death scene deleted from TASM. So with Captain Stacy rather unlikely to return, that really that only leaves villains.

Spider-Man 3
Well we're in luck (?), as we have at least two. You don’t hire actors of the calibre of Foxx and Giamatti to twiddle their thumbs. Foxx has already said that he won’t have the yellow and green costume, which is a good start; and I look forward to seeing another Oscar winner joining the ranks of those already involved in comic properties. But how will Giamatti become the Rhino? Will we be getting another slightly unconvincing CGI monster like The Lizard? I’m hoping to God that they won’t come together in a team up just as Venom and Sandman did in Spider-Man 3.

Come on, we all knew it was only a matter of time before this came up. The turgid mess that was Spider-Man 3. I don’t think TASM2 could ever be that bad, but I fear it’s approaching it, and I’ll tell you why!

Both love interests? Check.

Multiple villains, one of whom is Venom? Check. The latest info is pointing towards Harry becoming Venom, using the Ultimate comics version of the symbiote.

Peter being a dick? Check, as he continues to break his promise to the dying Captain Stacy.

That film fell apart due to there being too many underdeveloped characters, pointless tinkering of the mythos (the Uncle Ben killer ret-con), and Peter Parker going emo. I shudder at the thought.

I really hope that lessons have been learnt and that Marc Webb can spin it all together into something much more cohesive, whilst respecting the characters. Each one of them needs time and space, not only to be introduced correctly, but for us to give a damn. Shoe-horning them in because you want to get the big characters involved is not only short sighted (you’ve got at least another film) but damaging to the film.

With Webb already tweeting from the set we are bound to get not only some answers, but also plenty more questions. Fingers crossed it all paints a convincing picture.

I’m not on a complete downer over this film. We have great actors cast as the villains, continuity with the main cast and director, plus we’ve got the awkward re-telling of “With great power…” out of the way.  So maybe it will be good, and I’m worrying over nothing. But right now I can’t shift a feeling that the film will be far from amazing. I hope I’m wrong.

At least Peter won’t be dancing this time.

Though...


Chris Cooper

The Flickering Myth Debate - 'A new Transformers trilogy is a great idea. Michael Bay can do no wrong.'

$
0
0
In the first of a new feature, two Flickering Myth writers go head to head to debate a hot topic from the world of a film. Here, Oliver Davis takes on Chris Cooper to decide whether a new Transformers trilogy is a good idea...

The Motion: 'A New Transformers trilogy is a great idea. Michael Bay can do no wrong.'

For - Oliver Davis

Against - Chris Cooper


Opening Statements:

Oliver Davis:Many people argue that the essence of cinema, what makes it different from other art forms, is the inherent truthfulness and objectivity of the image - what Andre Bazin, the père of the French New Wave, called celluloid's 'ontology'. 

But there's a conflicting school of thought that takes montage as film's defining feature, the ability to manipulate and edit that 'reality'. This argument can be traced back to the Soviet Montage movement in the 1920s, in particular, one Lev Kuleshov. For my money, and that money is in rubles, he's responsible for uncovering the single most important device in all of cinema - the Kuleshov effect.
 
However, before he realised that, he had to stumble upon editing itself. You see, in the 1910s, Russia made very static films. They were theatre pieces shot with a camera in the stalls. The only cuts were scene transitions. Audiences would get bored. It was all very pompous.

It wasn't until he happened upon an American movie that he realised what Russian cinema was missing, what would influence one of the most significant film movements in history, what he would then believe to be the very essence of cinema itself - montage. Although the American movie wasn't as cultural as Russia's filmed plays, the audience were far more involved. They would shout and curse at the screen, stand up and throw their arms up at the villain. Kuleshov theorised this as the Americans having more camera angles to keep them entertained. The film would cut to somewhere else before the spectator's attention waned. It showed expense, that the production spent time recording different shots. The Americans, wrote Kuleshov, wanted more bang for their buck.
Digest that... more bang for their buck.

And now we come to the topic of the debate - Michael Bay's Transformers trilogy, and the further three films he's promised. Everyone likes to kick Transformers. It's easy. It's the object of scorn for the anti-dumb brigade. Well, you know what? Sometimes dumb ain't bad. Sometimes, people just want more bang for their buck.
Because that, ultimately, is what Bay's Transformers is. A hell of a lot of bangs, bought for a hell of a lot bucks (say what you will about Transformers, but financially the franchise has been very successful). And on a deeper level, with its dizzying cut rate, the franchise encapsulates the central idea behind Kuleshov's theories - that montage is the true essence of cinema - whilst simultaneously and unabashedly embodying his inspiration, the American action movie.

Not to mention all the cool robots and stuff.

Chris Cooper:I’m pretty keen on Transformers. I’ve owned a Gen 1 Grimlock toy since I was 3 or 4 years old. He’s awesome, as are the Transformers as a whole. I mean come on...Robots in Disguise! The Transformers films however, are not.
I’ll put my best argument forward straight away. Michael Bay.
That’s not an argument you say? I disagree! This is the guy who seems perfectly fine with the following atrocities being committed…

Devastator’s ‘Wrecking Balls’

Skids and Mudflap

Fights where you can’t tell who is who

No one fixed Bumblebee’s voice!

The Arcee triplet bike mess

He killed Ironhide and Jazz

Megatron and Starscream’s relationship whittled down to one line

Shia LaBeouf

Can anyone explain what that drill thing in Dark of the Moon is?

Too many humans

What I can only think of as ‘Robot heaven in a sock that brings people back to life’

Megatron in a hoody?

Shia LaBeouf



The first film is OK. It was impressive at the time, and great to see something from my childhood on the big screen getting the attention it deserved. I was hopeful the second film would improve...but this hope was crushed. Bar Optimus ‘dying’, and then him coming back with parts of Jetfire, it was a shocker of a film, and I left the cinema really disappointed. Fast forward some time and I read the interviews with Bay, where he acknowledged the second film was terrible, and promised us a quality end to the trilogy. I appreciated the honesty and was hopeful...and he crushed it.  Again!
I do actually like a few of Bay’s films, and small parts of the TF films (Sam’s parents and Megan Fox’s derrière), so it’s not as though I think he is an unmitigated disaster. The Rock and Bad Boysspring to mind as really fun, entertaining, quotable action films. I even liked Transformers at first. But the quality of the second and third films was so poor that it drags the whole thing down. I’m talking Laurentian abyss deep.
I do have a soft spot for Linkin Park, so that’s one plus I guess.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Not again. Bay had his chance, and he wasted it.
Responses:
Chris Cooper:You say it's easy to kick these films. I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. It is easy to kick them...because they are awful.
Dumb is not bad. Commando springs to mind as a film that perfectly encapsulates this. All we want to see is Arnie taking out the bad guys whilst spouting one liners. This single mindedness is admirable and ultimately successful. Arnie wins, the bad guy is dead, hooray! Everyone leaves happy and content.
Transformers however, is muddled. I wanted to see big transforming robots fighting and er....transforming! I got this, but Bay also deemed it necessary to fill the films with non-entities such as LaBeouf, Duhamel, and Fox. If they weren't there, not only would I have not been annoyed by them, but I'd be spending more time watching Transformers! Save paying big bucks to 'stars' and give it to ILM to make Grimlock. I get that there needs to be human element - they are on Earth after all - but I don't need awkward teenage romance. You can be dumb, but you don't have to be annoying at the same time.

Oliver Davis: There was a time when a lot of people would bash Matthew McConaughey. He had a run of not-very-good films where he'd lean on his co-stars in the posters. A lot of people found him smug and annoying. I always liked him. Sahara is severely underrated.
But sometimes, what Family Guy says is sacrosanct to a large group of people. Rather than form their own opinion, they prefer to go along with whatever observation Seth MacFarlane cuts away to. In McConaughey, they had a fair point. He does always appear quite pleased with himself. But in Lincoln Lawyer it helped tremendously with his character. And now look at him. He released Killer Joe and Magic Mike in the same year. It's a McConaissance.
I believe the Transformers franchise has been victim of a similar snowballing effect. But rather than Family Guy, it's been the polemic opinions of critics like Mark Kermode influencing people.
He heavily criticises Shia LaBeouf in the film, going so far as to call him a charisma vacuum - an insult so fantastic that it pains me to disagree. Shia's exasperation with the robots and the inept adults around him provides an anchor for the farce. His human character is rather engaging, as is Megan Fox's body.
In fact, I would argue the human characters outshine their Cybertron counterparts, the adult cast particularly. Shia's parents, John Turturro (Barton Fink), Alan Tudyk (Serenity), John Malkovich (Con Air) and Francis McDormand (Burn After Reading) all give brilliant comedic, cameo performances. If the film were completely computer generated, I'd share your view - the robots should be the main source of emotion. However, when a film is mixed with live action, the empathy in one's heart will rush from CGI pixels to those living like a 2p piece swirling for the hole in one of those games you seem to find in every McDonalds.

Chris Cooper: So you admit it is a farce! In all seriousness though, that you consider the human characters stronger ties into my problems with the films (I can only agree with you on Sam's parents). Surely Optimus, Bumblebee and co should be the main characters?
I waited through the whole of the first film for Megatron and Starscream to get snarky with one another, and I got one line! It all felt so half hearted. Mere lip service to those of us who have loved it since we were young.They made so much effort to design and build them, but then dropped the ball when it came to writing them. Optimus is easy to write for - throw in 'freedom is the right of all sentient beings' and you're most of the way there. But I found most of the other Transformers less well catered for. Jazz got a few stereotypical 'cool guy' lines and then got ripped in half.
To bring this back round to the title statement, and to get away from Shia (vacuum seems a bit harsh). Bay has had three films to show us his vision of the Transformers and their battles. He has touched on some of the major points. Optimus dying (I did feel for him at that point, way more than when Sam 'died') and there being other Primes being the main two that spring to mind. But it all feels so hollow. He can do explosions bloody well, there is no denying that, but don't we want to see something more? I'd like to think that people want a compelling story as well as things blowing up. The Nolan Batman films are proof that people can be entertained and think at the same time.
Wouldn't it be more exciting to see something new? Someone else's take? Maybe get a film that doesn't include humans meeting robots in heaven and then being brought back to life with dust?
As a spectacle it's all mightily impressive, but can't it all mean something next time? Or at least make sense. Change please!

Oliver Davis: The notion of making Transformers the central characters is admirable, but it wouldn't work in practice. Unless the film were to be entirely animated, I could never fully empathise with the robot characters. And the issue isn't even one of humanity. I feel for Mogwai and Johnny Five just as equally. My heart is wired to always side with entities onscreen that exist in the real world. It's too cynical to believe in pixels - pixels that will always be the building blocks of Transformers, robots too complex to be realised in animatronics. But you know what won't be difficult to relate to..?
...Mark Wahlberg.
Marky Mark is a terrific actor, excelling as a comedic presence, but also more than capable of being an action film's leading man. His is the only confirmed name for Michael Bay's Transformers 4. Whether he'll be the protagonist, or one of the supporting players that the Transformersfranchise is so good at showcasing, the movie will still be worth checking out for his involvement.
I had a Transformers video when I was younger. It contained about four episodes, which were set shortly after the events of the film. Optimus was dead and Hot Rod had become the new Prime. I knew the cartoon trailers at the video's beginning as well as the episodes themselves. I once took it on a Centre Parcs holiday, unable to be away from it for a whole five days.
But I never begrudged the film for any perceived mistreatment of those mid-80s cartoons. In a similar way, I feel no hostility towards Nolan's Batman films, even though they don't represent my Batman, or how some of the best parts of the Game of Thrones television series aren't lifted exclusively from the books.
Source materials aren't sacred, and positioning them so - particularly when it comes to Hollywood adaptations - is both futile and naive. I'm more of the position that, currently, Transformers is cool. You can wear a Transformers t-shirt out to a nightclub. Sure, it's postmodern. But it's also a release of society's inner-geek.
After all, we'll inherit the Earth. And I believe that something to be celebrated.

Chris Cooper: Mark Wahlberg is sometimes a good actor. He is Jekyll and Hyde. For proof I point to both Max Payne and The Fighter. In one, he is perfectly suited and amazing. In the other, he is just as terrible as everyone around him. Good teams bring out the best in him. Bale and Farrell are great and have brought out the best in him. But put him alongside Bay and whatever talentless young actress he decides to choose? I'm not hopeful. I will give him credit for his ability to act alongside pixels in Ted (extremely average film but I'll save that for another day) so he has a slightly better chance. Maybe him and Bay together in Pain and Gain will show me otherwise. I want to be hopeful I really do! I'm just not seeing anything to create hopefulness yet.
Does the franchise really showcase supporting actors? I've always felt it shoehorned them in when they need a pay-cheque!

Transformers is cool (I've got a Grimlock T-shirt on right now), and that is due to the films. It's opened it up to a far larger audience and I'm happy with that. But it's also hollow and I'm not happy with that. Maybe I'm asking too much but I'd just like a bit more care, a better script, and a fresh director. Surely someone could take over the reins and inject it with a new lease of life. The only people who said Dark of the Moonwas any good were children. The rest of us went 'oh that's a cool explosion. Oh look cool stunt'. Then we got bored, remembered we could watch a decent action film, and ignored it. You could fix all of these things without being slavish to the source. Most people who see it won't know what we know. They're probably in a better position with no preconceived notions. But I'm sure you could make something that pleases the majority of us. I just don't think Bay is the man to do it.
To love the characters but not like the films is a tough position to be in. On the one hand, I can see that they've done amazing things and brought to life things we've never seen before, which has made my inner geek whoop with joy. But on the other hand I feel let down. Call me greedy, but I want more from it. I really feel it can be done. Just not with Bay.

Concluding Statements:
Oliver Davis:Is Michael Bay the right man to make yet another Transformers film? Deep down, I don't believe it matters. The franchise is such a behemoth of explosions, farcical humour and short-shorted women that any further sequels will be forced to continue in such a vein. And there are few, if any, directors out there capable of the wonderful niche that is the explosion-farce-short-shorted-women movie. Simply put, too much money is now required to make these films. Another director wouldn't have as much clout as Bay. The studio would push them to make the same-again but with deteriorating quality.

I'm not a huge fan of sequels that become trilogies that become franchises. But the next Transformers film interests me. A new cast, a reported "complete redesign" - there will be a lot of 'new' for Number Four. Yet the most intriguing aspect is Bay's presence. Who's ever lasted longer than three films as a director? The fourth is uncharted territory.

Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys II, Transformers...those are the man's first six films (with The Island left out for purposes of this argument). In spite of what many critics propagate, that's one hell of a run. He makes entertaining films.

And he also makes awesome adverts:


Awesome.

Chris Cooper:
Do we really need more robot peeing jokes? More borderline racist stereotypes? More dust filled socks? More Michael Bay?

He has already given us a trilogy. I think it's quite enough.

Yes there is a possibility that a new cast and a redesign of the Transformers will inject some freshness. But this guy promised a lot whilst making the first trilogy, and he didn't deliver. He's had his chance! He might have made some entertaining films, but these films are not them. Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon are terrible films.

By all means make more Transformers films. In one way I'm glad so many people have made the mistake of seeing all three films at the cinema (sadly I fell for the promises) because it means there will be more, and we might get a good one at some point. I yearn for the day where we will all get to see the Dinobots on the big screen. But damn it, let someone else do it. Bay won't be left wanting for work, so let someone else hold the matrix of leadership.



Who do you think won this Flickering Myth Debate? And what do you think about Michael Bay and the new Transformers trilogy? As always, comment below with your thoughts...

Christina Applegate leaves Up All Night

$
0
0
One of the strangest stories has come out today. After many changes to the NBC comedy Up All Night it appears that Christina Applegate will be leaving the show. Up All Night has been in transformation mode recently, with the decision to change the show to a multi-camera comedy shot in front of a live studio audience.

Applegate said in an interview with Deadline, “It’s been a great experience working on Up All Night, but the show has taken a different creative direction and I decided it was best for me to move on to other endeavors. Working with Lorne Michaels has been a dream come true and I am grateful he brought me into his TV family. I will miss the cast, producers and crew, and wish them the best always.”

NBC may be looking at former Friends star Lisa Kudrow to replace Applegate on the show, but that has yet to be confirmed. With Up All Night being changed so much here recently and now the departure of Applegate, I think it’s safe to say that it won’t be on the air much longer. This is a shame because it isn’t a bad show - it just hasn’t reached a big enough audience.

The Oscar for most criminally ignored performances by the Academy - Actor Nominations

$
0
0
Tom Jolliffe on the male acting performances criminally overlooked by the Academy for Oscar recognition....

With the Oscars around the corner and awards season in full swing, now is a perfect opportunity to tearfully remember those performances that were completely overlooked by the Academy. Reasons can differ. Sometimes a year is bloated with exceptional performances and competition is high. Sometimes a film's impact doesn’t strike instantly and takes years before it finally clicks with audiences. There are certain film subjects that are Oscar catnip, and others which rub against the grain of what is fashionable amongst the voters. There are almost always head-scratching inclusions and exclusions. It’s hard to know which films of a year, and which performances will live long in the memory and which will fade away.

Here are a few actors I humbly believe gave performances good enough to warrant nominations (lead or supporting) for the film industry’s highest accolade:


Rutger Hauer Roy Batty Blade Runner
Rutger Hauer - Blade Runner

Here I’ll start with my own personal favourite film, and its most memorable performance. The history of Blade Runner is well documented. Initially proving far from popular on release, it's now-given masterpiece status wouldn't register until the director’s cut that followed ten years later. Hauer, as Roy Batty, delivers a truly mesmerising and unique characterisation. The Replicants are amped up, having to cram in all of life’s experience and emotion, and pain without aid of a childhood and conventional development, all into a four year lifespan. Hauer perfectly encapsulates this tipping scale of physical superiority, increased intellect, jarring against the inability to master his highly charged, bi-polar emotion and the oh so human desire to beat death. Truly what Hauer created, completely immersed into his role, was one of a kind and remains the performance that stands out to most viewers.  Given the nature of the role, it’s the sort of performance that is normally a good bet for the supporting actor territory. It’s the showier antithesis to the straight leading man. However the film's early struggles really put paid to Hauer’s chances.


David Thewlis - Naked

Mike Leigh has tasted Oscar acceptance with several nominations and his films have also proved platforms for his cast to impress the Oscar board. His breakout film Naked remains his most edgy, dark and in my opinion, fascinating film. Thewlis excels in the skin of a truly detestable character. Johnny is constantly ailed by physical and mental symptoms. His nihilistic and obsessive behaviour and analytical personality result in a man of mostly self destructive behaviour. Thewlis’ performance is a tour de force, and the largely unscripted film (typical of Leigh) has a unique kind of energy and spark that adds an occasionally dreamlike quality to Leigh’s typical gritty, kitchen sink style. It’s a tough watch, but ultimately rewarding, with possibly one of the most watchable performances you’ll ever see. There’s lots of standout scenes, including Johnny’s discussions with a night security guard he forces his views upon.


Johnny Depp Edward Scissorhands
Johnny Depp - Edward Scissorhands

By the time Johnny Depp first donned Jack Sparrow's hat and snazzy beard, it was widely felt he was long due some recognition from the academy (which he finally received for playing Sparrow). Depp’s ability to step totally out of his own enigmatic persona, entirely into another has made him one of the most respected character actors in film history, even if his recent output might show signs of becoming a sellout. However it should take nothing away from much of his work, particularly his star making role. Quirky roles are what Depp excels in and he and Burton’s wonderfully different take on Frankenstein’s monster is awesome. Edward’s innocence, sympathetic personality and likeability are played to pitch perfection by Depp. It’s a performance that really is iconic, as much as almost anything else that year. Depp can also feel highly aggrieved to have been overlooked as Ed Wood too, though being slightly overshadowed by Martin Landau’s brilliant performance didn’t help.


John Cazale - Dog Day Afternoon

John Cazale’s film career was short-lived yet he left a memorable impression in the string of masterpieces he appeared. As Fredo in The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II, he was superb but of course the Oscars were dishing out nominations like candy to other cast members (and rightly so) in those films. However his fantastically underplayed counterpoint to Al Pacino’s more show-stopping lead performance in Dog Day Afternoon is criminally ignored. Chris Sarandon with limited screen time received a supporting actor nomination which might have been fair, but over Cazale’s more significant role? Perhaps not. There’s something about the deep seeded imbalance and simple minded naivety of Sal that’s so brilliantly and subtly portrayed by Cazale.


Gene Hackman in The Conversation
Gene Hackman - The Conversation

This is Francis Ford Coppolla’s low key masterpiece of the 70s, which is often overlooked or forgotten having been sandwiched between the first two Godfather films. However it’s still Coppolla at his inspirational best in his most iconic period. Hackman leads brilliantly as Harry Caul, who finds himself drawn into a world of corruption and finds himself descending into the hell of paranoia. It’s probably Hackman’s best performance but he found himself in a particularly strong year for film. But was it one of the five best performances of that year? It probably was.


Eric Roberts - Star 80

I’m going to shake things up with this curveball suggestion. Some actors have left a few heads scratched when people discover they’ve actually had Oscar nominations. One such might be Eric Roberts, as much known for his descent into B-movies (and odd big screen bit parts as a reliable go-to slime ball), than his promising earlier career. Roberts received a nomination for his role in Runaway Train, a really good performance without necessarily screaming out Oscar material. Perhaps though, it was in part an acknowledgement of his career best performance a few years previously in Star 80. His turn as the slimy, weasely, unstable Paul Snider is great and proves to be ample evidence that the man deserves more respect for his ability.


Jack Lemmon in Glengarry Glen Ross
Jack Lemmon - Glengarry Glen Ross

One of the most brilliantly cast movies ever. It’s wall to wall gravitas. Pacino received a nomination (one of two that year). Alec Baldwin could argue his barnstorming cameo was just enough minutes of brilliance to warrant one. Jack Lemmon’s wonderfully soulful and poignant performance as the salesman a fair way past his glory days is one of his best roles and one of the best performances of not only that year but of the decade. It’s just impeccable. Sadly for Lemmon the year boasted some iconic leading man performances that received nominations.


John Goodman - The Big Lebowski

Eccentricity and showy roles normally do quite well in the supporting actor category. Goodman often excels in such roles. Two standout roles in Coen brothers movies would both be more than worthy of receiving Oscar recognition. Barton Fink's less commercial style provided something brilliant for Goodman and he steals the movie (co-star Michael Lerner stole a march on Goodman for a nomination, despite Goodman owning the film). It’s probably more deserving than his role as Vietnam nut Walter in The Big Lebowski. Walter however has become part of geeky pop culture. There are shirts with his face and quotes. Goodman is fantastic though. Once again, despite an awesome cast, well commanded by the Coens, Goodman steals the show. Walter is a one-off and a work of comical brilliance.


Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet
Dennis Hopper - Blue Velvet

One of cinemas most grotesque characters and performed with almost unrivalled relish is Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth. Typically bizarre for both director David Lynch and the unpredictable Hopper, this film whether you like it or not will stay in the memory. Hopper is scary in this. He’s so into it it’s frightening. Isabella Rossellini also warranted a nomination for her work in this too.


Jack Nicholson - The Shining

Jack may have had his fair share of Oscar joy but he still warranted recognition for this. As over the top as he may be, it’s with such immersion, conviction and relish that it still stands as one of cinemas most iconic maniacs. Jack Torrence’s ever dwindling sanity is perfectly portrayed by Nicholson with enough energy to power the whole of China, whilst the films creepy atmosphere courtesy of Kubrick’s ominously roaming camera and eerily lit setting adds to the overall tone of the film.


Anthony Perkins in Psycho
Anthony Perkins - Psycho

Far from conventional in any sense, the ground-breaking Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece featured a villain so complex, so different from the cackling norm that it perhaps took a few years for audiences to fully appreciate how brilliant and ahead of its time Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates was. It wasn’t merely Hitchcock breaking boundaries with his style and in killing off his “protagonist” early in the film, but Perkins really brought across a multitude of layers to Bates.


Michael Gambon - The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover

Peter Greenway's films have never been the most easily accessible/palatable to the wider audience. This perhaps is one of his more easily digestible films, despite still being as art-house, controversial and sometimes disturbing as his films often are. This was never going to be a film the Oscars wanted to have amongst the more acceptable norms of that year.  Gambon plays a completely vile character with the most obnoxiously gleeful delight. Gambon is totally submerged into the psyche of Albert Spica. He’s a hurricane of ghastliness, exploding onto screen to gobble the scenery whenever he can. He does it with such gusto and conviction though and it stays long in the memory. The film despite its often difficult ingestion is beautifully shot whilst Helen Mirren, also much deserving of a nomination as Spica’s long suffering wife, is also mesmerising. 


Stephen Graham - This is England

This Is England beautifully brings to life a slice of English history. Not a particularly pleasant slice, but completely enthralling nonetheless. Shane Meadows' typically gritty, kitchen sink style of filmmaking gives a feeling of authenticity to the proceedings, and to those characters involved. Stephen Graham’s performance is nothing short of phenomenal. Taking the audience's breath away as the skin head leader filled with bile and a searing rage that’s not purely sourced from his outward racist views. Graham flits between clever orchestrator, influential, conniving leader to uncontrolled beast tearing himself apart with his own anger. The film is hard to watch because of its subject matter and some of the more shocking scenes, but it is also impossible to turn away. The film also features an amazing debut performance from youngster Thomas Turgoose.

Honourable Mentions

Richard E. Grant and Richard Griffiths (Withnail & I); Michael Madsen  (Reservoir Dogs); Bruce Willis (Pulp Fiction); Gary Oldman (Leon); R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket); Tom Noonan (Manhunter); Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind); Al Pacino and Robert De Niro (Heat); Michael Shannon (Take Shelter); Alan Rickman (Die Hard).

Which performances do you think were unfairly overlooked by the Academy? Let us know in the comments below...

Tom Jolliffe

Marvel Comics releases an Age of Ultron trailer

$
0
0
Submit or Perish! Your New Look At AGE OF ULTRON #1...

Age of Ultron
This March, enter the darkest days of the Marvel Universe as it’s heroes fight for from the blockbuster creative team of Brian Michael Bendis (All New X-Men, Avengers VS. X-Men) and Bryan Hitch (Ultimates, Fantastic Four) in Age of Ultron #1.

To whet your appetite for this latest crossover, Marvel has released an Age of Ultron trailer, which you can check out after the official synopsis for the limited series:

Evil has triumphed over good and leading this new age is none other than Ultron, the deadly sentient robot created by founding Avenger Hank Pym who turned on his creator to achieve his twisted objective…the utter destruction of humanity. Now, it’s up to the few remaining heroes to band together and find any way to topple their new monarch. Can Wolverine, Emma Frost, Invisible Woman, Taskmaster, Beast, She-Hulk, Luke Cage, Spider-Man, and Moon Knight turn the tide? With the robotic revolution in full force, no fan can miss how Age of Ultron will ultimately change the Marvel Universe leaving no hero or villain unscathed!


AGE OF ULTRON #1 (JAN130627)
Written by BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS
Art and Cover by BRYAN HITCH
On-Sale March 2013 A.U.

AGE OF ULTRON #2 (JAN130634)
Written by BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS
Art and Cover by BRYAN HITCH
On-Sale March 2013 A.U.

AGE OF ULTRON #3 (JAN130637)
Written by BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS
Art and Cover by BRYAN HITCH
On-Sale March 2013 A.U.

The Flickering Myth BAFTA Predictions

$
0
0
It's that magical time of year again where loads of famous people gather around to perpetuate how great they are. They don't call 'em celebrate-ories for nothing.

This Sunday plays host the the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards, or, to those found of an acronym, the BAFTAs - hosted by Stephen Fry, one national institution being hosted by another. Flickering Myth will be on the red carpet on the day, uploading photos of as many nipple slips and drunk Michael Fassbenders as we can muster. We'll also be at a special screening where we get the results entire minutes before BBC broadcasts them.

The writing team here at Flickering Myth has provided their picks for the main categories...but first...the nominations...*drumroll*...

Best picture - Argo, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty.

Best British film - Anna Karenina, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Les Miserables, Seven Psychopaths and Skyfall.

Best director - Ben Affleck, Argo; Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty; Michael Haneke, Amour; Ang Lee, Life of Pi; Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained.

Best actor - Ben Affleck, Argo; Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook; Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln; Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables; Joaquin Phoenix, The Master.

Best actress - Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty; Marion Cotillard, Rust and Bone; Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook; Helen Mirren, Hitchcock; Emmanuelle Riva, Amour.

Best supporting actor - Alan Arkin, Argo; Javier Bardem, Skyfall; Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master; Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln; Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained.

Best supporting actress - Amy Adams, The Master; Judi Dench, Skyfall; Sally Field, Lincoln; Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables; Helen Hunt, The Sessions.

...and now here's out esteemed writing team's picks...

Gary Collinson

Best picture - Lincoln
Best British film - Les Miserables
Best director - Ben Affleck, Argo
Best actor - Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Best actress - Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Best supporting actor - Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained.
Best supporting actress - Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables


Liam Trim

Best Pic - Lincoln
Best Brit - Les Mis
Best director - Kathryn Bigelow
Best actor - DDL
Best actress - Helen Mirren
Best suppt actor - Javier Bardem
Best suppt actress - Anne Hathaway


Oliver Davis

Best picture - Les Miserables
Best British film - Skyfall
Best director - Ben Affleck, Argo
Best actor - Danie
l Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Best actress - Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Best supporting actor - Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln
Best supporting actress - Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables



David Bishop

Best picture: Les Miserables
Best British film: Anna Karenina
Best director: Ang Lee
Best actor: Daniel Day-Lewis
Best actress: Jennifer Lawrence
Best supporting actor: Tommy Lee Jones
Best supporting actress: Anne Hathaway





Rohan Morbey

Best Picture - Lincoln
Best "British" film - Skyfall
Best director - Ben Affleck
Best actor - Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Best actress - Emmanuelle Riva
Best supporting actor - Tommy Lee Jones
Best supporting actress - Anne Hathaway


Piers McCarthy

Best Picture: Lincoln
Best British Film: Skyfall
Best Director: Ben Affleck

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis
Best Actress: Emmanuelle Riva
Best Supporting Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman
Best Supporting Actress: Judi Dench

 
Scott J Davis

Best Pic - Les Miserables
British - Skyfall
Director - Tarantino
Actor - Jackman
Actress - Lawrence
Sup Actor - Waltz
Sup Actress - Hathaway

 
 
Paul Risker

Best Picture - Lincoln
Best British Film - SkyFall
Best Director - Michael Haneke
Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis
Best Actress - Emmanuelle Riva
Best Supporting Actor - Philip Seymour Hoffman
Best Supporting Actress - Amy Adams






Matt Smith

Best picture - Life of Pi
Best British film - Skyfall
Best director - Ben Affleck, Argo

Best actor - Joaquin Phoenix, The Master
Best actress - Marion Cotillard, Rust and Bone
Best supporting actor - Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Best supporting actress - Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables



So for those of you not keeping count, here's all of those in one bite-size chunk of consensus:

Best picture - Lincoln
Best British film - Skyfall
Best director - Ben Affleck, Argo
Best actor - Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Best actress - Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
Best supporting actor [tied] - Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln and Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Best supporting actress - Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables


See you all here live for the BAFTAs this Sunday from 4pm.

NBC pulls Do No Harm after just two episodes

$
0
0
After only two episodes, NBC has decided to cancel the freshman show Do No Harm, which centres on a successful neurosurgeon (Steven Pasquale; Six Feet Under) harbouring an alternate personality.

The show premiered last week to the lowest-rated in-season broadcast scripted series debut ever. Its second episode performed even worse, causing NBC to make the necessary decision to put the show to rest. Do No Harm will be replaced by episodes of Law & Order: SVU until further notice.

Do No Harm didn’t have a great marketing campaign or too many promos before its premiere so it’s no wonder the show was cancelled. NBC has been having a rough time lately, especially with dramas, so losing another one won’t help them at all.

Giveaway - Win a Sinister Blu-ray and limited edition T-shirt

$
0
0
The “Genuinely terrifying” (5*, Daily Mail) box-office sensation that terrified cinemagoers and critics alike is shortly upon us; the Ethan Hawke-starring Sinister arrives on DVD, Blu-ray and Download February 11th through Momentum Pictures, and to celebrate the release, we’re giving away a limited edition t-shirt and a copy on Blu-ray! Plus, one lucky runner-up will also receive a limited edition T-shirt.

Read on for a synopsis, and details of how to enter the giveaway...

#SurviveSINISTER On Valentine's Day! From 8.00pm Thursday 14th Feb press play and watch your copy of Sinister and join in the fun on twitter following the hashtag #SurviveSINISTER. Share the fear and win prizes. The Sinister team will be online from 7.30pm tweeting from @Sinister_UK to help you get ready!

Desperately in need of a best seller to revive his struggling career, true crime writer Ellison (Ethan Hawke), moves his family to the scene of his most recent story; the unsolved, gruesome murder of a loving, happy suburban family. 

Shunned by the local community and strained by his obligations to his family, the discovery of a batch of home movies in the attic offers Ellison shocking proof to the crime he is investigating and the terrifying realisation that his investigation may be putting his family in mortal danger.


Pre-order Sinister on Blu-ray.

To be in with a chance of winning, firstly make sure you like us on Facebook (or follow us on Twitter)...



...Then complete your details below, using the subject heading "SINISTER". The competition closes at midnight on Saturday, February 24th. UK entrants only please.

 
 By entering this competition you agree to our terms and conditions, which you can read here.
Viewing all 7138 articles
Browse latest View live