A Variety Poll of Close to 3000 Voters Claims ‘Rogue One' to be the Best Disney ‘Star Wars’ Movie Thus Far

A Variety poll of close to 3000 readers found "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" to be the best Disney "Star Wars" movie so far. Call it the defacto winner. I expected it to win. Think about it; A large contingent of fans think "The Force Awakens" was way too similar to "A New Hope," another contingent hates "The Last Jedi" with every ounce of their being, and "Solo," well that movie is just universally disliked. So, TADA, "Rogue One," the defacto winner. Which is not to say it's a bad movie, no, quite the contrary, it's actually quite watchable and brings a lot to of extra-ness to the history of the original Lucas films.

‘Star Trek’ Star Zachary Quinto Says Tarantino’s ‘Trek’ Film May Feature The Reboot Cast

“Until deals are done and contracts are signed and schedules are cleared, nothing is set in stone, so anything can happen,” Quinto explained on the Happy Sad Confused podcast. “My understanding is Quentin had this idea and they were shaping it and forming it and he is off to do his Manson movie. And it would be after that, that [the 2009 cast] would go maybe do one with him. Which is pretty exciting, pretty cool.”

“Jessica Jones” director S.J. Clarkson has signed on to helm the non-Tarantino “Star Trek 4,” based on a script by uncredited “Star Trek: Beyond” writers J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay. The film is rumored to see Chris Hemsworth’s George Kirk (Capt. Kirk’s dad, who famously died in the opening minutes of Abram’s 2009 reboot) returning to the franchise alongside the NuTrek cast of Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, and John Cho.
  
[The Playlist]

First Look at the Return of Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor in ‘Terminator 6’

The “Terminator” franchise has been all but dead to me. The last two films, “Terminator: Salvation” and “Terminator: Genisys,” well, they were soul-crushing. The only way I could hop back onto the bandwagon would be if James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton would make their return. Well, that is exactly what's happening for Terminator 6.

Hamilton hasn't been in a film since "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" which was released way back in 1991. She was the heart and soul of the first two films of the franchise, there's no denying that, and so, it is with great pleasure, that I saw the "Terminator 6" on-set photo and had a huge smile on my face. She just looks badass. 

Yes, Hamilton, Arnie and James Cameron, as producer, are coming back for T6. “Deadpool” helmer Tim Miller will be directing, that's a good thing. In a chat with 

THR

, Cameron and Miller are confirming that “This is a continuation of the story from ‘Terminator 1’ and ‘Terminator 2,’ Cameron further elaborates “And we’re pretending the other films were a bad dream. Or an alternate timeline, which is permissible in our multi-verse.” Amen!

The major surprise in all of this? Cameron luring back Hamilton, the main star of his two films in the franchise, and, gulp, his ex-wife. “Jim was fucking terrified,” Miller jokes. “I was,” Cameron confirms. “It took me a week just to get up the nerve. No, that’s not true. Linda and I have a great relationship. We’ve stayed friends through the thick and thin of it all. And she is the mother of my eldest daughter. So I called her up, and I said: ‘Look, we could rest on our laurels. It’s ours to lose, in a sense. We created this thing several decades ago. But, here’s what can be really cool. You can come back and show everybody how it’s done.’ Because in my mind, it hasn’t been done a whole lot since the way she did it back in ’91.”

So now all we need is a release date. Well, guess what?  A November 22nd  2019 date has been announced.

[The Terminator Fans]

User Reviews For “Gotti" on Rotten Tomatoes Seem to Have Been Manipulated by the Film's Marketing Team

The marketing team behind John Travolta’s new film “Gotti” are making the claim that you should not trust critics when it comes to their universally panned movie. A new ad is telling audiences to, quite literally, distrust the critics, or, as they are called in the below ad, the “trolls behind a keyboard.” You see, “Gotti” has a 0% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes and is dying a very slow death at the box-office. So what does the marketing team behind "Gotti" believe should be done for optimal damage control? Well, how about trash film journalism as a whole. Hell, they even seem to be indicating that a conspiracy might be going on behind these negative reviews. Yikes.

The film earned a tepid $1.7 million on its opening weekend, 40% of that reported gross coming from MoviePass subscribers. Oh and, by the way, MoviePass actually distributed the film. I haven't seen the film, but plan to eventually, but “Gotti” has been described by critics as “terrible,” “laughable,” “a mess,” “a shitshow,” among other terms.

To make matters worse, Dan Murrel of ScreenJunkies is reporting on Twitter about something very suspicious going on with "Gotti," again, on Rotten Tomatoes.

As mentioned, Gotti's 0% RT rating isn't good, but it does have a really good 77% audience score; Based on over 6900 user reviews, which, truth be told, is a suspicious number given that the movie opened to only 500 screens this past weekend and severely bombed with just a $1.7M opening weekend.

The 6900 reviews also feel a little "off" because successful blockbusters such as "Incredibles 2" and "Oceans 8" have around the same amount of user reviews. And so, a user on Reddit went on a little hunt for the truth and found out that of the first 58 user reviews "Gotti" received on RT, all with an available profile, 45 had created their account in June of 2018. Oh, boy.

Things only became sketchier as we dug deeper, because out of these 45 reviewers, 32 only reviewed "Gotti," 10 reviewed Gotti plus another movie (7 times it was "American Animals," for some reason). Of the remaining 13 accounts, 8 looked normal and 5 had created their accounts in December, so those were probably real reviews, and, funnily enough, almost all of them were negative reactions of the film.

Credit must go to Twitter's @MurrelDan for uncovering the dirt.

Okay, I’ll just come out and say it. Some party involved with Gotti artificially manipulated the audience scores and they’re now using it as a marketing strategy. The numbers don’t make sense. Even if that weren’t true, this is a divisive & desperate way to sell a film. https://t.co/Q5jznjNRSx— Dan Murrell (@MurrellDan) June 19, 2018

'“The Man Who Killed Don Quixote": Judge Rules Director Terry Gilliam No Longer Owns Rights To The Film, Former Producer Paulo Branco Does

I really thought Terry Gilliam's excellent "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" had a happy ending, that is until a judge from the Paris Court of Appeal ruled against the director and in favor of "producer" Paulo Branco, who sued the director over the rights to the film late last year.

Gilliam and ex-producer Branco have been butting heads on the film for a few months now. Their history together goes a few years back, when they had both reached an agreement on the production of “Quixote.” The deal was simple, Branco would fund the film, give Gilliam creative freedom and reap the benefits.

Those aforementioned benefits never came to Branco, Gilliam found another producer to finance the film, and then the film started production. Branco then re-entered the picture and claimed the film could not be released, let alone premiere anywhere, until he was given permission, pointing to the 2016 contract between he and Gilliam. Gilliam says the contract was nullified due to Branco not giving him any funding.

I won't go into great detail about the bad luck and mishaps that have hampered-down Terry Gilliam's passion project "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" for the better part of three decades now. At some point, it seemed like the cursed project, which finished production on June 4th and is now practically completed in the editing room, was on course to be released this year with even a Cannes premiere booked in advance. They most definitely resolved the last setback, John Hurt's death, which was settled with Gilliam regular Jonathan Pryce taking over the role. 

The judge ordered Gilliam to pay Branco’s Alfama Films €10,000 ($11,600).

”The ruling means that the rights to the film belong to Alfama. Any exploitation of the film up until now has been completely illegal and without the authorization of Alfama,” Branco told Screen Daily.

“We will be seeking damages with interest from all the people involved in this illegal production and above all, all those who were complicit in its illegal exploitation. We’re holding everyone responsible.”

“The film’s producers, Kinology, all the others who supported the film, including those who distributed the film in France and the Cannes Film Festival, everyone.”

“The film belongs in its entirety to Alfama,” Branco added. “The film was made illegally. It’s the first time, I’ve ever seen so many people embark on a mission to produce and exploit a film, without holding the rights. It’s a unique case.”

Mindy Kaling of "Ocean's 8" says mixed reviews are 'unfair' because of mostly white male critics, Cate Banchett agrees

I understand the anger. I understand the frustration. A week after Brie Larson criticized white male critics, "Ocean's 8" stars Mindy Kaling and Cate Blanchett are hinting that reviews for their film would have been more positive if more women were film critics.

Kaling stated that the white male critic hierarchy is “unfair”, going on to say “if I had to base my career on what white men wanted I would be very unsuccessful, so there is obviously an audience out there who want to watch things like ["Ocean’s 8"], what I work on, what Sarah [Paulson] works on.

“And the thing about so much of what this movie is, I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they don’t understand it, because they come at it at a different point of view, and they’re so powerful, Rotten Tomatoes.”

Blanchett, whom I hugely respect as an actress, added that: “The conversation has to change, and the media has a huge responsibility.” Blanchett has always been more subtle with her criticisms, and her words seem to have been chosen very carefully here.

"Ocean's 8" is an OK movie. It's dispensable entertainment, but a fine time at the movies for what it essentially is: A heist film with an irresistible performance courtesy of Anne Hathaway. It has made $79,175,170 two weeks since its release, not too shabby and with demos showing that primarily female audience bought tickets to see it, so, in essence, the film has become a "woman's picture" and has had its stars rally around that.

Something to really ponder; Paul Feig's "Ghostbusters" reboot was rated 74% fresh, a generous rating given the film's lackluster quality. 

Buzzfeed's Alison Willmore disagrees with Blanchett and Kaling:

From my 6.15.18 article about Larson's controversial speech: 

I understand Larson's thinking here, and, yes, "Wrinkle In Time" did garner a 40% Rotten Tomatoes rating, and, again, yes, most of the critics that reviewed it was in fact older, white male critics and not POC female critics. Her statement basically reads as an indictment of the unfairness and overall unreliability that she sees in today's film criticism, because, well, according to her at least, some movies were "made for" a specific demographic that is just not represented in today's world of film criticism.

However, objective evaluation should have NOTHING to do with identity politics, but that's what Brie is essentially mixing in here. An indisputably great film shouldn't necessarily be "made for" any particular demographic. Great art should be universal.

It’s interesting how she says that "A Wrinkle in Time" “wasn’t made” for a reviewer, specifically because of his skin color. I mean, I don’t care where you fall on the political spectrum, but that comes off as a genuinely discriminatory thing to say and, given that seemingly everyone who saw it didn't think it was very good, it's probably not the best movie to pick as an example. 

And so, with all that being said, I decided to partake in a little experiment. "A Wrinkle in Time" has 70 reviews from female film critics on Rotten Tomatoes. 35 are positive and 35 are negative, that's a 50% score. Despite the female perspective, it is still a "rotten" movie.

Gal Gadot Suits Up in New ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Images

It took Patty Jenkins over a decade to direct her second feature film, yet her $8 million indie "Monster" out-grossed Colin Trevorrow's pre-Jurassic Park movie, Jordan Vogt-Roberts' pre-King Kong movie, and Peter Jackson's pre-LOTR movies. Combined. Her last movie "Monster," was also her debut, it even won Charlize Theron the Best Actress Oscar. The fact that Jenkins went 13 years without directing another feature film speaks volumes about Hollywood's problem with gender equality.

The massive success "Wonder Woman" had two summers ago must have given Jenkins a sweet feeling of justice prevailing. The film turned out to be the second highest grossing movie of the year, was met with rave reviews and a sequel has not only already been greenlit, but currently started shooting last week, with Jenkins and star Gal Gadot returning for more Amazonian adventures. 

"Wonder Woman" is set for a November 1st, 2019 release date. 

David Lynch: “Feature films have fallen on hard times these days. And it’s sad, but it’s the reality. I always say now, cable television is the new arthouse."

“Twin Peaks: The Return” was an unequivocal triumph for David Lynch, but we always want to know what’s next for the legendary director and in a recent interview he gave us a little hint:

“I have a box of ideas, and I’m working with producer Sabrina Sutherland, kind of trying to go through and see if there’s any gold in those boxes,” said the filmmaker.

However, don't count on it being a feature film: 

"Feature films have fallen through hard times these days. And it’s sad, but it’s the reality. I always say now, cable television is the new arthouse. People have freedom and can make a continuing story. It’s pretty beautiful, but it’s not the big screen, so there’s a little bit of sorrow in the picture and a little bit of sorrow in the sound,” he explains.

So will he go back to 'Twin Peaks"?

“Well, for right now, you could say I don’t want to talk about that.”

However, the most interesting quote for me was Lynch discussing "Fire Walk With Me" a film known as the nadir of his career, alongside "Dune," of course:

“With ‘Dune,’ I sold out on that early on, because I didn’t have final cut, and it was a commercial failure, so I died two times with that. With ‘Fire Walk With Me,’ it didn’t go over well at the time, but I loved it so I only died once, for the commercial failure and the reviews and things. But, over time, it’s changed. So now, people have revisited that film, and they feel differently about it. When a thing comes out, the feeling in the world—you could call it the collective consciousness—is a certain way, and so it dictates how the thing’s going to go. Then the collective consciousness changes and people come around. Look at Van Gogh: the guy could not sell one painting and now nobody can afford them.”

Brie Larson: “A Wrinkle in Time" got bad reviews because it “wasn’t made for” the majority older white male critics demographic.

During last night’s Crystal + Lucy Awards in NYC, Brie Larson decided to give a speech about the recent USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative which stated: "an overwhelming majority of film critics — 78% — are male, and only 22% are female." Her best defense of the findings was to mention as an example Ava DuVernay‘s "A Wrinkle in Time," which, she explains was “a love letter to women of color,” and that it acquired its bad reviews because it “wasn’t made for” the majority older white male critics demographic.

“Am I saying I hate white dudes?” Larson asked. “No, I’m not, [but if] you make the movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance [that] a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie and review your movie.”

“[Audiences] are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that the films were made for,” Larsen went on. “I do not need a 70-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about "A Wrinkle in Time." It wasn’t made for him. 

I want to know what it meant to women of color, to biracial women, to teen women of color, to teens that are biracial.”

I understand Larson's thinking here, and, yes, "Wrinkle In Time" did garner a 40% Rotten Tomatoes rating, and, again, yes, most of the critics that reviewed it were in fact older, white male critics and not POC female critics. Her statement basically reads as an indictment of the unfairness and overall unreliability that she sees in today's film criticism, because, well, according to her at least, some movies were "made for" a specific demographic that is just not represented in today's world of film criticism.

However, objective evaluation should have NOTHING to do with identity politics, but that's what Brie is essentially mixing in here. An indisputably great film shouldn't necessarily be "made for" any particular demographic. Great art should be universal.

It’s interesting how she says that "A Wrinkle in Time" “wasn’t made” for a reviewer, specifically because of his skin color. I mean, I don’t care where you fall on the political spectrum, but that comes off as a genuinely discriminatory thing to say and, given that seemingly everyone who saw it didn't think it was very good, it's probably not the best movie to pick as an example. 

And so, with all that being said, I decided to partake in a little experiment. 

"A Wrinkle in Time" has 70 reviews from female film critics on Rotten Tomatoes. 35 are positive and 35 are negative, that's a 50% score. Despite the female perspective, it is still a "rotten" movie.

Ewan McGregor to Play Danny Torrance in ‘Shining’ Sequel ‘Dr. Sleep’

Ewan McGregor will be visiting the Overlook Hotel in an upcoming movie in "Doctor Sleep."

Variety is reporting that a sequel to Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" is currently in the works and that McGregor will star as the adult version Danny Torrence. Torrence, if you don't remember, was the kid that kept uttering REDRUM and that had daddy chasing him all over the maze-like hotel with an ax. 

McGregor got the role over Chris Evans, Matt Smith, and Jeremy Renner.

The film is a Warner Bros.’ adaptation of Stephen King’s 2013 follow-up to The Shining and will have director Mike Flanagan ("Oculus," "Ouija: Origin of Evil," and "Gerald’s Game") helming the project. 

Flanagan is no stranger to King having adapted the author's novel "Gerald’s Game" for Netflix. The screenplay for "Doctor Sleep" had been originally written by Akiva Goldsman ("A Beautiful Mind"), but, according to Variety, Flanagan has rewritten most of it.

If Flanagan follows the novel's plot, then "Dr. Sleep" will pick up decades after the tragic events of "The Shining," with Torrence, now an alcoholic with anger issues, starting to sober up, and consequentially having his psychic powers returning. He decides to use his special abilities to help terminally ill patients in a hospice, where he inherits the nickname of Dr. Sleep. But it's his obsession with a particular patient, a little girl with special powers herself, that kicks off the plot.

Flanagan will always be fine in my books just for directing 2016's excellent creepfest "Hush."

George Lucas Reveals His Original Ideas For Star Wars 7-9 Before Disney Took Over, Admits Fans Would Have ‘Hated’ His Sequels

In a tweet from Livio Ramondelli, an illustrator with personal connections with George Lucas as he Interviewed him for a companion book to James Cameron’s Story of Science Fiction series, he shares two quotes from George Lucas about what would have been the plot of his sequel trilogy. 

“[The next three ‘Star Wars’ films] were going to get into a microbiotic world. But there’s this world of creatures that operate differently than we do. I call them the Whills. And the Whills are the ones who actually control the universe. They feed off the Force,” Lucas explains.

“If I’d held onto the company I could have done it, and then it would have been done. Of course, a lot of the fans would have hated it, just like they did ‘Phantom Menace’ and everything, but at least the whole story from beginning to end would be told,” he continues.

Tom McCarthy to Direct A Movie Based on Podcast ‘S-Town'

If we are living in a sort of golden age for podcasts, and many believe we are, "Serial" is probably the most masterful of the bunch. They tore down what was there and built their own thing, setting the bar for the vast amount of small-town mysteries that now invade the podcast, and even Netflix, world. Their third season, called "S-Town," is, for this writer, the best season they ever released. Delving into the psyche of John McLemore, who nicknames his Alabama smalltown "Shit Town," McLemore was quite similar to Ethan Hawke's character in "First Reformed," contemplating the deep questions of human existence, which ate him up every minute of every day, building up demons instead of him that were too strong to live with. Hosted by Brian Reed, S-Town was an invigorating, twist-filled endeavor that reinvented what podcasts could be about.

With murder-mysteries all but the hottest thing these days on TV, it's quite surprising that it took this much time for someone to finally adapt one of the seasons of "S-Town" for the silver screen. According to THR, Tom McCarthy is in talks to direct the feature adaptation of the podcast. McCarthy, the man behind "Spotlight" and "The Visitor," will have Playwright Samuel Hunter writing the screenplay for the film.

Synopsis of S-Town:

"The podcast, from Serial and This American Life, follows an Alabama man named John who contacts host Brian Reed to have him investigate a supposed murder by the son of a wealthy family in his hometown, which he openly despises. The story then delves into John's own backstory, filled with everything from clocks buried treasure to a giant hedge maze behind his family home."

“Won't You Be My Neighbor" and the relevance of Mister Rogers in today's cynical world

I really hate when people say that we need a certain movie now, at this very moment in time, but that's exactly how I felt watching Morgan Neville's "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" or as some are calling it "The Mr. Rogers Doc." Yes, we live in a society filled with toxic cynicism, but a documentary on the sweetly endearing TV host Fred Rogers felt like such a breath of fresh air for this writer that I left the theater in a damn-near wondrous state. 

That's part of the magic that comes in watching this doc about the former ordained minister who managed to find a place in the Television time-capsule with his TV show aimed at kids. 1,765 episodes from 1968 to 2001. That's the impact Rogers had on a nation currently looking for its own identity. Rogers died of cancer at 74 more than 15 years ago, but, good God, we really need him now.

Neville is no slouch when it comes to making feel-good documentaries ("20 Feet From Stardom"), but this one is truly special. There's an effortless simplicity that comes in the delivery, as Neville tells us the story of a man that always thought about the fate and future of the country's children. You can even see it in the priceless clips the director has chosen in exemplifying Rogers' abundantly giving heart. His shows ranged from the death of a pet to even the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, which affected him greatly but reminded him of his duties, no, his purpose, to educating young tykes nationwide. 

At its core, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, was a rather easy show to make fun of, after all, there were no props, no effects, no colorful magic, nothing that was being broadcast on the other kids shows. No, it rather focused its attention on the small things in life, which, as we see, wind up being some of the most important lessons you could learn. Wearing his legendary Cardigan, Rogers' message could easily be heard in the opening song of his show: "So, let's make the most of this beautiful day/Since we're together we might as well say/Would you be mine?/Could you be mine?/Won't you be my neighbor?”

And so, the years passed and, despite mockery from nihilists,  Rogers turned into a formidable TV figure for the ages, a man with integrity, manners, a moral compass that might seem foreign to today's audiences. Hell, here was a middle-aged man playing with puppet characters on-screen and never ridiculing the moment, especially when the morose-looking Daniel the Tiger would show up, a character that, Neville shows us, represented a more lonely and angry Rogers in puppet form. Before becoming a minister Rogers ha to deal with relentless bullying in school, as an overweight kid nicknamed "Fat Freddy" by the school kids. 

Neville barely uses any soundbites from Rogers, who was said to be a rather private isolationist until his untimely death in 2003. 

However, what cuts the deepest in this beautiful document of the man is when Neville decides to tackle school segregation, the African-American experience and how it impacted Rogers in the most touching of ways. All over the country, black families were being ousted out of public swimming pools, which gave an infuriated Rogers the idea of inviting his show's black neighborhood cop (François Clemmons), to share a footbath on camera. Americans were shocked, but others were being swooned and educated in the themes of acceptance and friendship by the simple cleaning of a foot. 

Rogers' lack of cynism seems to have aged boldly and beautifully in today's narcissistic-filled media. Could a show like Mister Roger's Neighborhood really work in today's world, where even kids as young as 5 own an iPad? Probably not, but we sure could use him now, that's why Neville's film feels like a gift from the Gods above. The result is damn-near timeless.

Where are the next great American directors?

A really interesting observation. The 80s and 90s saw a slew of brilliant American filmmakers making their debut. Example, in the 80s we saw the likes of Spike Lee, Steven Soderbergh, Jim Jarmusch, Oliver Stone, Jonathan Demme, Michael Mann, John Sayles, Gus Van Sant, Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Joel and Ethan Coen and Kathryn Bigelow, John Hughes and Barry Levinson.

The 1990's was even better due to the indie film movement blossoming into its peak: Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, Kevin Smith, Darren Aronofsky, Spike Jonze, Todd Solondz, Todd Haynes, Alexander Payne, David O Russell, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, Kelly Reichardt, Brad Bird among many more made their first films that decade.

Think of an American director who had his film debut at the earliest in 2003, who has built a solid reputation and has had a legitimately important impact on cinema in the same vein as the names I just mentioned? Anyone? I can think of many directors born outside the United States: Dardenne, Glazer, Villeneuve, Joon-Ho, McQueen, Farhadi, Lanthimos, Chan-Wook, Refn, Mungiu, Weerasethakul, Wright, Arnold.

So, what about the 2000s? 2010s? American filmmaking giants emerging from these decades are scant and few. There's Kenneth Lonergan whose "You Can Count on Me," "Margaret" and "Manchester by the Sea" represent a masterful trio of despair. I guess Tom McCarthy should count as well, despite the lack of an actual distinctive voice, he's managed to make some top-notch films ("The Visitor," "The Station Agent," "Spotlight," "Win-Win."), there's Bennett Miller ("Capote," "Moneyball," "Foxcatcher"), whether you like him or not you probably have to include Damien Chazelle ("Whiplash," "La La Land") into the mix. Jeff Nichols as well ("Take Shelter," "Mud," "Loving") Charlie Kaufman? I guess, although he did start as a screenwriter for Spike Jonze in the 90s and then decided to upgrade to the director's chair in the aughts ("Synechdoche NY," "Animolisa"). JC Chandor is building up somewhat of an intriguing oeuvre at the moment ("Margin Call," "All Is Lost," "A Most Violent Year"), Sofia Coppola, although she's never really found a way to match the quality of her first two films ("The Virgin Suicides" "Lost in Translation"). I also feel like Jeremy Saulnier will be included here soon, he's only made two films ("Blue Ruin" and "Green Room) but he's surely made a mark ditto Ryan Coogler ("Fruitvale Station" and "Creed"), Mike Mills ("Thumbsucker," "20th Century Women," and Begginers") and Ava DuVernay ("Middle of Nowhere," "Selma" and "The 13th") Another director I'm not sure about is Judd Apatow whose best work ("The 40-Year-old Virgin," Knocked Up," and "Trainwreck") has been marred by disappointments as well ("Funny People," and "This Is 40")

That's pretty much it. Am I missing anybody? The amount of new talent that has grown from the American studio system since the 2000s is pathetic when compared to the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Of course, I didn't forget Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Christopher Nolan, Paul Greengrass and Denis Villeneuve, Edgar Wright, but they're not American.

So what doe this all mean? It means that the directors that started in the 70s, 80s and 90s have to pick up the slack, and even they are not being given as many opportunities as possible these days, what with Hollywood's current fascination with sequels and comic book movies. Also, they can't live forever, many of them are well into their late 60s and early 70s. It's a very interesting time we're living in at the movies. Who will pick up the slack? It's not unrealistic to think that more foreign filmmakers will be coming in to pick up the slack what with Cuaron, Del Toro, Inarritu, Joon-Ho Bong, James Wan, Martin McDonaugh and Yorgos Lanthimos all having made the plunge to American cinema this decade.

So what's the future of American cinema like? It looks bleak to say the least, but there are still some filmmakers starting to form impressive filmographies, despite the studio system not being interested in giving them any kind of creative freedom or room for original thought.

Bryan Singer Will Be Credited As Director Of “Bohemian Rhapsody"

Last fall, Bryan Singer was fired from his directorial duties on 20th Century Fox' Freddie Mercury biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody” due to his erratic on- and off- set behavior, which included not showing up on set on numerous occasions. Singer was replaced by actor-turned-director Dexter Fletcher (“Eddie the Eagle” ), despite more than half the film already shot and in the can. A question that has been looming around for months now is whether or not Singer will nab final credit on the film since Singer was essentially fired when not much was left in the shoot. 

Well, we just got an answer to our question. The new issue of Empire Magazine [via Collider] is indeed saying that Bryan Singer will be credited as director of "Bohemian Rhapsody." Fletcher had previously mentioned that he wasn't necessarily looking for a credit when he came onboard the production, so it seems like there won't be any legal battles occurring for the director's nod. 

Producer Graham King, again in Empire Magazine, elaborated further, saying Singer needed to leave the film for personal reasons:

“Bryan Singer is the credited director of the film. Basically, Bryan had some personal issues going on. He wanted to hiatus the movie to deal with them, and the movie had to get finished. That was what it came down to… It wasn’t about reinventing the wheel. We needed someone who would have some creative freedom, but work inside a box. [Fletcher] did us a real favor.”

King goes on to say that Fletcher shot 16 days of footage, and essentially completed the film for Singer.

Fletcher was the original director of the film, back when Ben Whishaw (“Skyfall”) was supposed to play Mercury. He left the project in 2014 over "creative differences." Singer was fired after failing to show up on set after Thanksgiving break. Before that, he was fighting with his stars, including an incident involving the throwing of a metal object towards lead actor Rami Malek. The director later released a statement with his own side of the story, blaming his on-set disappearance on the illness of one of his parents, as well as Fox's refusal to give him two weeks off.

“Bohemian Rhapsody stars Rami Malek as Queen frontman Freddie Mercury, his co-stars include Lucy Boynton, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, Joseph Mazzello, Aiden Gillen, Tom Hollander, and Mike Myers. The film is due for release on November 2. 

Report: Matt Reeves Will Reboot The Batman Franchise & Replace Ben Affleck

Another day, another “Batman” rumor which always seems to contradict the last report. And it’s the same kind of back and forth pendulum-swinging story. Gossip and hearsay have swirled for months on whether or not Ben Affleck will be staying on as Batman in the DCEU.

It all started over a year ago when Affleck stepped down as director for the upcoming “The Batman,” which consequently left the job open for Matt Reeves from the “Planet Of The Apes” series.  Affleck has also been going through personal problems, coupled with the fact that “Batman V. Superman” was met with vicious reviews and it seems like the guy probably needs to take a breather. Of course, it’s hard to relax when Warner Bros. is counting on you to be their Batman. Through all this Affleck has explicitly denied retiring the cape.

However, if Affleck’s denials quelled rumors for a time, they’re flaring up again tonight like a bad rash. Obviously, there’s been a big shakeup over at Warner Bros. and DCEU; Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns stepped down today. Last week it was Diane Nelson who left as DC Entertainment President. If it’s not clear, WB is not happy with the mediocre results of “Justice League.”

Now, Deadline reports are suggesting that Affleck will be exiting Reeves’ Batman movie and the DCEU altogether. Deadline claims that Reeves wants to reboot Batman as a “standalone franchise,” with a new Batman being at the forefront of the checklist, having been created by Reeves and newly announced Warner Bros. Pictures Group Chairman, Toby Emmerich.

None of this is new of course and really just a rehash of the last 12 months: Ben Affleck is leaving, Matt Reeves is making his own film not connected to the DCEU, he’s hiring a new actor, and oh wait, no actually, Affleck is staying, Reeves isn’t rebooting the film, and no one is taking over the cowl.

Every few months the pendulum swings in either the yay or nay side of this story. The difference is, the report comes from Deadline’s Mike Flemming who has spent decades breaking news in Hollywood. The flipside, Flemming’s Batman “news” is kind of casually tossed off in a story that’s more about changes at Warner Bros. and DCEU, rather than hard and concrete details: nothing is confirmed at this point either way.

Frankly, the DCEU is a mess and the idea of standalone movies operating outside of a movie universe that already exists — i.e., there’s two Joker movies in the works, but only one within the current continuity — is just ridiculous and asking for trouble. File this one under: you’ve said this before, wake me up when something’s official.

Rose McGowan Doesn't Want People to Blame Asia Argento For Anthony Bourdain's Death

Read McGowan’s full letter here.

Rose McGowan has just published an open letter in reaction to the death of her friend Anthony Bourdain. Bourdain passed away on Friday due to suicide. Argento speaks of her friend and his struggles with depression throughout the past year and even how he, in the last month of his life, sought professional help from a doctor for it.

Of course, Rose being Rose, McGowan decides to address the elephant in the room, Bourdain’s relationship with her BFF and #MeToo consigliere Asia Argento. 

McGowan reveals in the letter that both Argento and Bourdain were struggling with depression over the last year. McGowan does go on to say that the past two years were also probably some of the happiest the couple ever experienced, despite their struggles with depression. 

Through a lot of this last year, Asia did want the pain to stop,” McGowan says. “But here’s the thing, over their time together, thankfully, she did the work to get help, so she could stay alive and live another day for her and her children. Anthony’s depression didn’t let him, he put down his armor, and that was very much his choice. His decision, not hers. His depression won.”

McGowan went on to criticize the people blaming Argento as the cause of Bourdain’s death and how Argento and Bourdain had a “free relationship” and “loved without borders of traditional relationships,” and she mentioned the two “established the parameters of their relationship early on.”

“I know before Anthony died he reached out for help, and yet he did not take the doctor’s advice. And that has led us here, to this tragedy, to this loss, to this world of hurt,” McGowan writes. “Do NOT do the sexist thing and burn a woman on the pyre of misplaced blame. Anthony’s internal war was his war, but now she’s been left on the battlefield to take the bullets. It is in no way fair or acceptable to blame her or anyone else, not even Anthony.”

“There is no one to blame but the stigma of loneliness, the stigma of asking for help, the stigma of mental illness, the stigma of being famous and hurting.”

Now, if you follow me on Facebook, you will know that I had a rather controversial post this past weekend about Argento and Bourdain's relationship, one which had supposedly ended three days before Bourdain's suicide when Argento was seen holding hands with a French reporter on the streets of Rome.

On 6.19.18 I wrote:

"Hate to be the bearer of this news, but I might as well post it since nobody else in the media is doing it. Asia Argento was seen holding hands with another guy in Rome a few days before Anthony Bourdain took his own life. Of course, he was suffering from depression before that happened but probably didn't help."

I was referring to the Daily Mail article which came out, photos included, three days before Bourdain took his own life. 

Fact is, that Anthony Bourdain decided to kill himself shortly after the pics of Asia Argento with her friend Hugo Clement were published.  The pictures were published on June 5, 2018. Anthony killed himself on June 8, 2018. Is this enough of an obvious causal connection? Of course not. Only Bourdain knew the exact reasoning behind his offing and, even then, you can't really tell what a person going through depression is really going through. Hell, most of the time, they can't even put their agony and pain into words or a simple reasoning. 

And so, I ask again, did Asia’s infidelity triggered his suicide? Am I even allowed to ask this question without being hounded by a social media bent on blaming any person they disagree with as being a misogynist, sexist, racist etc?

The Best Show On TV: “Atlanta"

As Donald Glover's Emmy Award-Winning series "Atlanta," quite possibly the best show on TV, finally goes on break after an electrifying second season on FX,  we can't help but wonder what the future holds for the willy bunch of characters created by Glover and his brother Stephen. After all, its focus on Earn Marks (Glover) and his struggles to help his client and cousin Alfred (Brian Tyree Henry) become a successful rapper with the pseudonym Paperboy was not only some of the most bizarre and minimalist television we've ever seen, but some of the most profound social commentary as well. Tackling issues such as relationships, fatherhood, family, success, racism, failure, poverty in such freshly new and inventive ways, every time an episode ended it felt like you were seeing the world around you in a new light.

And so, as you know, Glover may be the busiest man in show business today, but he's already talking about the show's third season. After all, "Atlanta" was just renewed last week and has had fans garnerning possible plot scenarios for the third go-round. Although the Glover brothers haven't really started the creative process of writing Season 3, Donald told a panel this past weekend, at an FYC screening in Los Angeles, he will be taking a cue from Kanye for season 3 and that an evolution from darkness to light will happen, in other words a less dark more accessible "Atlanta":

“I align the seasons I think, to me, like Kanye records,” Glover said in North Hollywood “I feel like this is our ‘Graduation.’ This is probably our most accessible but also the realest — an honest version of it — and I feel like the most enjoyable, like the third album. We were all on iMessage together and kind of talking about it, and I think people were really hungry to like beat ourselves, which is great,” said Glover.

The darkly unpredictable nature of the show is something to behold, which makes using the word accessible with the show's title almost an anomaly. The second season was darker, grittier, bolder and surely had, at times, some people scratching their heads. Suffice to say, the show isn't for everyone, and might even rub some mainstream audiences the wrong way in its refusal to adhere to classical narrative structures. That's part of the riotous fun of watching the show. And so, Judging by Donald's words, the next season will be a sort of celebration, as he and brother Stephen want to probably have a larger audience, but still maintain the originality that makes it such a special treat. "We'll be with them every step of the way.

Ron Howard Breaks His Silence About ‘Solo': ‘I Feel Badly’ About Its Box-Office Performance

When Ron Howard took over directorial duties of "Solo: A Star Wars Story," replacing original directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, he knew the task at hand was enormous. After all, the "Star Wars" brand is as important, if not more so, for Disney than their cherished Marvelbrand. The trouble that was brewing between Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy and Lord/Miller was of obvious major concern, especially coming off the heels of the fanboy backlash that happened with "The Last Jedi." Howard had to steer the ship back in the right direction and have fans that were turned off by Rian Johnson's Episode 8 come back onboard. Suffice to say, the underwhelming box-office clearly showed that not to be the case and "Solo," a film that no doubt had major flaws on-screen, was not saved by Howard.

Now Howard is expressing disappointment that the film he directed failed to deliver at the box-office.

“I’m proud of #SoloAStarWarsStory and the cast & crew worked hard to give fans a fun new addition,” he tweeted when a fan asked if the backlash that stemmed from “The last Jedi” was partially to blame for the tepid numbers of "Solo" at the box-office. “As a director, I feel badly when people who I believe (& exit polls show) will very likely enjoy a movie… don’t see it on a big screen w/great sound.”

Howard's tweet should not be seen without merit. The continuous cycle of news and rumors that had to do with the problematic production of "Solo" was a death sentence for the film's success. 

Expectations were being tampered the minute Lord and Miller got fired and talk of Alden Ehrenreich needing an acting coach surfaced. Howard was handed the near-impossible task to take over Lord and Miller's work, they were fired near the end of production, and not only shoot newly written scenes but re-shoot plenty of already existing ones as well.  The end result amounted to “Solo” making just $176 million domestically thus far and on its way to making half of what the other SW "spinoff," "Rogue One" accumulated at the box-office. One feels bad for the cast and crew that surely worked very hard for the film to be a success but only so much can go wrong during a film's production for it to work out in the end and "Solo," well, it might just take the cake as the most problematic shoot of the decade.