"The Incredibles 2" has a Teaser Trailer

Good news if you're an "Incredibles" fan, like myself, the sequel to the brilliant 2004 Pixar film has been moved up to Summer of 2018. The bad news? Toy Story 4 has been bumped to 2019.

"The Incredibles" is still considered one of the very best movies of the superhero genre and for good reason. Back in 2004 I wrote this about the film:

"While we get relentlessly pummeled by countless superhero movies every single year, it is a breath of fresh air to see the genre work so triumphantly well. Brad Bird has proven his worth in the past, most notably with the criminally underrated animated movie “The Iron Giant”. Bird gives us another visual treat by tackling the superhero genre and coming out with a classic that can stand alongside “The Dark Knight” and “Spider-Man 2″. The action scenes are breathtakingly staged, with Bird’s incredible eye for detail and pacing coming in handy. Unlike many superhero movies, this is one of the rare cases where a sequel would be welcome and well-deserved."

Plot Details Finally Emerge About Quentin Tarantino’s Ninth Movie, Set in 1969 and With the Manson Killings Serving as the Backdrop

Quentin Tarantino's next cinematic foray looks to be a cozy return to the world of "Pulp Fiction," at least judging by the newly revealed synopsis. Set in Los Angeles during the late 1960s, and having the Charles Manson killings serving only as the backdrop of the film, the film is said to be about a failed actor and his stunt double looking to make it into the movie biz.  As QT recently clarified: “It’s not Charles Manson, it’s 1969.”

Sony Pictures won, over the weekend, the distribution rights to the film, which will cost them around $100 million. We also know that Margot Robbie is being sought for the role of Sharon Tate, and Deadline has mentioned that the two male lead roles are being circled around by no less than Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have been, presumably, in heated discussions with Tarantino.

The synopsis, thanks to Vanity Fair:

Set in Los Angeles in the summer of 1969, Tarantino’s upcoming movie, according to a source who read the script, focuses on a male TV actor who’s had one hit series and his looking for a way to get into the film business. His sidekick—who’s also his stunt double—is looking for the same thing. The horrific murder of Sharon Tate and four of her friends by Charles Manson’s cult of followers serves as a backdrop to the main story.

"Star Wars: The Last Jedi" EW cover has interviews hinting at major changes ahead

We are less than a month away from "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" being released in theaters. World of Reel will be watching it on 12.11.17, hence four days away from release. That's the only date it will be screened for film critics, that I know of at least. Will we be in for an all-time great? I've actually been surprised by the lack of enthusiasm my journalistic colleagues have shown "The Last Jedi," they're skeptical, but, as I've mentioned countless times before, if a movie in this trilogy can "bring it," it'll be Rian Johnson's film. 


Entertainment Weekly has jus given us a slew of new pics of the movie and have 4 different covers dedicated to "The Last Jedi" for their 12.1.17 issue. 

There's also interviews.  Johnson’s hints that Luke might go to the dark side intrigue us:

“There’s a history in ‘Star Wars’ of the attraction between the light and the dark, whether it’s the story of Anakin basically turning from this sweet kid and seeing his seduction to the dark side, or even with Luke,” he said.

“Even though you never really believe he’s going to go over to the dark side, the whole revelation of ‘I am your father’ has to do with Vader and this darkness that [Luke] thought he could just dismiss as ‘That’s the bad guy. I don’t have any of him in me,’” he explained. “Suddenly he realizes ‘No, I comefrom him. I have quite a bit of him inside me.’”

Adam Driver on the other hand hints at his character, Kylo Ren, being not too different from Daisey Ridley's Rey, which begs to ask the questions, is she going to the dark side?

“He has been aware of this ability in himself from such a young age, and I don’t think there’s a lot of people around him who are on the same level, I think that there is something familiar there, as well as something to be feared, or something … that he can’t quite place.”

Johnson goes on to add something that I'm glad he's aware of, this trilogy isn't about whether Kylo is vanquished, it's about the characters and which trajetcory this journey will lead them to:

“There’s a big part of the story yet to be written and not by me,” Johnson said, alluding to J.J. Abramswho has been tasked with directing ‘Episode IX.’ “But I don’t think it’s very interesting if the whole story is just ‘Will Kylo get his comeuppance?’ He’s a more complicated character than that and I think he deserves a more complicated story than that. I don’t see the point of trying to get behind his mask and learn more about him if all we’re going to learn is ‘Yeah, he’s just an evil bad guy that needs to be killed.’”

“Star Wars: The Last Jedi” opens December 15. 

"A Fantastic Woman"

Orlando Reyes (Francisco) and Marina (Daniela Vegaare) are a couple that live together in Orlando's nicely furnished apartment. Although not yet married, there comes a sense in watching them that a next step is soon to come. However, what might be backtracking them from these plans are Orlando's ex-wife and children. Their main concerns are the age difference, Orlando looks to be in his late 50s whereas Marina cannot be more than in her mid thirties, and, more importantly, the fact that Marina underwent a sex change operation recently and was once a man doesn't help. 

Under Chilean law, Marina is still male, her ID-card cannot be changed, but things become a little more tortuous for her once Orlando unexpectedly dies from a heart attack. She has to fend off the cops' bigotry, the private detective chasing her every move and Orlando's family, who want to strip off any possible inheritance he might have had in mind for her, they even refuse to have Marina attend his funeral. They go out of their way to make Marina's life a misery. The pestering and total lack of dignity towards her makes us think that a lot of grudges were being held back when she was with Orlando.

Sebastian Lelio *("Gloria") is the director of "A Fantastic Woman" and with this film, the fifth of his career, he shows us what happens when a person's basic human rights are stripped away and the flexibility for any legal discourse gone. It's a conventional story of an unconventional woman. Of course, because Marina is transgender it brings about a whole slew of additional social and political undertones to the film. Either way, it is quite clear that Orlando's family are not very well-accepting  of her sexual identifying, it confuses them, riles them up, which is not surprising considering there is rampantly problematic homophobia occurring not just in Chile but all of Latin America, not to mention the rest of the world.

With all these ingredients in place Lelio tries to concoct something gripping that feels like you're being transported by Marina's rummaging, confused psyche. It works and it doesn't work. The film is put together with enough passion and verve that, at times, one might be reminded of Pedro Almodovar's noir melodramas. The film's tensions, humor, moments filled with sheer transcendence, occur in the first half  where we are left to discover the characters, the motives, with Lelio seemingly a step ahead of us. There's intrigue looming in ever frame, but that intrigue fades in the second hour as the writer-director isn't sure where he wants his film to go. It's a good thing that Vegaare's magnificent performance is able to carry us through the finish line but the commitment we once had for her truly heroic story is stretched a bit too thinly. "A Fantastic Woman" might be 104 minutes, but it's 20 too long for a story in which the drama slowly fades away. [C+]

Spielberg's "The Post" being screened for press in NYC, Los Angeles and Boston on 11.21.17

Much to my surprise, Steven Spielberg's "The Post" will be screening for Boston press next Tuesday. I will, of course, be in attendance. This does show a lot of confidence by the studio in regards to the quality of the film, but don't hold your breath. A week later, I will also be attending Paul Thomas Anderson's "Phantom Thread," and a week after is "Star Wars: The Last Jedi." Those are the missing links for the movie year, The dominoes are starting to fall into place. You can also count Ridley Scott's "All the Money in the World" which is supposed to reshoot Kevin Spacey's scenes, with Christopher Plummer replacing him, any day now. I don't expect that to screen until late December. 

Here's what I had to say about the Spielberg trailer last week:

Spielberg trailers don't do it for me. They tend to underwhelm. They are marketed for the mainstream crowd. "Lincoln" and "Bridge of Spies" are the best recent examples.  I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I sure hope this movie is better than the paint-by-numbers melodramatic potboiler last week's released trailer made it out to be. The thumping drum/bell quick cuts felt cliche-ridden. My fingers are still crossed, but THOSE WIGS! blech.

Official Synopsis:

"Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham of The Washington Post challenge the federal government for the right to publish classified information in 1971."

“The Post” opens on December 22nd.

LADY BIRD climbed to #6 on the box office charts on Thursday in just 37 theaters

Whedon vs Snyder Reshoots

[Reddit]

Well, that was easy: New "All the Money in the World" posters "featuring" Christopher Plummer

Rian Johnson confirms that Star Wars: The Last Jedi's runtime is 150 minutes (credits included), making it the longest film of the franchise

The anticipation is incredibly high for Rian Johnson's "The Last Jedi," so much so that the film's running time would make the news. Well, is 150 minutes enough for you? That's according to a website which deals with film distribution, so not some random rumor. The Source is Cineworld, which has been reliable in the past in revealing accurate, studio-fed info. If this is, in fact, the actual running time then that would make it the longest Star Wars film yet. Next longest? Attack of the Clones at 142 minutes. The original three films in the trilogy are the three shortest. "Star Wars," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" clocking in at 121 minutes, 124 minutes and 132 minutes respectively. Johnson is clearly swinging for the fences with this movie. As I've said before, he is the most talented filmmaker that has ever helmed a "Star Wars" movie, it's not even close.

Rian Johnson confirms that The Last Jedi runtime is 2hr 30m (credits included) making it the longest Star Wars film of the franchise. https://t.co/l0gV2lKn1E

— sleemo (@sleemo_) November 17, 2017

Buster Keaton window cleaning

Who needed 3D in 1918 when you had Buster Keaton? 

Simple, yet brilliant, this is Buster Keaton's genius explained in just a few seconds. Slate's film critic (Dana Stevens) has been working on a book about Buster Keaton for some time. I'm really looking forward to reading it when it comes out. If you want to see absolutel cinematic insanity, watch "The General." That film, like most of Keaton's, is full of death defying stunts. That's why it's considered one of the greats of all-time, for my money better than any stunts Chaplin ever did. Keaton was probably the bravest actor in Hollywood history.

I do find it very hard to choose between Chaplin and Keaton. "The General" is an astounding technical achievement, even more so now 90 years after its release. "The Navigator" is also a delightful Keaton feature from 1924 that has aged magnificently well, ditto his love letter to cinema "Sherlock Jr." In fact, one of the reasons why Keaton might just surpass Chaplin in my books is that his movies have aged incredibly. The set pieces are brilliantly conceived and, as mentioned before, death-defying, especially when compared to the all-too-easy use of CGI today. Which is not say that Chaplin's films have rusted, there is still a stinging satirical punch to his films such as "Modern Times" and "City Lights," plus he himself was no slouch in terms of stunts. Keaton wins, but don't discount Chaplin's talent.

Matt Reeves wants Jake Gyllenhall to play Batman

With rumors about Matt Reeves wanting to replace Ben Affleck for his “The Batman” swirling all over the internet today, here's another doozy, the director is already leaning towards a specific actor to replace Affleck. 

According to John Campea, Jake Gyllenhall would be Reeves' main choice to play the caped crusder. Not a far stretch as far as I'm concerned. Gyllenhaal is nine years younger than Affleck and would fit with Reeves' plan for a trilogy. This would also allow Reeves to not follow the DCEU storyline, which, quite frankly, is what we all want, but according to Campea is what Reeves wants as well. The Batman trilogy will be a standalone venture that wouldn't have anything to do with the current universe, most recently depicted in "Justice League." But, I'm thinking, a Zack Snyder-less DCEU will more than likely bring a lot more of these "standalone" affairs in the near future.

Thoughts? 

Source: Screen Crush

Denis Villeneuve says his "Dune" will be nothing like David Lynch's

I wrote this a few weeks back in regards to "Blade Runner 2049" under-performing at the box-office:

"Folks, sometimes the stars don't align for a smartly crafted blockbuster. "Blade Runner 2049," despite incredible reviews, is crashing and burning at the Box-Office. You say "but $30+ million opening weekend, that's pretty solid" I say, the budget of the film, depending on who you speak to, was anywhere between $150-$170 Million. Its tally total of $82M so far just doesn't cut it. Despite the A- CinemaScore grade, and the 88% score on Rotten Tomatoes but what we're looking at right now is a risk that didn't pay off. A $150M art-house sequel to a cult film with a running time stretching close to the three-hour mark. How did we not expect this?"

Denis Villeneuve has finally sounded off on the lack of box-office success in an interview with with Yahoo Entertainment:

“I’m still digesting it. We had the best [critics’ reviews]. I’ve never had a movie welcomed like that. At the same time the box office in the United States was a disappointment, that’s true, because those movies are expensive. It will still make tons of money, but not enough.”

“I think because maybe people were not familiar enough with the universe. And the fact that the movie’s long [its run time is 2 hours, 44 minutes]. I don’t know. It’s still a mystery to me. I make movies — I don’t sell them.”

Yeah, no kidding Sherlock. Who seriously thought this movie was gonna be a success?! The original 1982 "Blade Runner" wasn't a hit either, it only gained cult status in the ensuing decade, most notably because of its 1992 director's cut. 

After "Incendies," "Blade Runner 2049," "Sicario" and 'Arrival,"  I will watch a Cymbalta commercial directed by this guy, but the fact that after this disappointment, Legendary Pictures is giving Villeneuve the freedom and budget to tackle something as un-mainstream as "Dune" is dumbfounding. 

It has been rumored for a while that Legendary Pictures had been courting Villeneuve for their upcoming Dune reboot. It was finally revealed, just a few months back, by Brian Herbert (son of Dune author Frank Herbert), on twitter no less, that the contracts had been signed, and Villeneuve would be directing the film. This is all very exciting news considering David Lynch's lackluster 1984 version was a tremendous disappointment to most of the book's hardcore fans and that a Dune movie has been rumored for decades now. If there's a director that could pull it off, maybe it's Villeneuve. The director had this to say about the upcoming project:

“David Lynch did an adaptation in the ’80s that has some very strong qualities. I mean, David Lynch is one of the best filmmakers alive, I have massive respect for him. But when I saw his adaptation, I was impressed, but it was not what I had dreamed of, so I’m trying to make the adaptation of my dreams.” 

 “It will not have any link with the David Lynch movie, I’m going back to the book, and going to the images that came out when I read it.”

Lynch's "Dune" is well-known as one of the worst flops in Hollywood history and, more importantly, one of the worst studio movies ever made. It's almost unwatchable. I don't think I've ever been able to go through its entirety. I've tried, because I would like to think of myself as a Lynch completest, but good God is it bad. Go back to making original stories Denis, please.

Clint Eastwood has now directed 14 movies after the age of 70, Has anyone come close to this at this age?

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.

His next film is “The 15:17 to Paris,” which will be treading that line as well. Eastwood shot the film in the span of a month, 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.

“The 15:17 to Paris,” is being released on February 9th, 2018 

2018 The 15:17 to Prais
2016 Sully
2014 American Sniper
2014 Jersey Boys
2011 J. Edgar
2010 Hereafter
2009 Invictus
2008 Gran Torino
2008 Changeling
2006 Letters from Iwo Jima
2006 Flags of Our Fathers
2004 Million Dollar Baby
2003 Mystic River
2002 Blood Work
2000 Space Cowboys

Criterion in February 2018: NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

The Criterion Collection seem to be in a Halloween type of mood, at least as far as their excellent slate of films, for February is any indication. There's George A. Romero‘s “Night Of The Living Dead.” the back into print: “The Silence Of The Lambs,” Satyajit Ray‘s “The Hero” and Kon Ichikawa‘s “An Actor’s Revenge,” Lastly, Louis Malle‘s “Elevator To The Gallows” gets the Blu-ray boost. and Tony Richardson‘s Best Picture winner “Tom Jones.”

I remember watching "Night of the Living Dead" for the first time on late night cable TV, transfixed, amazed by its black and white horrors, and that is absolutely the way to see George Romero's landmark 1967 classic: in the wee-wee hours of the morning when the streets outside your window feel damn-near apocalyptic. Romero can now be deemed a prophet as his film has a panic-stricken country filled with zombies, cue people glued to their smarphones, and a group of characters barricading themselves in an isolated house, trying to keep safe from the horrors of the outside world.  The typical Romero zombie was a slow-moving thing, which fit quite well with the tense and slow pace of the films. He was the director that created the typical "zombie" monster as we know it. Romero was prophesying the notion of a soulless world with his living dead, but this generation has embraced the sprinting zombie as the scarier monster. In a way it is, but it also makes for a less brooding experience.

The late Jonathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs" is more or less regarded as a landmark, zeitgeist-changing film. Back in 1991 people were clamoring to find a more fully-fleshed and strong heroine than FBI agent Clarice Starling, truth was there weren't many in film history up to that point that carried the kind of existential, dreadfilled burden Clarice had to carry on her shoulders in the film. Suffice to say, Jodie Foster's performance changed the rule book ditto Anthony Hopkins' role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, a menacing, horrifying figure that, shock, actually had the smarts to outplay his opponents. Yes, he was a cannibal but you kind of respected the way the guy would outwit every FBI agent that came his way.




   

Tom Cruise is circling Quentin Tarantino's next film

Tom Cruise's career has been filled with blockbuster hits, but the guy never really got his due as a discernibly talented actor, just look at his incendiary work in Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia" or Michael Mann's "Collateral" for further proof of the talent and artistry the guy has. The last decade or so, he's been crucified by many for his connection with the Church of Scientology and that has consequentially made him a less bankable star at the Box-Office, although those "Mission: Impossible" movies are still killing it as muckrakers. He also does his own stunts, just watch 2011's "Ghost Protocol," and 2016's "Rogue Nation" for further proof of the lengths Cruise will go to make an action sequence look authentic. 

Back to his acting. "Magnolia" was the kind of performance that made me wish he could continue to tackle risky roles such as Frank TJ Mackey from that film. After that 1999 film, Cruise went on a hot streak of dramatic roles with "Eyes Wide Shut," "Vanilla Sky," "Minority Report," "The Last Samurai," "Collateral," and, one of the great cameos in cinema, his take on Harvey Weinstein: Les Grossman. Come on, we know the “colorful” verbiage, profanity-laced threats and imposing figure that came from Les Grossman in “Tropic Thunder” were directly influenced by Harvey Weinstein's real-life persona and Cruise nailed it.

Grossman was a kind of adieu for Cruise in terms of pushing himself artistically for a movie role because ever since then he's been more or less coasting it with action films, albeit some pretty solid installments of "Mission: Impossible," "Jack Reacher" and his now classic "Edge of Tomorrow." Gone are the risky endeavors of his post-1999 mean streak, but his exceptional talents might be put to good use again as, according to  Deadline, he is in serious negotiations to star in Quentin Tarantino's "Untitled  Charles Manson/1969" movie. 

This would be quite the departure for Cruise, whom, as previously mentioned, has been tackling safe projects of late, but consider me sold on him being in a Quentin Tarantino movie. He's already worked with some great directors in the past (Kubrick, De Palma, Scorsese, Spielberg, Mann, PTA, Stone), adding QT would just be the icing on the cake.

Justice League's 46% Rotten Tomatoes Score Leaked

Despite the review embargo, and the last-minute decision by Rotten Tomatoes to delay the release of the RT score for "Justice League", the rating has nevertheless leaked on Flixster, which uses RT scores and is part of the same Fandango family RT belongs to. Flixter reveals that Justice League's RT score is, cue the drumroll, 48 percent. Surprising? Of course not. Reviews have so far been very mixed. Rotten Tomatoes will announce Justice League‘s score on Thursday at 12:01 a.m. PT. on their "See It/Skip It" show. Why the delay? Some are saying it is to promote RT's show, but others, like myself, believe that Warner Bros., which owns a minority stake in the RT, could have possibly pressured the movie aggregate website to delay it an extra day to reap box-office receipts on opening day.

Rotten Tomatoes delays release of its "Justice League" score, are they caving to pressure from the studios?

We all know the cinematic experience is becoming too expensive for the general moviegoing public, not to mention that streaming sites such as Netflix are all but stealing cineplex money away. This leads to people becoming pickier and relying more on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to make their decisions on a Saturday night flick. All of this has had studios panicking, instead of, you know, trying to make quality movies instead. A few Hollywood studios are even thinking of withholding critics from seeing their films, the lack of organized press screenings has risen over the past year or so.

Judging by my own experiences, millennials are really into Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the ones I speak to value a movie's RT score and make their decisions to buy a movie ticket exclusively based on that.

Now, with "Justice League" being released this Friday, the review embargo will be lifted on Wednesday morning — more specifically, the studio-imposed embargo lifts at 2:50 am Eastern on November 15. However, you won't know if the movie is “fresh” or “rotten” because Rotten Tomatoes will wait a full day after the embargo lifts to reveal its rating. 

This is all in relation to RT's new weekly show called Rotten Tomatoes See It / Skip It, broadcast on Facebook via the social media site’s Watch platform. One of the show’s main features will be a “Tomatometer Score Reveal” — for which "Justice League" is featured this week.  The episode containing the reveal is scheduled to air at 12:01 am on Thursday, November 16.

What do I think about all this? I think Rotten Tomatoes is trying to help the WB/DC by delaying it a day late, even though reviews will be available to read a day prior, it won't matter. The majority of the mainstream these days don't really read reviews, they look at an aggregated score instead.  We all know "Justice League" will most likely have a rotten score.

New Poster + Review for Drama-Biopic 'Molly's Game' - Starring Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner, and Michael Cera - Written & Directed by Aaron Sorkin

I'm excited to watch Molly's Game again in the next few weeks, mostly due to the fact that I saw it at TIFF during a 5 movie day. It's always good to revisit a festival movie when you are a little more freshened up and not on countless deadlines, not to mention the lack of sleep that comes in watching 40 odd movies in the span of 10 measly days.

My 9.12.17 thoughts:

In Aaron Sorkin’s directorial debut “Molly’s Game,” Jessica Chastain plays real-life “entrepreneur” and self-proclaimed “Poker Princess” Molly Bloom. The narrative structure recalls Sorkin’s masterful use of Rashomon-influenced storytelling in “The Social Network.” Going back and forth between Bloom’s rise, as she arranged secretive multi-million dollar poker games for the rich and famous at luxurious hotels, and her eventual fall that we witness in the opening sequence when FBI agents storm Bloom’s apartment arresting her for fraud, the film is an ambitious attempt by Sorkin to fully flesh out a fascinatingly complex woman. As in every Sorkin screenplay, the dialogue cascades at a frenetic pace, but Chastain nails each beat she’s given with a performance that’s sexy, smart and mesmerizing to behold. Once again, she’s the best reason to watch any movie she’s in. [B]

15-20% Of ‘Justice League’ Is From Joss Whedon’s Reshoots

The extensive reshoots on “Justice League” saw some substantial changes made to the film. Jesse Eisenberg‘s return as Lex Luthor was reportedly axed, while the success of “Wonder Woman” sawGal Gadot‘s heroine apparently get more scenes and screentime. Even the overall tone was rumored to get a lighter makeover. However, when all is said and done, “Justice League” will be known for its clashing of two visions as the movie does truly feel like the work of two distinctly different filmmakers. You will likely read about this as the review embargo is lifted this week; the look of “Justice League” is truly Zack Snyder-esque, but his replacement, Joss Whedon, has positively added his vision to the film with his penchant for dry humor and feminist touches most definitely appearing on-screen as well. 

However, the question most people have had about the film is just how much of Whedon’s footage made it to the final cut. Gal Gadot tried to defend recent reshoots by saying the tone of “Justice League” couldn’t have changed all that much because the movie was already shot when Whedon was hired to come in for Snyder, who had to leave for personal reasons. As previously mentioned the final film is said to be a mix of both filmmakers sensibilities, but producer Charles Roven reveals just how much new material made it in:

“The goal is to make sure when you’re watching the movie, it all feels cohesive,” Roven told AP about the reshoots. “That imprint that Joss had, some aspect of it is going to come out in the direction, but the actors are already pretty much down the road on their arcs. Let’s just say 80, 85 percent of the movie is what was originally shot. There’s only so much you can do with other 15, 20 percent of the movie."

So only 15-20% of the film is Whedon’s according to Roven. It must have been real tough for Snyder to leave the project, especially with so much having already been shot. Roven knew this firsthand by stating that for Snyder “not being able to complete his vision was extremely difficult .” It’s so easy to get caught up with all this talk about rumors, but at the end of the day, what the WB wants with this movie is a positive reception. Yes, it has been concerning all these months to read about the turbulent journey this film has had leading leading up to this week’s release, but on November 17th, it’s audiences that will pass the final judgement on the film.

Quentin Tarantino says his upcoming film is about 1969 NOT Charles Manson

I wrote last week:

"Deadline is reporting that Quentin Tarantino's Charles Manson movie will be a drama set in late 1960s and early 1970s Los Angeles, with sources telling the outlet that this is "as much a Charles Manson movie as Inglourious Basterds would be an Adolf Hitler movie." So, I would presume, this would take place in the same time frame as the Manson murders but would not exclusively be about just him. The most interesting point I gathered from the Deadline article is that the film is comparable to Pulp Fiction in terms of structure and style." 

Now IndieWire has this:

“It’s not Charles Manson, it’s 1969,” cautioned Quentin Tarantino at an award-season post-screening brunch at Estrella on Sunset for Sofia Coppola’s “The Beguiled.”

1969 was a very significant year in America. The Manson murders, along with the Altamont Speedway incident, most notably featured in the Rolling Stones documentary "Gimme Shelter,"  ended the flower movement and brought the country back to reality. A very grim reality. Yes, a man landed on the moon, and those "miracle Mets" captivated an entire nation, but what the Altamont and Manson murders was filled with the war in Vietnam and the social unrest that ensued. And in the middle of all this turbulence came these "flower children" (hippies) who preached "flower power" and believed in peace and love and thought it was the only way for our society to live. Then came Charles Manson, who also claimed to be one of these free thinking  folks, but he had a completely different agenda. He was the dark side of that change. It was the end of an era. I regard him as the main contributor to the loss of the country's innocence.

I would presume QT would tackle the fierce confusion that was happening around the time, which could make for a very fascinating film.