MSN Movies Blog

The Hollywood Reporter seems to think so.

By Corwin Neuse Jul 19, 2011 6:26PM
An actor, acting.A few days ago, The Hollywood Reporter proposed the seemingly preposterous idea that Andy Serkis could be seriously considered for an Academy Award for his motion-capture performance as the sentient simian Caesar in the upcoming "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."

Certainly a fine actor, Serkis is perhaps long overdue for some attention from Oscar, as a not-insignificant cadre of rabid "Lord of the Rings" fans would surely attest. Although probably better known for his "digital" performances as Gollum in the aforementioned "Rings" trilogy, Kong in 2005's "King Kong," and Captain Haddock in Steven Spielberg's upcoming "Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn," Serkis has also turned in memorable "physical"/live action performances in "13 Going on 30" and "24 Hour Party People." Which is not to say that all those roles were Oscar-worthy, because they weren't. 

That said—and not to impugn either of these actors or their fine work—does anyone actually remember John C. Reilly's performance in "Chicago," or that Ed Harris was even in "The Hours?" Both were nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Meanwhile, the same year, Serkis was electric as Gollum in "The Two Towers," and basically stole the movie from his more heralded co-stars. And failed to get his due.

Now, however, with mo-cap becoming ever more refined, respectable, and ubiquitous—especially since the 2009 release of James Cameron's "Avatar," which made pervasive use of technology to spectacular popular and critical success—Serkis stands a better chance than ever at receiving his proper recognition. Of course, all arguments become moot if "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" proves terrible. Or if it bombs, crushed beneath the collective weight of Harry Potter, Captain America, Steve Carell doing that respectable romantic comedy thing he seems to do so well, and the combined forces of James Bond and Indiana Jones.

But really, what're the chances of all that happening? James Franco is in it! The Franco can do no wrong.
 

The long-winded true tale behind the film's central love ballad

By William Goss Jul 19, 2011 4:14PM
If you saw last year's relationship rollercoaster, "Blue Valentine," then you probably thought two things afterwards: 1) I could sure use a pick-me-up, and 2) How great was that little ditty that Ryan Gosling's character claimed as the de facto anthem between he and Michelle Williams?

"You and Me" was an obscure 1970 track by heretofore unknown band Penny & the Quarters out of Columbus, Ohio, and just last week, it was revealed that vocalist Nannie "Penny" Sharpe was still alive and well and -- until very recently -- unaware that a recorded rehearsal had gone on to be a quiet gem all these years later.

The full, against-all-odds story can be found over here (although we give our thanks to In Contention for the heads-up). As for that pick-me-up you requested: if this doesn't do the trick, I'm afraid that you're on your own.

 

Is Appropriately Weird

By Corwin Neuse Jul 19, 2011 1:18PM
Are you a fan of twinkling, ethereal piano music?

Do you love the sound of a crackling fire?

Do you perhaps need a soundtrack for a romantic get-together with your significant other? 

Then pull up the official "Hunger Games motion poster" on Yahoo and settle in!

While the new poster isn't particularly revealing—and this new "motion" technology is bafflingly pointless—"Hunger Games" fans can at least rest assured that Lionsgate is pulling out all the stops to promote their new favorite film. And, hey, at least they got the logo right.

Disappointingly, today's news brings us no new images from the film, or of the cast, and still we have no trailer, despite the movie's impending release in only a scant seven months! "The Dark Knight Rises" is a year off, and already we've had a trailer for that. What gives, Lionsgate?

Are the filmmakers scared of letting us see their creation? Or is this (maybe) just a shrewd move to stoke anticipation?

Whichever, we can't wait for March 23rd to arrive...
 

Sigourney Weaver mulls (another) return to the iconic franchise

By Corwin Neuse Jul 19, 2011 1:01PM
In an interview recently published by Moviefone, Sigourney Weaver enthusiastically welcomed a possible return to her iconic role of Ellen Ripley and the “Alien” franchise.

While she expressed doubt that those within the industry would green-light an action flick fronted by a woman in her sixties, anyone who saw Weaver triumphantly kick ass and take names in “Avatar” might vehemently disagree with that pessimistic assessment. 

“Avatar” was an unofficial, spiritual successor to “Aliens” in a variety of respects—not the least of which was that it reunited Weaver with director James Cameron, who memorably coaxed an Oscar-nominated performance out of her back in 1986. Still, the odds of Weaver starring in a new sequel, even with Cameron’s unlikely participation, appear distressingly bleak.

While memories of the disappointing “Aliens 3” and “Aliens: Resurrection” have faded from the public consciousness, the poor quality and increasingly tepid reception of the “Aliens vs. Predator” movies have seemingly done enough to tarnish the brand in the eyes of Hollywood. Ridley Scott, who directed the original “Alien” in 1979, has famously espoused a certain reticence to return to the franchise, particularly in the wake of the artistically incomparable “AvP” films. Scott has even gone so far as to (repeatedly) issue half-hearted denials that his current project, “Prometheus,” has anything to do with the “Aliens” mythos, despite the enduring (and possibly accurate) popular conception of it as a prequel of sorts.

And therein lies the biggest challenge facing Weaver and those of her fans hoping for Ripley’s return. Any new “Aliens” film would presumably be a prequel like “Prometheus,” or a straight-up remake. Unfortunately, if the harrowing misadventures of Ellen Ripley are to ever continue on the silver screen, it might have to be on a much smaller, more intimate (read: cheaper) scale, probably as a horror film a la the original “Alien,” rather than the rip-roaring, Space Marine action flick that Weaver would seem to prefer.

Would you be interested in seeing a new “Aliens” film starring Sigourney Weaver? And, if so, which genre would you prefer? Should James Cameron use his motion-capture magic to bring back a younger, more dexterous Ripley, possibly in 3D? Could David Fincher be given another chance to direct? Are you intrigued by "Prometheus?" Please, let us know.

Oh, and if you really want to see another Ripley-led “Aliens” film, please do not to send petitions, letters of support, and/or live crabs (in honor of the original films terrifying “facehuggers”) to the CEO of 20th Century Fox, at 1021 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035. That would just be irresponsible, stupid, and presumably rather messy.
 

Stephen King's epic fantasy will remain on the page, for now

By William Goss Jul 19, 2011 10:45AM
Some novels are simply too big for the screen. Sure, that didn't stop a few intrepid parties from making "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" (if not the rest of the trilogy), "Tristram Shandy" or "Watchmen." But Stephen King's long-running series, "The Dark Tower," was even bigger than that; in the hands of Ron Howard and Imagine Entertainment, the project would have to span both film and TV in an ambitious multimedia effort to bring the tales of the Gunslinger (which themselves spanned seven novels to date and multiple comics) to life.

Alas, Howard has failed like J.J. Abrams before him, and for one big reason: money. According to The Hollywood Reporter, a reluctant Universal has officially decided against backing the endeavor. The studio has taken some lumps recently with their low-grossing, geek-baiting genre fare ("Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," "Paul," "Your Highness"), but beyond that, the cost of "Tower" would have to rival that of the "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings" franchises.

Could it still get made someday? It's possible, but fans shouldn't hold their breath. After all, if Opie can't get "The Dark Tower" made, who can? (No, seriously, tell us in the comments. I hear Tyler Perry has money -- somebody get him a copy of the first book, stat!)

 

The Men Behind the Magic Tell All ...

By James Rocchi Jul 19, 2011 8:47AM

While the child actors of Harry Potter have been with us for every film, there's an equally important group of people behind-the-scenes from the very start. Producer David Heyman was the man who first saw some potential in a book by a first-time author; David Barron, who came on board with "Chamber of Secrets," was the more experienced of the two. Speaking in New York, the two gave plenty of insight into the secrets of the films -- and the pains and pleasures of wrapping the series.

 

On what things kept the "Potter" leads level-headed during 10 years of fame and filming:

 

Heyman: I think first I count their parents; I think that's key. Also, we had the privilege of making these films in Leavesden Studios, which were a little ... dank. It certainly wasn't a grand place, so it was a little isolated. We had a lot of the same crew working on the films from 2000 right up until 2010, when we finished shooting the films. There was a great consistency in terms of the people, so nobody could get away with anything. If anybody got high on their horse, we'd sure as hell hear about it. It's a great atmosphere; it's a film of great pride but no ego. I think that encouraged a sense of humility on their part, which is one of the qualities I really respect they've retained. They're also surrounded by actors who are at the top of their game who they could learn from, but also saw how they behaved. You had Michael Gambon and Gary Oldman and Imelda Staunton and Ralph Fiennes. They're regular people; they're not a**holes -- excuse my language. They're really lovely, and I think they saw that and they learned from that and they retained their humility and their decency.

 

Barron: When we started, they were very, very young. The environment had to be one that we could all look at ourselves in the mirror in the morning and feel we were doing the very best we could for children. They weren't some actors, they weren't adults -- they were literally children. They set the tone for the rest of the proceedings. It was a safe place, a friendly place, and there was no ego, as David said.

 

Heyman: I also think that we tried to keep it fun. Nobody treated anybody like a star. Sure, they each had their dresser and things that you and I may not have on a daily basis, though I probably could use one. They were treated as they were Dan and Rupert and Emma, and everybody's treated with respect, but not fawned over.

 

On the last day on set:

 

Barron:  We actually had several last days on set. We had the main unit last day, and then we had inserts and things, but the main unit day was incredibly emotional. We scheduled something very easy for the cast. It was not at all dramatic: It was from the previous film, from 'Part I,' where they were diving into the fireplace and making their escape from the Ministry of Magic. They were on the green stage diving onto a green mattress, so it's not too demanding in terms of their emotional acting range. We were finishing at lunch time because Dan was coming to New York to present a Tony the following day, and we did it: we finished


 

Is the new Universal film anti-marriage or just pro-fun?

By DannyMiller Jul 18, 2011 6:50PM

 I can’t seem to drive two blocks in Los Angeles these days without being confronted with one of the billboards for “The Change-Up,” the new Jason Bateman-Ryan Reynolds body-switching movie opening on August 5. No, I haven’t had a sneak peek at the film, which is directed by David Dobkin (“Wedding Crashers”) and written by “Hangover” writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, but that doesn’t stop me from fuming about its ad campaign.


You know the story, right? Jason Bateman, harried husband and father of two young tots, and Ryan Reynolds, hunky single guy who scores big with the babes, have a moment of envying each other’s life while peeing in front of some kind of enchanted fountain (what, you don’t pee in public fountains with your buddies?). Faster than you can say “Freaky Friday,” the two men find themselves transported into each other’s bodies and lives. This overused premise has practically spawned its own genre, with films like “Big,” “Vice Versa,” “17 Again,” “Like Father, Like Son,” “All of Me,” “Prelude to a Kiss,” and, of course, not one but two versions of the Disney classic, “Freaky Friday.” Most of these films involve switcheroos between adults and children but “The Change-Up” posits a grass-is-always-greener scenario between two adult males.

 

In truth, I have no problem with another body-swap film. It may not be new territory but it’s a tried-and-true scenario that often provides a lot of funny opportunities for its fish-out-of-water stars. No, my only pre-release beef with the film is the underlying assumption present in the billboards, print ads, and trailers I’ve seen for the film (there is so much promotion for “The Change-Up,” Universal must be hoping that this will be their Big Summer Hit once wizard fatigue sets in). Whatever warm fuzzies that exist in the actual screenplay regarding how we should all be grateful for our lives and the people who love us, the ad campaign has one message only: marriage and kids = misery, gross-outs, and indentured servitude while unencumbered single man’s life = heaven on earth. Really?


I hope I don't seem like Michele Bachmann here. I do have a sense of humor, I swear, and I like raunch as much as the next guy (I loved the original “Hangover” as well as “Bridesmaids”). But constantly having to stare down Ryan Reynold’s self-satisfied mug (who’s really Jason Bateman suddenly finding himself single) as he’s surrounded by thong-wearing hotties makes me want to hurl. And seeing Jason Bateman’s “oh crap, why am I alive?” shrug (who’s really Ryan Reynolds suddenly encumbered with the ball and chain) makes me want to come out of the closet as a very happily married man who vastly prefers my life with my wife and two children (one of whom is still in diapers) over the supposed “fantasy” of having wild sex with a different woman every night. Yuck.

 

Am I being humorless here? Probably, and I do plan on seeing the actual film which may well be very funny (especially with Jason Bateman in the lead). But I remain offended at the taken-for-granted notion that most married people wish they could go back to dating and the single life. To be honest, I can’t think of anything I’d want less! And I wonder if “Sexiest Man Alive” Ryan Reynolds, whose divorce from Scarlett Johansson was just finalized a few weeks ago, might agree with me.  


 

Completely flummoxes the movie-going public

By Corwin Neuse Jul 18, 2011 2:07PM
Deadline is reporting that Oscar®-winning director Kevin Costner ("Dances with Wolves") has joined Quentin Tarantino's latest opus, "Django Unchained." 

Why Tarantino would seek out the questionable and untrained acting talents of the reclusive Costner—whose creative output has amounted to a positively Terrence Malick-ian five films over the past twenty one years—remains unclear. Costner's role, however, sounds disproportionately juicy. He will reportedly play an as-yet unnamed "sadistic trainer of the male fighting slaves," and one of Leonardo DiCaprio's villainous, slave-owning pimp's principal lackeys. Sort of like the late Oliver Reed's role of Proximo in "Gladiator," only with (presumably) way more unrestrained profanity and vehement, gleeful racism.

The film—also starring Jamie Foxx, Samuel L. Jackson, and Christopher Waltz—marks Tarantino's (the notorious failed actor of "From Dusk Till Dawn" and TV's "Alias") eighth feature as a director. Doesn't the Academy™ supposedly love actors-turned-directors, like Clint Eastwood and Ron Howard? Somebody get this guy a nomination, already!
 
showtimes & tickets
Search by location, title, or genre: