Catherine Keener (Where the Wild Things Are) is in early talks to star opposite Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close) in Captain Phillips.

Based on true events, Captain Phillips centers on Richard Phillips (Hanks), a sea captain who allows himself to be taken hostage by Somali pirates when his ship comes under attack.

Kenner is rumoured to be playing Hanks’ wife, Andrea Phillips, who remains strong and devoted to her husband throughout the entire ordeal.

Paul Greengrass (Green Zone) is attached to direct from a screenplay penned by Billy Ray (The Hunger Games), while Scott Rudin, Kevin Spacey, Michael De Luca, Dana Brunetti will executive produce.

Kenner will next be seen in Peace, Love & Misunderstanding, opposite Jane Fonda (The Morning After) and Elizabeth Olsen (Martha Marcy May Marlene).

Source: Variety

Hollywood’s next dalliance with pirates will be a very different beast to that of those light-hearted Caribbean escapades.

Deadline is reporting that Paul Greengrass (who seems to have spent the last year or so toying with a number of diverse projects) may have finally settled on his next directorial venture. The ‘Bourne’ filmmaker has been offered the Sony Pictures’ Somali pirate drama, which is based on the real-life exploits of the skipper of a cargo ship, who offered himself up as a hostage to the aforementioned pirates, only to be rescued by Navy SEALs three days after his abduction.

Based on the captain’s book which recounts the incident (A Captain’s Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALs, and Dangerous Days at Sea), Tom Hanks is down to play the lead, with scripting duties by Billy Ray (Flightplan, State of Play).

Having elevated the Bourne franchise to its imperious high water mark with Ultimatum, delivered a breath-takingly intelligent and affecting 9/11 drama (United 93) and then delved into Iraq and the non-existent WMD scandal with Green Zone, Paul Greengrass is casting his eye about for another subject to get his teeth into.

It has been reported that his planned MLK biopic has foundered over rights issues, leaving him with a couple of other options instead. One is Maersk Alabama, an adaptation of “A Captain’s Tale”, about a merchant vessel that is captured by Somali pirates, before a daring rescue by Navy SEALS. If the project were to wait until the autumn, then rumoured lead Tom Hanks would be able to *ahem* come on board as the skipper, given that he should be done with the Wachoswkis Cloud Atlas by then.

Greengrass may yet jump ship however, as he is also said to be circling Rush, a formula one drama set during the 1976 season and focusing on the rivalry between competing drivers Niki Lauder and James Hunt. Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen) has penned the script. Vulture also advise that their spies have heard tale of a third possible option for Greengrass but not a word has been said as to what it might be.

Frankly, I’d turn out to see pretty much anything Greengrass saw fit to put up on the screen, such is his film-making prowess. We’ll keep our collective ear to the ground for you and let you know as soon as he commits to anything.

Source: Vulture.

Following his time in the Green Zone with Matt Damon, Paul Greengrass has been linked to a number of high profile projects, as well as moving in and out of the legacy of the Bourne series now that a fourth film is on the go.

Cleopatra, Fantastic Voyage, Treasure Island – all films Greengrass was reportedly attached to, and then just over a month ago a new project was rumoured, one closer perhaps to Greengrass’s sensibilities and one which has just been announced officially by Universal.

Deadline have the story that Greengrass is set to direct Memphis, the story of the last days and assassination of Martin Luther King for Universal with Scott Rudin producing. This confirms the rumour we posted just over a month ago, and it will be good to see Greengrass back in action with a film even the best marketing people can’t claim has any link to the Bourne films.

As the film is set during the final days of the civil rights leader one can assume this will not be a life story of the man, and given the swirl of conspiracy which has surrounded the assassination perhaps this will fall in the mix, if not make up the main thrust of the film.

We know that despite his involvement in the Bourne franchise producing two of the finest thrillers of recent years, that franchise will, at least for the time being, now continue without him. That of course leaves him with time for other projects, such as Cleopatra, or instead perhaps a thriller about the events leading up to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

Reports state that Greengrass has written a script, titled “Memphis”, based upon his own research and that it will focus on King’s life during the early part of 1968, leading up to his assassination on April 4th. The suggestion is, via Vulture, that since King’s life was in considerable disarray in early 1968, the resulting script and film will provide a much more personal portrayal than previously expected. Apparently, moving into spring 1968 King was putting on weight, his marriage was deteriorating, he was boozing and chain-smoking and his opposition to the Vietnam War had cost him his previously good relationship with President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Producer Scott Rudin may well produce the film with Greengrass, though at the present time that remains an unconfirmed rumour. There are almost as many conspiracy theories regarding MLK’s death as that of JFK, so it will be interesting to see where Greengrass takes this. Given his history as a film-maker, at the very least we can safely assume his take on MLK will not be dull.

Rumours have been flying around about Sony’s planned 3D Cleopatra extravaganza for a while now. As we reported here, James Cameron was looking at it as a directing gig, with Angelina Jolie on board as the eponymous queen.

Although Jolie is still on board, Cameron seems to have moved on to Avatar sequels. Producer Scott Rudin says that they are “pretty close” to securing a director and one rumoured possibility is Paul Greengrass, who directed United 93, The Bourne Supremacy & Ultimatum and Green Zone. Although a big-budget 3D epic seems a little outside Greengrass’ norm, he had toyed with directing Fantastic Voyage in 3D (with James Cameron producing), so it is perhaps not quite as left field as at first appears.

The script by Brian Helgeland (LA Confidential, Man on Fire, Mystic River) is purported to be superb, portraying Cleopatra as a politician and a strategist rather than merely the seductress of the calamitous 1963 film, famously starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Interestingly, Helgeland also wrote the script for Green Zone, Paul Greengrass’ last outing as director.

Sony apparently acknowledge that this sort of grand-canvas, 3D, prestige picture won’t come cheap, though they are hoping to get filming underway in 2011. In today’s money, the 1963 version of Cleopatra cost some $300m, a figure Sony will surely try to stick well below. Even with inflated ticket prices for 3D films, the project would still be something of a gamble if the budget starts to spiral.

As and when more news comes through, we will be sure to let you know.

Source: Deadline

Obviously Jason Bourne and Liberace don’t seem to make obvious bed-fellows and before rumours get started, we are not announcing a Bourne spin-off that segues with a Liberace biopic. Rather, EW recently caught up with Matt Damon while on publicity duties for Clint Eastwood’s latest, Hereafter and he discussed his feelings about the Bourne franchise and his involvement in a (totally separate) Liberace film.

Damon had been quoted in seemingly slightly displeased terms over Tony Gilroy’s intended work on the Bourne franchise, saying that he had not been consulted over the new film and:-

“Universal just wants to call everything the Bourne something.”

It is refreshing therefore to see Damon being given an opportunity to share his thoughts on the development of the franchise and to see that he appears to bear no ill-will towards Gilroy’s film at all:-

I was in a roundtable and they were, like, badgering me about the next Bourne movie. And I was like, “I don’t know, guys, they didn’t call me. They’re doing another movie with Tony.” I think it’s a smart thing to do. It doesn’t interfere with Paul [Greengrass] and me doing a movie. As I understand it, if you think of X-Men and then Wolverine, it’s just that process in reverse. Tony doesn’t want to hurt the Bourne story. So as I understand it, Jason Bourne is alive in the world that Tony’s going to create. I don’t appear in it, but it’s very much that world. As far as Paul and I are concerned, as long as there’s room for us to come in and do another one, we’re thrilled.

Damon goes on to say that he wishes Gilroy well and considers him an A-List director in his own right. Damon also said that it was no surprise to see the Bourne films progressing without him as he and Paul Greengrass had spoken with Universal a year ago and decided not to go with a further film. It was inevitable, Damon says, that Universal would want to keep the films going and find a way to do so without spoiling any chance of Damon and Greengrass returning to the franchise in the future.

EW then moved on to discuss with Damon his upcoming projects and it was in this context that Liberace came up. Damon is working with Steven Soderbergh on Contagion at the moment, before turning his attention to We Built A Zoo with Cameron Crowe. After that, around next summer, comes Liberace with Michael Douglas.

Tantalisingly, Damon finishes his interview by saying that next fall/autumn (2011) he hopes to work again with Paul Greengrass, either on another Bourne film, or something else. If it were another Bourne film, says Damon, they would not want or need to hurry, lest they get in the way of the scheduled release of Gilroy’s The Bourne Legacy. That, says Damon, would give them time to make sure the script was just right.

Gilroy had said that he had planned Legacy to give room for Damon/Bourne to return in a future film and it is nothing short of thrilling to see that Damon and Greengrass are both open to the possibility as well. What do you think?

Confusion was inevitable. Naming The Bourne Legacy after the Robert Ludlum novel of the same name was destined to provoke assumptions of some relation between the two.

While it was reported last week that Tony Gilroy – writer of the first Bourne trilogy who was back behind the keyboard for Bourne 4 – had signed to direct the fourth film in the series (via Deadline), it appears that there was more to the story than first thought.

Gilroy, in an interview with Jeffrey Wells, had two ambiguities to clarify.

Rather than being an adaptation of Ludlum’s novel, The Bourne Legacy “will not use the [book's] story, it’s a completely original screenplay.” Furthermore, the man behind Michael Clayton and Duplicity was eager to reassure fans that:

“This is not a reboot or a recast or a prequel. No one’s replacing Matt Damon. There will be a whole new hero, a whole new chapter…this is a stand-alone project.”

On the topic of Matt Damon’s return to the character of Bourne, the director decided to beat around the bush a little.

“The easiest way to think of it is an expansion or a reveal. Jason Bourne will not be in this film, but he’s very much alive. What happened in the first three films is the trigger for what happens. I’m building a legend and an environment and a wider conspiracy…the world we’re making enhances and advances and invites Jason Bourne’s return [down the road].”

In other words, while Matt Damon doesn’t have a role in the screenplay as it stands now, all that is preventing his appearance in Legacy – or further installments down the line – is his loyalty to Paul Greengrass. Should Damon receive Greengrass’ blessing – or change his mind for any other reason – there is nothing preventing the iconic character’s return.

The tentative title, then, is more literal than first thought. This is not The Bourne Legacy: The Movie, but a chronicle or Bourne’s Legacy – the consequences of his actions, of which there will likely be many.

“Everything you saw in the first three films actually happened, and everyone who got into will be rewarded for paying attention. We’re going to show you the bigger picture, the bigger canvas. When you see what we’re going and see what we’re doing it’ll be pretty obvious….but Jason Bourne’s actvities in the first three films is the immediate trigger.”

So, no flash-sideways then. Pinky promise?

The studio behind Tales From the Gangster Squad (a much buzzed-about script based on the tales of real-life police Sgt. John O’ Mara’s attempts to bring down gangster Mickey Cohen in 1940s L.A), is currently on the hunt to find a director to helm their flick.

While Ben Affleck (riding high on the success of his latest directorial effort The Town) was Warner Bros favourite to take this on, he has now passed on it and Darren Aronofsky has been offered the gig. This too may prove problematic, due to the fact that Fox has entered into negotiations with the director to take on the sequel to last year’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Now Latino Review has acquired a list of other potential candidates up for the film. On there is Paul Greengrass, Francis Lawrence, Martin Campbell, Green Lantern scribe Greg Berlanti and Crazy Heart’s Scott Cooper.

Immediately it’s Greengrass who stands out here, and surely I’m not alone in thinking his style of shooting could make for an interesting-looking period piece. Think LA Confidential by way of the Bourne films.

We’ll keep you update when a director is finally announced.

The story so far…

After thrilling the collective pants off us all and becoming hugely influential in doing so, the adaptations of Robert Ludlum’s Bourne series came to what seemed a logical end with 2007′s The Bourne Ultimatum.

Then Universal began retracing their steps to that particular well, hoping to again secure the services of the actor and director who made a huge impression on audiences. First up Paul Greengrass pulled out of the running for the director’s chair, then Matt Damon talked down rumours of a fourth movie, throwing the notion of a prequel to the trilogy without him, into the mix.

Then Tony Gilroy, the man who wrote the first three movie, was reportedly working on a fourth film with The Bourne Legacy as its title and now we’re up to date with the news from Deadline that Gilroy will be directing the film.

Gilroy’s previous directorial dalliances comprise of the excellent and underrated Michael Clayton and not so underrated Duplicity, and bringing in the man who knows these films so well to write and direct what may turn out to be the jumping off point for a new trilogy (potentially with a new actor in the lead role) is a smart move.

Some may have wanted Greengrass back in the director’s chair, but it will be interesting to see how this one plays out with Gilroy in complete control. Prepare yourself for another round of ‘Shortlist of Jason Bourne replacement actors’ any day now…

Variety are reporting that more than one month after the UK film council was disbanded by our new coalition government, a proposal is being drawn up for a new plan of action for Britain’s movie business. The abolition sparked controversy both locally and globally, to the extent that Clint Eastwood wrote a letter of protest to chancellor George Osborne.

While the 10 year old Film Council attracted much acclaim, producing many successes, it has regardless been criticised for becoming internally focussed and taking few risks with less surefire projects. Set up by Tony Blair’s government in 2000, the council’s increasingly obsessive drive to reclaim funds and alienate breakthrough talent lacked the commercial appear to draw box  office success.

That said, included in the list of 900 projects the UKFC funded are hits which include Gosford Park (which earnt $87.8 million at the box office), Bend it Like Beckham ($76.6 million) and this year’s Streetdance 3D ($42.4 million).

Originally set out with a manifesto that stated the aim to “Identify the endemic problems that plague our industry and start to develop a set of policies, which, over time, can create a framework for sustained success”, the UKFC failed at a number of its primary objectives.

In The Loop’s Kevin Loader claimed that “The commercial terms [the UKFC] took were extremely aggressive”, while producer Chris Atkins believed much of the funds to have been squandered. For every $140,000 received by Optimum Releasing to help fund This Is England (which grossed $3.2 million in the Britain alone), substantially more money was spent to outfit screens with digital projectors.

Although the UKFC’s Digital Screen Network initiative might have had the best incentives – to assist struggling independent producers with a cheaper alternative to physical prints – many critics claim this to be a poorly conceived campaign. Indeed, it is predominantly blockbusters which are screened digitally, productions less reliant on the cheaper costs associated with shooting digitally.

However, “the film council is only part of the industry and it can’t change things other people don’t want to change”, arguedRobert Jones, who headed the Premiere Fund tasked with allocating £10 million annually to features.

Speaking of the plans due to be unveiled before the end of the month, Downey concludes “The industry needs to know what it is doing and know soon. There has to be a handover that is orderly and puts the industry first. If it is done – and done well – then we will be able to assess objectively the legacy of the U.K. Film Council.”

However, for an initiative that kick-started the careers of Christopher Nolan and Paul Greengrass, they were obviously doing something right.

For the moment at least, there is a glimmer of hope for the UK film industry. We will keep you updated when the new plans are revealed before months-end.

MATT DAMON (The Bourne franchise, Invictus, The Informant!) and internationally renowned director PAUL GREENGRASS (The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum, United 93) re-team for their latest electrifying thriller in GREEN ZONE – available to buy on Blu-ray and DVD from 12th July 2010. You can pre-order it here.

In the film, U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon) and his team of Army inspectors have been dispatched by their commanders to find weapons believed to be stockpiled in the Iraqi desert.  Rocketing from one booby-trapped and treacherous site to the next, the men search for deadly chemical agents but instead stumble upon an elaborate cover-up that subverts the purpose of their mission.

Packed full of explosive action and thrilling drama, GREEN ZONE is set to be this summer’s must own DVD blockbuster and to celebrate its release we’re giving away 3 copies of the film on Blu-ray.

To be in with a chance of winning, you must become a fan of the HeyUGuys Facebook page and the Official Green Zone Facebook page and answer the following question using the form below…

What is the name of the U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer played by Matt Damon in the film?

1. Agent Rojer Miller
2. Agent Roy Miller
3. Agent Ray Tiller

The small print:

• This competition is open to the UK only
• Only one entry per household will be counted
• The competition will close Monday 12th July (release date) at 23.59 GMT
• The winner will be picked at random from entries received

The usual T&Cs can be found here. Good Luck!

COMPETITION NOW CLOSED

Film © 2010 Universal Pictures.  All Rights Reserved.  Packaging Design © 2010 Universal Pictures.  All Rights Reserved.

What did we do before Twitter?! For anyone who doesn’t already, you can follow us here. And while you’re there, you should follow one of the world’s greatest movie Producers, Frank Marshall (Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Hook, The Sixth Sense + a million more!).

The man who also producers the Bourne franchise has just told us that there is….:

Fantastic news today! Tony Gilroy, the keeper of the Bourne flame, is back with us to write the treatment for #4, THE BOURNE LEGACY…

If you’re a fan of The Bourne movies, then this is great news. Tony Gilroy is the master of conspiracy movies. He also wrote Proof of Life (which very oddly and completely by coincidence I’m watching as I write this post), more recently State of Play (also for Crowe) and has always been involved in the Bourne movies. The fact he’s still on board and working can only be a good thing. The fact Paul Greengrass (director of the previous 2) pulled out was bad, but what’s to say he’ll never come back?

We’ll keep you posted as more unfolds.

April the 1st bought us the news that British director Paul Greengrass was circling the Shane Salerno scripted Fantastic Voyage, a reworking of the 1966 film which miniaturised a team of scientists and injects them into the bloodstream of a defected and dying Soviet.

It was heralded as Greengrasses’s first foray into science fiction, and opinion was further divided when it was revealed that the film would make use of James Cameron’s 3D technology, news which caused heads and stomachs to turn equally.

Now we hear that Greengrass is no longer part of the Fantastic Voyage project and a new director is being sought.

Deadline also find the time to point us in the direction which they believe Greengrass will go next, and it’s similar 3D fare. Warner Bros have a Treasure Island project which Sherlock Holmes producer Lionel Wigram is developing, and Greengrass’s name is being whispered as the search for a new screenwriter is being sought.

Greengrass’s documentarian’s eye has been instrumental in the impact of much of his previous work, and a family oriented tentpole movie with Greengrass’s name attached to it is sure to raise interest.

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films, as ranked by the users of the biggest movie Internet site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of The Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case, we, is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list! We’ve frozen the list as of 1st January this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, as we’ll be watching them in one year, 125 each.

This is our seventeenth update, a rundown of my next five movies watched for the project.

(You can find last week’s update here)

Hotel Rwanda (2004) - 8.2 No. 110

 Hotel Rwanda is based on the true story of one man’s efforts to keep innocent people safe during the Rwandan genocide. Paul Rusesabagina was a hotel manager, and Hutu. His wife however was Tutsi. So when the Hutu extremists started to eradicate the Tutsi, Paul found himself right in the line of fire.

 Don Cheadle plays Paul. He is the hotel manager at the Sabena Hotel, and he takes his job very seriously, working hard to keep VIP and political guests happy by day, and looking after his young family at night. When the conflict escalates, and turns into full scale civil war, Paul is forced to use all his negotiation skills and contacts to keep both his family, and his friends, neighbours and guests safe within the confines of the hotel.

Paul’s makeshift sanctuary is constantly under threat from Hutu soldiers, and the arriving UN peacekeeping troops are powerless to act as anything but a visual deterrent. Paul finds himself pushed from pillar to post as he tries to evade Hutu extremists, and forge a plan to get his family to safety.

 Hotel Rwanda is very similar in theme to another film in the IMDb250, Schindler’s List. The more contemporary setting of this movie however makes it somehow more relatable. Having read and watched news of the conflict at the time, Hotel Rwanda is a fascinating insight into what really happened. The violence is frighteningly realistic. The performances, particularly from Cheadle and Nick Nolte as the leader of the UN forces are blistering. You genuinely feel the emotions of Paul as his life begins to fall apart, and an ordinary man is forced to step up, and become a reluctant hero. He isn’t an action man, but he does risk his life for the safety of not just his family, but also complete strangers.

 An amazing film, and an important history lesson, Hotel Rwanda is justified in its inclusion in the list, and deserves to be seen by many more people.

 Citizen Kane (1941) – 8.6 No. 34

 Orson Welles was just 26 when he wrote, directed and acted the lead of Citizen Kane. It is to this day considered one of the greatest movies ever made, an astonishing feat for such a young filmmaker.

 Charles Foster Kane was born to a poor family, but when his mother stumbles into ownership of a gold mine, he is sent away to be educated in order to carve out a better life. When he becomes old enough, he is awarded access to his inheritance. Kane goes into the newspaper business, with some radical plans to revolutionise The New York Enquirer. He soon rises to the top of the industry, but it isn’t enough. He then moves into politics, but on the verge of becoming Governor of New York, his first marriage ends in scandal, and he loses out in the election.

 Kane then marries his mistress, but has grown an obsessive personality over the years. He forces her into a singing career she doesn’t want, and becomes a recluse. With his second marriage in tatters, the once great man dies alone. His last word, Rosebud, sparks off a mystery, as the press desperately try to to discover the meaning of his last thought.

 Citizen Kane begins with the titular character’s death, and his life story is then told in flashback. An original concept at the time, and very well conceived it is too. The story of Kane, almost a cross between Michael Jackson and Howard Hughes, is brilliantly constructed and imaginatively plotted. The cinematography is fantastic, particular the many diverse uses of lighting effects, and an incredible deep focus shot at his childhood home. Welles’ performance is remarkably mature, just as his directing, as he plays a bright eyed, enthusiastic entrepreneur who slowly becomes an obsessive, embittered old man. Kane spends his whole life in search of something, never truly knowing what that thing is.

 Watching Citizen Kane, it’s easy to see why it is so well thought of. A very well made film, particularly for the time, no top movies list is complete without it.

 The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) – 8.1 No. 147

 The Bourne films, based on a series of novels, have become increasingly popular over the years. The first was directed by Doug Liman, who then handed the reigns over to Paul Greengrass, who directed both the second film and the third, The Bourne Ultimatum.

 Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is still searching for the full truth about his previous life. He has started to remember some of his past, but wants the full story. A reporter for The Guardian has started an investigation into the CIA programme that Bourne was once a part of, writing several articles about Bourne himself. Bourne realises that the reporter can help him to find the answers he needs, and makes contact. Bourne is however only able to get limited information, which lead him to a CIA operative, the reporter’s source.

 Meanwhile, an agent named Vosen, in charge of a new op named Blackbriar, is in pursuit of Bourne, and has also targeted the CIA source in order to silence him. Bourne follows the trail to the office of Vosen himself, and with a bit of help from the inside, is finally able to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

 I’ve tried to summarize the plot as vaguely as possible for two reasons. One, because the storyline is so complicated, i don’t want to spoil it. And two, because the storyline is so complicated, that i couldn’t completely follow it. See, the problem is, i’ve seen the first two films just once each, and don’t really remember them. The Bourne Ultimatum is the third in the series, and doesn’t really work without a good recollection of the first two. Perhaps strange, then, that this is the only movie of the three in the list, surely a unique feat.

 The action is blistering, particularly the extended chase scene at Waterloo station, and Greengrass’ trademark shaky cam gives it a real sense of authenticity and urgency. Aside from that, it’s difficult to evaluate the plot, and the outcome is that i need to go back and revisit the previous films. When i do, i’ll maybe revisit this film, and allow it the attention it deserves.

 The Manchurian Candidate (1962) – 8.2 No. 129

 During the Korean war, a platoon of American soldiers are brainwashed, and then allowed to return to their home soil as heroes. Years later, Capt Marco (Frank Sinatra), working as an intelligence officer, is suffering a constant recurring dream. He feels highly disturbed by this, and becomes suspicious about events that may have occurred during his time in Korea.

 He then discovers another member of his team, Sgt Shaw, is suffering similar visions. As Marco starts to investigate, he stumbles across a conspiracy, and eventually learns that Shaw has been turned into a sleeper assassin, and is part of a plot to overthrow the US Government. Marco finds out how Shaw is triggered to act without memory of those actions, and uses this information to discover the full truth of the Manchurian Candidate.

A very dark, paranoid tale of a communist plot, and psychological warfare, The Manchurian Candidate is an intense film. The suspense is built well, and the story unfolds at a perfect pace, as we see Marco question his own sanity, and witness the manipulation of Sgt Shaw, completely unaware of his own actions, being used by people close to him. What is surprising here is the measured performance by Sinatra, not best known for his acting ability, and Angela Lansbury as Shaw’s scheming mother, playing completely against type, and doing a great job.

 A well written film, with some very definite ideas about the cold war, and international espionage, The Manchrian Candidate is an interesting and thoughtful film, and a bit of a surprise entry into the IMDb list.

 Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966) – 7.9 No. 240

 I’d heard of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, but didn’t have a clue what it was about. I had a quick scan, and found it was based on a play, and involved two couples spending an evening together at home. ‘That sounds a bit dull’ i thought. How wrong i was…

Martha and George come home from a party, a little worse for alcohol. A middle aged couple, they are a bit snippy with each other, which can happen after a few drinks. Martha reveals that guests are due to arrive, a couple who are friends of her father. It’s quite late for guests, so this causes some further conflict.

 The guests arrive, a younger couple named Nick and Honey, who have also had a few drinks. As the evening progresses, the conflict between Martha and George begins to make their guests uncomfortable, but as the alcohol flows, they get more mixed up in the bad feeling, and start to bicker between themselves, and with their hosts. As everyone becomes drunker, revelations come to light, and the situation moves from discomfort to something more, something sinister.

 Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf starts off as an exploration of the awkwardness of having guests in your home, or being guests at someone else’s, and the evils of alcohol. It then takes that concept to the extreme. Martha and George have serious issues with each other, and the anger between them spills over, and manages to corrupt and destroy the seemingly healthy relationship between their young visitors. The scenes are intense, the performances blistering. Elizabeth Taylor is impressive as the wailing harpie Martha, who makes no attempt to hide her spiteful feelings towards her husband. George Segal and Sandy Dennis as Nick and Honey try their best to hold their own on screen, but it is Richard Burton’s performance as the simmering George that steals the movie. Alternately desperate, then steaming mad, he runs through the full range of emotions, and it is impossible to turn away from the car crash unfolding.

 The slow burn of the story is expertly paced, the performances grand without ever going over the top, combining to make an incredible, mean spirited, and almost all too real story of how destructive relationships and alcohol can damage not just one, but four lives. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf was certainly a surprise for me, and though enjoyed really isn’t the right word, it is a brilliantly constructed movie.

You can find Gary’s next update next Monday, and i’ll see you here in two weeks time.

Don’t forget, you can follow our progress on Twitter at http://twitter.com/baz_mann and http://twitter.com/gary_phillips_.

Bazmann

Yesterday, to coincide with Ridley Scott’s adaptation, starring Russell Crowe and released this week, i looked at the legend of Robin Hood, and why so many movies and TV shows have been based around the popular character. The story of the outlaw that robs from the rich and gives to the poor is certainly compelling, but it got me to thinking. Surely there must be other characters from English folklore that are conducive to great storytelling, and fantastic filmmaking? So i had a bit of a look around, and chose five other legendary characters that have, to date, been unfairly ignored by the Hollywood machine.

Spring Heeled Jack

 The Lore

 According to various folklore sources (or as i like to call them, Wikipedia), Spring Heeled Jack existed in Victorian London, and was so called because of his unique ability to jump very high. There are many descriptions of his appearance, the generally accepted one was of a tall, slim built man, dressed in black. Sometimes said to have claws, he was apparently a terrifying figure to behold. Jack’s MO differs in numerous accounts. Some involve simple feats of leaping, in some he attacked and groped women, and in other stories he was said to jump up and slap people in the face, quickly disappearing into the night.

 The Pitch

 Due to its macabre content, and Victorian setting, this project is perfect for the gothic king Tim Burton. His dark, creepy take on the streets of Olde London Town would set the perfect tone for this tale. Spring Heeled Jack himself, a dark, mysterious figure with obvious psychological issues, is the perfect role for Crispin Glover. What’s that? Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter? Oh, go on then. Bonham Carter plays a victim that Jack has taken a particular interest in, and he begins to revisit her, developing an obsession. Johnny Depp is the newspaper man on the trail of the shadowy figure, desperate to uncover his identity in order to further his journalistic career. The trail leads him to Carter’s doorstep, and he finds he must try to protect her whilst discovering the deep, dark secret at the heart of Spring Heeled Jack’s actions.

Brute of Troy

 The Lore

 Brute was either the great grandson, grandson or son of the Trojan Aeneas, depending upon which source you follow. Born in Italy, as a young boy he accidently shot and killed his father with a bow and arrow. He was subsequently banished from the country, and formed a small army with a group of Trojans enslaved in Greece. He apparently travelled through India, and after many battles in Gaul sailed to Britain. There, his army kill a population of Giants, and Brute becomes the first king of Britain.

 The Pitch

 Michael Bay could bring his distinctive brand of high voltage action to this ancient mythic story, with Gerard Butler as the mighty Brute. We’d be treated to his early years, the accidental death of his father, played by Liam Neeson, and his subsequent adventures. Along with his Trojan followers, he would battle great CGI armies, Giants and other mythological creatures. Following a heavy defeat at Gaul, the army retreats to the seas, and as all their skilled navigators were killed in battle, find themselves at an unknown island. They begin to explore, and are forced to fight for their lives against the vast giants that call the land home. Eventually emerging victorious thanks to Brutes leadership, his followers make him king, and he names the island Britain, a derivation of his own name.

Hereward the Wake

 The Lore

 In the 11th century, Hereward was supposedly part of the Anglo-Saxon resistance to William the Conqueror, and his Norman army. He is said to have initially rebelled against Edward the Confessor, resulting in exile to Europe, and being named an outlaw. He returned to England to try and help repel the Normans, along with a small Danish army. He was part of an alliance based on the Isle of Ely, and participated in attacks on the enemy around the Fen region of England. The Normans eventually launched an attack on the Isle of Ely, which ended in victory, though Hereward and and a number of others escaped, continuing the doomed resistance.

 The Pitch

I would be interested to see Paul Greengrass take on this kind of historical story. The guerrilla style attacks of the outlaw’s band, filmed in Greengrass’ traditional shaky-cam would be awesome, truly conveying the brutality of these brutal skirmishes, and the horror inherent in this kind of uncivilised warfare. Who else but Matt Damon to play Hereward, initially forced to live as an outcast, bravely returning from Europe with the Danish army to take on William and the Normans. Winning over his fellow warriors through valour and great leadership, Hereward quickly rises to General of his own squad, and his successful ambushes raise the ire of William the Conqueror, played by Hans Lander. William orders the attack on the Isle of Ely to end the constant harassment of his troops. We are treated to a Helm’s Deep type battle, but through the unique lens of director Greengrass. Hereward fights bravely, but is forced to retreat. He continues in vein to attack the Norman forces, and his legend begins when he is eventually killed in battle.

Guy of Warwick

 The Lore

 Guy was apparently a commoner who fell in love with a woman above his station, Lady Felice, a woman of noble birth. In order to prove he is a worthy suitor, he travels the land, fighting giants, dragons, a Dun Cow and various other mystical creatures. He becomes a knight, and returns for the Lady’s hand in marriage. However, overcome with guilt for his killings, he travels to the Holy Land to make amends. Eventually he returns, and lives as a recluse in a cave over the River Avon.

 The Pitch

 The various and obscure creatures involved in this story make it ideal for a filmmaker like Guillermo Del Toro. He has great skill at mixing fantastical beings with personal, emotional drama, and he is a uniquely gifted storyteller. The part of Guy could be played by an actor like Aaron Johnson. The Lady Felice is the kind of part that Gemma Arterton would be perfect for. Regular Del Toro collaborator, the fantastic Doug Jones is highly skilled at portraying wondrous, fantastical creatures. As such, he would be a great choice to play the creepy, unworldly beings Guy has to face.

So Guy, in our movie, falls in love with the Lady of higher standing. Her father, the Earl of Warwick (played by Michael Gambon) sends him out to prove his mettle. He does not want his daughter to marry a common man, however, as he has planned to marry her off to a rich nobleman in a position of power, as his own fortune has run dry. So he tells the nobleman, played by Mark Strong, to follow Guy, and ensure he is hampered in his quest. If the nobleman succeeds, he will win the Lady’s hand. After several complications arise during his quest, Guy eventually realises what is afoot. He allows Strong to be killed by the Dun Cow, before slaying it himself. When he returns and Strong doesn’t, the Earl is forced to allow the marriage. Guy however jilts Lady Felice at the altar, overcome with remorse at not saving the nobleman, and sales off to the Holy Land, leaving the franchise open for the inevitable sequel…

The Pedlar of Swaffham

 The Lore

 The titular pedlar, who indeed lived in Swaffham (or Soffham) in Norfolk, is said to have had a dream that if he travelled to London, and stood at London Bridge, he would receive beneficial news. He ignored the first dream, but as they persisted he decided to make the trip to London for better or worse. Once there, he spent several days at the bridge, but nothing happened. Eventually, a curious shop owner approached him, and asked why he had been at the bridge waiting for so long. The pedlar explained his story, and the shopkeeper thought him a fool. He told the pedlar about his own dream, in which he travelled to Swaffham, and dug underneath a tree, behind a pedlar’s house, discovering great treasure. He explained to the pedlar that he was too wise to embark on a similarly foolhardy errand in the opposite direction, in pursuit of a nonsensical dream. The pedlar returned to his home, and found sure enough the treasure under the tree. With his new found wealth, he paid for the rebuilding of the crumbling Soffham church. His effigy can be found to this day in stained glass windows in the town.

 The Pitch

 This story is suited to a quirky, personal drama, perhaps directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The dream sequences would be surreal, then we would follow the Pedlar’s journey, played by Jude Law,as he set out to London. Once there, he could meet an odd selection of different people who live and work around London Bridge. The pedlar would interact with their lives, getting to know them, helping them out, all the while chasing the thought that anything they say could be the news he is waiting for. It would allow for some hilarious situations, as several times he could get involved with some sort of mis-adventure, believing it will lead to the information his dreams prophesised. Once he finally gets the news, and subsequently the treasure, he could pay for the Swaffham church, then move to London to live amongst his friends. Using his newfound wealth to help them with the trials and tribulations he became a part of during his three days there, he discovers the real treasure is the people he has met, and the new life he has found.

So, what do you think? What other folk tales would make great Hollywood movies?

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

Last weekend saw Kick-Ass underperform at the box office. Critical reviews of the movie have been great, but the public’s interest in the movie hasn’t drawn. Kick-Ass was one of this year’s most highly anticipated films so far, and hopes for its success were high. We are now about to enter the second third of the year, and so far no one film as emerged as a bona fide classic. So what is going on?

 Of course, the term classic is difficult to define, and means different things to different people. It can be tied to the box office success of a movie. It can be attributed to the critical success of the movie. It may be better classed as the overwhelming public response to a film, which is very different in some cases to the critical performance of a movie. Many see a true classic as one that holds up in ten, twenty years time and beyond. Everyone has a different and equally valid opinion on this.

 I think the definition really has to be some combination of al the above factors. Some of the most successful movies so far this year in respect of box office performance have received a critical mauling. Alice in Wonderland is the highest grosser so far this year, and it has received generally very average reviews, though the public response has been more favourable. Also a big hit at the box office was Clash of the Titans, but in this case the critical and public response was pretty unanimous – it has been almost universally panned. Are these the movies we’ll still be talking about in five years time? Of course not.

 Some, like Kick-Ass, have received fantastic reviews across the board. The public reception has generally been pretty positive, though of course the number of viewers who have actually seen it is too low so far for it to be considered classic cinema, and there is a large percentage of cinema audiences who will never respond favourably to its over the top violence and ridiculous storyline.

 The films that could have been good, that we were expecting great things from, have failed critically, and some also financially. Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island did pretty well at the box office, but has a very low aggregate review score considering the directors reputation. Paul Greengrass is well respected for films like United 93 and Bloody Sunday, and has enjoyed financial success with his Bourne entries, so expectation was high for his third collaboration with Matt Damon. Green Zone, however, received a very mixed reaction, its political views rubbing some people up the wrong way, and it didn’t even manage to make a profit.

 Really, the only movie so far this year that has won out on all fronts has been How to Train Your Dragon. It started off slowly at the box office, but is looking good to break the $200M barrier within the next ten days. Aggregate scores have been very good, and public opinion has been pretty unanimous in its praise, with many movie-goers rewatching it multiple times. An animated film, the big success story of the year so far? It deserves it, and just follows the trend of animated work breaking through into genuine consideration.

So is the Hollywood product really just decreasing in quality? Last year was also considered to be a pretty weak year for quality film. I was watching Zombieland last night, one of last year’s surprise hits. I didn’t watch it last year, i didn’t find the time to go and see what was really just a small, knockabout movie with no huge cultural impact. If it had been released this month, however, it might possibly be considered the film of the year so far by many. Last year didn’t produce many classics, with only Avatar and Inglourious Basterds really meeting the criteria i laid down at the beginning of this article. So if the smaller movies of the previous twelve months are surpassing the best of this year so far, should we be starting to get worried?

 Historically, of course, the bigger movies come towards the summer, and the critically appealing movies in the Autumn, so the best movies should still be to come. In fact, the first major contenders may even see the light in the next few weeks.

 Gladiator, directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe, made a lot of money at the box office, and holds a place in the top 100 films of all time based on the IMDb250 list. Both will hope they can recreate this success with the forthcoming Robin Hood. By the looks of the trailer, it is similar in tone, it has action by the bucket load and it is based on an enduring property. Crowe could never be considered a box office star, he makes too many smaller dramatic films for that. Scott does however have a reputation for making big budget movies, with compelling storylines, filled with great action set pieces and moments of suspense. Backed up by the option of 3D, Robin Hood will almost certainly do well at the box office, and if the story and plot hold up to the quality of some of Scott’s previous work, it could be the biggest movie of the year so far.

 The first Iron Man was a surprise hit, making a lot more money than was expected. Why was it such a surprise? Mainly, because from a mainstream cinema point of view, Iron Man was pretty much unknown. Somewhat of a second tier Marvel character anyway, with no previous Iron Man outings on the big screen, he was as far removed from the public consciousness as you can get. Add to this the Robert Downey Jr factor. It’s easy to forget now, but before Iron Man Downey was best known for jail time, a shattered career and a personal life filled with demons. To cast him in a big budget, family action movie was a big gamble. Director Jon Favreau was also a bit of a gamble. He hadn’t directed this kind of movie before, though did have special effects experience from Zathura. Why did Iron Man do so well? It was a well constructed, expensive looking action picture. The trailers showed impressive special effects and the charisma, screen presence and comedy timing of its star shone through. Reviews were good, and word of mouth spread quickly from those who had seen it.

 Both these pictures have the potential to become a classic, in every sense of the word. Other forthcoming titles, from Nolan’s Inception to Fincher’s The Social Network have the potential to be huge too. I think when 2011 rolls around, we’ll be able to look back upon a year filled with some great movies. It has been a cinematically uninspiring year so far, but the best is yet to come, and now is the time to be really excited about Friday nights at the movies.

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

Band of Brothers is rightly regarded as a high point in television drama, and the ten episode mini series is as impressive today (particularly on the blu-ray version) as it was nine years ago. With the series beginning tonight on Sky Movies today is The Pacific Day on HeyUGuys, and we’ve got something very special for you.

A few weeks ago we met something of a legend in the special effects industry, a man whose credits include two Indiana Jones films, Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd for Tim Burton, The Bourne Ultimatum and Green Zone as well as both Band of Brothers and its companion piece The Pacific. This is the man who built Willy Wonka’s Chocolate River, and the man whom Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg called on to produce the crucial special effects for their new series.

Joss Williams has an impressive  IMDb page and his work with Paul Greengrass, Tim Burton as well as Spielberg and Hanks charts a very interesting course of three decades at the forefront of a ever changing industry. Not cowed by the surge of CGI and visual effects, Williams’ positive and professional attitude is one borne out of a dedication to use both practical, in-camera effects with the enhancement that post production CGI can achieve.

Detailing his work on The Pacific and Band of Brothers Williams talks about the changes to the process in the nine year interim, and there’s a very special behind the scenes look at the aforementioned Chocolate River constructed for Tim Burton and his 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

He also talks about his next project, the Martin Scorsese directed The Invention of Hugo Cabret.

Our thanks to Joss for taking the time to speak with us. The Pacific is on April the 5th on Sky Movies HD.

Fresh from the critical grilling of the perhaps mis-sold Green Zone, word has broken on what director Paul Greengrass will do next.

According to THR Fox are talking to Greengrass about a remake of the 1966 inner-body experience film Fantastic Voyage, about a team of scientists being minaturised and injected into the bloodstream of a defecting Soviet bigwig, and if Greengrass signs it’ll be his first 3D sci-fi film.

Greengrass is known best for his work with Matt Damon on the Bourne films, but looking at his other films a bit closer will yield greater rewards. United 93 and Bloody Sunday were powerful stories told with a documentarian’s eye, and his camera work in his recent films has been copied by lesser hands to dizzying effect.

The new Fantastic Voyage has a script by Shane Salerno who worked on Armageddon and the film which made for a great trailer Aliens vs. Predator 2: Requiem, and the trades are reporting that James Cameron’s 3D technology will be used for this film. So it’s a fairly standard studio production and Greengrass would add some fire to the proceedings.

Now, if they could only get Dennis Quaid on board…

With a deftness of touch much akin to a US government committee on WMDs, the Universal Pictures marketing department set out to convince us that Green Zone was essentially Bourne 4. Much like the controversial reports regarding the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction however, there were those that wanted to believe, those that did believe and those that were not fooled in the slightest.

You can see why Green Zone was seen as a tough sell. The lack of success at the box office for The Hurt Locker, despite its great critical success showed that the American public is not yet ready to explore the war they never wanted. Those against the war don’t want to see it made into entertainment, and the heavily charged political message contained within, that the wrong decisions were made for the wrong reasons, would not sit well with the Bush supporters.

So selling Paul Greengrass’ latest as an extension of the Bourne series, an intelligent thriller with breakneck action, seemed the way to go. The presence of Matt Damon certainly made it the obvious choice. The problem is, they probably lost as much audience due to some poor review scores as they gained by mis-selling the product. You see, Green Zone has garnered a very split vote critically. Look on Rotten Tomatoes, and you can see a pretty even split between fresh and rotten.

I’ve been fascinated reading the conflicting views of Green Zone. I’ve read reviews that praised its in-depth storyline, and others that have claimed it was shallow. Some reward the bravery of the honest political message contained, whilst some call it mean spirited, factually inaccurate and naive. I haven’t seen it myself yet, i didn’t want my own opinion to affect the bias of this article. But it seems to me that those genuinely going in expecting it to be an extension of the Bourne series felt robbed, mis-led, and were angry at the fact that they had someone else’s political views so firmly forced upon them.

Conversely, those that went in looking for a film that would ask tough questions appreciated it much more, and came out with their expectations firmly fulfilled. What’s most interesting is if you click the ‘top reviewers’ button. Whatever you may think of the notion of top reviewers, and whether some peoples analysis is more valuable than others, the reviewers in this section are seen as top for a reason. And their collective verdict is 100% fresh. Whether you agree with a movies’ politics or not should not colour your perspective of its quality. Indeed, a film that questions your beliefs, and makes you think about a different point of view is the kind of film we need more of.

I can’t help but feel if the marketing campaign had sold Green Zone for what it was, the review scores would probably have skewed higher, and more people would have been drawn in by the potential of an intelligent political drama. If reviewers had gone in to Green Zone knowing exactly what to expect, it wouldn’t have caught them off guard, and maybe they would have enjoyed the experience a lot more.

I feel most sorry for director Paul Greengrass. Green Zone is in many ways the culmination of his work to date. Combining the intelligent, dramatic exploration of real life issues from his earlier films with the blistering action and twisting plot details of his more recent work in the Bourne series, it has the recipe for the perfect marriage of story driven drama and popcorn blockbuster. If the commercial failure and ambiguous critical reception of Green Zone mean we don’t get to see Greengrass approach his work in this way in the future, it would be a real shame. Because whatever you think of his politics, he is making a genuine attempt at bringing thought provoking storylines and political issues to a multiplex audience, and i for one applaud him for it.

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