The rating scale on This Is Spinal Tap’s IMDb page goes up to 11 stars

[

Reddit

]

Looks like Orson Welles’ “The Other Side of the Wind” isn’t going to Cannes

This quote by Frank Marshall was added to the Indiewire report:

"Some of those titles were never in contention for competition, including the Welles film — the filmmaker’s last, uncompleted work — which was a natural fit for the Cannes Classics section. “Even though we are not in competition, we are collateral damage if they decide not to go,” said producer Frank Marshall, who’s overseeing the Welles restoration. “It was a mutual decision not to go to Cannes because we support Netflix. There would be no movie without them. Every studio and financier in town passed on this film, for years.”

If Netflix actually goes through with their threats and don't submit Orson Welles‘ The Other Side of the Wind, Alfonso Cuaron‘s Roma and Paul Greengrass‘s Norway for Cannes, I can assure you people will not be happy. The Cannes lineup will be announced this  Thursday, 4.12, but what we're being told is that Netflix will boycott. 

As this controversy has developed I've been siding more and more with Netflix over the matter. Take for example as per French Cultural Minister laws, if Netflix were to send its movies to Cannes competition, they wouldn't be able to stream them until 2021! Yikes. Do you blame Netflix for this? 

Author/screenwriter Joseph McBride is part of the pro-Netflix camp. He even plays a film critic, Charles Pister, in the Orson Welles film. He posted the following on Facebook:

“There’s been a big flap over how villainous Netflix supposedly is threatening to withdraw its films from Cannes, including Orson Welles’s nearly completed The Other Side of the Wind and Morgan Neville’s companion documentary, They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead (both of which I am in).

“Netflix stepped up to the plate after Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Clint Eastwood, Oliver Stone, Roger Corman and everyone else in Hollywood passed up the opportunity to finish The Other Side of the Wind. For that alone Netflix [deserves] the eternal gratitude of film history. They are heroes in this saga. As I wrote, it was my idea to bypass theatrical after two decades of futility, so people can blame me for that, but if not for Netfix the film would still be in cans in the Paris lab. Kudos to the producers for making this finally happen and to Netflix for supporting it so generously.

I will say this: if it weren’t for Netflix, this film would not even be restored and released. It’d still be on pause, with Welles’ widow Oja Kodar continuously sidestepping the artists involved and secretely shopping for better deals. They stepped up when the studios balked. I will forever be grateful for this. Kodar is happy, the creatives are happy, cinephiles are happy.

Nicolas Cage Thinks He’d Be the “perfect” Joker.

Nicolas Cage has no doubt had a rather strange acting career, especially the last decade or so where his filmnchoices have gotten weirder and weirder. It's come to the point where, sadly, many movie fans just don't take him all that seriously anymore. Which is a shame, because this is the same Oscar-winning actor that, at some point, gave us brave and exciting performances in films as diverse as  "Adaptation", "Leaving Las Vegas", "Raising Arizona," "Wild At Heart" and "Red Rock West," just to name a few. Yes, the 54-year-old actor sometimes does go go back to his cinematic roots and makes, say, a potent indie like "Joe," or this year's upcoming "Mandy," but through and through Cage has been rather, er, adventurous in his methodical approach to B-movie acting, which has done a great disservice to his reputation and made him a YouTube sensation instead. 

Maybe all these nutty, straight-to-DVD roles Cage has tackled these last few years had to eventually lead him to the most over-the-top, cinematic role imaginable: The Joker. That's right, Nicolas Cage has expressed interest in tackling Batman's arch nemesis, at least that's what he told Joblo's Paul Shirey in a recent interview. Even mentioning that it'd be the "perfect" match for his acting sensibilities:

"I mean, I think my comic book days are kind of...I'm on to other things, but I always thought I'd make a great Joker ... It would be the perfect one for me to go even more off the rails than I've ever done before and, y'know, it'd be fun."

Although you might dismiss his comments as far-fetched or ridiculous, Cage might be onto something here. It's not like he doesn't have the acting chops to pull it off, remember he's been nominated twice for a Best Actor Oscar and won once for "Leaving Las Vegas." You take a considerable talent like his, but also mix in his knack for overacting and voila! A bona-fide, truly memorable Joker is born. Of course, we doubt that this will ever come to realization, after all, it would be a major risk for the WB and DCEU as Cage is sadly not taken that seriously anymore, but there are many of us that still believe in the guy and it'd be a real joy to behold his take on the "Clown Prince of Crime."

“Solo: A Star Wars Story” Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Enjoy the Marketing of Damage Control

The trailer works. I know this is counter-reactive to everything we know about the crazy production of this film, but the trailer is a success. Disney has found a way to do some professional, hit-man-styled damage control with this film.

“Solo: A Star Wars Story,” is only 6 weeks away from official release, and 4 away from its Cannes premiere.  It's been quite the journey, to say the least. Controversies and rumors abounded during production, but that seems to have stalled a bit in recent months and Disney was, more or less, back in cruise control, especially after the success of the Super Bowl teaser and trailer release. Hell, it was even revealed this weekend that fired directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were going to receive executive producer credit on the film. Aw, shucks.

Just like any company in charge of a profitable film about to be released on home video, Lucasfilm is now in a full-fledged promotional mode for “The Last Jedi,” and then afterwards they can then turn their attentions to “Solo: A Star Wars Story” which will be released this coming May.  Director Johnson has, of course, been making the promotional rounds. Speaking with ComicBook at the AARP Movies for Grownup Awards, he was asked about “Solo” and it seems like he’s seen it and has given it his stamp of approval:

“… I think it looks so beautiful. I can’t wait for people to see more of the film – it’s so fun, it’s so funny. The cast is so charismatic, and I think they all just did a great job with it.”

“Solo: A Star Wars Story” has had a tumultuous production, just like its other spin-off counterpart “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.”  The firing of Directors Chris Miller and Phil Lord complicated things, so did the hire of an acting coach for the film’s star Alden Ehrenreich, which resulted in heavy re-shoots by newly hired director Ron Howard.

Of course, we should take whatever Johnson says with a major grain of salt, he is, after all, a heavily invested property over at Disney and Lucasfilm, where they have just hired him to write a whole separate trilogy of ‘Star Wars” films. Nevertheless, it’s great to hear something, anything, positive about “Solo” which has been shunned off by many, who clearly haven’t seen it but have very much heard about the on-set chaos, tension, and figured it surely had to be a non-starter. Disney is no doubt in damage control mode at the moment and trying to turn the tide of conversation back to the positive. The impressive Super Bowl trailer helped, so did the hire of the legendary John Williams to compose the score, oh and that whole Lord/Miller controversy? Thrown out of the back window as the very competent Ron Howard (“Rush,” “Apollo 13,” “Cinderella Man,” Frost/Nixon,” “A Beautiful Mind”) will surely bring his gift for staging clear and concise action but never losing touch of character. Howard seems to have just made his own version of the film and heavily re-shot most of it, which is fine by us as we don’t really want another clash of visions, ala Whedon/Snyder, to ever happen in a major blockbuster again.

“A Quiet Place” Scares Up the Box-Office With $50M Debut, and “Blockers” opens solid at #3 to $21.4M

1. A Quiet Place – $50,000,000

2. Ready Player One – $25,060,000 

3. Blockers – $21,439,000

4. Black Panther –$8,430,000 

5. I Can Only Imagine – $8,356,800 

6. Tyler Perry’s Acrimony – $8,065,000 

7. Chappaquiddick – $6,200,000

8. Sherlock Gnomes – $5,600,000 

9. Pacific Rim Uprising – $4,910,000

10. Isle Of Dogs – $4,600,000 

Is this how Joaquin Phoenix would look like as The Joker?

Earlier in the month in the article "Joaquin Phoenix to Play The Joker In Todd Philips' Untitled Joker Origin Movie" I revealed that Joaquin Phoenix was going to, most likely, play the Joker in a standalone, non-DCEU, movie. A film which would pretend, if only, that Jared Leto's take on the Joker in “Suicide Squad” never existed. And yet, Phoenix, always living in his own strange world, had no clue what Allocine was talking about when they asked him about the role, puzzled by the question he said:

 “What movie about the Joker?” he asked, and as the interviewer probed further, Phoenix simply said, “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

God bless him.

I originally wrote about Phoenix' possible Joker role:

It seems like the WB has finally found its Joker for Todd Phillips’ untitled Joker origin movie. According to Variety, none other than Joaquin Phoenix will play Batman's arch nemesis. Contractual negotiations are currently not underway, but, according to the daily, "Phillips has made it clear that Phoenix was his top choice to star .... and after thinking it over, Phoenix has agreed to the role."

Phillips will direct and co-write the screenplay. The director had met Phoenix before the new year and was just waiting for the WB to give him the green light to cast Phoenix.  Rumors had circulated that Leonardo DiCaprio was Phillips' original choice to play The Joker but that fell through. All the better, Phoenix as the Joker makes more sense than DiCaprio.

I want to thank a reader by the name of Hank for sending this photoshop of Joaquin as the Joker, this casting of actor and character could very well be a match made in heaven.

Wakanda Forever: “Black Panther” Surpasses “Titanic” to Become Third Highest-Grossing Movie of All-Time at Domestic Box-Office

"Black Panther" has now earned $665,355,740 domestically, making it the third highest grossing movie of all-time. Hot damn. It surpassed "Titanic" this weekend, which earned $600,788,188. However, if you count the receipts for "Titanic 3D," released in 2012, the overall domestic gross for James Cameron's classic is actually $659,353,944.

Nevertheless, inflation should count here. As Jeff Wells over at HE has stated, "The 2018 dollar is 52.8% higher than the 1998 dollar. $100 in 1998 is equivalent to $152.76 in 2018, and so Titanic‘s initial haul of $600,788,188 translates into $917,735,286 by current monetary standards." That makes more sense to me, especially since I remember "Titanic" being a much more intense movie phenomenon amongst audiences than "Black Panther," which is on course to hit the $700M mark. 

Wells goes on to say that "Titanic‘s worldwide earnings (including the 2012 3D re-release) are at $2,187,463,944 — i.e., roughly $2.2 billion, and at least 90% of that was earned in ’98. Right now Black Panther‘s worldwide tally is at $1.3 billion, or $1,2999,855,740."

Adjusted for inflation, 1939's "Gone with the Wind" is still the box-office king, with receipts that near the $1.85B mark. "Black Panther" only makes it to number 34 on the inflation list.

As per French Cultural Minister laws, if Netflix were to send its movies to Cannes competition it wouldn't be able to stream then until 2021! Yikes.

It was reported yesterday by Vanity Fair, that Netflix would most likely withdraw its five major films, including Alfonso Cuaron‘s Roma, Paul Greengrass‘s Norway and Orson Welles‘ The Other Side of the Wind, from premiering at next month’s Cannes Film Festival. We all know the war that has been happening between Netflix and Cannes head Thierry Fremaux to not have any of their films playing competition, due to Netflix refusing to book the films theatrically in France. 

The news here is, of course, that Netflix owns the rights to Cuaron's "Roma," a much-anticipated film from a top-tier filmmaker that will now likely not show up on the Croisette. There is also doubt being instilled in Martin Scorsese‘s "The Irishman," a film which by all accounts would be the biggest title to debut at Cannes if it were selected next year,  to not show up anymore for next year's festival. I was really hoping Scorsese would have his first shot at the Palme D'or since 1985's "After Hours" and would appear on the red steps with De Niro, Pacino, Pesci, Keitel. Imagine the cinematic dreaminess of that happening. Alas, Netflix won't budge.

I think we all know that streaming is most likely here to stay and will eventually overtake most theatrical releases, but, as Jeffrey Wells mentions over at HE, "you can’t really experience a religious awakening on your couch. For that, you need to join a congregation." Amen, brother.

HOWEVER, an IndieWire chat about the Netflix-vs-Cannes raises the stakes in the streaming giants favor. The basic argument here in Netlix' favor is that France’s culture minister requires 36 months between a film’s French theatrical release and its streaming debut. Those are the rules. So it would be up to them to change it, not really Netflix because if the latter were to release, say, "Roma" theatrically, it wouldn't be able to stream it until 2021. Yikes.

SURPRISE: “The Accountant” was the most rented movie of 2017

Earlier last year someone decided that it was a legitimate idea to make a sequel to Gavin O'Connor's entertaining, but somewhat forgettable 2016 film "The Accountant." A light, breezy, but exceptionally well-filmed action no-brainer, the film made a decent $86M domestically on a $45M budget. If you don't remember the film at all, it starred Ben Affleck as an autistic, but brilliant numbers guy that worked as an accountant for some of the world's biggest crime syndicates. Oh, and he also happened to have a "very particular set of special skills" due to his father's constant persistence for rigorous martial arts training when he was a very young boy. Suffice to say, this was Ben Affleck's version of "Taken," but did it really merit a sequel?

Our answers as to why "The Accountant 2" was greenlit seem to have been answered. Just like "Taken," the film has found a larger audience on home video and has, somehow, become the most rented movie of 2017 [according to THR]. Yes, despite the availability of Amazon Prime and Netflix, audiences still went out of their way to rent the Affleck-actioneer in record numbers last year. According to an MPAA annual report, O'Connor's film even topped such stalwarts as "Moana" and "Wonder Woman" (Respectively #2 and #3) on their list of U.S. digital movie rentals.

This is no doubt a strange top rental to have for the year, but it seems that, despite its 52% Rotten Tomatoes score, strong word of mouth has made audiences take a major liking to "The Accountant." The fact that it wasn't bested by anything else during the entire year is an astonishing achievement that should be noted. Critics all but shunned the film upon release and the online film community barely spoke about it. And with all that going against it, "The Accountant" still managed to find a major audience on home video. This just shows how much of a divide there is between critics and audiences and how Ben Affleck is still a very bankable star in Hollywood. Bring on the sequel.

Zachary Quinto: Having Tarantino On Board “Would Be A Real Dream .... I would love to see that happen, I know all of us would.”

"Star Trek Beyond" was a welcome addition to the "Trek" franchise for hardcore fans, but its lackluster box-office spoke volumes about the lack of mainstreams interest. Paramount has been all over the place trying to find a way to rejuvenate this franchise for the mass public, even being open to a screenplay written by Quentin Tarantino.

Simon Pegg, co-writer of "Beyond" is writing a screenplay for the next installment as well, with writing partner Doug Jung. But will Paramount trust Pegg's creative instict after he failed to write a hit with "Beyond"?

Zachary Quinto, who plays Spock, recently spoke to The Observer about what’s next in Trekland and said that Paramount definitely wants at least another installment:

“I mean the only thing I can say is there’s a lot of energy around more movies,” Quinto told Observer. “Which ones are going to happen, which ones might happen first? I can’t really say, I don’t know honestly. I know there are lots of conversations being had about it. I know there are plans afoot to do at least one if not more movies.”

“I know Paramount, under their new administration, is eager to keep the franchise going. I feel like as soon as we go reconvene and then there’s a script that the studio believes in and a director, whether it’s Quentin or somebody else, that comes up… Hopefully, we’ll move it all forward. I’m pretty sure Quentin is doing his other project, which he wrote, so that might kind of contextualize things in terms of the chronology of how we might make more than one movie, if we make more than one movie.”

“Man, I would love it,” Quinto said of Tarantino helming amovie. “We would all love it. I’ve been a fan of Quentin since the first movie, which I think was Reservoir Dogs. I have just always been an admirer of his unique brand of storytelling, and I feel like to interlace that with the Star Trek universe would be a real dream. It would be amazing.”

“It feels kind of foreign in a way but if you really break it down and look at it, I think it makes kind of perfect sense. I would love to see that happen, I know all of us would.”

The problem with QT joining the fray is that he's smack-dab in the middle of pre-production for his next film, the Leonardo DiCaprio/Brad Pitt-helmed "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood," so Paramount would have to wait at least a year before he jumps on-board "Trek."

“Solo: A Star Wars Story” Will Have Its World Premiere at Cannes

Deadline is reporting that Ron Howard's "Solo: A Star Wars Story" will premiere in a special screening on May 15, before the picture makes its global premiere May 25th.

Cineuropa: Spike Lee’s “Black Klansman” a “serious possibility” for Cannes Competition

Cineuropa's preview of next Thursday's Cannes Film Festival announcement “(A New Phase For Cannes?“) has all the usual suspects, but adds an interesting American film at the forefront of possible competition titles: Spike Lee's "Black Klansman." A serious possibility is what the magazine is implying are Lee's chances of walking down the red steps of la croisette. Who'da thunk it?

“Black Klansman” is based on on Ron Stallworth’s 2014 novel “Black Klansman: Race, Hate, and the Undercover Investigation of a Lifetime.” which was inspired by the true story of a police officer that went undercover within the Klan.

I love Lee's work between 1989-2005. The filmmaker was on a roll with such "joints" as "Do The Right Thing," "Malcom X," "Jungle Fever," "Summer of Sam," "He Got Game," "Bamboozled," "The 25th Hour," and "Inside Man." Not to mention all the great docs he released in between those. 

Something happened after that, mediocrity settled in, what else would you call "She Hate Me," "Miracle at St. Anna," "Red Hook Summer," "Oldboy," and "Da Sweet Blood of Jesus." 2015's "Chiraq" was seen as a sort of comeback but I didn't really buy its faux authenticity and the fact that the characters' dialogue was delivered by way of freestyled hip-hop.

Nevertheless, if Cannes head Thierry Fremaux and his committee think Lee's latest film is worthy of competition then there must be something there. A Spike Lee comeback is more than welcome in my books.

I'll have my full preview of 25 titles most likely appearing at Cannes next week.

“2001: A Space Odyssey” at 50

Fifty years ago this week, a film was screened for invitation-only audiences  in specially equipped Cinerama theaters in select major cities. It was a preview of Stanley Kubrick's latest endeavor: An adaptation of science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

“2001: A Space Odyssey” is the film that famously bewildered Woody Allen back in 1968. The famous director had said about Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece: “When I first saw 2001, I didn't like it. Three or four months later, I was with some woman in California, and I went to see it again, and I liked it a lot more. A couple of years later, I saw it again, and I thought, "GEE! This is really a sensational movie, and it was one of the few times in my life that I realized that the artist was much ahead of me!" 

He, of course, wasn't alone. It did take multiple viewings for people to truly understand appreciate what Kubrick had done. 

However, I was immediately astonished by the film. Its opening, which contains no dialogue for roughly the first half hour, is set in an African desert millions of years ago, the opening has a tribe of apes being pushed back from their watering hole by a rival tribe. The morning later, they awaken to find a featureless black monolith, which appears before them like a towering territorial stamp from God.  Influenced by the monolith, they discover how to use a bone as a weapon and wrestle their rivals away from the water hole, death is unleashed and so is the bone used for the fight, which is thrown into the air; the bone spinning continuously, until Kubrick cuts to an orbiting satellite, which concludes the astonishing prologue.

"The primitive blurring into the advanced." That's what the bone and orbit cut suggests.  Kubrick scholar Michel Ciment, discussing Kubrick's attitude toward human aggression and instinct, observed that: "The bone cast into the air by the ape (now become a man) is transformed at the other extreme of civilization, by one of those abrupt ellipses characteristic of the director, into a spacecraft on its way to the moon."

As for its ending, the forward-motioning enigma of an astronaut's encounter with another dimension, filled with visual effects of immense power, bewildering is word most commonly used. And yet, visionary should added with it. The concluding half hour, a largely symbolic mindbender, has our hero, Dave, going through a psychedelic light show, meant to be incomprehensible,and  transported across enormous oceans of time and space, finally reaching the third monolith of the film. It's there that he reaches the next stage of human evolution: the Star Child, as seen in the now iconic final shot. It might just be the the greatest ending in cinematic history. An ending that still incites debate 40 years on. 

"2001: A Space Odyssey" has been duplicated but never replicated. Many filmmakers have tried to master and catch the magical surrealism of what Kubrick accomplished. The director tried to envision a new way of seeing the world and accomplished just that. "2001" is, to me, the apex of how masterful cinematic language can be. 

Buzz around the film was toxic before release. It was over budget, rumors swirled of the mess that it possibly was. Even worse, the film’s previews, test screenings scattered around major cities in the United States, were complete bombs. The vastness of the film must have frightened moviegoers who had no idea the journey they were embarking on. The cinematic landscape pre and post "2001" are night and day. It rewrote the way we should watch movies.

There were no concessions being made by Kubrick with the film, the near dialogue-free epic was the film that American cinema needed to be shaken up from a moderately disappointing decade. And yet, audience walkouts numbered in the hundreds at the New York premiere on April 3, 1968. Reviews were unrelenting, mostly negative. The Village Voice's Andrew Sarris called the movie “a thoroughly uninteresting failure and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick’s inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view.” 

MGM demanded that Kubrick cut the film. Soon after the director was in the editing room, trying to refine his film. The newer version had 20 less minutes, but still had the opaque, visionary feeling that had timid audiences being scared off nationwide.

A big studio film such a "2001 A Space Odyssey" could only be made in 1968, no other year, or decade, would have had a studio bank on this kind of big-budgeted, ambitious, and bold artistic statement. It redefined the way we saw cinema in a way that easily makes it the best, and most important American film of the last 50 years. It was filmed in 1967, during the "Summer of Love." Counterculture and LSD were at the forefront of mainstream art. Kubrick took this opportunity, the open-mindedness of a changing America, to make a movie that stood the chance of being accepted on its own unique terms. There is no other year where this could happen again.

In other words, Kubrick’s film fit perfectly with the avant-garde movement of the period, the counter-cultural movement took it as its own, with even John Lennon uttering, “‘2001’? I see it every week.” And so, much to the surprise of the studio and the entire industry, "2001" became a movie event and the top grossing film at the box-office that year.

Tony Gilroy says “Rogue One” shoot was a “terrible, troubled mess”

[Many thanks to my buddies over at The Playlist]

Production problems for Disney's“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” directed by Gareth Edwards, are now the stuff of legend. Chaotic is too tame a word to use for what happened during its production. We do know that a major character was added, the entire ending was re-shot, The hiring of a “fixer”in writer-director Tony Gilroy ended up with him actually showing up on-set for rewrites and, rumor had it, taking over as director in place of Edwards.

That's why Gilroy's recent appearance on The Moment podcastpromoting his upcoming, very watchable,  film “Beirut” which he wrote, but the far more interesting part of the interview was the conversation about ‘Rogue One.’ As I do quite frequently on this website, the quotes truly speak for themselves:

“If you look at ‘Rogue [One],’ all the difficulty with ‘Rogue’ and all the confusion of it, all the smart people [working on it], all the mess and in the end when you get in there, it’s actually very simple to solve, because you go, ‘oh, this is a movie where…everyone’s going to die.’ So, it’s a movie about sacrifice,” he explained.

“So, it’s all a question about why are these [characters], why are all these people going to sacrifice themselves? And you need to motivate them with a purity throughout the [story] and every scene has to be about the movie. And so, is that a theme, that everyone’s going to die, sacrifice? In that sense, in that film, yeah, I thought about it.”

On being hired for the rewrites, and reshoots:

“Here was a call to go do something—and I knew exactly when I saw what I saw [the rough footage], it was instantly clear the first thing that had to happen which was immediately attractive.” 

Which he doesn't reveal. 

“I have to be careful because I don’t know what the statute of limitations… I’ve never really told… I’ve never done an interview about ‘Rogue,’” he said. “You know what the easiest thing to say is? You’ll understand this better than anything else, I came in after the director’s cut [and] I have a screenplay credit in the arbitration that was easily won.”

“I saw the purity that was missing and I saw, at least in terms of one or two of the characters—cause who knew how big the fix was going to be, who knew what people would do— I saw something very… if you do nothing else, do this.”

It's not like Gilroy was a 'Star Wars" fan either. In fact, he actually admits he doesn't like the movies:

“That was my superpower. A) I don’t like ‘Star Wars’—not that I don’t like it, but I’ve never been interested in ‘Star Wars’ ever, so I had no reverence for it whatsoever, I was unafraid about that and they were in such a swamp… they were in so much, terrible, terrible trouble that all you could do was improve their position.”

“What else can I say that’s safe and germane, the gumption, the balls of Disney and Bob Iger and the people there to gamble on what they gambled on is astonishing - There were no assholes involved in the process at all, on all the upper level, there were no assholes, it was just a mess [and there was] fear, and they had just gotten themselves…and because it wasn’t really my movie… for a while, I slept every night. For my own movie, I wouldn’t sleep, but because it was somebody else’s movie…”

How about the director's credit he received? So, it's his movie?

“Right, well… at a certain point, it kinda tipped, at a certain point everybody’s looking at you like ... but through a lot of it I was pretty calm, I was pretty chill.”

“I was in London, I was having a great time every day, I was throwing strikes every day, I was so happy to be engaged, my endorphins were firing, I was happy with what I was doing in front of me, I had… my god, [the production resources], it’s a Ferrari, man, oh my god. I had a great time.”

Would he consider doing another movie in the franchise?

“No, no, there’s nothing… I don’t like it. I don’t like it. It doesn’t matter, it doesn’t appeal to me. But I don’t think ‘Rogue’ is a ‘Star Wars’ movie in many ways, to me it’s a battle of Britain movie.”

What about Gareth Edwards’ version? Poor guy, this doesn’t look positive on his front...

Saudi Arabia’s first cinema in more than 35 years will open on April 18, showing the action movie Black Panther.

We know that a few months ago 200+ high ranking Saudis were detained and $50 billion in assets seized. Some kind of societal overhaul is happening in Saudi Arabia. I wonder what’s the cause? A Trump-effect? There’s always been a running division among Saudi royalty, but this is unusual. However, we must remember that the powerful there are Western-educated and their religious beliefs are, err, moderate to say the least.

The royals being arrested seem to have used religion to gain more power, so there's that.

To modernize, Saudi Arabia has focused on bringing about attitude changes first - hence the enormous women's university that was built, and similar projects of such ilk. Not to mention countless laws that were implemented for more societal rights to women. It's working.

Either this will blossom into a full-blown westernized country or we will see a religious uprising, which is what Osama Bin Laden's son was calling for yesterday, and it'll all go to hell. Good luck to anyone living there, but, hey, at least they now have a cinema!

A report from The Hollywood Reporter has “Black Panther” set to be the first film screened in Saudi Arabia after a 35 year cinema ban was lifted in December of last year. Quickly after that AMC set their sights in building a movie theater at the unused symphony hall, which holds 620 seats. The theater is now ready to open and  'Panther' set to premiere there any day now.

I'm thinking that just based on the fact that hundreds of theaters are set to open there in the next few years, the Middle Eastern film market will no doubt be a major option for Hollywood.

“Black Panther” will be released on April 18th, followed by “Avengers: Infinity War,” on April 26. 

Trailer for Asghar Farhadi’s “Everybody Knows”

Good Gawd, I love Asghar Farhadi. He is one of the greatest working filmmakers in the world, what with masterful work such as "A Separation," "About Elly," and "The Salesman." His latest film “Everybody Knows” will be opening film of the Cannes Film Festival on May 8th. From the tweetie birds, I've heard mixed stuff on this psychological thriller, we don't even know if it will be in competition.

This is his first foray into Spanish-language filmmaking. 

Here's the synopsis:

Carolina travels with her family from Buenos Aires to her native village in Spain for a celebration. What was meant to be a short visit is disrupted by unforeseen events that will completely change their lives.

It’s been 6 years since Screenwriter/Director Alex Garland quietly took over the production of DREDD (2012) and got his first big breakthrough.

"Dredd" was a reboot of "Judge Dredd," a terrible 90s action movie starring -yikes- Sylvester Stallone. What we got instead with 2012's "Dredd" was a genuinely visionary film.

Director Pete Travis made something quite beautiful out of the savagery he depicted onscreen. Paul Leonard's exalting techno soundtrack also gave the film an avant-garde edginess that fit perfectly with the film's atmosphere. The 3D was also second to none. Travis, using color and the best use of slo-mo I could recall in ages, made a film that was wholly auteur-ed and singular in its vision. Let us not forget that the screenplay was written by Alex Garland, a man who burst to the directorial scene last year with his brilliant "Ex-Machina." His lean, mean scenario had none of the superfluous tropes that would hamper down most of the action movies we see today. I can't fail to mention Karl Urban ("Star Trek Beyond) who played a great, nasty hero as the titular character himself.

Now, what if we told you that Travis didn't direct Travis and it was actually Garland? Shocking, right? Well, that's what Urban has said to JoBlo. When asked the question of when he might reprise the titular role in a “Dredd” sequel came up, Urban, who was promoting his latest film "Bent," shocked sci-fi fans by saying Alex Garland is the true director of the cult classic.

“A huge part of the success of ‘Dredd’ is in fact due to Alex Garland and what a lot of people don’t realize is that Alex Garland actually directed that movie,” said Urban.

A "Dredd" sequel is now something that is high atop our must-see lists, not that it wasn't before, but now its been amplified. Garland has made a name for himself as a director with "Ex-Machina" and "Annihilation" both receiving positive reviews. 

Urban seems keen on the idea of having Garland officially direct:  “Right? That would rock my world. I just hope when people think of Alex Garland’s filmography that ‘Dredd’ is the first film that he made before ‘Ex Machina.’ You think about it in those terms; it goes ‘Dredd,’ ‘Ex Machina,’ ‘Annihilation.’”

Garland has been credited as a writer and producer on “Dredd.” Was Travis fired during production? Who knows but more news will surely come from this bombshell courtesy of the actor.

Despite critics missing the boat by giving it mixed reviews and it completely fizzling at the Box-office, "Dredd" has become a cult classic over time with a solid, loyal fan-base that has basically become a monster in itself. You can thank home video for that and streaming services as well. I can understand the fascination with the film. It is such a re-watchable film. Hell, I remember being sent a copy of the DVD by the studio and seeing it around 5 or 6 times in a span of a few months, which is a LOT for me, I rarely re-visit a film that soon. Why and how has this cult fanbase happened? Because "Dredd" is not just an artful piece of work, but it's also just a damn entertaining film. 

Urban has mentioned countless times that he is very interested in making a sequel. This all leads me to the rather disappointing news that Fox seems to have turned down the script for a potential second chapter. Its co-creator John Wagner spoke to ScreenGeek last year about recently pitching Garland's screenplay, "Judge Death," to FOX:

“That was actually the first script that Alex Garland did was a Judge Death script but Fox, who they were dealing with at the time, turned it down. They wanted more nuts and bolts before they went into the [metaphysical].”

For the time being there are fan petitions for a sequel a little bit everywhere on the web, most notably "Bring Back Dredd," which has gathered 152,000 signatures thus far. You can sign up right HERE 

[Reddit]