WTF?!

OK, so if anyone was perhaps caught a little bit off guard by my news that Forest Whitaker is being eyed up for a role in 'Taken 3', prepare to be well and truly bamboozled! You ready for this?

Jesse Eisenberg. That's right JESSE F**KIN' EISENBERG has been cast as Lex Luthor in 2016's 'Batman Vs. Superman'.  Just let that sink in for a second ... Even though we're only just leaving January this casting is undoubtedly going to dominate internet forums and interviews on the red carpet for the next year. HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE NEWS!

At first glance - not exactly 'menacing'.

 
If anyone ever said they saw this coming, then they my friend are a liar. If you went into a bookies and tried placing a bet on such an event, you'd probably be laughed out of the establishment with your tail between your legs. However, I must stress that I am not adverse to this unquestionably 'brave' decision. I ,like the majority of you reading this I'd wager, have simply been left dumbstruck. 

Eisenberg, at the tender age of 28, now has an overwhelming weight on his shoulders by trying to bring Superman's greatest foe to life on the silver screen. Yes, those trademark curly locks of his will be first to go, and he'll be looking a little more like 'Heisenberg' than Eisenberg during filming but I'm sure he's up to the challenge. A star-turn as Mark Zuckerberg in David Fincher's 'The Social Network' more than proved his worth, and he also looks promising in upcoming film 'The Double', directed by Brit funnyman Richard Ayoade. Yet, an announcement of such magnitude is definitely going to leave mouths gaping. The decision by the studio to confirm the casting obviously displays immense faith in Eisenberg, but will he be able to handle the pressure? In potentially the biggest superhero movie of all time could he prove to be the proverbial scene-stealer? Or will he prove a miscasting of epic proportions that is simply drowned out by performances from Cavill, Affleck, Gadot et al? Only time will tell.

But that's not all - fans of Michael Caine prepare to weep, because sadly it will be Jeremy Irons who will be taking on the role of Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred this time around. HUGE NEWS once more, but judging by online reaction it doesn't have people quite as startled as Eisenberg's casting. Excited? Yes! Potentially worried? Unlikely! Irons is a magnificent actor, which his Academy award for 'Reversal of Fortune' will no doubt attest to, but I'm sure you'll agree that he's perhaps 'gone off the back burner' a bit in recent years. What with 'The Borgias' being cancelled, and the less said about 'The Pink Panther Two' and 'Eragon' the better - this could be just what Irons needs to catapult himself back into the big picture. I genuinely can't wait for Irons' English gravitas and dulcet tones to ooze into the persona of cinema's most iconic butler. I'd love to see the Irons of 'Dead Ringers' and 'Die Hard With A Vengeance' return to our screens in a big way, and this could be the platform to do it! The best of luck to him, and to Eisenberg who I can see being a magnet to which criticism and internet trolls gravitate over the coming months. To anyone who questions his ability, simply give 'The Social Network' another look over and I'm sure you'll more than agree that he's got what it takes. Oh, and to anyone who wants to have a pop at Jeremy Irons just remember ... he was muthaf**king 'Scar' in 'The Lion King', so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Lex Luthor got nothing on this guy!

 

A Pinch of Finch #2

So no reviews today because sadly I am once again being kept prisoner by an ever-growing list of college assignments. But hopefully I'll be able to squeeze in a viewing of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' sometime later in the week so stay tuned. Anyway, here's just a brief round up of some tidbits I've come across whist scouring the web today.

Oh, and to begin on an unrelated note, here's a random photo of the cast of 1981's 'Escape to Victory' 

Michael Caine, Pele and Stallone - Coolness personified.

Moving on, first up is a trailer for Seth MacFarlane's directorial follow-up to box-office smash 'Ted', 'A Million Ways To Die In The West'.

It tells the tale of sheep farmer Albert (MacFarlane) a feeble, timid man who after losing his girlfriend, tries to regain his confidence by winning a duel against the local villain (Liam Neeson). With 'Ted' MacFarlane had audiences rolling in the aisles with laughter, however a Western comedy is not an easy route to success, as 1999's 'Wild Wild West' proved. However by bringing in big names like Neeson, Amanda Seyfried and Charlize Theron and adding the undeniable comedic talent of Neil Patrick Harris, Sarah Silverman and Giovanni Ribisi - MacFarlane emphasises he's by no means messing around as the 'Family Guy' creator looks to further stamp his mark on Hollywood with another hit.

Joss Whedon

Marvel are similarly showing no signs of slowing down with Joe and Anthony Russo, directors of 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier', already being tapped up to helm the sequel. 'Thor 3' has also found its writers in the form of Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost; and Joss Whedon is fanning the flames of the fire surrounding 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' by explaining that he has looked to 'The Godfather Part II' for inspiration about how to take his sequel to the next level. Watch This Space.

Also rumours are suggesting that Forest Whitaker is in talks for a role in 'Taken 3'. Trying not to sound pessimistic, this doesn't really excite me. Whilst I think that original 'Taken' was a fabulous film, and re-invented Liam Neeson as a credible movie action-man, I feel this concept could only really be impactful over the course of one film. I haven't watched 'Taken 2' admittedly, but to me it's the exact same premise albeit with roles being swapped around. This makes me feel that Whitaker taking a role in a movie about a third kidnapping could actually be a regretful move on his part; because I feel that any continuation with such ideas will only live in the shadow of the first film, which was brilliant!

Forest Whitaker

The first poster for 'Fifty Shades of Grey' has been released, which will no doubt have housewives up and down the country giggling with glee, despite the film not being released until 2015. I don't get what girls see in him anyway! Here's the poster below.

By the way whoever made this poster must have a screw loose somewhere!

Finally, another promising piece of news circulating today is that Bruce Willis and director M. Night Shymalan could be re-teaming! After they enjoyed success together with 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable' it is thought the duo could once again join forces to bring one of Shymalan's early scripts 'Labor of Love' to the screen, which was shelved by Fox around 1993. An intriguing point about it is that it doesn't seem a traditional movie for either of the pair. It tells the story of a book store owner in Philadelphia who is haunted by the fact that he never properly told his wife how much he loved he before she died in a tragic car accident. Remembering that she once asked if he would walk across the country for her, he decides that this is the only way to show his love for her and proceeds to trek from Philadelphia to Pacifica, her favourite place. So yeah, a bit weird perhaps but it would be nice to see Shymalan regain his hold form after his last two outings 'After Earth' and 'The Last Airbender' (a 4.4 rating on IMDb!) received little fanfare and didn't exactly leave audiences dazzled. That's all I've got for today, hopefully that review of Star Trek should be up by the end of the week!

Cornetto Loses Its Flavour.

The World's End = 54%

So it's Saturday night - it's pouring with rain, you haven't made any plans, and you've got work early in the morning - What do you do? You seek one of the best cures to the halt the 'cabin fever' that quickly consumes you; you stick on a comedy movie and chill out with your family.

By picking 'The World's End', the climactic third act in director Edgar Wright's fabled 'Cornetto Trilogy', I would have put money on the trend continue and uncontrollable laughter filling our household. 'Shaun of the Dead' was fantastic, 'Hot Fuzz' was even better (in my opinion), surely with the third movie Wright along with series mainstays Simon Pegg and Nick Frost were going to up the ante. Sadly, no.

Edgar Wright

Maybe I was disappointed simply because I had built up such high expectation. With the first two installments Wright had a winning formula - a great scripts, and a wonderful British cast to deliver its sharp wit creating non-stop hilarity. For me 'Hot Fuzz' was a non-stop riot of side-splitting laughter, and that's trying to avoid using hyperbole. Comedy zigged and zagged for the whole 2 hours between Pegg and Frost, and its success caused Wright's directorial star to continues its rise up the cinematic ladder.

I thought where 'Hot Fuzz' left off, 'The World's End' would pick up the baton - Unfortunately I was wrong. Without sounding too harsh, it may just be me, the humour almost seemed to evaporate completely. I still can't quite put my finger on why, but often the movie even seemed dull to me. Admittedly it did make me laugh, but very sporadically, and never really in a 'laugh out loud' sense. At places I even found I was forcing myself to laugh, perhaps subconsciously trying to justify my purchase of the DVD for £14.99.

Yes, the cast is still brilliant. Pegg and Frost are fantastic, and their strong friendship off the screen is easily transformed into powerful comedic chemistry. I also appreciated Martin Freeman and Paddy Considine being raised to more effectual roles, but the movie did not do their comedic potential justice. Rosamund Pike and Eddie Marsan were also introduced as 'newcomers' to the trilogy but made no real impact and almost seemed to become bit-part players in a needlessly complicated story.

A good point about this movie is that is shows Wright's ability as a director, ability that will only grow in the coming years. What it lacks in laughs it somewhat makes up for in set-pieces, visual effects and fight-scene choreography. What's even more commendable is that Wright directed this picture on an estimated $28m budget, which is no mean feat! Something this movie has got me excited about is the Marvel studios' 'Ant-Man' due for release in 2015, with Wright in the director's chair. Obviously, Marvel are not an organisation known for doing things by halves and will undoubtedly give Wright a budget in excess of $100m, which is a truly mouth-watering prospect for comic-book fans across the globe!

Reading this review back maybe I will give 'The World's End' another look over, perhaps I've been too hasty. It is humorous, there are an abundance of cleverly orchestrated action sequences that are easy on the eye; and I just can't help but love its delightful cast. Nonetheless, when 'The World's End' could have rounded off 'The Cornetto Trilogy' with a legacy cementing swansong, it concludes on a bit of a bum note.

If I've annoyed you with this review, or you're having a bad day anyway, here's Jonah Hill and Leonardo DiCaprio continuing their blossoming romance to cheer you up!

The Verdict - 'The Wolf of Wall Street' = 84%

If I could sum up 'The Wolf of Wall Street' I would say it's a film that you definitely wouldn't want to watch with your parents. Why you may ask? I'll tell you, Scorsese and DiCaprio's fifth outing together is an unparalleled roller-coaster ride of twists and turns, highs and lows fueled by drugs, alcohol, gambling, hedonism and million dollar business deals. To cut a long story short it might it's incredible! ... but might be a little awkward to watch with your folks around.

Without sounding like I'm jumping on the bandwagon I honestly feel this could be the year that Leonardo DiCaprio breaks his infamous 'Oscar curse'. He is in sensational form as Jordan Belfort, the eponymous 'Wolf'. We first meet Jordan as an innocent 22 year old, a fish out of water in the overwhelming world of the New York stock market, trying to make a name for himself. Over the course of the early 1990s we retrace the Wolf's steps as he transforms from a humble family man to a ruthless, domineering drug addict raking in $49m a year and gallivanting with legions of gorgeous women. However, the fabric of Belfort's success soon begins to unravel as he is pursued by the authorities, becomes consumed by addiction and greed, and is alienated by those closest to him. The way the character self-destructs is captured brilliantly by DiCaprio, he appeals to our empathetic side playing a broken man who couldn't quit while he was ahead. DiCaprio brings raw energy to a role that demands it. He exudes charisma and seamlessly slips into Belfort's 'Wolf' persona conveying his dizzying highs and tormenting lows through his god-given acting talent. If he is overlooked by the Academy this year, cries of 'fix' and 'conspiracy' could very well ring throughout the auditorium.

A match made in heaven (Who would've thought it?)

DiCaprio's job is certainly made a hell of lot easier by the truly delicious cast Scorsese has assembled around him. Also tipped for Oscar success (Best Supporting Actor) is Jonah Hill, playing Belfort's neurotic business partner Donnie Azoff. It was recently revealed that Hill took the SAG's minimum pay of $60,000 for this role, simply because he was desperate to work with Scorsese, one of his heroes. This enthusiasm is immediately apparent as he takes to the role like a duck to water. Hill is now quickly establishing himself as hot property on the Hollywood scene, and distancing himself from his 'gross-out' comedy roots. His chemistry with DiCaprio is effortless and unforced, creating a warm, humorous and believable relationship upon which the movie fundamentally survives. 

Also doing well, although a little underused I felt, is the silver screen's 'Renaissance Man' Matthew McConaughey as broker Mark Hanna who first shows Jordan the ropes. The 'chest-beating' scene is definitely one for the ages! Similarly impressive are Rob Reiner as Jordan's hot-tempered father, Joanna Lumley as Emma his demure and seductive aunt, and P.J. Byrne as 'Rugrat' one  of his 'merry men' in the office ensuring the money, among incalculable line of cocaine, keeps piling up.

Margot Robbie - A future prospect

The performance I really enjoyed however was Margot Robbie as Naomi, Belfort's second wife. Robbie's contribution to the movie is brilliant, and that's not just me speaking as a warm-blooded male. The young Australian beauty conveys incredible emotion and vulnerability as she is tossed back and forth between both ends of Belfort's precarious spectrum. The sheer euphoria of their wedding in the Caribbean and the million dollar yachts, and the plight and terror of being dominated by an increasingly overbearing, drug-dependent, almost bipolar husband. At the tender age of 23 the future certainly looks bright for Robbie. She is already being touted to star as Jane in David Yates' upcoming 'Tarzan', and with performances like this no one will dare question any such casting decisions.

The editing and cinematography, although unorthodox, are also fantastic juxtaposing a sober and intoxicated Belfort beautifully. Scorsese essentially knocks another one out of the ball park, which is no less than anyone expected, and if he can continue to churn out movies of such high caliber in the future he will only further cement  his position as one of cinema's greatest ever directors.

Another triumph for Scorsese

The only criticism I would perhaps make, and I really am being picky here, is the running time. At 3 hours Scorsese's movie incurs, a probably unavoidable mid-movie slump. We see 'The Wolf' make his rise but before the fall begins, I'll admit there was a slight lapse in my concentration. The movie seemed to drop off a little bit before it picked up its exhilarating, high octane drama again. But I'll admit I am just looking for a needle in a hay stack here, a small blip on an otherwise fabulous movie that should definitely leave the Academy 'crying Wolf' at this year's ceremony.

Is it just me or is 'WALL-E' not that great?

Today I got around to watching 'WALL-E', having missed all the box office and Oscar success the first time around in 2008. Although, perhaps controversially, I feel that the movie is slightly sub-par in terms of Pixar's incredibly high standards, despite being offered an incredible 8.5 rating on IMDb ('Toy Story' only has 8.3!). But, reviewing is not my main agenda for blogging today. So I'll wrap it up nice and neatly: 

Verdict = 67%

Obviously Pixar are yet to make a bad movie, and that pattern shows no signs of changing here, but in terms of the Pixar canon ('Toy Story', 'Monsters Inc.', 'Finding Nemo') I felt the little robot with the big googly eyes wasn't quite up to standard. Yes I knew what I was letting myself in for, a robot left to clean up the planet whilst Earth's ancestors wallow away lazily in a space-station until the job's done, but I felt this story might have operated better as a Pixar short.

I've just read on IMDb that the first robot dialogue occurs on the 22 minute mark, with human dialogue not introduced until 39 minutes. The movie establishes itself, and does a decent job, as a visual comedy from the outset with our lovable hero putting bras on his head and playing with paddle toys. I read that director Andrew Stanton actually watched films of silent stars Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton every lunch time for a year and a half just getting ideas for direction. And yes the characters can be empathised with, despite their relative muteness; however I don't feel this is enough to carry the movie alone. After about the 45 minute mark as opposed to giggling I found myself being irritated by the persistent cries of "WALL-E" and "EVE" along with a gazillion other robot sounds.

Anyway that's about as neatly as I can put it: not bad by any stretch of the imagination, it has some good twists too, but for Pixar I feel their form has dropped just a little bit.

Now that's done I can get back to the main issue, and why this movie has made me that extra little bit petty. My frustration peaked when Jeff Garlin's animated 'Captain' appeared on the screen. Now I've nothing against Jeff Garlin (huge fan of 'Daddy Day Care'!), or space-station captains for that matter but this was after we had already seen Fred Willard's CEO 'Shelby Forthright' as a live-action character. I know the movie is set 700 years in the future and the story explains  that humans have evolved and lost bone mass; however I found it too ridiculous to believe that ordinary humans could gradually change into gelatinous CGI blobs. Why was Fred Willard's character made an actual human? Why didn't Andrew Stanton just decide to animate a more traditional looking human? I know I sound petty but I found the whole thing a little distracting and couldn't get my head around why Pixar who are always so right on the money considered it a good idea. I hope they think twice in the future and don't insert footage from 'Jurassic Park' in their upcoming movie 'The Good Dinosaur'.

Why? Why? Why?!

The Verdict - 'I Am Number Four' = 58%

Easily Four-gotten

So, after finishing my college exams on Saturday, this week I've earned myself a little free time before the hard work starts again. Today I finally got around to clearing some space on my Sky+ Planner by deleting some of the movies I had recorded over the Christmas period.

Going out on a limb I decided to start with the 2011 movie 'I Am Number Four', recently shown on BBC Two, starring Alex Pettyfer (he of 'Magic Mike' fame, and the teen spy sensation Alex Rider in 'Stormbreaker' for those of my generation).

Whilst I wasn't wholly disappointed by the film I will admit that I hope the standard of movies I recorded will gradually rise after this one. The film markets itself as "teen sci-fi", I read on IMDb that it wanted to establish itself as a "Twilight for boys", which I though was a bit bizarre. Anyway, Pettyfer's titular 'Number Four' is part of a rare species with special powers who are hiding on Earth. He has fled his planet from the treacherous 'Mogadorians' who are wiping his kind out one by one. There are nine of them in total, our hero is number four, they're being hunted in order ... yep, you guessed his number is up!

They grow up so fast

The film's premise, adapted from a novel, is decent and for a relatively modest budget of $50m D.J. Caruso does a decent job with some commendable special effects. I also enjoyed Pettyfer's performance, in what is first starring role as an adult, he shows great potential. He does a good job of playing the archetypal teenager who just wants to fit in, and be allowed a little more freedom from his mentor Henri (Timothy Olyphant).

Maybe this is why the film didn't quite 'sizzle' for me because the formula feels a little overused. Young male hero who has lost both his parents, being looked after by an uncle-like mentor figure, trying to prove to the pretty girl he's normal all the while enduring the hazing from the local jocks. Without sounding a little harsh this film is basically Sam Raimi's 'Spider-Man' in a different context. 

Another "mishit" I felt were the villainous 'Mogadorians'. Considering the power to vanquish the universe rests in their hands, they never really feel threatening, and for me were almost a little "cartoonish".

Callan McAuliffe

The movie isn't all bad though; as I said it showcases Pettyfer's potential, other performances meet what's expected and there are some solid visual effects on display, notably in the last 20 minutes. Another of the movie's highlights is our hero's unlikely friend Sam (Callan McAuliffe) who introduces some comedy in his role as the "daring sidekick". But at the same time this is not a movie I would be quick to watch again. I didn't dislike the film but it never really thrilled me either. Instead of keeping me on the edge of my seat, I felt the ending could be sensed prematurely. And though it does leave plenty of doors open for a possible sequel, with three years since its release and no announcements made I doubt one is likely. Also I doubt if I'd be one of those in line to buy a ticket.