Thanks so much to Whitehouse Content who made this video (with a nod of the cap to The Vulture) as it literally had be laughing out loud! It basically shows what Jaws could have been like if it was a family-friendly Disney esk movie and I’m not hoping it gets made!

Prepare to laugh!

Here’s how / why the video got made and I’m so pleased it did!

“Camp Kuleshov” is a competition in NYC, CHI and LA between assistant editors. They are given a film and asked to edit a trailer for the movie taking it from its original genre into another genre. Caleb Hepler’s “Shark Song” took first place.

Yesterday I awoke to a press release telling me that the BT Tower was going to be turned into a Lightsaber (and last night it came true) and this morning I get news that one of my childhood heroes, Postman Pat is going to get his own feature film! There’s a full press release from a well respected PR firm so it has to be true doesn’t it?!

The film finds Pat, everyone’s favourite postman, coming face-to-face with the temptations of money, status and a shiny new suit when he enters a national TV talent show competition that threatens to tear him away from his hometown of Greendale and the friends he loves. What happens when kindness meets selfishness?  When local fame meets global notoriety?  A nice cup of tea is kicked aside by a frappacappucino?    Pat is set to find out as he falls for the age old temptation of the grass being greener…

The animated feature movie is going to be called ‘You Know You’re the One’ and will be with us spring 2013. The voice cast lined up to star include Stephen Mangan, Jim Broadbent, Rupert Grint and David Tennan. Just as long as Jess and Mrs Goggins makes an appearance, we’re happy!

More as we get it but this sounds like a lot of fun to me! Read the full press release below which tells you much much more.

SPECIAL 30^TH BIRTHDAY DELIVERY

POSTMAN PAT’s® FIRST FEATURE FILM

“YOU KNOW YOU’RE THE ONE”

COMING TO CINEMAS SPRING 2013

 

Episodes’ Stephen Mangan, Academy Award® Winner Jim Broadbent,

Harry Potter’s Rupert Grint and Doctor Who’s David Tennant

Lead Star-Studded Voice Cast

LONDON, UK (September 16, 2011) -  Classic Media, a media company with a portfolio of some of the world’s leading family entertainment brands, and RGH Entertainment, the animation development and production unit of Rubicon Group Holding (RGH), are proud to announce that Postman Pat will be making his big screen debut in ‘Postman Pat: The Movie – You Know You’re the One’.  The announcement of the film, which will be released in CG 3-D Stereoscopic, is timed to today’s celebration of Postman Pat’s 30^th birthday.

 The renowned voice cast will be led by actor Stephen Mangan (Episodes, Green Wing, Dirk Gently) as Postman Pat. Academy Award® and BAFTA® Award Winner Jim Broadbent (Iris, Moulin Rouge!), Rupert Grint, who achieved international fame as Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter film series, and David Tennant (Doctor Who, Harry Potter) will join Stephen in bringing the world of Postman Pat to life on the big screen.

The film finds Pat, everyone’s favourite postman, coming face-to-face with the temptations of money, status and a shiny new suit when he enters a national TV talent show competition that threatens to tear him away from his hometown of Greendale and the friends he loves. What happens when kindness meets selfishness?  When local fame meets global notoriety?  A nice cup of tea is kicked aside by a frappacappucino?    Pat is set to find out as he falls for the age old temptation of the grass being greener…

The voice cast, all true Postman Pat fans, commented on working on the film.  Stephen Mangan said, “I’m absolutely thrilled to be playing the world’s best-known postman in his big screen debut – he’s an iconic British hero and it’s a great script. However when I excitedly told my 3 year old son that I was going to be Postman Pat, he said, ‘No you’re not, dad, don’t be silly.’”  Jim Broadbent noted, “I’m delighted and very excited to be involved with such an iconic figure as Postman Pat.” Rupert Grint added, “I used to watch Postman Pat when I was a small boy. My brother and sisters all did at some stage. Postman Pat is one of those British symbols, I suppose – you are totally familiar with him and his cat, Jess even if you have never watched the series.  How exciting to be part of the Postman Pat heritage.”     

‘Postman Pat: The Movie – You Know You’re the One’ will be directed by Mike Disa (Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil) from a screenplay co-written by the award-winning Kim Fuller (Spice World, High Heels & Low Lifes) and Annika Bluhm, the long-time Producer of the Postman Pat television series.  The film is being produced by RGH’s Robert Anich and Miles Horst and Classic Media’s Ceri Barnes and Annika Bluhm, with Rubicon’s Randa Ayoubi and David Corbett and Classic Media’s Eric Ellenbogen and Doug Schwalbe serving as executive producers.

‘Postman Pat: The Movie – You Know You’re the One’ begins production this month and heads to cinemas Spring 2013.   Ralph Kamp’s Timeless Films is managing worldwide sales with Icon Film Distribution releasing the film in the UK and Eire.

It has felt like a pretty slow year at the box office, but that has changed over the last several weeks. Fast Five and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides have both made huge amounts of money, but this weekend a box office record was broken. To be fair, we are not talking about a record as noteworthy as The Dark Knight’s highest ever opening, or Avatar’s highest grossing movie of all time.

For the team behind  The Hangover 2, however, it will be a good feeling.

With a Friday to Sunday total of $86m, The Hangover has broken the record for highest grossing opening for an R-rated comedy. More than that, it also beat the highest grossing opening weekend for a live-action comedy, and has the second highest opening for any R-rated movie, behind The Matrix: Reloaded. This is clearly a huge achievement, and everyone involved will be hoping it can go on to break the record of the first Hangover movie, which two years ago became the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time.

So why would we have needed a cure for The Hangover? Reading through these facts, something struck me. The previous highest opening for an R-rated comedy was held by Sex and the City 2. Let’s see, SATC2, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides? It is not a cure for The Hangover we need, it is a cure for inferior sequels.

In theory, a sequel should naturally improve on its predecessor. With a first film, valuable time is required to introduce characters, set-up their backgrounds and motivations. In a follow-up we already know, and hopefully like these characters. Without the need to win our sympathy or empathy, the characters should have more time and freedom to grow, to live, to develop. Also, thanks to the wealth of criticism now aimed at all movies, the screenwriters and directors should have a clear idea of what worked in the first film, and what didn’t, using this information to craft, ideally, the perfect movie.

Unfortunately, as we all know, sequels nowadays tend to be financially motivated, and not necessarily put together to capitalise on a great idea that has been fully developed. The Hangover Part Two comes two years after the first movie. Considering that bringing a movie project together from development to screen takes, usually, at least a year, it is clear that the latest film was a cash grab, brought to theatres as soon as possible before interest in the property was allowed to die down.

It can be argued, though, that the new Hangover film was an attempt to give audiences exactly what they wanted. The first one took everyone by surprise. No-one expected great things from it, much of its eventual audience had never heard of it when it was released. Great word of mouth for this unique and original comedy gave its box office performance long legs, and the money continued to roll in long after its opening weekend.

The problem seems to be that The Hangover Part 2 has followed the formula of the original too closely. Where the first film felt fresh and original, by all accounts the second is a lazy retread, the same characters doing much the same things, with very similar jokes. The budget has increased thanks to the first films success, allowing bigger action set pieces, but giving a film bigger, louder, more extreme treatment is not always the answer.

It is hard to see, of course, what really could have been done differently. The audience went in expecting more of the same, it was pretty clear from the trailers that this was what was on offer. So in this case, what is the solution? If a particular film is not really begging of a sequel, what is a studio to do? The obvious answer is to leave it alone. Some films are meant as a one-off piece of art, and maybe should just be left as that. We cannot expect a studio to take this view. The movie industry is just that. an industry. Filmmaking is a business, and that business is making money, as well as entertaining people. If there were no big tentpole films like The Hangover Part Two, Pirates of the Caribbean or The Matrix: Reloaded to bring the studios massive profits, they would not be in a position to take a gamble on more considered, critically acclaimed works that, as sad as it is, very often make a loss.

I’m interested to see what The Hangover’s drop-off is like next weekend. The film was obviously critic-proof, but where the first film’s financial power gathered steam thanks to great word of mouth, will the poor reaction to this new film put people off of going to see it? X-Men: First Class is enjoying a great critical reception, and is aimed at a similar demographic. It has the potential to make a lot of money, and with the underperforming Kung Fu Panda 2 looking to make amends this coming weekend, it is possible that The Hangover will take a big tumble.

The reasons for sequels like The Hangover Part Two are clear, and they are absolutely necessary for the industry wheels to keep on turning. Without them, we may never have got the first Hangover, which with a $35m budget and then-unknown cast would have been considered a financial risk itself. I just wish more time was put into these movies, waiting for genuine inspiration to hit rather than rushing them through to a hastily enforced schedule. More than anything, the first Hangover showed that if a film has real appeal, it will find an audience, whether that audience recognises the franchise or not.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The weekend box office estimates are in, and against all odds Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has achieved the highest opening weekend total so far this year. It just managed to squeak past previous highest Fast Five’s total, with an estimated $90m according to Inside Movies at EW.com, and sets a big target for the rest of the summer blockbusters to aspire to.

The question is:  how is such a tired franchise continuing to make so much money?

This opening total is down on the previous Pirates films. Black Pearl, an unknown quantity at the time, only opened with $46.6m, but Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End opened with $135.6m and $114.7m respectively. They also, however, got progressively worse. Starting with Black Pearl at 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregates went down to 54% then 45%. The latest, On Stranger Tides, has managed to undercut them all with an appalling 34%. This doesn’t seem to have dampened the audience interest, however, and it is looking at this point like Pirates of the Caribbean is one of those franchises that is almost critic proof.

Let’s face it, Johnny Depp is the reason the series has been so successful. His Captain Jack Sparrow routine is what drew audiences in for the first movie, and the stories have been built around Depp and Sparrow throughout. The problem with this is that the movies are suffering as a result. Relying on his schtick to carry the films through means we are not being offered anything fresh. After the last two movies received such a critical mauling, the smart move would have been to either pack it in, or hire a screenwriter known for their quality storytelling. Instead, Disney seem to have just gone for the easy money, and put the weight back on Jack Sparrows shoulders, perhaps having too much of their attention divided by other projects.
The thing that amazes me is that we are in a cinematic period where people are complaining about too many sequels, bemoaning the lack of original material. Yet we are still paying good money to see unimaginative retreads with these financially motivated sequels. The clear truth is that, in fact, the majority audience love sequels.So many people are afraid of change, and if you go and see a well established, though well worn, franchise you know what you are going to get. We may be only sporadically entertained, but hey, it’s better than taking a risk on the unknown, right?

Despite such poor critical reception, and star Depp recently saying he’d like to see a little time go past before we see a Pirates 5, with the money On Stranger Tides has made both domestically and globally it seems likely Disney will be keen to press on with a fifth installment. It will be very interesting to see what would happen if Depp did indeed decline to come back. Would they press on regardless with new characters? Would this actually be the key to increasing the quality of the overall product?

Tron: Legacy did not go down too well with critics, but the general public seemed to quite like it. It was also financially successful, so a third movie is on the cards. As long as movie goers are happy to return for follow-ups, the studios are, quite sensibly, more than happy to provide them. It is, obviously, much easier to put a sequel to an existing movie together than to come up with a concept from scratch. Don’t forget, Pirates of the Caribbean was initially a gamble on adapting a theme park ride to the big screen, so inspiration is clearly pretty thin on the ground. If we don’t think a film is up to scratch, but go back for more punishment anyway when the time comes, we really have no right to complain when we are let down again.

We are stuck in a cycle of sequels. This year sees a record total of them at cinemas, and whilst I am not against sequels as a rule, there needs to be more care taken with them. If a compelling and entertaining story does not come naturally to them, it means they are not justified. Some movies are just meant as stand alone pieces of art, and no matter what we might like to think, the memory of any great movie is watered down by its legacy. All we, the audience, can do is vote with our feet. Because in this industry, money talks. And, right now, the money is saying we want recycled trash. I don’t. I want great movies, and so far this year I haven’t seen enough of them.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

As you may have seen from the post preceding this one, Tom Cruise is celebrating 30 years in the movie industry this year and I thought what better use of our time could there be than running a poll for your all-time favourite Tom Cruise movie?!

Below is his entire body of feature film work in list form and all you have to do is vote for your all-time fav! I know this is going to be next to (Mission) impossible since he’s made so many classics but one and one only is what you must choose.

Will it be the obvious Top Gun or will it be the Irish attempts in Far and Away?! “I do not wish ta fight yeeer” he states to a horse before punching it in the face! Classic. Could it be Days of Thunder where we see Top Gun re-enacted in car form. Could it be Jerry Maguire where we see him acting opposite the cutest five year old you’ve ever seen or do we move forward some years to see him play rude and obnoxious millionaire Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder?! Oh so many classics to choose from.

Anyway, without further ado, it’s time to pick you favourite Tom Cruise movie. Choose wisely otherwise you might end up like Julian Glover in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade!

List is in alphabetical order.

As soon as Avatar finished its super successful cinema run rumours emerged that the world hadn’t seen the end of the story, and that we were to expect a second chapter to Jake and Neytiri’s adventures in Pandora.

The Hollywood Reporter has now announced that director James Cameron is getting ready to film not one, but two sequels to his “biggest blockbuster of all time” masterpiece.

The two movies are scheduled to come out over the course of the next four years, the first in December 2014 and the second a year after that, and Lightstorm Entertainment (Cameron’s company) is now just starting to get into gear for the mammoth work that such a complex and motion capture technology advanced production will require.

Cameron is selling his old office building in Santa Monica (currently listed at $11.85 million), probably in an attempt to at least reduce the inevitable work-related stress by having his offices and studio consolidated into one location not far from his home, down the coast of Malibu.

It is likely that Wellington based WETA, the special effects company which looked after the visual effects in the Lord of the Rings saga as well as those in the first Avatar, will be employed again, although Cameron hasn’t confirmed as of yet whether live action scenes will take place in New Zealand as they were for the first Avatar.

While fans will have to wait quite a while, the buzz around the Avatar sequels production has already started and looks like it could rival that of Peter Jackson’s long awaited The Hobbit. More news to come soon…

Report by Margherita Pellegrino.

By now, you’ll have heard about the successful Toy Story 3 Oscar nomination campaign, and seen some of the fantastic posters. If not, you can read about it here. It is certainly hard to argue with the strength of the campaign. If any film can claim to be 2010′s big success story, it is easily Toy Story 3.

Last year, Toy Story 3 became the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Not really a massive surprise, considering it was based on one of the best loved animated film series in cinematic history. Pixar scored big with the first two installments, and in the last few years have raised the bar for animated movies with the critically acclaimed Wall*E and Up.

In fact, it was just last year that Up transcended its genre and became the first computer animated movie to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. It was perhaps a fortunate beneficiary of the decision to expand the number of nominees for Best Picture from 5 to 10. With the Oscar nominations recently announced, maybe Toy Story 3 will go one better and win the Gold statue. After all, it received almost unanimous reviews across the board. Why stop there though? If an animated movie can be considered for Best Picture, surely it’s possible that an animated character could be nominated for Best Actor?

This would have sounded crazy to me a couple of years ago. I was never a huge fan of animated films, and though I appreciated the brilliant mix of child-friendly action and adult humour inherent in animated films nowadays, and the Toy Story series particularly, I still wasn’t able to take them seriously enough. This past year however I have watched both Up and Wall*E as part of the HeyUGuys IMDb250 Project, and my eyes have been opened to just how poignant and affecting an animated story can be.

It was because of my experiences with these two movies that I found myself for the first time since childhood actually looking forward to going to see an animated film, and went along to watch Toy Story 3 in a theatre. Whilst the storyline isn’t necessarily anything groundbreaking or original in comparison to the previous two movies, the themes explored and the way they are written are beautiful, provoking a genuine emotional response. I found the journey of these fictional, animated characters truly affecting, and must now finally concede that an animated movie can be just effective, if not more so, than a live action picture.

So far this year, we have seen very few obvious Oscar contenders. The traditional season for the Academy Award hopefuls has been and gone, and it was hard to pick many movies other than Toy Story 3 from the first three quarters of the year as definites for the shortlist. As for the Best Actor category, I have not really seen any performances yet that I think are good enough to be recognised by the Academy either, and I honestly feel that so far the best performance I have seen could be that of an animated character – Buzz Lightyear. Over the course of a 90 minute movie, Buzz plays hero, villain, amnesiac, Spaniard, soldier and, most importantly, family man. Lightyear shows fantastic range, and versatility, and is perfectly believable throughout. He displays a vulnerability, and an inner strength, that show as much humanity as any man or woman has managed on screen so far in 2010. He makes you love him and, in one particular scene at the movie’s climax, touches your soul with just one simple look. I felt an emotional connection to the character possibly greater than i have felt in any other film I’ve seen this year.

I got to thinking seriously about this because it was in stark contrast to the feeling that i got watching Leonardo Di Caprio in Inception. I loved Inception, and Di Caprio is undoubtedly one of the best actors around right now. He is certainly no stranger to awards season. In Inception, however, I just did not feel the same emotional connection to his character as I did with Buzz Lightyear, a fictional toy. I’m a big fan of Di Caprio, and realise that I’m being a little unfair. He wasn’t given as much to work with as he has had in his previous roles, and that I bought his character’s motivations and relationships at all are testament to his ability.

As much as anything this situation pays tribute to how far the animators in the industry have come. The biggest stumbling block to an animated character like Buzz Lightyear winning an actors award is that it could not be attributed to one man. Tim Allen voices Buzz, but as a voice actor Allen is only half of the story, if that. It is the team of animators behind Lightyear and the other Toy Story characters that give them life and soul, and whilst i am sure they will win some technical awards in March it would be a shame if they did not receive some formal recognition for the way they have enabled a computer graphic to provoke such a tangible emotional response.The director and writers have clearly played their part too, making one of the year’s best performances a real collaborative effort.

I realise that it is highly unlikely that Buzz, Woody or any other animated creations are going to be honoured at the Academy Awards. I do feel, however, that at this rate, with the fantastic work by Pixar and the lifelike creations of James Cameron and his team on Avatar, we are fast reaching a point where some kind of recognition is going to be required to reward the increasingly great work that is being done in the field of artificial character creation. Technology is advancing, the ambitions of those that use it are growing, and it must surely be only a matter of time before the performance of a computer generated character is held up as being comparable to that of some human actors. I now find myself looking forward to that day. Of course, when it does happen, we are one step closer to Judgement Day…

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

One of this past year’s hidden gems was Gareth Edward’s Monsters. Despite the overt nature of the title, the ‘Monsters’ in question only made the briefest of appearances, with the main crux of the story concentrating on the developing relationship between the two protagonists.The sci-fi element of the plot was really more of a backdrop for a more personal drama.

News came through this week that Edwards has been signed up to direct Legendary Pictures’ Godzilla reboot. The last Godzilla movie, Emmerich’s big budget destructathon was criticised for poor plot, weak characterisations, and, well, was lacking everything that Monsters did well.

Gareth Edwards, then, is the perfect choice to take the reigns. On the face of it at least. However, looking deeper, it looks to me that it might be a mistake, on both sides.

There are several different scenarios here. The first is that Edwards has been selected because the makers are hoping to put out a much more measured, dramatic relationship driven piece, much like Monsters. I have a couple of problems with this. The first, is that if this is really the case, if they are effectively asking for a remake of Edward’s own film, what is the point? The film already exists. Edwards did a fantastic job, and to ask him to do the same thing again is ludicrous.

It may be that they feel that not enough people saw Monsters, and that with a healthy budget Edwards can improve upon the formula, and the name value of the franchise can draw in the audiences that Monsters did not get. Fine in theory, but when the mainstream movie going public go to see a Godzilla movie, they want destruction and spectacle. Those that did not enjoy Edward’s debut were the people that went in expecting exactly this spectacle, that left disappointed at what they felt was a slow, boring film that did not live up to its promise of the title creatures.

It is certainly possible that Edwards can come up with a balance of the two elements, which would be the ideal, but remember he has only made one film. It takes a lot of skill and experience to craft the perfect action movie, and this would be a big ask for the first time filmmaker.

It could also go the other way of course. It is possible that the reason for the focus on the characters in Monsters, and the developing relationship between them, was purely due to financial constraints. With a big budget behind him, there is nothing to stop Edwards going crazy with an overblown disaster movie much like the last incarnation. This will most probably will not be the outcome, but the point is that Edwards is untested. One great movie does not make a great filmmaker. Donnie Darko was a universally praised debut from Richard Kelly, but his work has flopped since. Would a Godzilla movie be too much pressure to put on a fledgling feature director?

My biggest fear is that the choice is a cost saving exercise. It may be that the producers saw how well Edwards did with a minuscule budget, and are hoping he can work financial wonders with Godzilla, crafting a masterpiece at a fraction of the sum of the usual Hollywood action/disaster film. If this is the case, it could end in disaster.

As I said earlier, the wider cinematic audience go into a Godzilla movie expecting to see the monster, and plenty of him. Edwards could use every trick in the book to keep the costs down, and could well put together a fantastic, dramatic film. This would however leave a large percentage of the audience disappointed, and could well end up damaging Edwards’ reputation. You can make the most interesting of films, but if audiences leave angry and frustrated because they feel they were mis sold, it can do damage to reputations.

Of course, this is all very negative. Legendary Pictures have offered a promising, talented young filmmaker the chance to show his work on a much bigger stage. They could have made a lazy choice, employing a Michael Bay-like director of brainless action movies, so they should be commended for making a bold choice. I think we are starting to see producers and studios put a bit more thought into who they get to work on their revenue drawing franchises.

We’ve recently seen Darren Aronofsky named as director of the forthcoming Wolverine film, and Michel Gondry’s take on The Green Hornet will be released very soon. It is good to see more cerebral directors charged with restoring respectability to big budget blockbusters, and I’m looking forward to more choices like this being made. Also, with Edwards’ visual effects background, he is the perfect director to assist his actors in visualising a behemoth that isn’t there on set.

I don’t necessarily think Gareth Edwards is the wrong choice for the Godzilla movie, but there are a lot of factors involved. It depends greatly on the studio’s motives, what they want from the movie, and how much they will interfere with Edward’s work. If they do give him a big budget, they will be under pressure to produce a blockbuster movie that appeals to a large audience. If they leave the director to make the film that he wants, it may not be the one that the demographic audience for a monster movie wants to see.

I was a big fan of Monsters, and very keen to see what Edwards would come up with next. I can’t help but find myself disappointed that he has agreed to this particular project. a Godzilla movie can be great, and Edwards definitely has the potential to do a fantastic job. I think, though, that I would rather have seen him approach something different, a smaller project without the microscope effect of the awaiting fans and media. With a franchise as famous as Godzilla, there will be a lot of anticipation for what is coming. When a filmmaker approaches that difficult second movie, this sort of pressure can greatly cripple creativity and enthusiasm.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope Edwards is allowed the freedom to do what he does best, and manages to craft a film that satisfies the ravenous monster movie fans at the same time as providing the same kind of compelling, emotional storytelling that i enjoyed so much in Monsters. It’ll be very interesting in the coming months to see what kind of budget Godzilla will be set at, and what kind of scale they are pitching the movie at. Godzilla is a big name. It’ll be very difficult to contain the most famous of all the monsters in a small movie.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

This month has been one of the best that I can remember for trailers. All the studios were desperate for their trailer to get released before the Christmas holidays and we were inundated with posts. Since I love trailers so much, the inundation was most welcome. In what I am considering making a monthly post, here’s a roundup of all the trailers so far for December which I have embedded below for your viewing pleasure!

I’ve embedded them in the order in which they were released start December 1st to 31st and if I miss any, please let me know and I’ll update the post.

I really want this to be intereactive so make sure you tell us which trailers you liked the best and which you think will be great or terrible movies from what you’ve seen! So, let’s go!

—————–

Title: Cuckoo

Cast: Richard E. Grant, Laura Fraser, Tamsin Greig, Adam Fenton.

Director: Richard Bracewell

Release date: 17th December 2011.

———————–

Title: Cuckoo

Cast: Halle Berry, Stellan Skarsgård, Matt Frewer, Chandra Wilson, Phylicia Rashad and James Kirk.

Director: Geoffrey Sax

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: Ip Man 2

Cast: Donnie Yen, Lynn Hung, Simon Yam, Sammo Hung and Huang Xiaoming

Director: Wilson Yip

Release date: (on DVD) 7th March.

———————

Title: Black Swan

Cast: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Winona Ryder, Vincent Cassel and Barbara Hershey.

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Release date: 21st January

———————

Title: Megashark vs. Crocosaurus

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: The Fighter

Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Mark Wahlberg, Melissa Leo, Robert Wahlberg, Dendrie Taylor

Director: David O. Russell

Release date: 4th February

———————

Title: And Everything Is Going Fine

Cast: Spalding Gray

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: Battle: Los Angeles

Cast: Michelle Rodriguez, Aaron Eckhart, Bridget Moynahan, Lucas Till, Michael Peña, Ne-Yo

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Release date: 25th March

———————

Title: Beastly

Cast: Alex Pettyfer, Mary-Kate Olsen, Neil Patrick Harris, Vanessa Hudgens, Dakota Johnson, Peter Krause

Director: Daniel Barnz

Release date: 15th April

———————

Title: Arthur Christmas

Cast: James McAvoy, Imelda Staunton, Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy, Hugh Laurie and Ashley Jensen.

Director: Barry Cook & Sarah Smith

Release date: 11th November 2011

———————

Title: Vanishing on 7th Street

Cast: Hayden Christensen, Thandie Newton and John Leguizamo.

Director: Brad Anderson

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: I Am Number Four

Cast: Kevin Durand, Dianna Agron, Alex Pettyfer, Teresa Palmer, Timothy Olyphant, Jake Abel

Director: D.J. Caruso

Release date: 18th February

———————

Title: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel,  John Malkovich, Patrick Dempsey, Ken Jeong, John Turturro, Frances McDormand, Peter Cullen and Tyrese Gibson

Director: Michael Bay

Release date: 29th June

———————

Title: Rio

Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, George Lopez and Neil Patrick Harris

Director:

Release date:

———————

Title: The Mechanic

Cast: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Donald Sutherland, Christa Campbell, Monica Acosta, Eddie J. Fernandez

Director: Simon West

Release date: 28th January

———————

Title: Real Steel

Cast: Kevin Durand, Evangeline Lilly, Hugh Jackman, Anthony Mackie, Dakota Goyo, Hope Davis

Director: Shawn Levy

Release date: 7th October

———————

Title: The Rite

Cast: Alice Braga, Anthony Hopkins, Ciarán Hinds, Rutger Hauer, Toby Jones, Chris Marquette

Director: Mikael Håfström

Release date: 25th February

———————

Title: Thor

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Stellan Skarsgård, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Stan Lee, Kat Dennings

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Release date: 28th April

———————

Title: Vidal Sassoon the Movie

Cast: Vidal Sassoon, Mary Quant, John Frieda, Peggy Moffitt, Ronnie Sassoon

Director: Craig Teper

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: Kill the Irishman

Cast: Ray Stevenson, Christopher Walken, Val Kilmer, Steven R. Schirripa, Vincent D’Onofrio, Paul Sorvino.

Director: Jonathan Hensleigh

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: Rio UK Trailer

Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Jamie Foxx, will.i.am, Tracy Morgan, George Lopez, Jane Lynch, Wanda Sykes, Leslie Mann, Jermanine Clement, Rodrigo Santoro

Director: Carlos Saldanha

Release date: April

———————

Title: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Cast: Johnny Depp, Ian McShane, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush, Kevin McNally, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Sam Claflin, Stephen Graham, Yuki Matsuzaki and Gemma Ward

Director: Rob Marshall

Release date: May 18th

———————

Title: Biutiful

Cast: Javier Bardem, Maricel Álvarez, Hanaa Bouchaib, Guillermo Estrella, Eduard Fernández and Cheikh Ndiaye

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Release date: January 28th

———————

Title: The Deadly Crossing

Cast: Steven Seagal

Release date: On DVD 27th December

———————

Title: Fast Five

Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Tego Calderon, Dwayne Johnson, Tyrese Gibson, Elsa Pataky

Director: Justin Lin

Release date: 29th April

———————

Title: Rango

Cast: Johnny Depp, Timothy Olyphant, Abigail Breslin, Bill Nighy, Isla Fisher, Alfred Molina, Ray Winstone

Director: Gore Verbinski

Release date: 4th March

———————

Title: Take Me Home Tonight

Cast:  Anna Faris, Topher Grace, Teresa Palmer, Michael Biehn and Michelle Trachtenberg.

Director: Michael Dowse

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: The Tree of Life

Cast: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Dalip Singh, Jessica Chastain, Joanna Going, Kari Matchett

Director: Terrence Malick

Release date: 28th January

———————

Title: Water for Elephants

Cast: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz, James Frain, Hal Holbrook, Paul Schneider

Director: Francis Lawrence

Release date: 22nd April

———————

Title: Absentia

Cast: Katie Parker, Courtney Bell, Dave Levine, Morgan Peter Brown, Justin Gordon.

Director: Mike Flanagan

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: Blue Valentine

Cast: Michelle Williams, Ryan Gosling, Mike Vogel, Reila Aphrodite, Ben Shenkman, John Doman

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Release date: 21st January

———————

Title: Limitless

Cast: Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Abbie Cornish and Anna Friel

Director: Neil Burger

Release date: 18th March

———————

Title: Paul

Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Seth Rogen, Jane Lynch, Simon Pegg, Jason Bateman, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Nick Frost, Jeffrey Tambor

Director: Greg Mottola

Release date: 18th February

———————

Title: Wake Wood

Cast: Eva Birthistle, Aidan Gillen, Timothy Spall

Director: David Keating

Release date: TBC

———————

Title: A Lonely Place to Die

Cast: Melissa George, Ed Speleers, Eamonn Walker, Sean Harris, Karel Roden and Kate Magowan

Director: Julian Gilbey

Release date: 2011

———————

Title: Arthur and the Great Adventure Trailer

Cast: Selena Gomez, Freddie Highmore, Stacy Ferguson, Mia Farrow, Jimmy Fallon, Snoop Dogg, Will i Am, Lou Reed

Director: Luc Besson

Release date: 2011

———————

As has been widely reported, Harry Potter made a massive impact at the box office in the last few weeks, and continues to do so. Success was inevitable, and the level of success predictable. Harry Potter is one of the most popular book series of all time, appealing to fans both young and old. All previous installments in the Harry Potter movie series have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and with the finale in sight, anyone with even a passing interest in the boy who lived wants to see how it all ends.

The success of Harry Potter financially, particularly in the case of Deathly Hallows, is also however part of a much bigger movie trend. We have seen, in the last year particularly, an apparent rise in the popularity of the family movie. Whilst in the past it has been big, effects heavy action movies that have been the big hitters, it seems there is now just as much interest, if not more, in family orientated, action adventure movies, in both animated and live action form.

It started at the beginning of the year with Alice in Wonderland. Directed by Tim Burton, and starring Johnny Depp, it was always going to have elements that would appeal to both children and adults alike. The novelty of the 3D experience was also just starting to become wildly popular thanks to Avatar, resulting in Alice setting the box office bar high early on in the year.

Then along came How to Train Your Dragon. The year’s first big animated movie, the original nature of the storyline, not based on a recognisable property, meant that How to Train Your Dragon started reasonably slowly at the box office. This Dragon however had long legs, and the combination of the 3D factor and fantastic word of mouth meant that it became a massive box office success.

The trend continued throughout the year, particularly with animated movies such as Shrek Forever After, and the big gun Toy Story 3. Toy Story 3 broke records to become the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Despicable Me enjoyed moderate success, and just a few weeks ago Megamind helped set a record for box office figures on the opening weekend of the Winter period.

There have been less live action success stories, but Prince of Persia broke the $100 million mark. With the recent success of Harry Potter, and the inevitable big money openings we can expect from the latest in the Chronicles of Narnia series and Disney’s Tron sequel, by the end of the year live action family movies will be nearly on a par with their animated peers financially.

Why, then, have family orientated films exploded in popularity recently? One factor that may have played a part is the recent global recession. Yes, you would expect that in a depressed economic climate, financial success would be more unlikely. However, with families forced to tighten their belts over the past couple of years, a lot of the entertainment budget for a typical family has been put to other uses. Now, instead of Mum and Dad going out for dinner, or on nights out with friends, and kids being taken to clubs and sports and the like, a family trip to the cinema looks to actually be a cheaper prospect. A £7 cinema ticket is cheaper nowadays than two pints of beer, or a bottle of wine, so is far more economically viable per person than a night on the town with friends. Combining everyone’s leisure time also means they can spend more quality time together.

Another part of the reason is that family movies are far more appealing now than they used to be to a lot of adults. Where once animated films were seen as childish and aimed solely at children, this perception has changed thanks in large part to the original Toy Story. Animated movies have become far more sophisticated. Pixar successfully combined adult humour with kid friendly slapstick action, and all the other studios began to follow suit. Now, it isn’t unusual for a an animated movie to be written with adults in mind first, and the kids second. Wall*E, for example, was actually quite boring to many young children, and achieved its popularity thanks to the appreciation of its adult audience.

With CGI now becoming more affordable, and available, live action family movies are also better equipped to sell to a broad audience. The action in family movies used to be confined to slapstick and pratfalls, but more affordable computer effects mean massive worlds can be used to entice adults and children alike. Films like Harry Potter would have been very difficult to make in a realistic way years ago, and the animatronics and plastic sets would have probably looked far too cheap and silly for a lot of the grown up audience to contemplate paying money to see. It is now far easier for the mature audience to buy into the worlds being created, as fantasy figures and locations are able to look much slicker and more realistic.

In the case of Harry Potter, it is also very much the themes explored and the richness of the original source material that have made the movies a must see experience. Adults were already engrossed in the novels before the first film was released, and in many cases the parents were looking forward to seeing the films as much, if not more than their offspring. This success has lead to similar types of book series being written, and adapted, like The Golden Compass and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. It has also seen older works like The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe dusted off to capitalise on this newfound interest in magical family adventure.

Only time will tell if the family movie boom will continue on for an extended period of time. Certainly, there are many external factors that influence cinematic tastes and trends. A major upturn in the economy, another massive global event, or even just the introduction of a new favourite source material amongst movie makers could all change the dynamic overnight. For now, however, family films rule the box office. With Harry Potter and Megamind still going strong, Tangled now on release, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Tron: Legacy imminent, it is going to be a family affair in theatres this Christmas. Maybe that’s just as it should be.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore is released on 29th November and it made me think that another post was in order looking at the ‘top 10 evil animals in film’! I have two cats myself (Dennis and Harry) and they’ve helped me to compile this list of who they think are the meanest animals in film!

No doubt i’ll miss hundreds so please let me know who you think should go on the list in the comments section below.

Mr. Tinkles – white Persian cat (Cats & Dogs, 2001 and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, 2010)

Since this was the inspiration for the post, it had to start with Mr. Tinkles! The master villain of the first movie, this delightfully insane feline criminal mastermind cameos in the second film strapped up behind Perspex in a really rather amusing Silence of the Lambs parody.

The Sheep (Black Sheep, 2007)

More hilarious than terrifying, this New Zealand comedy-horror from Jonathan King sees a friendly flock turn into blood-thirsty killer-mutant sheep as a result of genetic engineering!

‘Bruce’ – Shark (Jaws, 1975)

The cause of many a shark phobia, big ol’ Bruce is a masterful creation, loved and loathed in equal measure. Fun fact: as well as the nickname ‘Bruce’, Spielberg reputedly also referred to the animatronic shark as ‘the great white turd’! I bet that’s what Quint was shouting while Bruce swallows him whole in the finale to the movie but it was Bruce himself who fails to realise that compressed air canister vs. a bullet from Brody’s gun with the line ‘smile you son of a bitch’ = HUGE explosion!! In your face Bruce – literally!

The Rabbits (Night of the Lepus, 1972)

Killer rabbits! Yep, if you thought Black Sheep picked a weird animal to ‘turn’, check out this 70s creature feature where giant killer bunnies rampage through the American desert. Starring Deforest Kelly, Janet Leigh and real rabbits, filmed in slow motion on model sets, you can actually spy a bit of the bizarre movie in the background of The Matrix, when Neo visits the Oracle.

Shere Khan – Tiger (The Jungle Book, 1967)

There aren’t many things more intimidating to have hell-bent on hunting you than a massive Bengal tiger, so The Jungle Book’s man-hunter Shere Khan has to make this list. Of course, in the book, Mowgli ends up skinning the pesky puss, but Disney shied away from that in this animated version.

Cujo – St Bernard dog (Cujo, 1983)

If you like dogs, you’ll hate Cujo. A distinctly darker turn on the Old Yeller ‘pet gets rabies’ theme, this psychotic St Bernard was originally dreamt up by horror mastermind Stephen King, and mauled his way through a movie version with schlocky, blood-spattered panache.

Scar – Lion (The Lion King, 1994)

Scar is one seriously jealous character in The Lion King and has no doubt been the cause of numerous tears all over the planet as he sets up his own brother, causing him to be trampled by stampeding wildebeest so just that he can be king! He is one seroiously evil character and definitely deserves to go on this list!

Flotsam & Jetsam – Moray eels (The Little Mermaid, 1989)

I’m sure these guys have just lost their way since the super evil Ursula is their master and they have no where else to turn. Or, maybe all eels are evil?! They are responsible for louring Ariel into the clutches of Urusla and don;t seem to show any remorse until King Triton comes along to teach them a lesson!

Poor unfortunate souls!

Blofeld’s cat – white Persian cat (You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Diamonds are Forever)

I feel somewhat sorry for Blofeld’s cat. He’s a lovely little Persian Cat who just likes being stroked! OR, he is actually the source of Blofeld’s power which is my sneaking suspicion! I’m pretty sure that Blofeld would be into world peace and do more yoga if he was given the chance by his cat. Therefore, if Bond was just to rid the world of the cat, all evil would cease and he could retire with one of the multitudes of Bond Women he’s found over the past 50 odd years!

General Woundwort – Rabbit (Watership Down, 1978)

Described in the movie as one of the largest rabbits anyone has ever seen, General Woundwort is one seriously nasty animal. If anyone stands up to him, he seeks to crush them as quickly as possible and could quite possibly be the most evil animal in our top ten list!

——————

There are an infinite number of other ‘evil animals’ in movies, tell me who I’ve missed in the comments section below.

Not long before fans of James Cameron’s Avatar get to spend a little more time in the world of Pandora and as the Extended Collector’s Edition readies itself for the Blu-ray and DVD launch on the 15th of November,  you can get a sneak preview of what to expect with this new clip from the film.

It’s basically a hunting scene and you can see why it found its way onto the digital cutting room floor, but it’s still nice to see more of the world.

Here’s everything you need to know about the new edition, and if you want  to see more (and you have the original Avatar Blu-ray) you can right now..

Click Here to see the clip, which must be considered a tease as the resolution is nowhere near what it needs to be to get the full effect, but for those desperate for more from the gushing box of Pandora this will do nicely.

Well, it’s not a huge surprise, but it’s good to know that as well as overseeing the next Superman film Christopher Nolan has just confirmed that he will be directing Batman 3.

Empire had the rather good fortune to catch Nolan in a chatty mood and here’s the all important confirmation,

I don’t know if it’s announced or if it’s not announced,” said Nolan. “It’s becoming inevitable, I’ll put it that way. I feel myself falling into it, I guess. And getting it all figured out and I’m pretty excited about what we’re doing so… If I haven’t announced it, I think that people probably all know at this point that I’m doing it.”

Hang on, that’s not 100% clear: so we can safely assume you’re directing?

“I think you can at this point, yes.”

So, while we don’t all agree that Nolan is the best man for the job he is pretty much guaranteed a blank cheque given the success of the first two and the recent box office juggernaut Inception.

Who knows which villains and sidekicks Nolan will populate the third film with, personally I’m hoping Michael Caine suits up as a nice and unexpected twist on Robin.

Do you think this is a good thing for the Batman series? Would you have liked to have seen another director take on this project?

Last week, Inception broke the $500m worldwide gross milestone. A big success story, to be sure, but after The Dark Knight’s $1bn+ number, it perhaps isn’t really a major surprise. It was even less of a surprise when it was revealed that Nolan would be at the helm for Batman 3 once Inception was done and dusted, but as the Inception train begins slowing to a halt, i can’t help but ask myself, was Batman 3 the right decision for Nolan’s career?

Nolan made his name with clever, twisting drama, and it is only his last couple of movies that have led to his being considered an action movie director. Films like Memento and The Prestige used human interest and intricate plotting to make an impact, and there is a risk that with his new action movie sensibilities, he could begin to lose what made him great as a filmmaker in the first place. This is one major reason why i feel it would have been wise to step away from the Batman franchise, but there are several more…

It’s a no-win situation.

As i said at the outset, The Dark Knight made over $1b worldwide. This makes it one of the highest grossing films of all time, leaving any attempt to top it financially virtually impossible. There will be much expectation, however, from both fans and studio. If it makes considerably less than the Nolan’s second Batman movie, it could be considered a failure.

The Dark Knight is also considered by many to be one of the best movies ever made, currently holding 11th place in the IMDb250 list. Again, this leaves expectation impossibly high, and it is highly unlikely Nolan can match it with the third film. This, again, could result in the movie being considered a failure. The Dark Knight’s plot was very well constructed, and complemented by some fine acting performances. A lot of elements came together perfectly, and the chances of Nolan experiencing the same fortune again are slim.

On the other hand, if he does top The Dark Knight financially and critically, he could be pressurized into considering staying on once again for a Batman 4. Whilst he has made it fairly clear that he doesn’t want to make more than a trilogy of films, if Warner Bros lean on him, and the fans scream out for another one, it will put the director into a very difficult situation. He could well find himself accused of turning his back on the franchise that brought him to the masses if he has to publicly turn down another Batman movie.

The actor playing the villain will be compared to Heath Ledger.

It’s unfair, and it’s inevitable. Heath Ledger carved out one of the greatest villain performances in cinematic history, and his presence, and the circumstances around it, were a big part of The Dark Knight’s success. The pressure will be on for whoever plays the principal villain in Batman 3, whoever it turns out to be, and whichever character they play. The fact that Ledger would have most likely reprised the Joker role in Batman 3 if he hadn’t tragically died will only make the scrutiny that bit more intense. With that shadow looming, it will be an almost impossible part to write and cast.

We have already seen the speculation around the next Batman villain undermine the build-up to Inception’s release. Whilst on the promotional trail for his latest film, Nolan was subjected to just as many questions regarding casting rumours for Batman 3 as he was to Inception based ones. With Joseph Gordon-Levitt and other Inception cast members inevitably linked to the follow-up to The Dark Knight in recent months, it is clear that there is somewhat of an obsession with which foes Batman will face next time around, and who will be responsible for bringing them to life.

He’d reached a good stopping point.

At the end of Batman Begins, it was made clear that there would be more. When Gordon revealed the Joker card that was being left at crime scenes, it was a message to the audience that there was to be a continuation to the story. At the end of The Dark Knight, there was no such nod to a sequel. Whilst you could argue that there were plot strands left hanging, like Mr Reese’s knowledge of Batman’s real identity, and The Joker’s incarceration but not death, the final scenes, with Batman riding off into the night, did not beg a follow up.

Batman knew that the people of Gotham would never truly accept him as their hero, no matter how much good he did, and that he was destined to live life as an outcast. This could easily be left as the conclusion of his journey, doomed to protect Gotham from behind the anonymity of his mask, a figure of mistrust and fear. A third film just isn’t necessary.

The biggest problem with following on from a film with so few loose ends is that any attempts to extend the plot strands seem tenuous, and if you start with a whole new story there is a danger of shifting the film’s tone from the previous one, leaving it feeling disjointed from the series. This actually happened to an extent between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, with Gotham looking almost completely different the second time around, which means that in this case it may not prove so much of a problem.

The franchise is too restrictive.

With Inception, Nolan has been able to craft a story completely from scratch, making up his own world, characters and technology. Whilst he has been able to make his Batman series unique to his own sensibilities, he is very much constrained by the logic and history of the comic series.

I have no doubts Nolan and his writing team can put together another compelling Batman story, but it will always be within a range of restrictions, which must be quite draining, and even frustrating at times. By casting off the shackles of Batman’s world, the talented filmmaker would be free to create original stories, exploring the themes and ideas he really wants to without having to keep grounded to a particular set of rules.

Inception was almost pure sci-fi, and Nolan set out his Batman stall by grounding it as much as possible in reality. This makes it difficult to be too inventive with the plot, and makes any science fiction based cheat such as the one seen in The Prestige much harder to get away with. Incidentally, this also makes a lot of the comic book characters difficult to realise on screen in the Batman world that Nolan has created.

He won’t improve on his weakest areas as a filmmaker.

The biggest criticism levelled at all of Nolan’s work is an inability to put genuine emotion up on screen. All of the characters that lead Nolan’s work are motivated by the same thing. Obsession. It is clearly a reflection of his own obsession with filmmaking, but the problem is that this type of character is not conducive to telling emotional, human interest stories.

This is made worse by the restrictions of the Batman character. Even Inception, despite a story revolving around a father trying to be reunited with his children, and the casting of one of the finest actors plying their trade today, did not have the emotional depth that truly great filmmaking requires.

The problem with the action movies that Nolan is now making is that they leave little time for personal drama, three-dimensional characterisation and exploration of character motivations. In order to improve his ability to work with this side of film, i think Nolan needs to concentrate on lower budget, character-led storytelling. Until he can give us perfectly crafted human drama, i think he needs to stay away from big budget blockbusters that demand great thrills and high action to draw in an audience and recoup their budget.

I understand that the reason Nolan was able to get a green light for Inception, his passion project, was his commitment to the Batman series, and its continuing success. I’m sure that by making Batman 3 he is once again ensuring that he’ll get to make the movie he wants to make once it is finished with. However, Nolan is one of very few directors that i can genuinely say i like every one of his films. My fear is that if he leans more and more towards the thrill-heavy action genre, he may well lose his filmmaking identity.

It would be a great shame if the director of great movies like Memento and The Prestige started making big movies that fell more towards the Transformers 2 end of the scale. This probably won’t happen, but there is a risk of getting carried away with a genre, and by making sequels to successful blockbusters, there is always great pressure to top the last installment by going bigger. We don’t want this from Nolan. He has given us one of the best, and most original movies of the Summer, and that is what we want more of, not franchise based popcorn fodder. I’m looking forward to Batman 3, and i will probably love it, but for the next couple of years i’ll find myself wondering what might have been, if Christopher Nolan had chosen to detach himself from Batman and make another original masterpiece.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The name of Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker successor was confirmed last week, with the news that British actor Andrew Garfield would be donning the red and blue spandex. We’ve heard many names mentioned since the as yet Untitled Spider-Man Reboot was announced several months ago, some well known, others not so much. That such a relatively unknown actor has been cast is not a great surprise, and that fact that he is British doesn’t really matter one way or the other, particularly as he was born in LA. What came as a surprise to some people, however, was the follow-up story that he would only be earning $500,000 for the gig.

A small amount for a lead actor in Hollywood terms generally, but when you consider that the previous Spider-man movies have all made around half a billion dollars each, it seems like a ridiculously low sum. Is this an outrage? Are Sony guilty of cynical greed? Or is it a fair figure for an unknown actor, in his first major movie production, who cannot offer any drawing power at the box office?

Clearly, there is a massive financial factor involved not just in this casting, but in the idea behind the reboot itself. Sam Raimi’s Spider-man series was hugely successful, but success can often come at a price. Whilst the first movie made $400m domestically, that amount decreased with each subsequent movie. Conversely, the money required to keep the franchise’s stars coming back was increasing each time. As the storylines had to become more elaborate to keep interest up, and outdo the last entry, production budgets will have inevitably increased too. Marketing costs probably also escalated. Sony were still making a profit, and a big one on the face of it. However, this profit was decreasing exponentially, and with Spiderman 4 on the horizon, and the expected payround discussions looming, you can begin to see why Sony decided to get out before the margin all but disappeared.

By starting from scratch, they can ensure a minimal production cost, with low salaries and a smaller scale production. They can also, and this is where the cynicism raises its head, trade off of the popularity and success of Raimi’s series to make a comparable gross profit to the preceding three films. A $400m gross looks infinitely better against production costs of $40m than it does against around $140m. Cynical, maybe, but is this too harsh a view to take of their actions?

The truth is, Maguire didn’t earn THAT much more for his first outing as the web slinging hero. Maguire wasn’t as well known as he is now, but was definitely more recognisable than Garfield to a mainstream audiences, having appeared in films such as Wonderboys and The Cider House Rules. If the studio had really wanted to be greedy, they would have cast a more well known, young actor for around the same amount, who they know would draw in fans based on their established celebrity. It may be that Sony’s decision is partly financially motivated, but if you look closer, you can see some promising signs.

Garfield hasn’t made many Hollywood movies before, having appeared in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus last year, and Fincher’s forthcoming The Social Network. He is an actor rather than a male model, however, and a respected one at that. By casting a young British actor with credits in TV and theatre, they are attempting to get someone who can well handle the drama and emotional turmoil that is inherent in the Peter Parker character, rather than just a pretty face that will look good on the poster.

They have already shown by their choice of director that they are looking to craft a serious, warm and engaging story. Marc Webb has only made one movie so far, but last year’s 500 Days of Summer was very well received, and was one of the best romantic dramas of recent years. He showed a sure hand, with some great unique ideas.

It is a bit of a gamble maybe, to take on such an inexperienced feature director, and his lack of credits will certainly mean that he was a cheaper option than someone who is more established. The important thing for me, though, is that Webb’s appointment holds the promise of something special. I am an advocate of bold rather than safe, solid choices when it comes to filmmakers, and if it pays off we could, potentially, have the most well rounded comic book adaptation, with a thrilling action movie anchored by compelling personal drama. The only potential sticking point with me is the choice of writer. James Venderbilt was responsible for Fincher’s decent Zodiac, but also wrote the brainless Welcome to the Jungle and The Losers.

I was originally against the idea of the Spider-man reboot, because i thought it was being done purely for the wrong reasons. The more i think about it, though, the more excited i am by the chance that we could get something unique, something great, rather than the overblown Spider-man 4 we could well have had, if Raimi had continued to direct, and the studio had continued to interfere due to their financial concerns. We will see with the choices of actors for the rest of the characters whether acting ability remains a central casting decision. If it does, then i think Sony should be given a pass. As always, we’ll keep you updated with the news as we get it.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The Concert is one of the best films I’ve seen this year, it’s moving, funny, original, completely satisfying and definitely a surprise hit this year and I hope more people will get to see it amongst the summer blockbusters that mostly disappoint during this seasons of films. So if you care to see another film other than Inception and Toy Story 3 then you should really go check out Radu Mihaileanu’s excellent movie.

The Concert is the story about Andrei Filipov (Aleksei Guskov) a once revered Russian orchestra conductor whose career was destroyed during a performance of Tchaikovsky’s The Violin Concerto when he was sacked and humiliated mid performance for hiring Jews. 30 years later and Andrei now works as a janitor in the Bolshoi desperate to relive his former glory and he gets his chance when he devises a crazy scheme to impersonate the Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra, with his former colleagues, when he’s cleaning one night he intercepts a fax invite from Paris to perform at the Chatelet Theater. And so like the Blues Brothers he attempts to get the band back together to finish the concert they were destined to play.

Andrei’s plan also includes convincing an acclaimed French violinist Anne-Marie Jacquet (the wonderful Melanie Laurent from Inglourious Basterds) to play with his impostor orchestra for mysterious motives other than needing a very talented lead to play the key parts to Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto and as the film develops we get to understand the real connection between Anne-Marie Jacquet and Andrei’s Orchestra 30 years before.

The Concert is a highly enjoyable, fun, comedy drama with humour that swings between touching commentary, cheeky satire and wackiness that although doesn’t try to cut too savagely into it’s communist history it does enjoy poking fun at the KGB especially in the character of Ivan Gavrilov (Valeri Barinov) who desperately clings onto a highly romanticized view of what life was like under communist rule who in-turn offers the newly reformed orchestra its only chance of getting out of Russia to Paris for the concert.

The Concert has a wonderful pacing and although it slows down a bit in the middle after the raucous troop descend onto Paris descending into a drunken crowd who vanish into the Paris city with no intention of performing at the Concert leaving Andrie in the lurch, the film does picks up considerably when Anne-Marie becomes more involved into the story and although she has a small amount of screen time her presence is clearly noticeable and memorable as her past comes to link with Andrei’s desperate mission of completing the Concert and achieving the ultimate harmony for over 30 years, as long as he can find his missing orchestra.

Radu Mihaileanu directs wonderfully and the entire cast offer something truly brilliant, not all the jokes work but there is more than enough to keep you amused throughout and even more touching storylines to give your heart a tug. The music is hugely enjoyable and to read that Melanie Laurent had to learn how to play violin from scratch was remarkable as she looked completely at ease with the movement and characteristics of playing the instrument that suited her role and did not look out of place. The Concert is full of likable characters and some excellent musicians who offer something uniquely musical and funny in equal doses that help make the film so watchable, you can’t help but smile when they start playing together.

Now the moment that makes the Concert so incredibly memorable and pure cinematic satisfaction. The combination of perfect poignant acting and the most spine tingling engaging music of Tchaikovsky mixed with some heart-rending flashbacks that explain the past and some heart warming flash-forwards showing the future of the group whilst the Concert reaches its crescendo that perfectly concludes every aspect of the film in the most satisfying and touching way I could possibly imagine and probably provides one of the greatest movie endings I can remember of recent years and one that for me propels the film into greatness, Encore indeed.

The Concert is out on the 16th July, I cannot recommend it enough.

23 years ago, a formulaic Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicle was released. It enjoyed box office, if not necessarily critical success. A lacklustre follow-up ensured the franchise was, cinematically at least, silenced for many years. The series’ protagonists were given their big screen resurrection 6 years ago with shared billing, with a sequel 3 years later. Both films were very poorly received. How, then, has such a mishandled franchise not only endured up to this point in the public psyche, but led to this week’s big budget sequel, directed by Nimrod Antal, and starring Academy Award winner Adrien Brody?

It was the Eighties, and Arnold Schwarzenegger had become the Hollywood action hero of choice, thanks to his impressive physique, and a string of formulaic hits such as Commando and Raw Deal, and the ground breaking Terminator. Jim and John Thomas’ screenplay for Predator was, as the story goes, the result of a joke that Sylvester Stallone would have to fight an alien in the next Rocky installment, having been victorious over a series of increasingly invincible opponents over the course of Rocky’s I through V.

The first Predator film played out very much like a cross between Rambo and Alien (indeed, the recently mooted Rambo concept of Rambo and company facing off against an alien monster may have been both an offshoot of this original idea, and shut down because of its similarities). A team of soldiers, deep in the Guatemalan jungle on a rescue mission, find themselves picked off one by one by an invisible, otherworldly assailant. Eventually, Schwarzenegger’s Dutch is the only character left, resulting in a Mano a Mano showdown which inevitably ends in the Governator’s victory.

As i mentioned at the beginning, it was a very formulaic, recognisable plot. There was one big factor, however, that helped it stand out. It wasn’t the fact that the cast included two future State Governors (Jesse Ventura and Arnie himself) and excellent Lethal Weapon screenwriter Shane Black (who was apparently chosen in part so he could keep an eye on rookie director John McTiernan). What made Predator better than Schwarzenegger’s usual shtick was the presence of a truly compelling foe. Where mostly he was known for taking apart faceless goons one by one until he met up with the B-movie villain of the piece, here the situation was more or less reversed. If it hadn’t been for the presence of the Austrian actor, the Predator himself would have been the star of the movie. The alien warrior was new and unique. Whilst the creature in Alien and its sequels was driven seemingly by pure animalistic instinct, the Predator had evolved technology, such as the thermal imaging capabilities, and a clear hide and strike, hunter’s mentality. In many ways this made the enemy the more compelling character.

With a $60m gross, and good critical reception, Predator was potentially a fantastic starting point for an interesting series of movies. Unfortunately, Predator 2 was not the right follow up. The series lost star Schwarzenegger to Terminator 2: Judgement Day, replacing him with a Danny Glover who was visibly too old too old for this s^&$. It also lost director McTiernan, who had directed Die Hard in the interim and turned down Predator 2 for The Hunt For Red October.

This time around, the Predator becomes mixed up in an inner city gang war, and is hunted by both a city cop and a task-force tasked with hunting down the otherworldly being. We learn a bit more about the creature, seeing more of his ship, and see several of his kind at the conclusion. Relocating the action to an inner city environment wasn’t necessarily a bad decision, but a combination of poor story, low star power, and unfulfilled potential left Predator 2 as a financial and critical failure, effectively killing the franchise as we knew it.

Well, not exactly. Whilst the botched production of Predator 2 left no money, and therefore no viability for a continuation of the movie series, the Predator character had taken on a cult status, and led to the Alien versus Predator comic and video game series. Predator had clear similarities to the Alien series, and the combination of the two creatures was an obvious, and compelling mix. The differences between their styles, the seemingly mindless, feral nature of the Aliens versus the almost human-like tribal, hunter-gatherer instincts of the Predators meant that two completely different cultures could be explored. With no clear hero and villain, and a seemingly level playing field, fans were free to choose their favourites.

The standalone Alien movie series also continued to be healthy, which meant that this inextricable link between the two beings greatly helped the Predator to stay in the public consciousness. By that token, the Predators stood to gain far more from the relationship, almost riding on Alien’s coat-tails. It was this rivalry, and the cult popularity of the Alien Versus Predator brand that led to Predator’s big screen resurrection, in the first Alien Vs Predators movie.

However, despite the continued success and interest for the Alien movie franchise, AVP was made with a considerably lower budget than was really required to do the concept justice. Though the movie tried to remain faithful to both creatures mythology, with director Paul WS Anderson shoehorning in as many references to their previous outings as he could muster, the storyline was generally pretty weak. It did have interesting ideas about how they existed together in their shared universe. The idea that young Predator’s were sent out to kill their first Alien as a right of passage was a great jumping off point, but the movie as a whole was very poorly written, acted, and produced. Cheap costumes meant that action sequences were reduced to fast cut, dark shadow combat, rendering these battles unwatchable. Though audiences had turned out to see the two great foes do battle, most of the movie followed the human contingent of the story, and movie goers felt seriously short changed.

AVP: Requiem was arguably even worse, coming across as a straight to DVD quality production, with 24′s Michelle Dessler (actress Reiko Aylesworth) as its biggest ‘star’. No money, no ideas, no chance. It was only the AVP brand’s cult status that drew any audience in at all. Alien Vs Predator; Requiem can only be considered a total failure, and really should have killed off both franchises. However, the continued popularity of the two is a clear argument that truly compelling protagonists can survive inept filmmaking.

Whilst AVP was dragging the two combatants names through the mud, a plan was afoot to revive the Predators in their own new standalone movie. Robert Rodriguez had originally been drafted to craft a script for a Predator movie shortly after the first film’s release, and when it was decided to revive the franchise, he was the obvious choice. Dusting off his old screenplay, the director set about rewriting it for a new sequel. The Sin City helmer’s Predators script almost completely disregards the Predator 2 follow up, and both AVP films, and works as more of a Predators to Predator as Aliens was to Alien.

Relocating the action to the Predator home planet, Predators reverts back to the original jungle setting , but where the original movie had humans battling the hunter on their own turf, here the humans find themselves out of their depth as they clash with different Predator tribes, in their own environment. The casting of The Pianist’s Adrien Brody was a surprising move, sort of a halfway house between Predator’s Schwarzenegger and Predator 2′s Glover. As far as acting ability goes, however, it is one giant leap.

This is a promising move, and suggests a much less formulaic storyline may lie in store. He is backed up by the brilliant Danny Trejo, a Robert Rodriguez favourite (having starred in From Dusk Til Dawn, Desperado etc…) along with Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix trilogy), Alice Braga (I Am Legend), Topher Grave (Spiderman 3), and Walton Goggins (TV’s Justified). The relocation to the Predator home planet suggests we may well learn more about their culture, history, and the source of their technological advancement. Predators has the potential to provide a really interesting plot, and allow for a far more compelling series that truly explores the full potential of the franchise. Director Nimrod Antal is also a potentially great choice. His first picture, Hungarian film Control, gained great critical success. He has yet to replicate that success in Hollywood, however, with previous work including 2007′s Vacancy, and the so-so Armoured from last year.

Despite the prequel projects that are underway for the Alien series, whilst the Alien movies best is probably behind them, the Predator’s series has yet to reach its heights. The far more sentient nature of the protagonists, and therefore the increased potential for Predator/Human interaction means that the possibilities for future Predator films are almost endless, withmany different directions that can be explored. Hopefully Predators will perform well both critically and financially, and allow for a new set of movies that live up to the expectations of the fans, and lead to far greater stories than we have previously seen cinematically for the intergalactic hunters.

Predators was released yesterday, Thursday 8th July in the UK, and today, Friday 9th July in the US. You can read our review here.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

So the reviews are coming in for The Last Airbender, and boy, it don’t look pretty. There had been hope that it would be a resurrection of sorts for M. Night Shyamalan’s filmmaking career but, as it stands, it could be the final nail. So is this the end for the once loved director?

The Last Airbender currently stands at 9% on Rotten Tomatoes, with just 9 positive reviews. For those not keeping count, that’s bad. As we know, however, review scores are only half the story. If the movie makes a big enough profit, M. Night could rise phoenix like from the ashes of his recent career. So what are its box office chances?

With a reported $150m production budget, there is sure to be a pretty weighty marketing package behind the film, which may be almost as much again. As we all know, if you get enough promotional power behind a film, people are gonna go see it. But in this instance, is that going to be enough? Looking at the other elements, i think the answer is going to be a resounding no.

The first alarm bell is the complete lack of star power. The director himself has seen his star falling for several years, so little help there. And whilst there are some recognisable names and faces within the movie, from a mainstream point of view, i don’t see any actors that are going to draw people in. Dev Patel did star in the Academy Award winning Slumdog Millionaire, but one big movie doesn’t necessarily make a star.

Brand recognition is usually a selling point with movies based on an existing property, but that isn’t necessarily going to be that effective here either. Adapted from a Nickelodeon kid’s animated series, it did get big ratings for a cartoon, but only ran for three seasons. Being mainly a kid’s show, it has limited appeal to non-geeky adults, so i can’t imagine the average movie goer will know much about it. Avatar does have a dedicated cult following, but there is a big difference between cult and mass appeal. This will be made even worse by the fact that it isn’t actually named after the original cartoon, thanks to Mr Cameron’s co-opting of the Avatar name several years ago for a little project he released last year.

It’s impossible to foresee really, but it is highly possible that The Last Airbender will fail to recoup its budget, and it is currently estimated that it will have an opening weekend of around $50m. The review scores certainly aren’t hopeful – to put it in perspective, Jonah Hex opened with around $5m in its first weekend, and had a higher aggregate score on Rotten Tomatoes.

So what does this mean for Shyamalan? Was this his last chance to get the audience back onside? There is a lot of apathy, and even hatred around for the director now, but i think some of it is a little harsh. I’m not a big fan myself, but i did like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, as did a lot of people. Both of these films are present in the IMDb250, and were huge when they were originally released. His output since has steadily deteriorated, but when i hear people blast his work, and include his earliest two films, it gets to me. A lot of those same people praised these movies when they were originally released, and it is almost like they are trying to rewrite Shyamalan’s history. There is a reason that he was given a huge amount of money to make The Last Airbender, and that is because he HAS shown great talent in the past.

The Last Airbender was a risk, for both director and studio. It is set to fail by the looks of it, but i don’t necessarily think either made the wrong decision. Shyamalan is a filmmaker, that is his job, to make films. We were all complaining that he was making the same type of movie over and over, and that we were sick of his ‘formula’. So he took on something completely different, something ambitious, and i think he should be praised for trying. He is being lambasted now, but if he had gone and made another movie in the style of his others, he would have gotten a similar reaction. It was almost a no-win situation for him. Yes, if he had done a good job of The Last Airbender, then he would have won, and we would all have congratulated him, so for that, he is culpable. I just don’t think he should be criticised for taking the project on, just for its failure.

I think, however, we should also praise Paramount for taking the risk. Shyamalan was struggling, but had created a reputation for crafting some good drama, with interesting stories. The studio had a property that they could have easily handed over to a Michael Bay or Stephen Sommers, and sat back as the overblown popcorn action movie brought the dollars rolling in. They tried to do something a bit different. They gambled money on a man who at least had the potential to produce something unique, something special. That this decision ultimately ended in failure is unfortunate, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a wrong one. Without decisions like this we wouldn’t get films like Where The Wild Things Are, or Green Zone. It is a miracle either of these movies ever got commissioned, and whilst neither was a resounding commercial or critical success, both hold a lot of meaning for those that do love them. No company can afford to make losses on all their movies, but with the huge amounts of profit that are gained in the industry, i think it is important to make a gamble now and then on an interesting idea, and a talented filmmaker, that could quite conceivably produce something great.

I’m not suggesting that we should all go out and watch The Last Airbender. If it is as bad as everyone is saying, we should treat it with the contempt that it deserves. Neither am i saying that Shyamalan should be given another $150m to make a movie. He has had his chance, and much like Richard Kelly after his flops Southland Tales and The Box, his best option is to go away and quietly try to construct something brilliant, and hopefully surprise us in a couple of years time. In order to do this, he needs a bit of slack. If The Last Airbender does fail financially, and if he retreats humbly, give him the space. Of course, if it makes Transformers 2 type profits, we should all be very, very scared…

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Over the last week or so, we’ve seen yet more casting rumours for the third installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman series. Most recently, we’ve heard that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is being primed to take on the part of The Riddler, based on as little as a supposed conversation on the set of Inception between Levitt and director Christopher Nolan. We’ve also been given an apparent start date. Seeing as the script probably hasn’t even been finished, the naming of actors for unwritten parts seems ludicrous. A release date may be easier to swallow, but really, how can these kind of unfounded rumours continue to spread?

These are not the first casting rumours regarding Batman 3 of course. Soon after the release of The Dark Knight, its huge financial success meant that ‘news’ stories regarding the next installment were everywhere. Just weeks after it opened, there were rumours that Batman’s producers had singled out Johnny Depp and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the stars they wanted for the third movie, as villains The Riddler and The Penguin respectively. Considering how paramount great casting has been to the quality of Nolan’s work, it’s impossible to imagine him ever again letting a studio dictate his casting, particularly for main roles. It was shortly after this that Angelina Jolie was being named for Catwoman. This before director or studio had even acknowledged the potential of a third film being developed.

The rumours have continued since, with a parade of characters being named, with The Riddler seemingly being the most popular. Actors have been mooted with just as much regularity, again a favourite has emerged, with Johnny Depp being the one most frequently referred to. There are numerous reasons why this is all so ridiculous.

As far as we know, the screenplay for ‘Untitled Batman Project’ hasn’t been completed, and without a clear storyline in place, even Nolan and Warner Bros don’t know who they are looking for. David S Goyer has been working on the story, and is writing the screenplay with Jonathan Nolan, but with Christopher Nolan tied up for the last several months with work on Inception, it seems highly unlikely that there has been any talks based around casting. It is quite possible that even character decisions are yet to be finalised. The only ‘guarantees’ are that Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman will  be back. Certainly, without scripting and storyboards, a clear shooting schedule is unlikely to have been established, which again makes casting difficult due to potential scheduling conflicts.

Perhaps more importantly than this, is the fact that Nolan is habitually very secretive with his filmmaking. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were made under false working titles, The Intimidation Game and Rory’s First Kiss respectively. With his most recent film, Inception, the storyline has been kept almost completely under wraps until very recently, and is only now coming to light because it would be impossible to promote the movie without revealing some plot details. Based on the sheer number of rumours and stories that have been thrown around, the director would have had to have undergone a complete personality transplant for even a small percentage of them to contain any truth. The talented filmmaker will take the selection process very seriously, and would not want any details leaked until he was sure of his decisions first.

With Nolan now doing the rounds on the Inception promotional trail, it’s natural for questions to be asked of him regarding Batman. Any answers he gives are going to be open to interpretation, so there are obviously going to be numerous stories doing the rounds again. But Inception is the reason i think the stories need to be put on hold. By fixating on a movie not due for release for a couple of years, we are very much undermining Nolan’s latest film. Inception is just a month away. It is a highly anticipated film, one of the biggest releases of the year, with some fantastic actors, and right now it deserves all our attention.

Asking Nolan questions about a future project when he is trying to sell his latest vision to the public is actually pretty unfair. He wrote it himself, and based on the appearance of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in the promotional pictures and trailer, it looks to be a very personal piece of work. Unlike Batman, it is a completely original concept. In a time when franchises, reboots and sequels are taking over our multiplexes, we should be falling over ourselves for the chance to promote this kind of movie. Nolan has never made a bad film, and his original stories and ideas have made him one of the most popular filmmakers of his generation.

The interest in Batman is inevitable, and once Inception has been released, i have no problem with looking ahead to the next, and probably last, installment in Nolan’s series. But for now, ignore the easy hits, let Batman 3 marinate, and anticipate the potential beauty, and brilliance, of Christopher Nolan’s Inception.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The big news a few weeks ago was the departure of Megan Fox from the Transformers franchise. At first she was pushed, then her ‘people’ claimed she did, in fact, jump. So which is it? And what does it mean, if anything, for the success of Transformers 3?

Paramount’s official line was that Fox’s option for the third film simply hadn’t been picked up, that director Michael Bay wanted to look at a different choice for the love interest for Sam Whitwicky, as played by Shia LaBeouf. A spokesperson for Fox then came out and said Fox had walked due to ‘abusive and offensive behaviour’ aimed towards her by director Bay. I’m not really in a position to sort the wheat from the chafe as regards the true story, but my job does involve a little speculation.

Bay’s supposed attitude would be reason enough for either these options. He clearly used Fox as the ‘hot girl’ to draw in the teenage boy audience. Therefore, she would be seen as interchangeable with any other gorgeous female star. This was evidenced by the possible replacements that were immediately named. The first name mentioned was Gemma Arterton, who can be considered a natural beauty, and she has shown some talent for acting. After that, however, a parade of ‘actresses’ names were thrown around, many models with no previous experience. Then last week it was finally officially revealed that Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a Victoria’s Secret model no less, had been given the role. This backs both arguments.

Firstly, it is clear that Bay’s first priority is looks over talent, which certainly supports the idea that he felt Fox was easily replaceable. It also speaks for his attitude towards female actresses in general. If he is happy to pick a model with no history of acting, then Fox’s claims of misogynistic treatment can also be believed. If he had so little regard for her abilities as an actress that she could be replaced by a catwalk model, it isn’t a stretch to believe he tried to push her around.

Thinking outside the box, i originally thought that it could be that neither of these explanations were true. A string of respected actors have been added to the cast of Transformers 3, including the likes of John Malkovich and Frances McDormand. I was considering the possibility that Michael Bay had had an epiphany, and decided that he wanted to fill his next movie with outstanding actors, resulting in the culling of one of the weaker performers from the franchise. This looked to be proven completely off the mark immediately, however, considering the list of names we heard linked to the part. If Bay had really been interested in great casting, someone like Carey Mulligan, or an equally talented young actress would have won the role.

Regardless of the reasons behind Fox’s departure, it leaves a bit of a gap in her schedule, and nothing has rushed to fill it so far. Jonah Hex is released this month, and all indications are that it is a disaster. Fox’s next movie to be released after that, Passion Play, stars Mickey Rourke and Bill Murray, and then there is a bit of a question mark. In an interview with MTV last week, Fox spoke a little bit about the Fathom adaptation she has been linked with, and though she didn’t say much, she intimated it might well go ahead without her presence. Aside from modelling for some Armani ads, it looks like Megan Fox may be fading from the spotlight.

Whatever the real story behind Fox’s departure, the big question is, does it make any difference to Transformers 3′s quality, or chances of box office success? I rather glibly pointed out in an article the other week that Megan Fox has shown no bankability in her career to date, with her only big film since joining the Transformers set-up, Jennifer’s Body, showing no real chops at the box office. I do stand by my statement, but at the same time, i think those that say the Transformers franchise made her career are being a little unfair. Fox was a huge selling point for both movies, they were sold to a large extent on her sex appeal, and i do think that she had some influence on Transformers’ huge gross, particularly the second film.

Having said that, i’m not sure that her absence will have a noticeable effect on the third movie’s numbers.She has a distinctive look and personality, and there is a generation of teenage boys that have fallen in love with her. But the boys that were teenagers when the first film was released have now reached an age where they are able to be a bit more discerning with respect to acting ability, and whilst that doesn’t necessarily bode well for their interest in her replacement, there is now a new batch of horny teenage boys ready to be entranced by whoever does end up filling her boots. I’m not a fan of Fox, and having paid full price to see the atrocity that was Transformers 2, at the Imax no less, i have very little interest in the next installment. Part of me however would like to think that there are fans of Fox, and her character, that will not go to see the next film because of her absence. It’ll be impossible to really measure this, though, as i can’t help but think the poor quality of Revenge of the Fallen will itself have an adverse impact on the success of the third film.

I think ultimately, filmmaking is both the winner and loser here. Megan Fox has yet to show a great talent in any of the parts she has played so far, so from an acting standpoint it doesn’t look to be any great loss. Hopefully, as a result of this she will get the opportunity to prove me wrong my taking on a much better part in a much better movie. A third stint as Mikaela Banes was never going to do her credibility as a serious actress any favours, and being cut free of the franchise, whatever the reason, may allow her to show that she can do a whole lot better.

Whoever had been chosen to replace her was not going to bring the Transformers series down any lower in stature, and with the greatest will in the world, even someone with the great acting ability of a Kate Winslet would be hard pressed to elevate Michael Bay’s movies to any great emotional or intellectual level. The Transformers films are popcorn, action heavy effects movies at best, and to expect any more than that is to hold yourself up to nothing but disappointment. To be honest, that casting rumours for Transformers 3 are the biggest news story of any week is a sad affair indeed, and here i am adding fuel to the fire. Ho hum.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann