On Dunkirk, Nolan strapped an IMAX camera in a plane and launched it into the ocean to capture the crash landing. It sunk quicker than expected. 90 minutes later, divers retrieved the film from the seabottom. After development, the footage was found to be "all there, in full color and clarity."

From American Cinematographer, August edition's interview with Dunkirk Director of Photography Hoyte van Hoytema -

They decided to place an Imax camera into a stunt plane - which was 'unmanned and catapulted from a ship,' van Hoytema says - and crash it into the sea. The crash, however, didn't go quite as expected.

'Our grips did a great job building a crash housing around the Imax camera to withstand the physical impact and protect the camera from seawater, and we had a good plan to retrieve the camera while the wreckage was still afloat,' van Hoytema says. 'Unfortunately, the plane sunk almost instantly, pulling the rig and camera to the sea bottom. In all, the camera was under for [more than 90 minutes] until divers could retrieve it. The housing was completely compromised by water pressure, and the camera and mag had filled with [brackish] water. But Jonathan Clark, our film loader, rinsed the retrieved mag in freshwater and cleaned the film in the dark room with freshwater before boxing it and submerging it in freshwater.'

[1st AC Bob] Hall adds, 'FotoKem advised us to drain as much of the water as we could from the can, [as it] is not a water-tight container and we didn't want the airlines to not accept something that is leaking. This was the first experience of sending waterlogged film to a film lab across the Atlantic Ocean to be developed. It was uncharted territory."

As van Hoytema reports, "FotoKem carefully developed it to find out of the shot was all there, in full color and clarity. This material would have been lost if shot digitally."

Clint Eastwood's "The 15:17 to Paris" Nabs Oscar-Qualifying Release Date

Director Clint Eastwood has helmed fourteen movies since hitting the age of 70. Has any director come close to that feat at this late stage in their career? Yes, Woody Allen‘s nearly been there thirteen films post-70, but Eastwood is still making hyper relevant films at the near twilight of his career and sometime breaking the box office in the process with something like “American Sniper.” Case in point his last two films: ‘Sniper‘ and “Sully,” both of which had the classicism of old-school Hollywood filmmaking, and yet, felt vitally alive and current. The resonant theme that binded both was the cost of hero worship. Both films have male characters who feel isolated and flawed, despite being deemed heroes by those around them.

It looks like “The 15:17 to Paris,” will be treading that line as well. Eastwood is currently busy these days shooting the aforementioned film, which is based on the true story of the three American students who stopped a terrorist attack two years ago in Paris. But in the ballsiest twist in recent mainstream filmmaking, the 87-year-old director has decided to screw conventional Hollywood casting and tapped the actual three real-life American students who stopped the terrorist on the train as the leads of the film. A risk that has had people talking, but it seems like Eastwood saw something in these young men that made him believe he could pull this off. My advice? Trust Clint. Also Eastwood really gives zero fucks these days so he probably doesn’t care anyhow.

Meanwhile, according to Variety‘s Kris Tapley, the film will breezily be ready for an Awards-Season release in December. The astonishing part of all this is that Eastwood only started shooting the film this summer, but he’s already known for his fast-paced under-the-radar productions. A prime example would be “Million Dollar Baby” in 2004, which wrapped up shooting in the summer and then had a very limited release in December just to qualify for Oscar. We all know how that turned out: the film won Best Picture and Clint nabbed his second Best Director prize. Now it’s all a matter if Warner Bros. wants to put it out in December or not.

In a career that spans more than 50 years in the director’s chair, Eastwood keeps honing his craft with the classicism he learned from his mentors Sergio Leone and Don Siegel, as Time’s late great film critic Richard Corliss said, he makes it seem “as if the story is telling itself.” Who else can pull off that kind of classic simplicity these days? To say we’re looking forward to “The 15:17 to Paris” would be an understatement.

Star Wars: Jabba the Hutt Spinoff Being Considered By Lucasfilm

There has already been confirmation of a film focusing on Obi-Wan Kenobi, but that was accompanied by more news of upcoming Star Wars movies in development. The most surprising film was the news of a spin-off focusing on Jabba the Hutt being developed by Disney and Lucasfilm.

Didn’t see that one coming did ya? Jabba is a giant slug from space that has firmly taken his place in pop culture just based on his brief, but extremely memorable appearance in "Return of the Jedi."

If you somehow forgot about this scumbag, he's a member of the Hutt intergalactic crime family, who created an empire in the Outer Rim and surrounds himself with bounty hunters, assassins, and, of course, slave girls, cue in the sexy Leia outfit. He's also a smuggler that made frequent use of Han Solo’s services, through all this, and his hysterically appalling look, we somehow took him half-seriously because, well, he was after all a dangerous gangster.

While it might seem out of left field, Jabba the Hutt’s life has the potential for a story that could explore the seedy underbelly of the Star Wars universe. It would most certainly be the closest to a gangster movie as Lucasfilm will produce.

While it might seem out of left field, Jabba the Hutt’s life has the potential for a story that could explore the seedy underbelly of the Star Wars universe. It would most certainly be the closest to a gangster movie as Lucasfilm will produce in its exhausting attempt to create more and more movies out of Lucasfilm's unlimited amount of characters.

Jabba's also been featured in the "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" animated series, but he has barely been explored live-action wise, so it'll be an interesting venture, to say the least, for Disney, who seem to think there is a lot of potential in his story. A Jabba the Hutt movie would most certainly be a much darker film than the other Star Wars films currently being made, but you can still expect a box-office friendly PG-13 rating to be stamped on this.

Tweet of the Day Courtesy of @Sethrogen

During the MPAA screenings of Superbad they said we were the first movie to say "fingerfuck"

— Seth Rogen (@Sethrogen) August 18, 2017

Darren Aronofsky Says 'mother!' Was Wrtitten In A Single Weekend

Darren Aronofsky has always been on the radar for cinephiles. This is after all the director that brought us “Requiem For A Dream,” “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan,” three flat-out great movies. Most directors would kill to have just one of these films as part of their filmography.

Aronofsky’s latest film is “mother!” starring Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Domhnall Gleeson and Michelle Pfeiffer, and all we know is that it’s about “a couple whose relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.” From what we’ve gathered, Aronofsky wants audience members to know as little about the movie as possible. Talking to Entertainment Weekly for their Fall Movie Preview issue, the writer-director says, “The best thing about this film will be the surprise of it. It’s an intense journey and it’s definitely the biggest roller coaster in the park. Only get on it if you really want to do the loop-the-loop.”

The film was shot on 16mm cameras and, according to Aronofsky, the film’s screenplay was written in a single weekend. “I was always jealous of singer-songwriters who can pop out a song in a couple of days or a few hours. I had this idea, and I felt it rise up in my head,” he said. “I took a long weekend and got into this fever dream and just pumped it out. [Laughs] We’ll see what the results are. It’s been an interesting way to approach it — trying to capture a single emotion and trying to tell a two-hour story out of that emotion.”

That’s ballsy. I cannot remember any other instance where a big-studio screenplay was said to have been written in the span of a few days. It’s quite the risk and I’m sure there was a lot of refining done in the ensuing days and weeks following that weekend, but still, this approach is unusual and, at the same time, absolutely intriguing. Encompassing a spur of the moment emotion into an entire script is a fascinating approach.

Aronofsky also says the new film is “closer to ‘Black Swan’ in spirit than anything I have done in a while.” Perhaps it means lots of surreal psychological depth and feeling, definitely some campiness added into the mix as well as an added dose of erotic intrigue? We’ll all find out on September 15th.

Emma Stone Passes J-Law as Highest-Paid Actress

Now that the Academy has honored Emma Stone with a much-deserved Oscar for her performance in “La La Land,” she has become a hot commodity and, if advanced buzz is any indication, her performance as Billie Jean King in this fall’s upcoming “The Battle of the Sexes” might land her another nomination.

So it comes as no surprise that in Forbes’ recently released list of Hollywood’s highest paid actresses she figures very high up on the list. Actually, nobody tops her, not even Jennifer Lawrence, who led last year’s rankings.

According to Forbes, Stone nabbed $26 million in her 12 months of action. That’s half a million more than Jennifer Aniston ($25.5 million) and $2 million more than the aforementioned J-Law ($24 Million). If you’re wondering, Aniston’s placement was helped by her stakes in Emirates airlines, Smartwater and Aveen, which makes more sense given she hasn’t really had a hit at the box office since 2013’s “We’re The Millers.”

Forbes’ list of highest-paid actors will be revealed next week, but a recent article published by the magazine does indicate the likelihood that Mark Wahlberg will be named highest-paid, making $68 million over a 12-month period. The parallels between the two lists does show the gender equality problem that has been plaguing Hollywood as Stone would likely not even crack the top ten on the actor’s list.

The full actress list can be seen below with the figures the actresses made shown in parentheses:

1. Emma Stone ($26M)
2. Jennifer Aniston ($25.5M)
3. Jennifer Lawrence ($24M)
4. Melissa McCarthy ($18M)
5. Mila Kunis ($15.5M)
6. Emma Watson ($14M)
7. Charlize Theron ($14M)
8. Cate Blanchett ($12M)
9. Julia Roberts ($12M)
10. Amy Adams ($11.5M)

George Lucas Still Offers Kathleen Kennedy Jedi Advice For ‘Star Wars’

Even though for many, there was much to dislike about the George Lucas‘ “Star Wars” prequels, you have to respect the guy for seeing it through because, in the end, what we were watching was, in fact, his full cinematic vision splattered on screen. Lucas created worlds unlike any others with the prequels, and while they were heavily flawed, but one must admire the way he built up these stories from scratch. This feat is even more remarkable when you look at how every successful movie today is based on some kind of source material. What Lucas did with “Star Wars” would probably not be able to happen with today’s blockbusters, or at the very least the lack of financing would stop short any kind of project of this magnitude.

It’s safe to say that it must have been heartbreaking for Lucas to sell the rights of “Star Wars” to Disney, a deal which he stated to Business Insider was akin to selling off one of his “kids.” He’s also been vocal about Disney’s insistence to take over complete creative control of the films.

“They looked at the stories and they said, ‘We want to make something for the fans,’ ” Lucas said in 2015. “I said, ‘All I want to do is tell a story’… They decided they didn’t want to use those [my] stories, they decided they were going to do their own thing. They weren’t that keen to have me involved anyway — if I get in there, I’m just going to cause trouble because they’re not going to do what I want them to do. And I don’t have the control to do that anymore. All I would do is muck everything up. And so I said, ‘OK, I will go my way, and I’ll let them go their way.'”

So, the next question would be, does Lucas have any role in the making of these new Disney-backed “Star Wars” movies? According to Lucasfilm head honchoKathleen Kennedy, Lucas does give advice every once in a while, albeit in the quietest of whispers:

“He’ll whisper in my ear every now and then. Usually, it’s something specific or important to him about Jedi training. Things like that,” she told EW.

There have barely been any examples of Lucas interfering in the creative process of these new “Star Wars” films, with “Rogue One” director Gareth Edwardsstating last year that Lucas’ input was limited to “jokes and encouragement to not screw up.”

You have to think that despite reaping an incomprehensibly large sum of money in selling the rights to Disney, Lucas must still be heartbroken at the prospect of others messing around with a creative endeavor he’s worked on for more than four decades. He lived and breathed “Star Wars” since the ’70s, putting everything else on hold.  People forget that he showed tremendous cinematic promise when he did 1973’s “American Graffiti,” a film which is still considered one of the milestones of 1970s cinema, and that he sacrificed that potential to fully delve into the “Star Wars” universe for the rest of his career. Here’s hoping Lucas can rest easy with someone else at the wheel.

"The Killing of A Sacred Deer" is flawed, but fascinating

My dispatch from Cannes:

Yorgos Lanthimos is a director that doesn’t mind bewildering and angering audiences. With Dogtooth and The Lobster he made brilliantly dissected and scathing satires of the patriarchal family. He’s at it again with The Killing of A Sacred Deer, which all, but confirms him as a sort of Bunuel for the 21st Century. Colin Farrell plays Steven, a deadpan surgeon still haunted by the failed surgery he did many years ago, while inebriated, which cost the life of the patient. This incident returns in the form of a sinister teenage boy who wants to make sure Steven’s life starts to fall apart in very personal ways. The film is an unabashed nightmare, a stalker thriller that delves into the surreal with an operatic and mesmerizing finale that will have you up in stitches. Farrell and Kidman, playing his wife, command the screen with ingeniously playful performances There are no winners in Lanthimos’ world, so beware [B-]

“The Killing of a Sacred Deer” opens on November 3rd via A24

MUST WATCH: Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

The Charlottesville riots have been on everybody's mind this past week. The most comprehensive document of this, I must say, historic and dark day in American history has been Vice's tremendous behind-the-scenes look at the terror.

Casey Affleck Thinks Ben Affleck Isn't Doing 'The Batman'

Rumors have been swirling as to whether or not Ben Affleck will be staying on as Batman in the DCEU. It all started when Affleck stepped down as director for the upcoming "The Batman," which consequently had Matt Reeves taking over the director's chair.  Affleck has also been going through his own personal problems which led to him recently leaving J.C. Chandor's "Triple Frontier." Add in the fact that the "Batman vs Superman" movie he was part of was met with mediocre reviews and it seems like the guy probably needs to take a breather. It's, of course, hard to relax when the WB counts on you being their Batman. Through all this Affleck has explicitly denied leaving reiterating earlier this summer:

 "Let me be very clear. Batman is the coolest part in any f'n universe, DC, Marvel. It's incredible. I'm so thrilled to do it, "I know there is a misconception because I wasn't directing that I wasn't enthusiastic, it's f'n amazing. I still can't believe it after two films to have this history with this great studio. Kevin Tsujihara and Sue Kroll and Toby Emerich said to me, 'We want you to be our Batman' and I believe them. Matt Reeves doing it, it's like 'I would be a f'n ape on the ground for Matt Reeves.' Nevermind being Batman, It's incredible. So I'm really blown away and excited, and it's a great time in the DC universe. You are going to see some stuff from Justice League that we're really, really proud of. I think you'll see why I'm so excited to be Batman."

That calmed down the rumors for a bit, until they came back with a vengeance when a THR article was reporting  that the WB is "working on plans to usher out Affleck's Batman," and that they plan to do it as an in-universe plot point in "some shape or form." They wanted it to be done "gracefully," and perhaps even before "The Batman," the solo film that at one point he was writing, directing, and starring in.

Now comes the news of Casey Affleck, Ben's brother, saying he thinks his bro isn't doing "The Batman." Or, at least, awkwardly implying it by telling the Dork podcast crew "He's not gonna do that movie. I don't think." and then, possibly realizing his mistake, saying "Is that breaking news? I was kind of making that up?" Was he really?

It always felt like a mistake to announce that Affleck was leaving, especially since "Justice League" is just a couple of months away. If it is announced it could probably be done next year when the dust has settled and "Justice League" has finished its box-office and home video run. However, what Warner Bros does need to realize is that Affleck was the best thing about "Batman vs Superman." Affleck will be in his late 40s when "The Batman" movie hits theaters and, with a new Batman trilogy in mind, Affleck will maybe be too old when that's all through and done with. Point taken. There's also the rumor that his screenplay for the film has been tossed and director Matt Reeves is hiring a new writer.

Warner Bros does need to realize that Affleck was the best thing about "Batman vs Superman." The actor will be in his late 40s when "The Batman" movie hits theaters and, with a new Batman trilogy in mind, I don't necessarily think he would be too old to take part in the films. Time will tell what's next for him in the DCEU, but many signs are pointing for his departure.

Netflix Co-Founder’s Crazy Plan: Pay $10 a Month, Go to the Movies All You Want

Yes, we all know the moviegoing paradigm is shifting. Especially with movie theaters struggling to make ends meet. A head-turning moment for execs just happened with this summer's box-office tally. Hollywood will fail to crack $4B in ticket sales for the first time since 2006. That is a problem. The number of moviegoers buying tickets is severely down and streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon are making people stay at home instead of churning out their hard-earned money for overpriced parking, popcorn and movie tickets. It's a no-brainer decision for many; Why go through all that effort to watch a movie when you can just stay in the comfort of your own home, save money, and not have any of the annoyances that come with watching a movie in public (texting, talking). 
Mitch Lowe, a Netflix co-founder, had people talking today. His idea to save the industry was met with celebratory approval by audiences, but with vehement negative rebuttal by a theater chain. His theory is simple, how about you let people come to all the showings they want, but they just pay $10 each month, less than the price of an average single ticket.

Lowe's startup is MoviePass, founded in 2011 its business model is said to be similar as to that of a gym membership. The subscribers would originally pay $30 or more per month to watch an unlimited amount of movies in theaters, the company's problem was that not many were using the service and Lowe, in a last-ditch effort, has decided to significantly cut the price to gain more members.  The $9,95 drop-price will be installed next Tuesday, which will give the company ample time to build up the buzz, which has been deafening on social media today.

What do you receive by paying 10 bucks a month? One showing every day at any theater in the U.S. that accepts debit cards. According to Business Insider "MoviePass will pay theaters the full price of each ticket used by subscribers, excluding 3D or Imax screens."

Lowe acknowledges that his company will be subsidizing ticket buyers and almost certainly losing money with this new subscription rate, however his argument is that he wants this new model of thinking to prove its value to theaters and studios, and that "in the future they will cut the company in on their additional profits. We’re hoping that if we can drive a meaningful increase in attendance we can share in that success,” said Lowe

It seems like what he is trying to do is start off this venture by intentionally losing money in the beginning to show how it increases turnout in movie theaters, and if turnout increases so does concessions sales, meaning theaters would stop panicking about MoviePass and, you know, actually start supporting them and helping them out with advertisements. Smart plan, but a risky endeavor which, if it fails, could have MoviePass lose a lot of money.

You would think that theater chains would welcome this effort to increase ticket sales with open arms, however news just broke that the AMC theater chain is threatening to sue MoviePass, which is strange considering Lowe's company is planning on paying theaters the full price of a movie ticket.
All this proves is that AMC's goal is for you to be loyal to AMC.  They probably want you to look at your AMC app and go to an AMC theater every time. Instead, you'd be looking at your MoviePass app and going to the theater closest to you. Nevertheless, attendance is down. Way down. Brand loyalty is the last thing they need to be worried about. Most people are predicting AMC or any other theater chain won't be around in 20 years, maybe MoviePass is the last-ditch hail mary that they need to stay relevant.

According to Business Insider, "the top four cinema operators, led by AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., lost $1.3 billion in market value early this month after a disappointing summer. The number of tickets sold in the U.S. and Canada last year declined slightly, while box office revenue rose just 2 percent thanks to pricier tickets, according to the Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group. The cost of a ticket has almost doubled in the last two decades, according to the website Box Office Mojo. The average price is about $8.89 this year, though it can be much higher in some cities."

Lowe is a smart man. He knows that it's not just the comfort of your own home (with Netflix and Amazon) that is driving people away from movie theaters, it's also the high price of tickets. What I've gathered from today's news and, more importantly, Lowe himself is that he still believes in the moviegoing experience, that people legitimately have the urge to still go watch a movie on the big screen and that what's keeping them away are the inflated prices. As he mentions in the article audiences "just don’t like the transaction.”

'Creed 2' taking shape with Ivan Drago

As an incredibly cinematic sport, boxing films are often rife with clichés. So then, what a welcome surprise it was to have a "Rocky" movie that actually delivered the thrills and goosebumps that made the original 1976 film such a great film. Although the story might be familiar, Ryan Coogler's "Creed" had a freshness and vitality that only a young, talented filmmaker and actor could bring to the table. Coogler and his actor Michael B Jordan, fresh off their Sundance triumph just two years ago with "Fruitvale Station," infused Rocky with 21st century modernism and style that Sylvester Stallone would have never been able to pull off if he were the writer-director, although I will say  that 2006's "Rocky Balboa" wasn't half-bad either. The way Coogler shot "Creed" brought some much-needed new blood to the tired boxing genre, a perfect example would the way he reinvented how a boxing match could be shot. 

There's an audacious sequence mid-way through the film that seamlessly flows as a single unbroken shot, the scene follows Jordan's Adonis Creed as he squares off against Leo Sporino (Gabe Rosado) in the boxing ring. The way Coogler’s camera circles its way through the ring is nothing more than ground-breaking; never had a boxing match felt this intimate, visceral or gut wrenching than at that very moment. You felt every punch in the fights featured in "Creed" and it all but cemented Coogler an incredible talent to watch.

A sequel was inevitable and we all know Sylvester Stallone love his sequels, just look at what he did with Rambo, Rocky and The Expendables. So it comes as no surprise that Stallone has confirmed, through his Instagram, that Rocky IV's Ivan Drago will indeed be back for the upcoming, and much anticipated. Creed Sequel. This all probably means that Dolph Lundgren, who plays Drago, will also star in the film. Stallone stated that the current draft he is working on, in a spiral scrapbook no less, is 439 pages and will translate to “a 120 page typed screenplay”. I do wonder if any of those pages will include dialogue courtesy of Drago himself since he had exactly 4 short lines of dialogue in all of "Rocky IV," including the much quoted: "I will break you."  Has Drago's English improved in the 32 years since he last fought Balboa?

There is no start date currently set for the film, but Creed 2 was supposed to start earlier but had to be delayed due to Ryan Coogler working on Marvel's Black Panther, which also stars Jordan. What we're seeing here is another great actor/director partnership in the making.

Luca Guadagnino’s "Call Me By Your Name"

I loved Luca Guadagnino's "A Bigger Splash,"what with its mystery and sensuality sprinkled into an original Hitchcock-influenced whodunnit. However, none of us expected his next film to be this good. 

The romance between a seventeen year-old Italian boy named Elio (Timothée Chalamet), and an American summer guest Oliver (Armie Hammer) staying at his parents’ cliffside mansion in southern Italy.  Guadagnino’s "Call Me By Your Name" was the Sundance film most people believed would survive through next year’s Oscar season, and for good reason. Guadagnino has made one of the year’s best movies — sensual, sexy, and touching, it’s a film that is simply told, but packs a wallop by the end of its 130 minute running time. Despite having only two public screenings at TIFF, it was runner-up for the festival’s top award. 

The film is filled with intense emotions as Gudagnino lingers on the sheen of sweat that shimmers in a southern Italian summer filled with first love. Armie Hammer’s performance is a career-peak and merits every award destined to come his way this season. Ditto newcomer Chalamet. The chemistry between these two actors is electrifyingly real. This is an erotic and mesmerizing movie that exemplifies cinematic artistry in scope, theme, and tone.  A late-film monologue by Michael Stuhlbarg is a particular highlight.

The film's pacing is superb and lets the viewer genuinely meet these characters, who are bonded by both friendship and physical affection. For this director it's not about the destination, it's about the getting there. But what makes "Call Me By Your Name" such a phenomenal film is its gripping sense of feeling. Viewers truly feel like they have been transported to 1980's Italy.  The immersion of the setting and characters remind us of why we love movies in the first place: to expose the viewer to a unique setting and to transport them to them through its unique indescribable language. 

The film's score is also a standout. It feels authentically European, and, at times, beautifully emotional, especially when paired with the film's script in many scenes. For example, there are a few scenes with Hammer's character dancing which are such beautiful examples of the contagious joie de vivre of this film. The writing feels both authentic and intelligent at all times, and the film doesn't even manage to let its guard down in a single scene by failing to grip the viewer with its beautiful script.

Guadagnino is a master at eliciting senses, and the audience's sense of senses are used to full effect to simulate the true feelings of being in Italy. From luscious depictions of peaches and apricots grown in the countryside, to the streets in gorgeous Italian towns and the steamy espresso, every sight and sound in the film feels truly authentic and impactful on the viewer. I have not seen such an effective use of reflecting on audiences' senses to create a more immersive viewing experience in a film in years. I wanted to immediately go to Italy and ... feel. [A]

THE FLORIDA PROJECT One of the Year's Very Best Films

from my Cannes dispatch:

After Tangerine, Sean Baker sets up his camera again with an eye towards uncharted America with “The Florida Project.” This time his eye goes towards the makeshift motels that litter the main avenues towards Disneyland, distilling a moist, colorful, and shimmering atmosphere, thanks to Alexis Zabe‘s beautiful photography. Moonee (Brooklynn Prince) is 6 years old and lives in a motel with her mother Halley (Bria Vinaite). On summer break, Mooney and her ragtag group of friends look for adventure as they roam through the outskirts of the motel while the adults around them struggle to make ends meet. Baker shoots his own “400 Blows” with his little band of insolent misfits. The atmosphere, paradoxically decadent and disenchanted, mixes what filmmaker himself calls “pop verité” cinema, to create a hybrid of hope and misery that feels both transcendent and groundbreaking. Like “Tangerine,” it is this sense of freedom, freshness and energy that, in Baker’s mise-en-scene, from the camera to the non-professional actors, the film maps contemporary America. Baker doesn’t succumb to the sirens of miserabilism, even though the final, sad frame might hint at this. Instead, he prefers the fanciful fantasy of the children who, in their flight forward, give themselves moments of happiness by the simple light of a blue sky.

Stan Lee Wants a Silver Surfer Movie

Yes, please.

Lee still holds out hope that one character he's always been especially fond of will get another shot at Marvel movie stardom. Yes, we’re talking about the Silver Surfer, co-created by Lee and Jack Kirby during their halcyon run on The Fantastic Four. Lee is well aware the Surfer’s appearance in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surferleft much to be desired. He hopes Norrin Radd gets another shot. 

“He’s the one I want to see more,” Lee said. “He’s the most philosophical of all the characters I’ve ever worked on. And I have an idea for my cameo in that one!”

[SyFy]

Where is Nick Fury? Samuel L. Jackson confirms he won't be in upcoming 'Avengers' movies

Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury has been part of the MCU since its very beginnings, after all, he led S.H.I.E.L.D. for years and spearheaded the Avengers Initiative to what it is today. Jackson appeared as Fury in almost every MCU movie between 2008's "Iron Man" up to 2014's "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." That's a grand total of six movies. Then, he disappeared. There have been six additional MCU movies since then and he's appeared in none of them. Where is Nick Fury? We don't really know. Either Marvel's creative head Kevin Feig has decided to cut his role entirely in the films or has grander plans for him in the future.

Now comes word, from Jackson himself, that Fury will definitely not be part of the upcoming two-part  "Avengers" saga, and he doesn't seem too pleased about it either. The major players from the first two "Avengers" movies will all be there, and there will be additional players as well: Benedict Wong from Doctor Strange and Danai Gurira from Black Panther. But where's Nick Fury? Speaking to Yahoo! promoting his latest film, "The Hitman's Bodyguard," Jackson confirmed the absence of his character in these upcoming films:

“I wasn’t in the ‘superhero argument’ movie [Captain America: Civil War], I’m not in Avengers 3 and 4. They’re shooting them now, and they haven’t called me yet. They wouldn’t let me go to Black Panther-ville, so it’s kinda like how you gonna make a black Marvel movie and not let Nick Fury show up in it?!”

He's got a point. Although it was recently announced that he will co-star with Brie Larson in "Captain Marvel," but that film is supposed to be set in the 1990s, nevertheless the frustration seems to be showing with Jackson. If you remember, the last time we saw Fury was in "Avengers: Age of Ultron," he was in exile following the Hydra bomb of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier."

Are they keeping him in reserve to arrange the new "Avengers" team for Phase 4? We do know it will be a different iteration of the Avengers with possibly Spider-Man being added to the mix, among others, all depending on the Sony/Disney negotiations of course. Jackson is supposed to be a mentor for the team and keeps the glue working throughout their ego-clashing endeavors. It'd be a real shame to not see him back for these films, but something tells me he will have some kind of role in the near future, Fury is a popular character and has significant importance in the history of the MCU that it'd be too hard to ignore him.

The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) Teaser

My Cannes tweets:

Box Office Week: Annabelle: Creation opens to #1 with a great $35M, the 4th Conjuring film to open over $30M. The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature has a disasterous opening at #3 with $8.9M. In domestic gross Wonder Woman passes $400M, Spider-man: Homecoming passes $300M, and Baby Driver passes $100M.

1. Annabelle: Creation $35 million

2. Dunkirk $11.4 million

3. The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature $8.9 million

4. The Dark Tower $7.9 million

5. The Emoji Movie $6.6 million

6. Girls Trip $6.5 million

7. Spider-Man: Homecoming $6.1 million

8. Kidnap $5.2 million

9. The Glass Castle $4.9 million

10. Atomic Blonde $4.6 million

Movies Rumored To Have Been "Ghost-Directed"

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" director Tobe Hooper has always been credited as the director of "Poltergeist," but tell me you don't feel a Spielberg-ian vibe when you watch the film, of course you do. There have always been rumors — as well as accounts by cast and crew — that Steven Spielberg did, in fact, direct the movie. 

The rumors began when the  L.A. Times interviewed Spielberg about the film and nabbed this curious quote from him: “Tobe isn’t what you’d call a take-charge sort of guy. He’s just not a strong presence on a movie set. If a question was asked and an answer wasn’t immediately forthcoming, I’d jump up and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that became the process of the collaboration.” 

The article sparked an investigation by the Director’s Guild of America into Spielberg’s involvement as a potential director; Nothing came of it. Spielberg then apologized to Hooper in The Hollywood Reporter right: “Regrettably, some of the press have misunderstood the rather unique, creative relationship which you and I shared throughout the making of Poltergeist, I enjoyed your openness in allowing me, as producer and writer, a wide berth for creative involvement.” 

What has Hooper had to say about this over the years? Well, in a 2000 interview with the AV Club he had this to say “When we were shooting the practical location on the house, the first two weeks of filming were exterior, so I had second-unit shots that had to be picked up in the front of the house. I was in the back of the house shooting Robbie [actor Oliver Robins] and the tree, looking down at the burial of the little tweety bird, so Steven was picking those shots up for me.” 

Zelda Rubenstein, who plays the film’s creepy spiritual medium, told AICN, “I can tell you that Steven directed all six days I was there. I only worked six days on the film and Steven was there.” JoBeth Williams also starred in the film and had this to say  “It was a collaboration with Steven having the final say.” 

It's rare for a film to be released under the name of one director, but  later revealed or rumored that, actually, another director was helming the entire thing, or, at least, a solid chunk of it, so much so that he or she deserved the actual credit for the film. The term for this occurence is a "ghost directing." Even though it's a pretty rare thing to happen, the last month has given us confirmations that two pictures were indeed "ghost-directed": George Cosmatos' "Tombstone" and Toby Hooper's "Poletergeist." The former is said to have been directed by Kurt Russell. This had me thinking of other such examples where the helmer of a film was actually not the actual director. Of course, with most of the cases I list below, they will likely never be confirmed, but there are enough stories from their respective cast/crews to justify the theory that they were in fact "ghost-directed."

"Poltergeist," Toby Hooper
Ghost Director: Steven Spielberg

"A Praire Home Companion," Robert Altman
Ghost Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

"Tombstone," George Cosmatos
Ghost Director: Kurt Russell

"Rambo," George Cosmatos
Ghost Director: Sylvester Stallone

"Dances With Wolves," Kevin Costner
Ghost Director: Kevin Reynolds

"Return of the Jedi," Richard Marquand
Ghost Director: George Lucas

"Waterworld," Kevin Reynolds
Ghost Director: Kevin Costner

"The Thing From Another World," Christian Nyby
Ghost Director: Howard Hawks

"Cobra," George Cosmatos
Ghost Director: Sylvester Stallone

"Black Magic," George Ratoff
Ghost Director: Orson Welles

Am I missing any others? Let me know!

Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin and D.W. Griffith on the day they formed United Artists (February 5, 1919)