Having burst onto our screens in 2004 as Kate Austen in Lost, Evangeline Lilly didn't seem to focus on turning small screen success into big screen roles.
Following the shows finale in 2010, Evangeline starred in Real Steel as Bailey Tallet (2011), having previously had a small part in The Hurt Locker (2008) as Jeremy Renner's wife. It seems, however, that the aim has merely been quality rather than quantity. Last year she made a welcome return to our screens in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Here she played Tauriel, and Elven warrior. A character who will make a return this year in the final instalment, The Hobbit: There And Back Again.
Now, the rumour mill has fired up with news of meetings and talks with Marvel Studios. The thinking being that she will be joining Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas in Ant-Man. Slated for 2015 this is the start of Marvel's MCU Phase 3, and is being helmed by Edgar Wright.
We know that Michael Douglas is going to be Hank Pym, and Paul Rudd will be Scott Lang/Ant Man. Which led initially to the thinking that she would play Janet Van Dyne, aka Wasp. This would fit nice and snug with the Ant-Man story, as well as giving us another member of The Avengers in time for the 3rd Avengers film.
When Ant-Man was first announced and Edgar Wright was unveiled as director, there was speculation that Mary Elizabeth Winstead may join the project, and that she may have taken on the role of Wasp. Nothing further came of it, and this may now be dead in the water.
Another rumour is that we could see the introduction of Spider-Woman. As a character who has ties, not only to Ant-Man, but to S.H.I.E.L.D and HYDRA, this might not be so far off the mark. Talk of rights ownership immediately surfaced due to Sony owning the rights to Spider-Man. I can't imagine it being an issue though, even though similarly named, they are different characters. Unless their rights are somehow tied together in a way that we don't know about.
Either way, it looks as though Evangeline Lilly may be the latest addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Sorry about the last post. I am currently in the process of getting my blog verified with Technorati. One of the few things I am trying to do to increase my blogs visibility. I've also had a play around with the formatting, and I'm currently in the process of trying to set up a bespoke site for the blog. Trying to wrap my grey matter around HTML and CSS may take a little while though, but we'll see how it goes.
In the meantime, I would love to hear any thoughts or suggestions on the way it looks. I want to make sure it's easy enough to read, so if there are any issues in that department let me know.
Remakes, reboots, and re-imaginings have long been a hot topic, and the flames will be fanned once more with the recent release of RoboCop. Starring Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton and Samuel L. Jackson, this is a remake of the 1987 film of the same name.
It's safe to say that your opinion of this film will be greatly influenced by whether or not you were around for the original. I was, and when I first saw and heard that a remake was in development and being filmed, I was dismayed. The original RoboCop was simple, and brilliant. Even a massively troubled production and the compromises made to even receive an R rating in the States didn't stop it. The original film was heavily cut for both film and television, if you watch the director's cut you will get a real taste of Verhoeven's vision.
For those not familiar with the RoboCop story, the main element remains unchanged. Detective Alex Murphy is mortally wounded and brought back as our metallic titular character.
The Man vs. Machine element is obviously still present. It would be impossible for it not to be, this is RoboCop after all. This time around however, it has a more global feel. Unmanned drones are being used to bring an American brand of peace to the Middle East, but the idea of unmanned drones on American soil is one the public and politicians are not keen on.
We still have to massive corporation in the form of OmniCorp, with an OCP name drop towards the end to hint at further franchise action. They're still as corrupt, and it's still left to RoboCop to sort things out. The difference being that Murphy is aware of who he is. He is still very much controlled by OmniCorp, but his humanity is something they are using to further their agenda with integrating unmanned drones into the U.S.
Elements like Murphy's awareness, and OmniCorp's global reach are nice refreshing changes. It's nice to see that they've put a stamp of their own on this remake. Modernising and making it relevant to audiences today, the media spinning and cover ups being a very topical theme. All whilst keeping the core elements of the original. There are several places where new pays respect to old ("I wouldn't buy that for a dollar"), which certainly made me very happy.
Two very special mentions to Samuel L. Jackson and Hocus Pocus by Focus. Firstly, Jackson's character Pat Novak. Novak is a talk show host who has the opening and closing scenes of the film. His commentary throughout the film is, for me, what gives a satirical edge very similar to that of the original. It almost seems like Novak's journey through the film is a little poke of fun at some of the more Republican views of the U.S.
Secondly, the use of Hocus Pocus during a great action sequence, during which RoboCop is given a final test against a great many drones is just genius.
Overall, I have to say that RoboCop has to be one of the best remakes I have seen to date. One to watch whether you were around for the original or not.
Lone Survivor is a military action thriller telling the story of the doomed Operation Red Wings. Directed by Peter Berg, it stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Ben Foster, Emile Hersch and Eric Bana.
Before going to see the film, I'd heard lots of positive things about it. There were two things that I was concerned about though. Peter Berg in the director's chair, and the American military source material. Peter Berg's last directorial outing that dealt with the American military was Battleship. A dire film that contained one of the most ulceratingly jingoistic scenes in recent memory.
I understand that my being British, and not of military background means my perspective and opinion on the above scene is skewed. However, the entire film is a 131 minute tribute to the American Navy. Making the above 3 minutes completely unnecessary. A view that I am not entirely alone in having:
Anyway, I digress, so before I go off on a Battleship hating rant, let's bring it back to Lone Survivor. Where were we, yes, my reservations, as above. To my delight, my reservations were unwarranted. The film has the correct level of American heroism (they do not sweep all before them in a fiery wrath of hi tech weaponry), and even includes some non American heroism. It even manages to have a strong, multicultural, moral theme.
Based on actual events, and a book of the same name. Lone Survivor is a dramatic retelling of Operation Red Wings that took place on June 28, 2005. The aim of the mission was to locate, capture and kill a Taliban bad guy by the name of Ahmad Shah. Aiming to be quickly and quietly in then out, a small recon team of 4 was selected. They would be dropped off by helicopter several kilometres away, before hiking to the target area to locate Shah. Once Shah had been located and killed they would then radio for extraction.
Everything was going according to plan, right up until they reached the compound where Shah was hiding out. Then events took a turn for the worse, and 2 things mess up the whole operation. Firstly, the mountainous terrain stops them from using their radios to communicate with the base. Secondly, goat herders come across their location. They capture the goat herders, but then have the moral dilemma of whether to kill them and continue the mission, or release them and run.
Earlier in the film, during their mission briefing, the Seals talk about the Rules of Engagement (ROE). For U.S. Forces, the rules of engagement state:
"When U.S. Forces are attacked by unarmed hostile elements, mobs and/or rioters,
U.S. Forces should use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances, and proportional to the threat."
Two of the four Seals say they should eliminate the compromise and continue with the mission. The target has killed other Seals and they believe he should be eliminated at all costs. A third believes that the only thing to do is to follow the ROE and release the herders. Even if it means abandoning the mission. The team captain is conflicted, but finally agrees with the third Seal and they release the hostages.
One of the herders immediately runs to the Taliban to alert them, and they make short work of catching up to the Seals. The Seals are still struggling to make radio contact with their base so are left with no choice but to engage in a gun battle of four against many times their number. Severely outnumbered, the Seals get their arses kicked in a very brutal and graphic way. Imagine Black Hawk Down to the power of ten. Like Black Hawk Down, Lone Survivor still has an element of behind the scenes logistics hindering a rescue attempt, helicopter's being redeployed etc. However this plays a less prominent role. The focus in Lone Survivor is very much on the four man Seal Team on the ground.
As the title would suggest, there comes a point where only one of the Seals remains. Badly injured, and struggling to evade capture the Lone Survivor comes across a group of people who he assumes are Taliban. They are in fact Pashtun villagers, who take him in and protect him against the Taliban until he can be rescued by the Americans.
The film opens with actual footage of Seals in training, and closes with text explaining the code of the Pashtun Villagers which requires them to protect someone against their enemies no matter what the cost. A code similar to the ROE the Seals adhere to. This nicely encapsulates the strong morale theme of the film, a morality shared by both cultures. Following on from Battleship, this is a nice, and unexpected element from Peter Berg's film.
The film had been in development for quite some time, and with a budget of $40m, is not quite the heavyweight in budgetary terms of other films of it's type. If we again take Black Hawk Down as an example. A film made 13 years earlier that had a budget of $92m.
To ensure it went ahead, Mark Wahlberg, Peter Berg and several other members of the production team gave $1m each of their own money to get things started. To help further reduce production costs, Peter Berg took only the minimum salary allowed as director, in accordance with the Director's Guild of America. Many of the cast and crew also lowered their asking prices for wages as well. It's great to hear that in a world where budgets can be inflated by wages to the detriment of the production, that so many of the people involved were willing to make this sacrifice in order to tell this story.
Whilst there are undoubtedly dramatic embellishments on the actual accounts of what happened within the film, it doesn't go overboard. There are even differences of opinion in the real life account of events. In the heat of combat, such things are sure to happen. Regardless of this, the film that they have made as a result is compelling and a must watch. I also encourage anyone watching the film to also read up on the actual events of Operation Red Wings. A great example of morality being upheld even during war.
Late in 2013 came the terribly sad news that we had lost the fantastic Tom Clancy. Starting with his novels, he went on to create Red Storm Entertainment who were responsible for groundbreaking titles such as Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell (although this title was released under Ubisoft who by that time had bought Red Storm Entertainment). Clancy was a historian as well as an author, and this introduced a level of detail and military realism to his fiction never before experienced by many.
Tom Clancy's work had been brought to the big screen as early as 1990 with The Hunt for Red October. A film that also introduced film goers to the character of Jack Ryan, someone who features heavily in Tom Clancy's literature. With the release of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Ryan has been played by 4 different actors including, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck. Chris Pine is latest in that line, and is also the first to star in an original film not based directly on a Clancy novel.
Shadow Recruit is something of an origins film. Portraying Jack Ryan's induction into the CIA. At the beginning of the film we join Jack in his studies at the London School of Economics. The opening sequence shows Jack, among others, discovering on the news of the Twin Tower attacks of 9/11. As a result, Jack drops out of school and joins the Marines where he is badly injured when his helicopter is shot down during a tour of Afghanistan. During his time in the Marines his analytical abilities are noticed, and whilst in medical rehab he is visited by Thomas Harper (played by Kevin Costner) who recruits him into the CIA. He also meets his future fiancee Cathy (played by Kiera Knightley).
Ryan is sent back to school to finish his PhD before being sent undercover to work as a compliance officer at a brokerage on Wall Street. There he will use his cover to search for suspect market trading that would indicate terrorist activity. Some such activity leads him to Moscow investigating transactions of a company faced by Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh, who also directs). An attempted assassination on Ryan forces him to turn from analyst to field operative. A transition made even more difficult when Cathy arrives in Moscow to check up on Ryan as she suspects he is cheating on her.
I am a huge fan of Tom Clancy, and grew up reading his books.... a lot. As a fan of his books I can honestly say that the film is a success. It was as thrilling to watch as his books are to read, and even though the story of the film is in itself original. They remain sympathetic to Jack Ryan as a character, and Chris Pine does an excellent job. This film will give you exactly what it sets out to give you. An edge of your seat, espionage thriller. Even more importantly, it sets up the prospect of a franchise (Kevin Costner has apparently been signed on a 2 film deal with him set to star in Without Remorse, a film currently in development. More on that another time), without leaving a raft of unanswered questions along with a cliffhanger that runs the risk of never being resolved. The prospect of seeing more Jack Ryan on our screens in the near future is one that fills me with excitement.
With box office takings currently around the $80 million mark, it has already made back it's $60 million budget. So further films seem very likely.
Not to be confused with the 2009 straight to video slasher film, Hit and Run is a romantic road trip, comedy released in 2012, starring Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell and Bradley Cooper.
A friend of mine asked me the other day if I had seen this film, and whilst I remember it being released, I hadn't had chance to see it at the cinema. Though through the majesty of Netflix that was soon remedied. My friend was wanting my opinion on the film. After watching it he felt that it had potential but he that it was missing something, and that something was what would make it great.
I agree that Hit and Run has great potential, and there are some very good moments in it. Many sources list it as an action comedy, but I think the romantic element is it's most affable quality. This is Shepard and Bell's second film together since they became a couple in 2007, the first being 'When In Rome'. With Shepard being writer and director for this latter outing I feel it allows their natural chemistry to shine through. The film experiences most of it's success in the exploration of their relationship, falling in love, and how that can be effected by what you do or don't know about a person.
Shepard plays Charlie Bronson, who lives in the middle of nowhere under witness protection having been witness to an armed bank robbery. There he meets and falls in love with Bell's character Annie Bean, a teacher who gets the job offer of a lifetime in LA. Charlie however, moved away from LA as part of the witness protection program to avoid our bad guy Alex Dmitri, played by Bradley Cooper. Although Charlie was a witness against Alex, Alex avoided a long jail sentence due to Charlie's involvement as the getaway driver. A fact that Annie doesn't know about to begin with. Knowing the job offer is the opportunity of a lifetime, Charlie takes Annie to LA for her interview. Soon, however, both end up on the run from Alex after he finds out that Charlie has arrived back in town. As the film, and the chase, goes on, Annie uncovers more about Charlie's past. Beginning to question if she can still love a person she realises she doesn't know much about.
Shepard does a great job of making the film fun. I think this is in large part due to the female lead being his now wife, and the multitude of fast cars and car chases. A petrol head and motorcycle racer, Dax must have loved all of the car chase scenes in the film. Getting the rare opportunity to have his cake, and eat it.
My only real criticism of the film is when we uncover the true nature of the relationship between Charlie and Alex, Alex as a bad guy becomes less sinister. Although this in turn makes the focus more on Charlie and Annie's relationship issues. While this is where the films strength lies, it also highlights the fact that the film would be much improved if we got to explore that changing relationship further. Many of the films highlights come from the dialogue between Charlie and Annie.
Definitely watchable if you haven't seen it already. Especially for a date night.
