#yes it is nicholas hoult's version

[i-only-write-in-purple-ink]

Dracula literally took one look at this scrunkly bug-eater and said "ah yes, the perfect servant"

The Master's Song

[agentnico]

Renfield (2023) Review

Finally we have a sequel to the 1988 masterpiece that is Vampire’s Kiss, that spawned generations worth of meme material and then some, and gave us a Nicolas Cage so unhinged, even for Nicolas Cage! It only took them 35 years, but now we get Cage as the actual vampire. Wonderful. As for those who haven’t seen Vampire’s Kiss - seek it out. It’s an amalgamation of weird, funny, silly, creepy and bat-shit (pardon the pun) crazy, and its about Cage THINKING he’s a vampire. It’s honestly amazing! Anyway, now let’s see him play an actual vamp.

Plot: Renfield, the tortured aide to his narcissistic boss, Dracula, is forced to procure his master's prey and do his every bidding. However, after centuries of servitude, he's ready to see if there's a life outside the shadow of the Prince of Darkness.

Those who know me are probably aware that I have a particular affinity to the man, the myth, the legend that is Nicolas Cage. I truly believe the man is great. With the way he uses German expressionism to deliver performances that to the casual viewer may seem over-the-top ridiculous and unnatural, but in reality is him giving it his absolute all deliver roles that are so unique and unlike anything else one has ever seen. I’m not simply talking about Vampire’s Kiss here. I mean, pick any film from his filmography - you have Face/Off, there’s Mandy, of course Con Air, The Rock...the list goes on. Even when he’s in a blatantly terrible movie such as The Wicker Man remake, he somehow comes out on top at the end with everyone loving him and quoting his lines endlessly. I mean, everyone knows the memorable scene where Cage is being tortured with a wire mesh helmet filled with bees, prompting his oft-parodied line, "Not the bees!" The man is great! He truly cares for the acting craft and is so shamelessly willing to go above and beyond in every role. 

Now the time has come for Nicolas Cage to take on a role that was a long time coming - Count Dracula. Look, I’m not going to waste your time here, Cage is fantastic as Dracula. He obviously steals the show by truly embodying the famous Bram Stoker creation. He is indeed over-acting 100%, but for this version of the character in a horror-action-comedy he is perfect. He’s everything I wanted from Nicolas Cage playing Dracula, and look, if you like Cage’s brand you will love him in this. If you don’t, then maybe just don’t go see Renfield. Easy choice there. But the way he uses mannerisms and maniacal facial movements in this movie make you truly enamoured and entertained whenever he’s on screen. A particular highlight moment is when Dracula visits Renfield in his studio apartment having caught him out on a lie, and his sarcastic delivery of every line is truly some of the funniest stuff I’ve seen all year, and I’ve watched Cocaine Bear! Also shout-out to the make-up department too, as the way the make Cage’s Dracula look in this movie, particularly in the earlier scenes when he is recovering from the burns of sunlight and you see the skin on his face half peeled off, that’s some great practical effects. 

So yes, Nicolas Cage is obviously Renfield’s main selling point. However the titular character himself is played by Nicholas Hoult who too is actually really well realised, with Hoult giving an adorably innocent character performance in his demeanour, all the while also managing to rip people’s heads and arms off left and right, yet still somehow being adorable whilst doing so? Yep, quite the paradox. Speaking of ripping off limbs, there is a hell of a lot of gore in this. I mean proper over the top comic violence where there are literally geysers of the red stuff splattering all over the screen. It’s as if Tarantino walked on set and was like “you guys may not have any feet shots, but boy are you gonna blast some blood!“ Honestly, it’s like Django Unchained all over again. Kind of felt a bit video-game like, with some anime tendencies due to all the madness. 

As for what I didn’t like. Awkwafina - I do apologise for those who are a fan of hers, but I just cannot warm to her in any of her roles. I find her super annoying, and not simply due to her voice, and in here she does the same shtick she always does. And in reality, her entire side-plot in this movie about being a cop fighting against corruption - why was that in the movie? Goodness, I’ve just reminded myself of that Key & Peele sketch about Gremlins 2 where Jordan Peele constantly says “THAT’S BRILLIANT, THAT’S IN THE MOVIE, DONE!!” But yes, all the scenes inn the police precinct felt like they were part of a different movie that had nothing to do with what was going on. All the stuff with Dracula and Renfield’s toxic relationship is great, however all the cop stuff was unneeded. 

Overall Renfield is a silly horror comedy that doesn’t take itself seriously, and simply gives us some stupid entertainment. I had a blast - Nic Cage is great, Nic Hoult was fun, the gore was mental, there were some hilarious moments of dialogue. Ben Schwartz AKA Jean Ralphio plays a mobster/spoiler son brat in this and has some of the funniest lines. Arguably Schwartz is even more over the top than Cage in this movie, and that’s saying something! Renfield is a great time at the movies, as long as you’re willing to embrace its goofy gothic style and lack of seriousness. And Nic Cage fans will have a hoot.

Overall score: 7/10

[doamarierose-honoka]

Director James Gunn sent a video message to attendees of CinemaCon in Las Vegas during the Warner Bros. panel yesterday, revealing that the cast of the upcoming “Superman” movie will be attending CinemaCon 2025 to “kick off the summer of Superman.”

Also appearing in the video message were David Corenswet (Superman/Clark Kent) and co-star Rachel Brosnahan (Lois Lane) who jokingly passed on a “spoiler” by saying, “Can we disclose something? There’s a man in a cape. Yes, there’s at least one man in a cape. Here they heard it first”.

At the end of the video the film’s official Superman “S” shield was shown, revealing a red and gold version of the emblem reminiscent of the symbol seen in the “Kingdom Come” graphic novel written by Mark Waid and illustrated by Alex Ross.

The cast of “Superman” features David Corenswet as Superman/Clark Kent, Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane, Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, Skyler Gisondo as Jimmy Olsen, Sara Sampaio as Eve Teschmacher, Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner/Green Lantern, Isabela Merced as Hawkgirl, Edi Gathegi as Mister Terrific, Anthony Carrigan as Metamorpho, and María Gabriela de Faría as The Engineer.

Directed by James Gunn, “Superman” is scheduled to be released July 11, 2025.

[zoophagist]

Do you have any hopes/predictions for the upcoming movie?

ooc;; predictions? maybe. hopes? ... in spite of much, yes :')

i'm already committed to see it, but i'm also worried about how it will be, given the trailer and the earlier comments from creatives about the hyper-violent comedy angle. i'm full of worry that they're going to go for that snarky superhero writing style and not embrace how truly weird and fun this could be...

but you want to know about hopes and predictions :) here are some of my thoughts!

i'm hopeful that there will be lots of references to dwight frye's incarnation of renfield, being based around the '31 film.

i think nicholas hoult was a really good pick for that type of renfield. i see it for sure just looking at his other work, and i do like him as an actor, so i'm hopeful that he'll bring an interesting characterization (but i do worry from the trailer that the script may be working against any acting chops he's bringing...).

i'm predicting a lot of marvel style action scenes that... honestly i don't want to see, but... will almost certainly take up a good chunk of the run time.

but i hope that we'll get some kind of interesting backstory for renfield too! pinning the movie on him and his relationship to dracula means we can make it a storytelling priority to explain how he met dracula, what he was like before that, and what exactly he feels about dracula

since they're going for some like... popeye angle of "eat bug, get super strength" i'm hoping for an absolutely bonkers explanation of that. like. it's not the choice i would have made for bringing in the bugs, but if we're doing it, please make it as freaky and fun as possible. please explain the bug powers.

hoping for some 'that's my wife' energy from his love interest. she is a cop, so that's not a great start :/ but i feel like when your male protagonist naturally has such wet cat energy, folks love to throw a kickass woman at him. and rolling my eyes though i am at the Implications™ of framing drac/ren as humorously pseudo-romantic and then giving renfield a female love interest who's Better For Him..... i do also enjoy the idea of renfield with a absolute powerhouse of a woman. but like. universal renfield is also one of the queerest coded renfields ever. and bi people exist (hello hi that's me) but that specific renfield is often seen as just... such a gay man, it just seems wild to give him a woman love interest. so. this aspect is probably going to be messy all over and i don't know if i'll be able to get into it given the weird vibes it may have of "pulled from my toxic GAY relationship by a good, wholesome straight love" but by god please at least let it have 'that's my wife"'energy if it's going to be there.

next hope is just "please god let me be wrong about the above Saved By Straight vibe and let it not be the case at all!!" i mean maybe... maybe he and the cop won't even date, who can say...

possibly i missed some verbage saying this outright, so if i'm stating the obvious sorry about it, but the trailer has some set dressing that implies they're set in new orleans (mulate's cajun restaurant) and i'm hopeful this will be a really fun place to drop dracula and renfield into! (maybe we get lucky and see a vampire chronicles joke?)

and i hope most of all that more casual watchers take away an interest in renfield and learn more about other versions of him! we're right on the heels of dracula daily so i know so, so deeply that more interest doesn't always mean good interest, and people come up with the weirdest takes about my favorite little flyman, but i'm hopeful at least it may turn a few more eyes onto other renfields. :) like me. :)

that's all i can think of at the moment, but i mean i have a myriad of thoughts stewing on this movie... i will be there on opening night, i'm gonna tell you that. so hope the followers are ready to hear about it. i'd also love to hear what others think we might see! please do share your own predictions either in the notes or in my askbox!!

[kartbanana]

Watch x men apocalypse free online 123

#Watch x men apocalypse free online 123 movie

If you love X-Men, as well as apocalyptic superhero movies, then this is the film for you. Would you recommend it? Of course! Like I said, it may not top the previous X-Men films but that doesn't mean it is terrible. Also, the way Apocalypse murders people is pretty brutal and frightening. We see his past and his present and why he turned into a dark and yet powerful supervillain. It almost felt as he was the main antagonist in this film. We also get more connected with Magneto and why he hates humanity so much. There is a lot of death and depressing moments you will feel. He acts like a wild animal and slashes anyone who gets in his way and even this guy who begged Wolverine for mercy got his face ripped off! How dark is this film? It is actually pretty dark. In the 1980s the X-Men must defeat an ancient all-powerful mutant, En Sabah Nur, who intends to thrive through bringing destruction to the world. With James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult. It is also based on the real weapon x origin of Wolverine. X-Men: Apocalypse: Directed by Bryan Singer. Is Wolverine in this? Yes! He may have a small cameo but it is a damn excellent cameo! When Wolverine enters the screen, the film basically transforms into an R-Rated action scene. I could basically compare this Apocalypse to a wimp who cosplays as Apocalypse with really good make up. If he was CGI like Thanos from Guardians of the Galaxy, he would've looked more threatening and tyrannical. How is Apocalypse the character? Honestly, I feel that Apocalypse was a little weaker than his comic version. And yes, Quicksilver returns and tops his amazing scene from X-Men: Days of Future's Past. We also have many amazing recurring members from the previous movies such as the young Professor X who was amazing, a slight older Magneto, Mystique who is also a little older and Beast who is still young as ever. We have a younger version of Cyclops, Jean, Nightcrawler and Storm. Are the younger versions of the X-Men in this film? Yes.

#Watch x men apocalypse free online 123 movie

You decide whether the movie is good or not. Don't be scared to see the movie all because critics are making this movie look bad, go see it for yourself for your own opinion. How good is this movie? It may not top the previous X-Men movies but that doesn't mean the movie is terrible. I will say specific parts that I loved and thought about this film and how I would recommend it. I have always loved superhero movies about the end of days. I was so hyped when I heard they were creating an X-Men movie with Apocalypse in it. I loved all the X-Men movies, including X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

[mcmusing]

Why does Erik look so apprehensive? Worst case, just move the soldier dudes out of the way like bowling pins. Come on, metal man, you're not supposed to wussify until the end of dofp.

For all the members of fandom living their personal truth that they are these liberated, open-minded, progressive figures of inclusivity and conquerors of oppression just like the cinematic version of Erik Lehnsherr- they don't make a shovel big enough to scoop up that ludicrous load of bs. No, there is nothing revolutionary about your worldview and even less so about Erik's. You're more than likely obsessive cherik fans scraping lower than the bottom of the barrel to give any justification to a pairing, deep down, you know is sick and wrong. That and/or you feel/have felt marginalized in life, so if the narrative tells you to project onto a suavely handsome, blue-eyed, six-foot lip-service Jew as your avatar to 'rise up against the man' then by dingy, you're gonna do it. If that same narrative tells you that the short, slightly pudgy but wealthy whitey who has so many untreated mental and emotional issues to the point that his only loved one is a creepy blue burglar, then by jelly-belly, you're gonna single him out as 'the man'.

No, I didn't get a sudden yearn to mock cherik fans. I could do a full comedy club act- or twelve- worth of material on them, but no, that's not my intent. I bring all of this up because after First Class premiered, the crew along with fandom tried to push the notion that the events in Cuba were absolutely necessary. Charles Xavier simply 'had to' be paralyzed and abandoned bleeding by his sister and Shaw's surrogate son. Without these catastrophic tragedies heaped upon him, Charles never would have learned a thing about misery, respecting other people's experiences and ideas, and generally, how cruel the world can be. So, I respect freedom of expression. Now, respect mine as I declare that I would love nothing more than to beat anyone riding this incomprehensibly stupid train of thought with a great big bag of bricks.

People, seriously, stop confusing 'intent' with 'coherent story structure'. The production team behind the X-movies are overflowing with the former but execute too little of the latter to compute. Yes, they had the intent to make Charles come off as a well-meaning but very naive young man with a privileged lifestyle that prevents him from being able to relate to anyone below his class station as well as people who are able to catch a tan without being burned alive. One problem. Their story structure was not only underdeveloped, it did the direct opposite of what they wanted to portray. It blows my mind how many lightyears they missed the mark on this.

No, this isn't me being a diehard Charles fan. With Patrick Stewart and the animated versions, I cared about him as the team mentor. With James McAvoy, I cared about him as Charles Xavier. No, I don't have some obsessive crush on James, either. Never even heard of the guy- or any of these people- until FC. Believe it or not, it is possible to admire a man's talents without starring him in your own erotic headcanon.

I have no idea how he did it. I don't know how his production team, totally accidentally, did it but wow! James McAvoy took the normally stale, preachy 'do-gooder' of the group and made him not only the deepest character in the series but one of the best protagonists featured in 21st century cinema. And he did it while sharing the screen with standard strapping Hollywood hunks like Michael Fassbender, Hugh Jackman, and Nicholas Hoult.

It's odd how anyone could view Charles as some vapid spoiled kid when, as soon as we're introduced to him, we see that he's self-sufficent. He doesn't call a parent or butler to investigate a potential burglar but goes to defend his home by himself. When he sees the weird intruder's natural blue form, he's mesmerized and vows to take care of her on the spot. In doing so, he most certainly had to place a load of telepathic strain on himself to, essentially, rewrite all of Xavier family history to explain the presence of a sister without raising suspicions.

It's a reasonable theory that meeting Raven solidified Charles' desire to become a professor. By the time we see them as young adults, both are more advanced in their powers than mutants they would later meet. Even though Raven pretends she can't help slipping sometimes- as a means to explain away her impish antics- it's shown that she can maintain a normal guise even during a crisis. Charles is able to control his telepathy after consuming large amounts of alcohol.

Charles' integrity and aspirations for the future speak volumes. While he could very easily kick back and do the playboy bit, he not only wants to work but wishes to teach. Instead of making use of his fortune or mentally manipulating his way into a PhD, Charles undergoes as much exam stress as the next Oxford lad. This makes him come off as more human and relatable without shining a spotlight on himself about it.

Compare this to how Raven spends her time. For whatever reason, instead of pursuing college herself, she becomes a waitress and makes that known very matter-of-factly. Ironically, adopted child Raven fits the part of a privileged youth trying to appear in touch with the common folk. As if she wants a medal for taking a job away from a starving scholarship student while she goes home to the cushy apartment she shares with her provider of a brother. It's strange because for all of Raven's later allegations of Charles being overbearing and controlling, she's free to date and work a menial position she doesn't need just to have her own money.

Despite this freedom, Raven is constantly seeking out beauty validation from Charles, who makes it clear he sees her as his sister and is keeping his promise to care for her. Quite frankly, Charles seems to maintain total honesty with Raven. However, she allows resentment to build up instead of articulating to her brother her lack of personal fulfillment or fear that she'll never have a committed romantic relationship with a man like the pretty girls on campus do. She lets her self-esteem issues dominate her thinking to the point that Charles warning her about the need to keep their mutations- especially her highly visible one- anonymous as confirmation of him hating her natural form. The same natural form with which he's had cuddle sessions for years.

This really illustrates why Charles sees their relationship as him raising her. She has petty gripes while he has logical concerns. Yes, they visit bars and have plenty of fun together, but Charles never completely puts his guard down. Also, if their many secrets are discovered, it falls entirely on Charles to rectify the disaster. To put it plainly, he treats Raven like a child because she forces him to be the adult. Even with that in mind, Charles keeps Raven as part of the process with the CIA and on their mutant team.

When the events with Shaw take place, Charles is so able to hang up his college party boy days that anyone who walked in halfway through FC would NOT recognize Oxford Charles upon rewatch. He's significantly younger than the Patrick Stewart sage yet James McAvoy is the one who radiates the most natural mutant instructor and father figure. This little pretty-faced dude commands respect, swells the heart, and uplifts the spirit all within a few scenes. How the freak did he do that???!!

While we see Erik pull off a number of bravado/vengeance fueled stunts, it's Charles who teaches us what real courage is. In the middle of the freezing cold ocean, when his cries for someone to save Erik go unheard, Charles dives in to save the taller, stronger, angrier man. One of many times to show not only Charles' self-sacrificing nature but that he grasps that which the film creators never do- respect for life. Raven wasn't some dirty abomination but a cherished life. Erik wasn't a deranged killer but a cherished life. The other mutants weren't coloreds, whores, prison trash, or anything but cherished lives. Even those who betrayed and tried to kill them were worthy of mercy in Charles' eyes. The most grueling psychological/physical torture could not sway him from that.

During the holocaust, Erik saw men, women, and children stripped of their humanity, branded as things, and senselessly executed. Despite the values and faith from his parents and the redemption, love, cooperation, respect, purpose, and new family Charles tried to give him, a sadistic nazi was Erik's greatest influence. He never comprehended a tenth of what Charles did well before he earned the title of Professor. And this may shock you, people, but no amount of money can breed virtues. Those are learned and maintained only by practicing them day by day.

It's a common belief among fandom that Raven is the perfect middle ground between the male mutant elders' different philosophies. Fandom, seriously, get off that cherik crack- it kills dreams. No, Raven is not their shared, well-rounded disciple or even close. Raven is an inconsistent, wishy-washy, indecisive, needlessly petty, emotionally stunted, unreliable, self-absorbed brat, who for all of her mary sue feats, never ever grew out of expecting her big brother to be the adult and take all the blame that she refuses to accept. Not to mention emulating cold, distant Sharon Xavier when she wasn't even her biological mother! Raven straight ditched Kurt and Rogue- no, I'm NOT letting that go! Even before Jennifer Lawrence took over the role, the studio was obsessed with featuring Mystique's family members. Those are her daggon kids!

And 'no matter how bad the world gets, you don't want to be against it, do you'? What evidence does she have of how bad the world is getting? Seeing her fellow mutants viciously murder defenseless humans? Also, yeah, fandom, I don't know how to tell you this- except with much glee- but guess what? Raven is white also. No, it doesn't matter a pound of piss that she's blue and used to be homeless. Her ENTIRE life story got a monumental do-over thanks to Charles. By the time they're at Oxford, she's no semblance of a street vagrant but a poor little rich girl demanding attention. Her most dominant form is blonde Raven Xavier, even when she's halfway across the world. Charles is so grateful as things improve for mutants bit by bit, but Raven hates the world and wants everything nowwwwww 😭

Erik has no daggon philosophy. That fool is Katie Kaboom from the 90s Animaniacs. 'His family knows that any time soon, the big megalomaniac goes kaboom!' All he does throughout the series is kill for kicks, make disingenuous speeches about brotherhood, bag baby mamas,  create bad press for his 'kind' with public destruction, hide out at his brother's house til the heat dies down, repeat until audience can recite the formula in their sleep. If that's your idea of an inspirational role model for 'real people', congratulations! All of you are easy prey for big city gang recruitment and trauma survivors are doomed to be evil, yay!

Yeah, of the three, Charles rises above his shameful siblings- aww, middle children got their representation. He is the one able to be upbeat and merry then pull a complete 180 when stuff gets real. He's the one who would rather let himself die inside than use his powers to take his pain and fury out on the world. He's the one who goes into dangerous situations for urgent reasons over reckless impulses. He's the one who is able to calmly get things back on track when a plan takes an unexpected turn. He's the one educated on mutation and most in control of his powers without getting a god complex from it. He's the one who suffers insomnia so everyone else can sleep peacefully. He's the recent college grad better capable of leading a major field mission than the older, worldly guy. He's the one always willing to listen and compromise. He's the dude in the wheelchair who offers a greater air of safety and security than that able-bodied punk who fled to Poland!

For those of you ready with that lame argument that he's only able to be empathetic is because of his telepathy. The ONLY proof you have of this is at the end of FC when Erik had the helmet on. Charles couldn't think of the perfect thing to say because he was shaken from feeling Shaw's death combined with every terrified mind around him in addition to his own. This is also the first time Charles has to publicly and boldly object to the actions of the older brother figure, who just mentally violated him, he still loved for some reason. As for Charles' communication problems in dofp, again he's in a state or wretched mental health. He has been living as a self-medicating angoraphobic then all at once he's tasked with saving a world he barely wants to live in anymore and confront the two people who crippled him physically and emotionally. The depression is messing with him, not the lack of telepathy. Erik and Raven had powers and there was no talking sense into either of them. Still, through all of this, Charles is able to have a short but sweet moment with Peter. It has a long-term impact on the otherwise unfocused boy and proves that the real Charles is still in there somewhere.

Back to the point, there was no good reason for putting Charles in that wheelchair and striking him with alopecia. He already cared, shared, loved, valued, took risks when necessary, put himself last, kept his promises, and sought to heal scars in others he did not inflict. The implication that someone is only capable of real empathy and altruism if they go through horrific torment or have melanin in their skin is a more shallow, ignorant, and naive view of the world than Charles' haters claims he has. The producers execution of these themes and messages are as backwards as they are insulting. Did Erik need the holocaust to better himself? If so, that was a cataclysmic fail. His experience with suffering and in an oppressed group made him worse than his own tormentors.

Charles valued life before the chair and after the chair, so what was the point? Don't try to tell me that Professor X's wheelchair and bald head are too symbolic not to be included. Ha! The source material argument doesn't fly with these movies, especially FC. Mystique is Charles' sister- his *little* sister. Charles is British. Hank becomes a Hulk-Beast with no backbone. The Summers brothers are twenty years apart in age. Wolverine is played by Huuuugh Jackman. Erik never develops the mutated white hair that his son somehow rocks. Charles and Erik never form a pen-pal pack, let alone an iconic friendship respectfully allegorical to two famous civil rights leaders.

No, Charles' tragedies are portrayed as some sort of depraved and extremely bigoted attempt to stick it to any straight white male fortunate enough to inherit money. Too bad for the pitifully inept production team that they only succeeded in shooting themselves in the foot. Not only is Charles the best character regardless of hater protests, it's insinuated that peace and goodness can only be desired by the wealthy and white. Color people, trauma survivors, and women will always fight perceived oppression with violent force and a preferred backup plan of genocide.

Brought to you by the

Charles Xavier Institute of Individuality:

Where it's better to think too much

than not at all ☺

[ajmatthews]

Not to brag, but I know you so well. Like— I really know you THAT well.

Rachel itu suka banget dengerin lagu-lagunya Maroon5, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars. Tapi, dia paling suka sama Olivia Rodrigo dan Troye Sivan. She's OBSESSED with Troye Sivan. Top 3 favorite songs nya Rachel itu Vienna by Billy Joel, She Will be Loved by Maroon5, sama Heaven by Bryan Adams (satu lagi, Eternal Flame versinya Shane Filan).

Suka banget nonton. Hampir semua genre, kecuali thriller yang banyak darah-darahnya, apalagi kalo sampe ada kecoak. Her top 5 favorite movies are The Shawshank Redemption, Inception (padahal thriller), Love Rosie, About Time, dan The Prestige. Dan sutradara kesukaannya itu Christopher Nolan. Kalo ngobrol sama Rachel, trus gak sengaja mention Christopher Nolan, jangan harap cepet selesai ngobrolnya wkwkwk. Oh iya, Rachel juga suka franchise Harry Potter dan Marvel, terutama MCU. Tapi dia suka X-Men juga.

Fav hero nya di Marvel itu Ironman, Cyclops, sama America Chavez. Menurut Rachel, yang bisa ngalahin Scarlett Witch itu cuma Jean Grey kalo lagi mode White Phoenix of the Crown. Oh iya, Rachel juga suka banget sama duo Hawkeye, Barton dan Bishop. Rachel gasuka Captain America (Steve) karena dia suka Tony. WKWKWKWK GADENG. Karena menurut dia, Captain America really thinks that he's a hero (kan emg bener ye), kinda arrogant and selfish. Film MCU kesukaannya Rachel itu Thor Ragnarok, Guardian of the Galaxy Vol. 2, sama Ant Man and the Wasp. Intinya dia suka yg kocak kocak. Trus belakangan ini Rachel lagi sukaaaaa banget Moon Knight. Pokoknya 24/7 ngomongin Marc Spector.

Trus, genre film kesukaannya rachel, yang paling dia suka banget adalah romance. Apapun itu. Yang bikin nangis, yang ringan, yang bikin ketawa. Pokoknya dia suka banget sama film romance, kecuali teen romance yang wattpad banget. Rachel cinta banget sama Rachel McAdams, bukan karena namanya sama-sama Rachel, tapi karena banyak filmnya Rachel McAdams yang ditonton sama Achel. Dan Achel SUKA BANGET sama About Time, yang pemeran utamanya adalah Rachel McAdams. Selain itu, Rachel juga suka banget sama Love, Rosie. Katanya, LR itu gak masuk ke dalam daftar film bagusnya Rachel karena too complicated and kinda unrealistic. Tapi Rachel suka banget karena bikin emosinya gonjang-ganjing. Apalagi yang main Lily Collins, yang merupakan salah satu aktris kesukaannya Rachel. Oiya, satu lagi, Pride and Prejudice.

Rachel juga suka nonton series, tapi dia paling enjoy nonton series sitcom yang seasonnya panjang2 itu wkwkwk. Dia suka banget F.r.i.e.n.d.s, How I Met Your Mother, sama Modern Family. Tapi Rachel paling sering ngomongin HIMYM, soalnya katanya memang dia sesuka itu sama HIMYM, apalagi salah satu karakternya yang namanya Barney (bukan yg nyanyi I love you, you love me).

Rachel itu pecinta binatang, kecuali yang masuk class insects and reptiles. Tapi dari semua hewan yang dibenci Rachel, dia paling benci sama KECOAK. Katanya sih dia takut banget sama kecoak wkwkwkwk. Kalo hewan yang paling Rachel suka itu anjing sama orangutan. Ras anjing yg menurut rachel lucu banget itu border collie sama australian shepherd. Tapi dibandingkan dua ras itu, Rachel pengen banget punya corgi, trus dikasih nama Cheddar, karena dia terinspirasi dari anjingnya Captain Holt of Brooklyn99.

List actors/actresses yang Rachel suka (yang pernah disebutin): Leonardo Dicaprio, Cillian Murphy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Dane DeHaan, Rachel McAdams, Lily Collins, Kit Connor, Xochitl Gomez, Robert Downey Jr., Louis Partridge, Olivia Rodrigo, Henry Golding, Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Regé-Jean Page, Emily Blunt, Nicholas Hoult, Jude Law, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling, Barry Keoghan, The Late King Chadwick Boseman, dll.

[maxiekat]

In a world full of rom-coms, when was the last time you cried over an onscreen breakup that actually stuck? No grand gestures to save the day, just pure, raw, lust and heartbreak. If you want to get so deep in your feels you forget if you’re actually heartbroken or just bleary-eyed over someone else’s love story, then you may need to subscribe to the church of Drake Doremus.

The director is known for his mostly improvised, chill-inducing romantic dramas (Like Crazy, Newness, Equals) and his latest is a tender-to-the-touch look at a modern love triangle in Endings, Beginnings, which premieres Sunday at Toronto Film Festival. Much like his previous work, Endings, Beginnings is clever and cutting, but also soft and quiet. Shailene Woodley is at the heart of the film playing Daphne, a thirty-something artist (her specialty is hand-painted tea pots, which she sells on Etsy) who recently and abruptly quit her job and ended her long-term relationship with her boyfriend (Matthew Gray Gubler, in his third Doremus film).

Looking for a hard reset on life, Daphne moves into the pool house of her much more together older half-sister. She also stops drinking, focuses on looking for a new job, and cuts men out of her life. Until, of course, she meets two men at a New Year’s Party. One’s brooding, asking her for a light of a cigarette in the most drunken and charming of ways. He’s wearing a shearling jacket, worn-in with adventures. The other’s in LA’s version of a suit — he’s put together, and looks at her with the steady intentness. Daphne should be avoiding both, but she quickly becomes enamored with bad boy Frank (Sebastian Stan), a nomad who drinks absinthe, and good boy Jack (Jamie Dornan), an academic who has a dog and dreams of moving to Europe. What starts as innocent text-flirting evolves into two full-blown relationships. Oh, and the guys are best friends.

When Stan first read for the film, he read for both Frank and Jack’s role, but what really attracted him to the heady rom-dram was Dormeus himself, of whom he’s been a huge fan. “I met him and I said, ‘I gotta tell you, I don’t know which one of these people you are seeing me as, but I really relate to both of them. I love both,’” he says over the phone to Refinery29. Stan’s in London where he’s filming the spy-thriller 355, a movie he says is “stylistically and tonally very different,” than Endings, Beginnings, but with “a couple of similarities here and there.”

“And we just got very deep. We got into relationships and being in our 30s and the world we are in right now, and all our experiences.” The vulnerability seen on-screen between Woodley, Stan, and Dornan is something special, and almost entirely improvised, based on just 30 pages of notes. Endings, Beginnings is a far cry from the big budget Marvel movies you’re used to seeing Stan in (he plays Captain America’s pal Bucky Barnes in seven Marvel movies and one upcoming spin-off series.) I was reading your Instagram post earlier gushing about working on this film with Drake. When did you become a fan of his, and why did you two think Frank was the role for you?

“I was aware of [Drake] for awhile. Like everyone else, I loved Like, Crazy, and then I also like his recent movie with Nicholas Hoult, Equals. I was also just really interested in doing a movie and improvising  —   because the entire movie is practically improvised. I never worked in that medium before. I got a call saying, Hey do you want to meet with Drake and talk about this movie [and] read the draft?, which was basically like 30 pages. There were two guy [parts] at the time. I met him and I said, ‘I gotta tell you, I don’t know which one of these people you are seeing me as, but I really relate to both of them. I love both.’ And we just got very deep. We got into relationships and being in our 30s and the world we are in right now, and all our experiences. Again, I didn’t really know that is where we were gonna go, but he was very honest with me and I was honest with him. We parted ways, and the next thing I knew he called me to have a session with somebody at the time that he was thinking of for the role as Daphne, and I went in and had a 3-hour improv session with him, then he called me and told me that he wants me to do the Frank role and I was fine with that.”

Only 30 pages. Everything else is improv? All the film’s dialogue?

“Yes, that is all literally on the day, in the moment, happening real-time. Basically, the script that he had was just the outline: Daphne comes out a recent relationship and moves in with her best friends. They’re having a New Years Party, and she runs into Frank who asks her for a cigarette. It was all outlines, but in terms of the dialogue and how we would get there, that was all improvised. That was an interesting experience because I had never worked that way and no take is ever the same. I walked away from that experience feeling very vulnerable. You’re not hiding behind any lines.”

The improvisation really added to the film. I left it feeling more emotional than I expected.

“We’ve all had relationships, and we know how tricky they are. They’re complex and there’s many layers. I don’t know — I have always loved romantic comedies. I grew up on When Harry Met Sally and all that, but I sometimes feel that relationships aren’t entirely depicted as messy and as raw and as painful as they are. That’s why I loved working with him because I feel like he gets to the core of situations. I’m happy to hear you related to it because that is what he wants. He wants you to go, 'I’ve had that conversation...been in that situation.’”

There’s been a resurgence in romantic comedies, but not so much romantic dramas like this. Do you think there’s a reason why?

“I love romantic comedies and there is a space for them, but [rom coms] are hopeful. Sometimes when I go to the movies, I don’t want to necessarily see what my life is. I want to be like, Hey! It’s nice to think that maybe that could be that way. If you want to be inspired, or laugh a little bit — there’s that element of it. And sometimes you want to see a movie that makes you feel less alone in your experience. A lot of European films are much closer to this, and I think Drake loves a lot of European films and is influenced by them and the personal quality. Structurally in romantic comedies, you have bigger things happening, right? Whereas [in this movie], there are big things happening, but there’s a much more subtle transition through everything.”

Frank is the “player” of the film, while Jack is the “good guy,” for lack of a better phrase. You’ve said before that you didn’t really know why you were often cast as the “bad boy.”  Do you still not know why?

“I don’t know! [Groans] I don’t know. The truth is, the reason I was saying [I could play] Jack was that I talk a lot in my life. I philosophize a lot. I try to read things. Then I think about it, and then I wanna talk about it. I relate to that [aspect of Jack]. And actually, there was a lot to Frank and Daphne that we shot that was funny. They had a lot of their own back and forth, but what ended up being in the movie —  I think Drake never forgot the vision that he had for Frank — [was him] being much darker than we shot. I am happy it ended up that way because there needed to be a contrast.

But I don’t know! I am glad they think I can do this. I am one of the most over-thinking, neurotic people I know. So I don’t know how it happens, but it keeps happening.”

I thought a big part of Frank also was his big shearling jacket. Since most of the movie was improvised, did you have anything to do with his outfits?

“Oh yeah, I kept that jacket, first of all. It’s a great jacket. What’s great about Drake is that he was like, ‘Hey, listen, people wear the same stuff all the time. If something works, let’s just it.’ I was like yeah, the guy probably kind of flies by the seat of his pants anyways so he just has a few things. I think I wore some of my own jeans. The boots I wore were mine. Drake definitely wanted us to wear our own stuff so we could feel comfortable in it.”

This was originally called No, No, No, Yes and ended as Endings, Beginnings. How did the title change shape the movie?

“It was always a working title. I saw that it was paired up with her experience — every no and every yes was paired to one of the relationships that she was going through. Endings, Beginnings is a little more specific. I know for awhile he was even contemplating a title that was even just made up of emojis which I thought would have been really fun.”

Oh yeah. I loved the texting aspect in this movie.

“There is an element of texting in the time period we are in, and there is this new language to it. They got it in the sense that both Jack and Frank have their very specific ways of texting. Jack probably uses punctuation, and Frank does not. [Laughs]”

You’ve worked with a few of the Big Little Lies women now. Do you have plans to work with the others like Zoe Kravitz, Reese Witherspoon, or Laura Dern?

“That has not hit me — that’s kinda funny. I don’t think I have ever met Reese Witherspoon and I’ve met Laura Dern. If the opportunity presents itself then great. I certainly wouldn’t have had a problem if there had been a role in the second season. I would have done it in a second. I loved the first season.”

I have one more that I have to ask about — obviously Gossip Girl is getting rebooted, and Chace [Crawford] said it made him feel “old,” but he’d be down. Have you thought about it at all?

“[Laughs] I don’t even… it’s so weird. Somehow a lot of people talk to me about Gossip Girl, and I always thought I was just a guest star. It was a very special show. It certainly defined those years, and we all got our start there in a way. It would be hilarious and weird and crazy. He’s right — we are old! I don’t know what business they’d have with me, but, Jesus. If there was some funny little witty thing and they called and we’re like, ‘We’re doing this thing and we have everybody….’ I’m not gonna be the asshole that says no. Maybe I’ll be in the background scooping some ice cream.”

[anindoorkitty]

David Glasser’s 101 Studios has bought North American distribution to the long-shelved “The Current War,” starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Shannon.

The film, which premiered at the 2017 Toronto Film Festival, was to be distributed later that year by The Weinstein Company but was shelved following the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. 101 Studios bought the rights from Lantern Entertainment, which handled the TWC assets, and is planning an August release.

The film presents the story of the “war of the currents” between Edison and Westinghouse over which electrical system would power the modern world. Cumberbatch stars as Thomas Edison while Shannon portrays George Westinghouse. Nicholas Hoult stars as Nicola Tesla.

Director Gomez-Rejon has added five additional scenes and cut 10 minutes from the version that premiered in Toronto. The news was first reported by Deadline Hollywood.  - source - Variety

YES!! We’re going to get to see it here in the US!!!

MUCH more info here! - Deadline Hollywood

[son-of-alderaan]

Watership Down – An interview with John Boyega

Who do you play? I'm playing Bigwig. A rabbit with a dark past - a lot of wars fought, a lot of scars to show for it. A rabbit who is tough, stern and has a really deep sense of family. He’s a great character to play and, for me, the strongest and the coolest of the bunch.

You must have been excited to join the project? I was excited because I had no clue as to what the production team were going to do with this. When I first heard about it through my agent I didn’t know it was going to be CG, and I didn’t know that it would have this amazing British cast attached. Actors like James McAvoy, Nicholas Hoult, and Daniel Kaluuya - all great actors who are doing really well at the moment and, for me, it was a great opportunity to join them. I was also curious as to how they were going to do this, because the 1978 film was in 2D and it was devastating. I was devastated, I can’t lie. It was too much - it was bloody and looked a bit strange and as a kid taking that in was very scary. But this version, whilst still animation, looks a lot more real now, and it’s so interesting to take that approach. With CG you can add a sense of reality, which increases the emotional stakes for those watching it.

How do you prepare for a role like this? You have to have a deeper sense of imagination when performing, because you’re in a booth - you're not there on a set, and you’re not able to react off anything. And in Watership Down the characters are consistently constantly moving, so you have to imagine whether at any one point you're running through a lake or crossing a road when a big car comes by, for example.

For me, it’s playing. There are certain types of roles in which you can just play, and for me this is one of those roles. You just use your imagination. So I’m pretending to choke in a snare, or if there’s a scene where Bigwig’s eating I'll get a bowl of grapes and do the scene with lots of grapes in my mouth. I try as much as possible to re-enact what the character’s going through.

And on top of that, it all happens with the animators. They do all the magic, and our voices breathe life into the magic they do.

How does Bigwig differ from other roles you’ve played? I’d say that I always seem to be playing characters who haven’t found their path just yet. You meet them at a point where the film starts and they haven’t found their part or their place. Whereas with Bigwig he kinda knows where he belongs, but he just discovers more about himself through his connection with Hazel and the other bunnies. He finds his leadership, but has to go through a whole journey to discover that. It’s quite a bit different to the other roles I’ve played. Finn: Stormtrooper. Jake: Jaeger pilot. Bigwig: rabbit. I'm versatile, man!

What attracted you to Watership Down? I wanted to be part of a great animation. Animation is something that I’m quite passionate about, and this for me was the chance to be part of a sophisticated story with a great team - and also to be part of a story that I remember growing up with. I like to be a part of things that have had an effect on me growing up. That’s why I’m part of Star Wars and Pacific Rim - it’s my way of being a part of that again.

What sets this adaptation apart from any previous ones? I think because this Watership Down is told across four episodes you’re able to really discover and get to know the intricacies of the characters in a really intimate way. It just allows the audience to really get into that world. And the TV format makes you excited about watching the next episode of something. This is accessible to everyone on the BBC, and it's a new version of an old story with an obviously phenomenal cast. It gives a great new take on an old tale.

Why should BBC One viewers tune in? It’s a nice opportunity to sit down with the family for an evening of Christmas animation, which is also something a little bit serious. There’s a great balance there. The whole family can watch it and all get something out of it. If I had kids I’d definitely sit down to watch Watership Down with them. To watch them cry…! No, I’m joking. It’s a fun family adventure - it’s got great VFX and a great cast of actors with recognisable voices, and it’s something I think everyone will enjoy.

What’s made the story of Watership Down so successful over the years? I can only speak from the British perspective on this one. If you go out to the countryside, you'll see a hare or a squirrel roaming around, and for me anyway there was always that curiosity of what’s it’s like for them in day to day life. I think the journey they’re on intrigues a lot of people. The story is timeless, too. Yes it’s a story about rabbits, but actually what they’re going through resonates on a human level.

Watership Down starts Saturday 22 December 2018 on BBC One at 7pm.

[cinenthusiast]

WARNING: The following contains heavy semantics. This is the equivalent of letterboxd users breaking down their dumb rating systems. OK, not as bad, but still! You have been warned!

I’m starting a new (and final) iteration of something I’ve done my whole life. A single list of my 50 Favorite Actors, covering the full scope of era and gender. I’ll make a new one from scratch each year as a kind of record. 50 doesn’t leave too much room for sudden or drastic evolution, but the long game is what I’m playing at.

All of my old lists (of any kind) used to be ranked. Frankly, fuck that. I’m all for ranking within narrow frameworks (Top Ten By Year, etc) but general lists like favorite actors and movies? Why do it? Numbers make the whole thing an arbitrary assessment, isolating the actors and films into a misguided hierarchy that doesn’t add any insight or clarity. Lists and rankings are such an oversaturated aspect of culture content as it is, and I’d like to avoid this feeling like just another ranking. The collective group is the thing, the totality of taste, interest, and meaning. Keeping this a singular entity (with one or two caveats) preserves this as a personal journal entry of sorts, a snapshot and not the end-all be-all. It’s a way of capturing my taste in film and the people in it. I’ve put a star next to my ten favorites, and I’ve got a separate long list of people I considered but ultimately didn’t add, and that’s the extent of it.

Growing up, I made favorite actor lists obsessively. When I was around six or seven I would play ‘School’. I was the teacher. My students? The likes of Tony Danza, Christopher Lloyd, Danny DeVito, and John Travolta. I had pages and pages of any actor whose name I knew (the entire casts of Angels in the Outfield and Addams Family Values were represented). I took very careful attendance to make sure everyone was present, calling out each name and imagining that yes, they were there. Each actor received a little check in their row of squares (I made sure I had the checkered graph paper to keep everything orderly and precise).

age 11

all of these were made at age 11

Then there were the dark days, the days when tween Katie made lists like Top Ten ‘Cutie-Patootie’ Actors (a reference to the Rosie O’Donnell Show, yes, the Rosie O’Donnell Show, seen above). As you can see, the kid from Dennis the Menace topped that one. I also had my constantly revised Top Ten Favorite Actors & Actresses. Five actors from the lists pictured above are also on this current one: Nicole Kidman, Jim Carrey, Winona Ryder, John Travolta, and Michelle Pfeiffer. They were major icons for me then, and they remain so now, 20 years after the fact. They are forever favorites.

the four quadrants, from 2006 (age 18)

What followed were continuously updated versions of this, covering half my lifetime: Top Blank (at varying points it was 20, 30, and 50) Modern Actors, Modern Actresses, Classic Actors, and Classic Actresses (‘Classic’ accounted for the Hollywood studio era). They were always divided into those four quadrants. I can timestamp the years by who was on them. Simon Pegg at the top? Must be 2008. Katee Sackhoff near the top? I must have been watching “Battlestar Galactica” then. You can find the 2012 versions on this site: here and here.

These categories created considerable grey area, swaths of actors that never really fit comfortably in their group. Those who either featured in films from both eras (Jack Lemmon) or were technically of the ‘Modern’ era but with careers that didn’t really transition into the current (Faye Dunaway). And those ‘Modern’ lists were always much more about the now. I never made room for these actors who qualified as ‘Modern’ but who could be pinpointed to the past. I wanted to feature the up-and-coming, people whose careers I was excited about now! Filmographies I could follow along with as they progressed.

This factor, which meant so much to me then, means nothing re: this new list. For one, I don’t follow current stuff to the degree I used to. 21st century film is less interesting to me (current TV far less so). But I’m really fond of a lot of actors working today, from relative newcomers to tried-and-true character actors to cemented A-listers. The group there was no room for, not by a long shot, were the relative newcomers. I’m an easy lay when it comes to loving actors. But with over a century of performers to choose from, it doesn’t leave much room for the young “oooh I love him/her/them, I can’t wait to see what they do next” ones.

But for the record, the fresher (2010 to present) faces that I’m most invested in are Adam Driver, Elizabeth Debicki, Tom Hardy, Lakeith Stanfield, Kristen Stewart, Jesse Plemons, Nicholas Hoult, and Jonah Hill (whose career trajectory I’m endlessly intrigued by, a man funnier than most of his peers, with the unstable depths of a Chris Penn, whose hyper-sensitivity about being taken seriously and joining the ranks of the prestigious show up on the screen).

The old lists, especially the 50-each ones that totaled to 200 actors, were actually more challenging than this list. Because with so much room, you’re fooled into thinking everyone can be represented. But they can’t; even those lists fill up quick. And now, with just 50 total, it gets down to essentials. There are the favorites, and then the ones who matter most. Oh, I love them? Cool, next! Oh, I love them a lot? Cool, next! Omgtheyaresoamazing? Cool. Next!

There are so many actors whose performances I consistently love or enjoy, that I always look forward to seeing and am often moved by. But there’s a difference between actors who frequently deliver great work, and actors who make something inherently more just by being there, that make me sit up in my seat because what they give either draws out extra engagement from me or they are so distinctive a presence that the fabric of the film/show is thereby altered. But none of this exists without the secret ingredient: that chemical thing that just draws you to one person’s talent and onscreen life more than another.

The factors are endless. Above is my next tier of favorites, the ones that I didn’t go with but thought about and in some cases agonized (yes, agonized) over whether to include or not.

What do you do when a specific stretch of someone’s work means more to you than most people’s entire careers? Most don’t make it (Patty Duke, Diane Lane, Juliette Lewis, Marlon Brando, etc) But a few do: pre-Dick Tracy Warren Beatty, Eric Roberts in the 1980’s, and Sandy Dennis in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

What do you do with the actors who are still alive but not working regularly, at all, or at the same caliber they used to? Most don’t make it (Nancy Allen, Tim Curry, Kathleen Turner, Fairuza Balk, Sheryl Lee, etc). But a few do: Jim Carrey, Shelley Duvall, Theresa Russell (a spot that could have been occupied by many that mean just as much to me, but I went with Theresa this time because it felt right), Eric Roberts, and John Travolta.

What do you do with the actors who mean a lot to you but whose careers were so brief that it’s hard to justify adding them over others? Unfortunately, almost all of those actors didn’t make it (Linda Manz, Paula Sheppard, Laird Cregar, Zoe Lund, James Dean, Pamela Franklin, etc). One does: Louise Brooks.

What do you do about the actors you love watching more than most but whose work you aren’t familiar enough with yet? None of them make it (Natasha Lyonne, Yaphet Kotto, Silvana Mangano, Helmut Berger, Dagmar Lassander, Tuesday Weld, etc). There are plenty of films from the 50 I’ve yet to see, but I’ve at least seen enough.

Then there are all the others, the really tough ones. I think about James Gandolfini more and more as the years go by. Harvey Keitel’s performances resonate a lot more as I get older (those defiant eyes, I can often feel him). I can’t believe I didn’t make room for Christina Ricci. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is the defining comedienne of my lifetime. There is only one Carol Kane, Donald Sutherland, Nicolas Cage, Joan Cusack, Parker Posey, Lily Tomlin, Crispin Glover. I get distinct pleasures from watching each of them. Some of my favorite immortals are Marlene Dietrich, Alain Delon, Judy Garland, Bette Davis, Buster Keaton, Cate Blanchett. I’m pretty sure I talk about Jude Law all the time. I will, and have, watched Jean-Claude Van Damme in anything I can find. In recent months I’ve rewatched a lot of key Samuel L. Jackson performances (Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, Black Snake Moan, Django Unchained), and was newly reminded that he is one of our most compelling living actors. His pervasive and phoned-in presence in every imaginable franchise had led me to forget that. I’ve been hooked on Gene Wilder, Charles Laughton, Eva Green, Cillian Murphy, and still am. It goes on and on and on.

But this is the challenge of it, and the fun of it. My 50 favorites capture my fascination with stardom and long-range careers with eras & reinventions (ex. Crawford, Cruise, Fonda, Monroe, DiCaprio, Farrell, Taylor), physicality (ex. Chan, Ball, Phoenix, Reeves, Olyphant) & commanding physical presence (ex. Reed, Kidman, De Niro, Mitchum), blue moon charisma (ex. Pfeiffer, Russell, Walbrook, Cagney, Reed, Nicholson), the ones I feel a deep connection to (all of them but especially Carrey, Brooks, & Hoffman) & offbeat god-tier character actors (Dennis, Dourif, Roberts, Black, Duvall) I would take a bullet for.

I start to realize some of the people that aren’t even on this second list: Tilda Swinton, Kate Winslet, Robin Williams, Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, Gloria Grahame, Katharine Hepburn, Michael Shannon, Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Jeanne Moreau, Saorsie Ronan, Brad Pitt, Gena Rowlands, Dirk Bogarde, James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Ethan Hawke, Jeff Goldblum, Steve Buscemi, Julianne Moore, Catherine O’Hara, Catherine Deneuve, Juliette Binoche, Charlize Theron, Robert Redford, Julie Christie, Michael C. Hall, Michael Caine, Malcolm McDowell, John Hurt, Paul Newman, Anjelica Huston, Sigourney Weaver (every time I watch her in something I think about how much I love her. Her work in Alien 3 means a lot to me), Elliot Gould, etc etc etc. Hell, Peter Mullan is the only person on either list who appears in any Harry Potter film, and that franchise employed basically every British actor you can think of. Most of these actors have been on other lists in the past. Some you’d always be guaranteed to find there (Binoche, Deneuve, etc). As I type this I am realize I forgot Michael Stuhlbarg and John Hawkes in that second group. At the end of the day it just becomes about knowing who there was never any question about, and going with your gut on the rest.

But these 50 (ok, 52, I cheated, the truth is out!), the ones I ultimately chose, are the actors whose work collectively means more than the rest, my ultimate favorites: the ones I can lose myself in, and then find myself in. Who are yours?

1st Annual 50 Favorite Actors list WARNING: The following contains heavy semantics. This is the equivalent of letterboxd users breaking down their dumb rating systems.

[daleisgreat]

X-Men Apocalypse

We are approaching the release date for the final FOX X-Men film hitting theaters when Dark Phoenix arrives next week. Thus it seemed like a perfect time to revisit FOX’s previous ensemble X-Men film, 2016’s Apocalypse (trailer). Minus a couple exceptions, I have largely enjoyed most of the X-Men movies so far, even if I have barely an idea of what is or is no longer canon anymore and the many contradictions that have surfaced with each proceeding film. The filmmakers stated in the bonus feature interviews here they are essentially making up the rules as they go along ever since they introduced time travel. Regardless, each X-film in and of itself I have mostly enjoyed on its own merits, and that continues with Apocalypse. Apocalypse has greatly benefited with a second viewing a few years later. I recall nitpicking it in the theaters for its contradictions and other little details that did not match up with previous films and trying to come to terms with the unexpected costume and character design of Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) himself as it compared to the Apocalypse costume I grew up with in the comics and early 90s animated series. Now that I got those initial puzzled impressions out of my system I took in Apocalypse on its own and those nitpicks were not as much of a distraction on second viewing.

Apocalypse transpires 10 years after the events of Days of Future Past in 1983. I liked how they set up the origin for Apocalypse in the prologue and establish how he is this god-like force to be reckoned with all these years later. Watching him grow in power as he recruited Angel (Ben Hardy), Storm (Alexandra Shipp), Psylocke (Olivia Munn) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) as his ‘four horsemen’ proved him to a formidable force. There is a lot of setup Apocalypse’s first half of its near two and a half hour runtime. It did not feel that long however because with its ensemble cast there were so many individual stories to tell to bring everyone together that Apocalypse breezed by. Nearly all the main players from the previous two core X-Men films return like Professor Xavier (James McAvoy), Mystique (Jennifer Laurence) and Beast (Nicholas Hoult). Periphery players from before like Quicksilver (Evan Peters) and Havok (Lucas Till) also have bigger roles in this film. Young versions of Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Nightcrawler (Kurt Wagner), Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) and yes….even Jubilee (Lana Condor) make their debut in this past era of X-films. There are a few surprises I do not want to ruin, but rest assured there are plenty of interesting interactions among the huge cast knowing how these characters will interact in movies set after this. Fassbender and McAvoy easily have the best chemistry among the whole cast and the two steal the show with their handful of one-on-one emotional scenes.

Like the rest of the X-films, Apocalypse does not disappoint when it comes to special effects. There are countless CG showcases from the Apocalypse origin story prologue, to another Quicksilver slow-motion sizzle reel, a couple of impressive destruction sequences where Apocalypse unleashes his fury and the requisite Cerebro scene gone terribly wrong. These CG sequences go hand-in-hand with most of the action scenes, and they were smartly paced in with all the setup and build to the climatic final showdown which is highlighted with Apocalypse and Xavier engaging in a telepathic duel for the ages. How those CG scenes were produced is tackled among the boatload of extra features. X-Men Unearthed is the standout extra. It is a five-part feature running a little over an hour combined and tackles how the cast and crew is handling the convoluted canon of the X-films, shows Patrick Stewart give his blessing and witness MacAvoy shave his head, breaks down the cast and goes into the nuts and bolts on how those awesome CG sequences came to be. Definitely worth a watch! There is nearly a half hour of deleted scenes with optional introductions from director Bryan Singer that includes a lot of material that seemed tragic to get cut like a feel-good 80s mall music montage set to Safety Dance that got me nostalgic for my teenage Mallrats years, and Fassbender nailing it with a emotional family scene that Singer stated was one of his all-time heartbreaking cuts to make in filmmaking. There is a killer eight minute gag reel that I would place in the top tier of superhero film gag reels, which is good company to be among.

Finally the commentary track with Singer and writer/producer Simon Kinberg is among one of my favorite commentaries I have heard in the five and a half years since I started this site. Singer is mostly nonstop with revealing facts and inspirations for the film like going into a engrossing story on the aforementioned Fassbender deleted scene, pointing out that Jubilee is in the film in one of her few lines or else I would have completely missed her, taking potshots at Marvel and FOX in the opening credits, a touching anecdote on filming the Stan Lee cameo and being grateful to Munn and Peters for knowing their Mortal Kombat references that resulted in saving a certain moment of the film. Those are just a few of the many highlights I got from the commentary so if you have time this is one of the good ones to check out. Also worth pointing out is FOX subtitled the commentary, THANK YOU! As I alluded to earlier, I came out of X-Men: Apocalypse with a far better experience on my second viewing. I only marginally enjoyed it initially, but letting some time and perspective sink in helped immensely. I am now surprisingly stoked to see Dark Phoenix when it hits next week. I highly recommend revisiting Apocalypse for a refresher on the many little plot points I would have forgotten. I no doubt agree the canon across the nearly 20 years of FOX X-films is a head-scratcher and a half to keep track of and who knows maybe their new overlords at Disney will find a way to smoothly integrate them into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, I would be lying if there was not a part of me that would like to see Disney keep the X-films in their own separate canon that FOX has established, quirks and all. Time will tell.

Other Random Backlog Movie Blogs 3 12 Angry Men (1957) 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown 21 Jump Street The Accountant Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie Atari: Game Over The Avengers: Age of Ultron The Avengers: Infinity War Batman: The Killing Joke Batman: Mask of the Phantasm Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Bounty Hunters Cabin in the Woods Captain America: Civil War Captain America: The First Avenger Captain America: The Winter Soldier Christmas Eve Clash of the Titans (1981) Clint Eastwood 11-pack Special The Condemned 2 Countdown Creed Deck the Halls Die Hard Dredd The Eliminators The Equalizer Dirty Work Faster Fast and Furious I-VIII Field of Dreams Fight Club The Fighter For Love of the Game Good Will Hunting Gravity Guardians of the Galaxy Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 Hercules: Reborn Hitman Indiana Jones 1-4 Ink The Interrogation Interstellar Jobs Joy Ride 1-3 Man of Steel Man on the Moon Marine 3-6 Metallica: Some Kind of Monster Mortal Kombat National Treasure National Treasure: Book of Secrets The Replacements Reservoir Dogs Rocky I-VII Running Films Part 1 Running Films Part 2 San Andreas ScoobyDoo Wrestlemania Mystery The Secret Life of Walter Mitty Shoot em Up Skyscraper Small Town Santa Steve Jobs Source Code Star Trek I-XIII Take Me Home Tonight TMNT The Tooth Fairy 1 & 2 UHF Veronica Mars Vision Quest The War Wild Wonder Woman The Wrestler (2008) X-Men: Days of Future Past

[theprocrastinatingalien]

Battle of SuperHeroes - Batch #1 (Featuring Batman, Captain America, Captain Marvel and Aquaman)

Who is your favourite SuperHero?

Head over to Twitter and take part in our polls to find out which of these 16 heroes (and villains) will win this first batch!

Originally I was only going to include 64 characters over 4 batches... but I just couldn't contain it, so I've extended the amount to 96 characters over 6 batches.

Here are the characters in BATCH #1

ANT-MAN

Dr Hank Pym... yes, that's right, we're going with the 'original' version of the character, rather than Scott Lang (as played by Paul Rudd in the MCU).

Actor Michael Douglas plays the elderly version of the character in ANT-MAN, that has a strong dislike of Tony Stark.  However, Dr. Pym was one of the original Avengers, and also happened to be the one responsible for creating Ultron!

APOCALYPSE

Recently played by Oscar Isaac in X-MEN: APOCALYPSE, in the comics and cartoon series, Apocalypse is one of the oldest mutants, and one of the most dangerous for the X-Men to deal with.  Personally, he's one of my favourite villains.

AQUAMAN

Became something of joke, but the new DCEU looks set to turn all that around, by casting GAMES OF THRONES beefcake Jason Momoa as Arthur Curry aka Aquaman!  He's basically Superman under the sea!

THE ATOM

The Atom is essentially Ant-Man, except that he came first (and doesn't talk to ants). Currently portrayed by Brandon Routh in DC LEGENDS OF TOMORROW.

BATGIRL

Daughter of Commissioner James Gordon, Barbara is the best known of the Batgirls.   Barbara did get shot by the Joker, and (whilst paralysed) became The Oracle.  But now he's back fighting crime as the Batfamily.  Played by Yvonne Craig in the camp 60s series, and Alicia Silverstone (sort of) in BATMAN & ROBIN.  Geek genius Joss Whedon is set to write and direct a BATGIRL film for the DCEU. 

BATMAN

Now this is the character where my vote goes.   I love Batman (aka millionair Bruce Wayne).  He's easily my favourite comic book character.  He's also DC's biggest cash cow.  As well as black and white serials, an array of animated series and movies... and more live action movies than any other DC character - appearing in BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, BATMAN FOREVER, BATMAN & ROBIN, BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE, a cameo role in SUICIDE SQUAD and set to lead the JUSTICE LEAGUE and THE BATMAN.  Currently played by Ben Affleck, he's been portrayed by Michael Keaton, Christian Bale, Val Kilmer, George Clooney and the late Adam West (in the 60s series and movie).

BEAST

Dr Hank McCoy, one of the original X-Men in the comics.  He may look big blue and furry, but he's actually very gentle and sophisticated.  Initially played by FRASIER star Kelsey Grammer in X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, he's more recently been played by Nicholas Hoult starting with X-MEN: FIRST CLASS.

BLACK BOLT

The silent king of the Inhumans.  Silent, because a mere whisper from his could decimate the planet.  He's set to be played by Anson Mount in the coming TV series.

BLACK WIDOW

The leading lady of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Played by Scarlett Johansson, Natasha Romanov has appeared in more films than any other female character in the MCU - IRON MAN 2, THE AVENGERS, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER, AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR and in the upcoming AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR.  There's even word the Russian spy might get her own film.

BLACK PANTHER

The Prince of Wakanda, T'Challa has been a fan favourite for years, and the films are just catching up.  Black Panther was introduced in CIVIL WAR and will star in his own film next year BLACK PANTHER leading into the event film AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR.

BLADE

I'm not going to lie... I only recently found out that the day-walking Vampire played by Wesley Snipes in those gory movies, is actually a Marvel character.  And word is, we might be getting the MCU version in the not-too-distant future. 

BRAINIAC

A Superman villain worthy of bringing together the Justice League, and yet as never been included in any of the SUPERMAN films.  The super intelligent (and evil) alien android was played by James Marsters in SMALLVILLE though.  I have my fingers crossed that we'll get the DCEU version soon.

CABLE

The future descendant of Scott Summers (Cyclops) and Jean Grey (Phoenix), and a fan favourite in the X-Men comics.  So far he's not been included in any of the films, but that's about to change.  Cable is about to appear in DEADPOOL 2, to be played by Josh Brolin. 

CAPTAIN AMERICA

The noble and true Captain America recently got twisted in to a Hydra agent in the comics, but we'll forget that for now.  Let's concentrate on the moral conscience of THE AVENGERS as played by Chris Evans.  Evans has helped turn Steve Rogers from a (potentially) dull straight-laced character than may have fallen flat on the big screen, into a compelling must-see character with some of the best entries in the MCU.

CAPTAIN BRITAIN

Brian Braddock, is like Captain America, but British.  And he can fly.  Has yet to be given a live action portrayal, but with the ever expanding MCU, fingers crossed we'll see him in action soon.  Mind you, there's nothing to say Marvel have the rights to him... his sister is was in the most recent X-MEN film (more on her in a later batch) so it's possible 20th Century Fox own him.  Time will tell.

CAPTAIN MARVEL

Fans have been calling out for a Captain Marvel films, and thank fully Marvel have obliged.  Oscar winning actress Brie Larson will portray Carol Danvers in CAPTAIN MARVEL, due out in 2019, before she joins the rest of the Avengers in the untitled AVENGERS 4.  According to big cheese Kevin Feige Captain Marvel is the most powerful Marvel character!

Now, go add us on twitter - procrastinalien - and pick your favourites (they're all paired up, and you've got 5 days to make your choices, before we take those winners to the next stage).

I will keep you updated on the results as we hit each round. 

[carnegiestout]

Book or Movie? “Warm Bodies” review

If I know I’m going to see a movie based on a book I usually read the book first, knowing full well that the movie will probably not live up to my expectations. However, I saw Warm Bodies in the theater before reading the book, so I had no preconceived notions about casting or characterization. In fact all I knew about Warm Bodies was that it was a take on Romeo and Juliet, but with zombies. I went to see this film with a group of friends who also happen to be co-workers. Of the six of us who went, only two of us really enjoyed it. So, she (Allison) and I decided to review the movie and book, which we read later.

The Movie "Warm Bodies" Directed by Jonathan Levine. Starring  Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Rob Corddry &  John Malkovich

Amy: I don’t care what anyone else said, I loved Warm Bodies. It was funny, sappy, and a little bit gross. Exactly what one might expect from a zombie romcom. Allison: Thank you! I loved it! It was exactly what I wanted it to be - funny, cheesy, with only a few bits of horror! I also really liked how short it was - I’m sick of three hour long epics! Amy: I'm totally with you there. The thought of sitting in a theater for three-plus hours makes me dread going to the movies. Another thing I loved about Warm Bodies was R’s inner monologue. It was just funny and kind of sad. Yes there were parts that were kind of stupid, but again, it is a ZOMBIE romantic comedy.

Allison: Yes! A similar movie, Shaun of the Dead, was marketed as a romantic comedy with zombies, although that one was more about the living people than the dead. But the idea is the same - this isn't a gore-filled Romero movie. Yes, there are horror elements, but that’s not the crux of the story. While we’re on the subject, one difference between the movie and the book is the outfit R wears. In the movie, he wears jeans and hoodie (setting up a great joke) but in the book, R wears black dress pants, a white shirt and a red tie. I like to think this is a hat-tip to Shaun of the Dead, since that’s the same outfit Shaun (Simon Pegg) wears. Amy: Also, it was leaps and bounds better than Twilight. People need to stop comparing it to Twilight. Allison: I admit that I haven’t read Twilight, but I was forced to see the movie version and I agree 100%. It’s unfortunate that every movie with supernatural elements that centers on a romance is now, apparently, doomed to be lumped together with Twilight. I think many people who would really enjoy the movie haven’t or won’t see it because of that false association. Amy: Another thing I loved about this movie was the relationships between the main characters and their BFF’s. M stood by R when the rest of the zombies wanted to eat Julie and Nora stood by Julie when the rest of the humans wanted to kill R. Allison: Rob Corddry really stole the show as M; some of the best lines were his, whether they were funny or frightening. Both he and Nicholas Hoult expressed more in a grunt or a gesture than most other actros could. M’s character in the book is a bit different (at least physically) than how Corddry portrayed him, but the loyalty, humor and hope are there in each version.

M (Rob Corddry) and R (Nicholas Hoult) in deep conversation at an airport bar. Via Filmofilia.com

Amy: I think Rob Corddry had about five spoken lines in the movie and I absolutely agree that he stole the show. I read somewhere that the cast studied with Cirque de Soliel to get the zombie movements down. I think they did an excellent job. Amy: Speaking of best friends, Julie's best friend Nora says during a dream sequence that if she could be anything in the world she wanted to be a nurse. As we were leaving the theater several members of our group were commenting that it was sad that she said nurse instead of doctor. I realize that being a nurse is considered to be a "typical" female profession but I think being a nurse is a truly noble profession. I have several friends that are nurses and they worked incredibly hard to get their degree. So, lets not disparage a woman for wanting to be a nurse instead of doctor in a film, especially a film about zombies. And now I will get off my soapbox. Allison: Yeah, I know some viewers really objected to that! In the book, Nora goes on to explain that she doesn't think that civilization will around long enough for her to finish medical school. Nora’s character is a bit different in the book - she’s older than Julie and a bit wiser - so her reasoning sits well with me, at least. Amy: I’m choosing to ignore the really terrible CGI from the movie because I don’t think it took anything away from the story.

One of the many "bonies" that menace the Living and the Dead. Via IMBD.com

Allison: I was pleasantly surprised that the CGI wasn't as bad as it could have been given the film’s budget. It reminded me of the mummies from the 1999 movie The Mummy - good enough for the purposes of the movie. And honestly, I thought they were pretty damn menacing! Allison: One last thing about the movie - Richard Roeper (of Ebert and Roeper) gave the movie 3 ½ stars. In his review, he says that he preferred Warm Bodies over other zombie movies and TV shows (The Walking Dead, etc.) because those zombies are predictable. A mutual friend who saw the movie with us took exception to that, and thought that Warm Bodies was no less predictable than other zombie fare. While I can see why someone might say that, I think Roeper meant that the movie didn't follow the usual formula of zombies being your standard unfeeling monsters, devoid of any humanity. Having zombies that retain or regain their humanity (as well as a human falling in love with one) deviates from the standard horror formula, where the story isn't at all about the zombies, but only about the human survivors, and the zombies can easily be replaced with aliens, giant robots or whatever. You're not going to find any multi-dimensional zombies staggering around in The Walking Dead. The Book "Warm Bodies" by Isaac Marion (Fiction Marion)

Amy: My first thought about the book is that while the movie could be considered YA, I wouldn't classify the book in that way. We have it shelved in adult fiction and I believe that is where it belongs. Allison: Agreed. The writing style is more complex than what you might find in some YA - the use of terms like "Escheresque" and "vertiginous" might throw younger readers off. A good portion of the book is spent with R describing what life as a zombie is like and R’s thoughts on what caused the dead to rise. In these passages the author, I think, is using zombie life as a metaphor for depression - the alienation, the lack of interest or ambition, even the dulled senses of the Dead. Of course, this isn't a theme restricted to “adult” literature, but some younger readers might become bored with R’s continuous ruminations. Amy: At the end of the movie you get a sense that everyone will live happily ever after. At the end of the book you get the sense that although things are getting better, it will take years and years before life returns to pre-plague conditions. Allison: One of the key plot points that happens very differently in the movie and books - and which we can’t really talk about since it’d be huge spoiler - definitely contributes to that. Without giving too much away, what ultimately happens with General Grigio (Julie’s father) in the book as opposed to the movie sort of sums up the ultimate message of each. Amy: Allison mentioned that in the book the character of Nora is different, older and wiser.  I liked both characterizations of Nora.  I liked her sense of fun and humor in the movie and how she was wise beyond her years in the book.  Maybe it is because I saw the movie first, but I think I liked the movie better. Allison: I’m having a hard time deciding which one I liked best, since they’re both so different in tone. The movie is much lighter and the focus is on the romance between R and Julie. The book delves deeper into the inner lives (such as they are) of the zombies. We hear a great deal more from R on subject other than Julie and learn that there is even a zombie society. The zombies hold worship services, have sex, marry and raise children. At the beginning of the novel, R meets and marries his wife and later they are given two zombie children to feed and teach. There’s much more world-building in the book than in the movie, which works really well. If the movie had too much of that - aside from R’s introduction at the beginning - it would have been bogged down and much too dark. One section I really enjoyed and illustrates the side of zombie society we don't see as well in the movie was R's (internal) explanation of why he dislikes being called a "corpse" or a "zombie." When Julie first calls R a "corpse" R thinks, "...I realize she can’t possibly know the sensitive cultural connotations of the word 'corpse' …" R also dislikes it when Julie refers to herself as "human," as opposed to a corpse or a zombie. R thinks of himself as human; a Dead human, but human nonetheless. Amy: Marion did an excellent job giving his characters depth and making the reader feel that the "Dead" were also human. He also did a great job relaying that both the Zombie and Human populations were dead in the sense that there was very little hope that either population would survive.  That being said, I would tell people to read the book and see the movie in any order they choose. Allison: Absolutely! After I read the book, I found the short story that inspired it, I Am a Zombie Filled With Love online. I'm also planning to read the prequel Marion is writing, The New Hunger which right now is only available as an eBook from Zola Books, but you can read an excerpt on Entertainment Weekly's website here. And if you can't get enough of romance and/or zombies, click here for a list of similar books and movies! ~ Amy and Allison, Adult Services