We have our next superhero: Ryan Reynolds cast as The Green Lantern

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

And then there was one.

After an intense months-long search, Warner Bros. has settled on Ryan Reynolds as its choice to play “Green Lantern,” the studio’s live-action tentpole based on the DC Comics hero. The film is being directed by Martin Campbell and produced by Donald De Line and Greg Berlanti.

Reynolds and his camp entered negotiations for the part Friday, after the studio held two rounds of screen tests, along with actors Bradley Cooper and Jared Leto. Justin Timberlake also did a screen test.
.
The studio had holding options on the actors, but, except for Reynolds, those expired Monday. Reynolds’ option would have expired end of day Friday.

One reason for the long search was De Line, Campbell and the studio each had a different favorite among the finalists, making it difficult to come to a consensus.

If the deal is completed, it would make Reynolds the only actor to have played heroes for both Marvel and DC. He recently starred in a comic book movie, Fox's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," where he played "the merc with a mouth" Deadpool. The character is now being developed for a spin-off to which Reynolds is attached. He also played Marvel’s vampire hunter Hannibal King in “Blade: Trinity.”

“Lantern” is actually Reynold’s second stab at a DC Comics hero. A few years ago, he was attached to play the comic company’s speedster “The Flash.”

"Bruno" - REVIEW

It's safe to say that Sacha Baron Cohen has no shame. It's also safe to say that he isn't afraid to put himself into situations where he often seems just one wrong move from being shot. In 2006 he shocked and traumatized us with "Borat", hilariously (and disturbingly) using stereotypes to show people's secret and not so secret prejudices. Just shy of three years later, and he's at it again, this time with results that lead more toward shocking than hilarious. Now he's transformed into Bruno, a gay Austrian fashionista, who after some personal setbacks decides to make it big in America. From his ill-fated attempt to start a TV show, to his journey to "become straight", to his plan to seduce Ron Paul (yes, that Ron Paul), the situations this man puts himself in are nothing short of jaw-dropping. However, where Bruno suffers is in its determination to shock rather than shock and make us laugh, and that it has more staged bits. Granted, "Borat" had plenty of staged bits, but within the context of the film they felt real. Now, things like Bruno's conversation with his Pygmy lover are knowingly fake, and it detracts from the faux-documentary style. As for the laughs, there are plenty, but they don't hit as hard those in "Borat", even at their best. More impressive than the entire film is Cohen himself, who can hold character and improvise in akward situations (interviewing the head of a terrorist group, meeting with top government officials from Palestine and Israel while confusing Hamas with Hummus, etc...). The man knows how to fully immerse himself in his ridiculous characters even when it brings physical harm to him. But unfortunately, this isn't always enough, and while "Bruno" certainly does provide some laughs and some unbelievably disturbing moments, now that we know what to expect, perhaps it's time that Baron Cohen retire these characters and quit while he's still ahead.

Grade: B-

Poster, and red and green-band trailers for Diablo Cody's horror-comedy "Jennifer's Body"

"The Wolfman" heads for re-shoots...and new VFX work?

Source: Slashfilm.com

According to new information from Baz Bamigboye at The Daily Mail, there have been six weeks of reshoots in total, and part of the purpose in the fix-up was the present a new design of Wolfman. Bamigboye quotes an ‘actor’ working on the film as saying “the Wolf was on its heels and it looked daft” and describes the new-look lycanthrope as tougher and fiercer.

The report also confirms that stunt supervisor Vic Armstrong created a face-off between two hairy men for this new material, calling them “the Wolf Man and the Werewolf”. What’s the difference there? Can we divine any plot details from these two, varied handles?

It seems to be being suggested that second-unit director Armstrong was in control of these six weeks of reshooting, with Joe Johnston “back in LA for the past five weeks overseeing the special effects and computer-generated images”. Personally, I don’t think is cause for concern, but I know some will.

Bamigboye looked to the studio for a comment on the new material:

Last night Universal confirmed that additional sequences were shot. ‘The full articulation of the transformational lead character will be realised when the film is completed and we are excited to share his incredible look with the world in the upcoming trailer. ‘I think that means yes, they screwed up the first time.

He might be reading too much into their statement there. I’m sure we’ll judge whether or not they’ve screwed up second time when the trailer hits.

Benicio Del Toro returned to Pinewood for the reshoots with Emily Blunt working “three or four weekends” between full weeks on Gulliver’s Travels and Anthony Hopkins unable to return to the UK at all and therefore doing his “additional filming” in LA. Here’s hoping that all cuts together OK.

One thing I can’t find out is how involved Rick Baker has been with this redesign. Are we really to assume that a Rick Baker wolf looked silly and Universal have had to scrap it and fix it? Either Baker dropped the ball here or his design has been muscled out unnecessarily - a disappointment in any case. Here’s hoping he was at least responsible for the second version too.

Red band trailer: "Funny People"

"Public Enemies" - REVIEW

There were probably two different ways to tell the John Dillenger story. The first: the awards conteder way, filled with backstory (most notably flashbacks of Dillenger as a boy) and deep contemplative moments meant to draw one deep into the inner workings of Dillenger's head. The second: the summer movie for grown ups, wherein backstory and tremendous depth are cut out, in favor of a dark, straightforward, tale that goes straight to the good stuff. Clearly, Michael Mann, in what I would like to label as a return to form (though plenty will disagree) has opted for the second option. Though Dillenger (Johnny Depp) does briefly tell Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) that his father beat him, we never go into any disturbing flashbacks or moments where Dillenger stares and is haunted by something in his past. No, instead it's straight to the good stuff, right from the opening sequence.

The first words on the screen, instead of a long winded, pretentious scroll about the state of America in the 1930s, cut right to the chase: it's the Great Depression, and people like John Dillenger are thriving while others struggle and fall. Cut to a prison in Indiana, where we see Dillenger and some cohorts fake an arrest in order to get inside the jail, only to smuggle weapons in, and bust out their captured comrades. From the beginning, if there's one thing that stands out, it's not the acting, but the visuals. Shot entirely with HD Digital handheld cameras and then remastered for big screens, the camera work is often slightly shaky or in-your-face and certain scenes have quite a grainy look to them. It's an interesting experiment, and surprisingly, it's not a failure; sometimes it works quite well. Some of the shifting, tilting shots from alongside a speeding car are beautfully done, and it helps lend a sense of uncertainty during gun fights. Sound is a different matter however, and this is where the limitations of these cameras show. Gun fire is one thing; anytime someone pulls a trigger it's like a blast of fireworks going off (in a good way). Dialogue is another. Particularly in the early scenes, dialogue ranges from near-unintelligible to extremely quiet. Pray that you're watching this with a quiet audience. But like most things in "Public Enemies", from the writing to the acting, they get better as the film progresses through its 2 hr. 20 min run time. Depp in particular gets to shine, albeit in a less flashy way compared to some of his other recent roles, in later scenes when things start to go South for Dillenger. Cotillard is the same way. For a good portion of the movie, she might seem like she was just doing solid work in an underwritten role, but like Depp, the end is kinder to her than the beginning, allowing her to flex her acting muscles a bit more (however, she is a VERY supporting character, and does not get to do as much acting wise). Sadly, Bale, the last of the significant characters, along with the supporting cast including Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover, Giovani Ribisi, and Leelee Sobieski, don't. As much time as Bale has on screen, he never quiet breaks any new ground with his character over the course of the story. His performance isn't bad, but it never gets any of the those quiet moments to shine like his two main co-stars.

On the technical and artistic front, just about everything is first rate. The camera work with the HD handhelds is mostly strong, ranging from shaky closeups to controlled, elegant wide shots, and there are times when the visuals seem to lose all graininess and become strikingly clear and beautiful. Production design and costumes are all first rate in how they recreate the 1930s. But from the artistic despartment, it's Elliot Goldenthal's score that impresses the most. Remniscent of the score from Mann's "The Insider", it's not exactly the type of music one might expect to hear in this hard boiled gangster tale, but it works extremely well at bringing out the mood of the scenes; scenes that might have been left feeling a bit empty had the music not been there.

So at the end of the day, where does "Public Enemies" stand as a whole? I definately liked it, and as I said, it got better as it went on. However, it's not quite great, and again, this is in part due to the decision to focus 100% on Dillenger the gangster. Without deeper insight, "Public Enemies" can't soar high enough to break from "very good" into "excellent". It's a worthy addition to Michael Mann's canon, and certainly his best film since "The Insider" in 1999, but what keeps it from ranking up there with "The Insider" is that it falls short of being truly compelling; if only it had tried to soar a little higher...

Grade: B+

New "Inglourious Basterds" poster