Movie, music, and television reviews from a select group of bloggers.
'Star Trek Into Darkness' will star Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk. (Koji Sasahara/AP)
'Star Trek Into Darkness': What does the first real trailer reveal? (+video)
When Star Trek: Enterprise was pulled off the air in 2005, it marked a sad conclusion to 18 consecutive years of the franchise being on TV in one form or another. It didn’t take long though, for Paramount to greenlight a new film, one that could take up the space sci-fi mantle in the absence of Star Wars.
It’s been three and a half years since J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek (inspired by Star Wars) hit theaters and successfully revitalized the brand, bringing back the original crew led by Captain James T. Kirk, and we finally have our first real look at their next adventure in Star Trek Into Darkness… and it’s an epic one.
While story details have remained under the tightest of security compared to most film productions, we do know thanks to the official Star Trek Into Darkness plot synopsis that the crew of the Enterprise will be pitted against Benedict Cumberbatch’s “one man weapon of mass destruction” after Starfleet suffers a major blow. Kirk will have to earn his Captain’s chair as he balances his emotions with duty.
The teaser above is headlined by Cumberbatch and his intimidating presence, bolstered with his powerful voiceover accompanying imagery of destruction, fear, and the iconic Enterprise crashing into the surface of Earth. Whether he represents a new take on Khan, Gary Mitchell or some other character from Star Trek history, Cumberbatch is playing a man of superhuman power.
[Update 1: The Japanese version of the trailer includes 10 seconds of additional footage, teasing a potentially important moment between what could be Kirk and Spock, conveniently similar to the end of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.]
In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes ‘Star Trek Into Darkness.’ When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.
With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.
Stay tuned for more Star Trek 2 footage as the full trailer releases next week with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Moviegoers who check out The Hobbit in IMAX will get to see a 9 minute preview.
Angus T. Jones called his show 'Two and a Half Men' 'filth' and urged viewers not to watch it. (Dan Steinberg/AP)
Angus T. Jones: Will he be replaced on 'Two and a Half Men'?
After a week filled with rants and apologies from series star Angus T. Jones, Two and a Half Men is looking to replace everyone’s favorite “half men” with Miley Cyrus for season 11.
According to CeleBuzz, sources close to the show have said that producers are currently in talks to replace Angus T. Jones next season, calling Cyrus, who appeared in two episodes this year, “the perfect person.”
You can read what the Two and a Half Men insider said below:
There are talks to replace Angus and the perfect person would be Miley Cyrus. The episodes that she appeared on brought in the highest ratings of the season. One possibility is that she could easily be written into the show to go to college.
When she was on set, she was pleasant and very enjoyable to work with. She won everyone over. Now the whispers are growing louder. People involved in the show want Miley to replace Angus.
Now before all the Two and a Half Men fans begin to riot about replacing Angus. T Jones, it should be noted that Jones, who (in)famously called the show “filth” this week, isn’t likely to return for season 11 anyways (his decision). In fact, he actually needed to be coaxed into returning to the series for season 10, which is when he originally wanted to leave.
With Cyrus – who played Missi, a family friend of Walden Schmidt (Asthon Kutcher) – receiving rave reviews for her performance on the show, she’s a no-brainer replacement for the game of “swap the actor” that the series has been playing recently. But is there a point when the Two and a Half Men should just end?
Sure, the series may still receive high ratings, but if Cyrus does replace Jones, Two and a Half Men will be one and a half men down, leaving only Jon Cryer to represent the original “men” of the show. Although there’s nothing technically wrong with replacing cast members, there’s something unnerving about the fact that a show can still remain so successful while replacing much of the cast. Especially when that cast consists of some of the highest paid actors in television.
At this point, there has been no official word as to whether or not Cyrus will, in fact, be replacing Jones for Two and a Half Men season 11. But if it does happen – which is likely – let’s just hope that Jake Harper receives a better send off than his uncle Charlie, who was “hilariously” murdered.
Anthony Ocasio blogs at Screen Rant.
Matt Damon may join George Clooney in Clooney's project 'The Monuments Men.' (Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)
Damon joining Clooney in 'The Monuments Men'?
George Clooney is co-writing, directing and starring in an adaptation of Robert M. Edsel’s non-fiction WWII book The Monuments Men, which reunites the Oscar-nominated Hollywood power-player/humanitarian with a number of old friends and familiar faces – including Matt Damon, who is in talks to reunite with Clooney after appearing alongside him in the Ocean’s Eleven trilogy and Syriana.
Damon is also working the press circuit for Good Will Hunting and Milk director Gus Van Sant’s upcoming Oscar-bait release Promised Land, which he co-wrote (and co-headlines) with The Office‘s John Krasinski. Naturally, journalists are once again hounding Damon for details about his possible return in Bourne 5; however, he’s yet to waver from his previous non-committal stance.
Edsel’s historical source material chronicles the efforts of the “Monuments Men”: a group of American and British art historians/museum curators who rally to recover art stolen by the Third Reich before it is destroyed – as members of Hitler’s regime rush to cover their tracks during the final days of WWII. Deadline says Damon’s up to join the supporting cast for Clooney’s adaptation, which includes Daniel Craig (Skyfall), Bill Murray (Hyde Park on Hudson) and Cate Blanchett (The Hobbit).
Clooney’s film could focus more on the theme of international cooperation than Ben Affleck’s current Oscar-contender Argo does, but unfold as a similar white-knuckle historical thriller driven by extraordinary circumstances. Affleck (the director) has an edge on Clooney (the filmmaker) in this area, as the latter tends to get by more on the strengths of his cast and script (see: The Ides of March) – rather than his skills behind the camera (in this writer’s opinion, anyway). However, Monuments Men has a pretty terrific acting ensemble – and the script Clooney co-penned with Grant Heslov should be solid – so that bodes well.
As for Damon and Bourne 5: last time the actor spoke about the project, he’d not yet seen Bourne Legacy and was expressing doubt based on what he’d heard about the (sorta) Bourne franchise spinoff’s storyline. However, in a new interview with The Playlist, Damon says that he’s since checked out the Jeremy Renner-led Legacy – and admits that it confirmed most of his previous reservations about a team-up with ‘Hawkeye’ in the next Bourne installment.
Here is what Damon said:
“I think it’s going to make it harder for us to make another one. I’m just trying to figure out like… Because [in 'Bourne Legacy'] they used our characters, anything that happens in that world, that’s the ‘Bourne’ world now. So the pill popping and all that stuff happens.”
Damon has made it no secret that he thinks Jason Bourne’s story was properly concluded in Bourne Ultimatum, and has been skeptical about the proposition of his return since then (especially after spending a good chunk of time brain-storming a fourth installment with director Paul Greengrass).
On that subject, he reiterated:
“I don’t know what that story would be. I love Jeremy and I’m a huge fan of him and I know him personally and love him outside of work, too. But I just don’t know what that story would be. I could never see Bourne teaming up with anyone. And all he said was – he wanted out, he wanted out, he wanted out. So how do you get that character going again?”
We can still get behind the idea of Damon and Renner working together in Bourne 5, but the story would have to be all the more compelling following Bourne Legacy (which felt like an extraneous and unnecessary addition to the series). Of course, money talks in Tinseltown and Universal is on record as planning more Bourne sequels – so Damon better prepare to be harassed about this issue even more in the future…
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' stars Martin Freeman (r.) as Bilbo Baggins. (James Fisher/Warner Bros./AP)
'The Hobbit': What are early reviews saying?
Peter Jackson is a geek-friendly filmmaker who graduated to blockbuster maestro status when he adapted J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy more than a decade ago, earning multiple Academy Awards and billions of dollars. He returns to Middle-earth with this month’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which has inspired much in the way of both anticipation and trepidation.
The first wave of professional critic reviews for An Unexpected Journey have hit the ‘Net – but do they confirm everyone’s best hopes, worst fears, or some mix of the two? Scroll on down to find out.
We’ve included informative excerpts from several reviews for the first installment in Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy, which you can peruse through below (note: the film was screened in its native high frame rate 3D format for these journalists and reviewers):
There are several returning artists on the film, like Ian McKellen and Howard Shore and Andrew Lesnie, whose work is every bit as good as it was before, and I think for the most part, “Lord Of The Rings” fans are going to feel like this is a welcome return to Middle Earth. But there are enough uneven qualities this time around that i find myself astonished by the letter grade (B) I’m assigning the film. My hope is that the three films taken together will work better than this one does on its own, and that the pacing issues are not going to be ongoing as the series continues.
“Again and again” is also the film’s biggest issue. On a consistent basis, it’s almost as if Jackson forgets he has two more films to release and is forced to pump the brakes. Tangents pop out of nowhere, dialogue scenes are stretched into infinity, and a familiar structure of capture followed by rousing escape, is consistently repeated… Overall The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a lot of fun. Fans of Jackson, Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings films will enjoy it. However, it’s long and uneven, which keeps it from reaching the heights of Jackson’s first three Middle-Earth films.
While it will be too formulaic and familiar to some (and certainly non-fans won’t be won over), ‘The Hobbit’ is another grand achievement from director Peter Jackson. While this distended picture threatens to buckle under the weight of its own self-importantance, Peter Jackson clearly believes he’s earned the right to preamble and make nearly three hour long tent poles each time out of the gate. And the last two acts of ‘The Hobbit’ are simply a non-stop action-adventure rollercoaster that is just as engaging and winning as anything in the director’s previous trilogy.
It takes Jackson a long time to build up a head of steam, but he delivers the goods in this final stretch, which is paralleled by the hitherto ineffectual Bilbo beginning to come into his own as a character. One of Tolkien’s shrewdest strategies in writing The Hobbit and designing it to appeal to both youngsters and adults over the decades was making Bilbo a childlike grown-up who matures and assumes responsibilities he initially perceives are beyond him. Freeman, who at first seems bland in the role, similarly grows into the part, giving hope that the character will continue to blossom in the two forthcoming installments.
What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions—say, Martin Freeman’s Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap—look like meth-head hallucinations… That’s not the only challenge faced by The Hobbit [as] the expectations and filmmaking itself have matured but the storytelling is more juvenile. And where the Rings trilogy had weight, The Hobbit is all wigs and slapstick and head-lopping violence unsuitable for children—who are the only audience who won’t be bored to tears.
[The] decision to film at a higher frame rate really ruins the movie. You do adjust to it eventually, but almost every scene requires some sort of adjustment and the human brain can’t do that and escape into a fantasy world at the same time… For the most part, the writing and storytelling are there, but the visual decisions make it hard to appreciate any of it especially during the action sequences… It’s almost as if no one involved with making the movie put it up on a screen to see how anything might look, because that’s the only reason why so much of the movie could look so very, very bad.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has set a high bar for the next two installments, but if the Lord of the Rings trilogy is any indication, I fully believe that bar will be surpassed. Moving forward, I’d like to see the films become a bit more serious, especially since Bilbo is now in possession of a certain ring and all the grave consequences that portends. It would also be a more gradual transition into the Lord of the Rings trilogy and would allow new fans to mature along with the entire six-film arc, much like the Harry Potter films so expertly achieved.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey almost attains greatness yet despite so many moments of epic fun, greatness remains just out of its reach. This is a very good and entertaining movie even if it never quite recaptures the wonder or mystique of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Flaws and all, though, it was just nice to be back in Middle-earth again.
So, in summation:
- The 48 frames per second (fps) projection is jarring and distracting.
- Jackson’s sense of cinematic storytelling has matured on a technical level.
- Excess dialogue, story tangents and foundation-laying for future installments weaken the first act.
- Things pick up significantly after the heavy-lifting of the first hour, giving rise to action-packed and thrilling fantasy adventure.
Overall, it sounds as though The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey does indeed suffer from being stretched out to serve as the first chapter in a new trilogy. Nonetheless, it’s good enough to suggest that future installments will improve in terms of pacing and structure – though, that’s not guaranteed, seeing how both the second and third movies could have even more story padding.
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
Actors (from left) David Morrissey, Sarah Wayne Callies, Andrew Lincoln, Norman Reedus, Laurie Holden, Steven Yeun, and Lauren Cohan star on 'The Walking Dead.' (John Shearer/AMC/AP)
'The Walking Dead': Where did the midseason finale leave the survivors?
When The Walking Dead first introduces the audience to Tyreese (Chad Coleman), we see a man who is forced to make a very difficult decision in a split second. Faced with the prospect of a group member who has been bitten, Tyreese chooses to keep her among the living, so that when the time comes, his people will be safe, and her loved ones are better prepared to deal with the woman’s impending, horrific and inevitable transformation.
It’s a decision that’s been made on this program many times before, but one that hasn’t been seen so much during the first half of season 3. It’s a difficult decision because it prolongs the suffering of the afflicted, but still manages to show compassion in a world seemingly devoid of the stuff. It is a decision that would have been made by the Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) of old.
And with that, a whole new group of characters are introduced to The Walking Dead just before it shuffles off for a brief hiatus. This could be troublesome for the series; more people means more opinions, which means more arguing – something that’s previously ground the plot to halt. But thankfully, ‘Made to Suffer’ isn’t looking to put the audience through that again. This is a tight, well-paced episode that manages to keep the primary focus of the season in its sights for the duration of the hour.
The group in question is small and capable, but clearly running on fumes by the time they reach the prison – entering what they believe to be something of a safe haven. By the time Carl (Chandler Riggs) stumbles upon the group battling a group of walkers, they look as if they might be overrun. It’s another split-second decision, but this time Carl, who has seen his father take a completely different route when it comes to strangers in his territory, is the one to make it.
Both incidents provide a little insight into the change that’s occurred in Rick since the tumultuous end of season 2. Time has hardened him in a way that has seemingly not yet touched Tyreese, and has surprisingly not completely reached his son, who, moments before stumbling upon the gatecrashers, was steeling himself and Beth (Emily Kinney) for the likelihood that the party headed to Woodbury would not be heard from again. Carl is smart enough to keep the strangers at a safe distance, but still, he reacted with compassion in a moment that experience suggests should have gone another way. It’s an emotion that’s led Rick into territory so dangerous, he’s all but abandoned the notion of the needs of others. And considering the suffering the former lawman has gone through these first eight episodes, the fact that he’s even straying from the prison to help those who may already be dead is something of a revelation.
One would like to thing that the party Rick leads to Woodbury in search of Glenn (Steven Yeun) and Maggie (Lauren Cohan) is based on compassion, that it shows the level of commitment Rick has to those who put their trust in him – but there’s something about Rick this season that suggests he’s headed to Woodbury to put the hurt on whoever took what’s his. Make no mistake about it: Glenn and Maggie are his people.
So now, we essentially have Rick’s two sides presented by wildly different characters. On one hand there is Tyreese, who is (for now, anyway) compassionate, intelligent and, most importantly, level headed – choosing to see temporary imprisonment as a welcome respite from the outside world, rather than waste his breath yelling at a kid in a sheriff’s hat. On the other hand, there’s the Governor (David Morrissey), who is so hell-bent on protecting what’s his, he’ll send a small platoon of men to wipe out any interlopers – even if they’re holed-up miles away in a prison thought to be overrun with the undead. Perhaps when Rick returns, Tyreese can offer him some kind of security and help to get the once-compassionate man back to a place where trusting strangers isn’t thought of as a possible death sentence.
Rick, Daryl (Norman Reedus) and Oscar (Vincent Ward) find themselves on the edge of Woodbury’s walls having been led there by a stranger with little more than a sword and an attitude problem. Once again, Rick’s forced to trust an interloper, but there’s something he wants on the other end of that leap of faith that makes it worthwhile. And so, from a small, unassuming group with a lot of automatic weapons, Woodbury finds itself under attack for the first time in a long time. The citizens are rattled, and the Governor, faced with what may be a colossal failure, turns the fear his people have at being targeted for possessing what others do not to his advantage. Woodbury’s populace is given to craven madness, summarily calling for the execution of someone they know, without being presented any real evidence. Now the Governor doesn’t have to hide his true intentions for the group at the prison; his followers will practically beg him to send a hit squad to wipe them out. The people have seen what strangers are capable of, and as far as they’re concerned, there’s only one way to deal with such a threat.
In a way, Michonne (Danai Gurira) has more in common with the Governor and the people of Woodbury than she’d like to admit. Going out of her way to sneak into Phillip’s apartment and wait for him, only to wind up skewering his zombie-daughter and half-blinding him with a shard of glass, is not the decision of a sane person – but rather one fueled by fear, anger and a thirst for vengeance.
Which is something The Walking Dead fans will be if Daryl doesn’t make it through the impromptu reunion with his brother Merle (Michael Rooker). At any rate, after this action-packed midseason finale, we’ll have to wait until February to find out what fate awaits the Dixon brothers.
Various other items:
- Carol (Melissa McBride) telling Axel (Lew Temple) that now is not the time to be thinking about repopulating the earth was a nice way to broach the subject, considering how gross and inappropriate Axel was being.
- Right now, Axel seems like a bit of (perverted) comic relief – which makes one wonder if the character will stay close to his comic book roots or deviate drastically.
- Farewell, Oscar.
- That was awfully cool of a bearded Jon Bernthal to make a hallucinatory appearance in the episode.
Kevin Yeoman blogs at Screen Rant.
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' will also feature the return of Andrew Garfield as the webslinger. (Jaimie Trueblood/Columbia Sony Pictures/AP)
'The Amazing Spider-Man 2': What actor just got cast as Harry Osborn?
Sony’s reported to have been eying actors for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 who could play an athletic and handsome Harry Osborn – as opposed to director Marc Webb’s original lineup of young stars, which was composed of actors better fit to portray a brooding outsider version of Harry (who could conceivably take up the Green Goblin mantle after his father).
Well, it appears that Webb got one of his initial choices after all – as breakout star Dane DeHaan is confirmed to join Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy in the Amazing Spider-Man sequel. Similarly, Jamie Foxx and Shailene Woodley (The Descendants) can also now be counted as officially onboard for the superhero blockbuster.
Sony released an official press release revealing that DeHaan is set for Amazing Spider-Man 2, around the same time that Webb confirmed the news via Twitter. DeHaan thereafter Tweeted that “To say I’m excited is an understatement,” while Sony’s confirmation included the following statement from Webb:
“Dane is an exciting and extraordinary young actor and he is a fantastic addition to our cast,” Webb said.
Over the past year, DeHaan transitioned from playing troubled young men on the HBO TV series In Treatment and True Blood – to similar, but more challenging, roles in the found-footage flick Chronicle and period crime drama Lawless; he also makes a brief, but memorable, appearance in the opening minutes of Lincoln. Next year, DeHaan should keep his win streak alive with roles in The Place Beyond the Pines (from Blue Valentine writer-director Derek Cianfrance) and the beat generation memoir Kill Your Darlings with Daniel Radcliffe and Elizabeth Olsen.
DeHaan will follow in James Franco’s footsteps (from director Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy) by bringing Harry Osborn to life on the big screen. As was mentioned before, DeHaan as Harry could eventually go to become a villain in the Amazing Spider-Man narrative thread (like Franco did in Spider-Man 3). However, that will depend on how exactly Norman Osborn – who has yet to be officially cast – fits into ‘The Untold Story’ of Peter Parker; not to mention, other possible villains who could show up somewhere down the line.
Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx (who stars in Django Unchained this month) is indeed now set as the antagonist Electro in Amazing Spider-Man 2. In fact, for the time being, Electro is the sole villain announced for the followup – though, some twists and surprises could well be in order, given that the revised script draft was penned by geek-favorites Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (Star Trek) and Jeff Pinkner (Fringe) – who drew from an initial draft written up by Amazing Spider-Man alum James Vanderbilt.
Meanwhile, Shailene Woodley is playing classic red-haired Spider-Man love interest Mary Jane Watson in Amazing Spider-Man 2. However, it’s been speculated that her character will have a limited role in the main proceedings – which continue to deal with Peter’s ongoing journey toward maturity - and that Mary Jane could play a more important role in later installments, once these films move closer and closer to recreating Gwen Stacy’s eventual fate from the comics.
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
'Life of Pi' is directed by Ang Lee and stars Suraj Sharma (r.) as Pi. (20th Century Fox/AP)
'Life of Pi': The ending explained
Ang Lee’s Life of Pi is racking-up critical acclaim (read our review) and pre-award season buzz along with solid box office numbers. Though, for every mention of the film’s beautiful 3D or amazing CGI tiger, there’s a fuddled viewer confused by the movie’s controversial ending.
Readers of Yann Martel’s original novel (the ones who made it to the end) have already faced the challenging last-minute question presented by the story’s narrator, but filmgoers expecting a fanciful adventure at sea have been understandably caught off-guard by the finale. No doubt, viewers will debate the ending with friends and family – but to help steer discussion we’ve put together a brief analysis of the Life of Pi ending, explaining why the final question may not be as cut and dry as some moviegoers seem to think.
It goes without saying that the remainder of this article will contain MAJOR SPOILERS for Life of Pi - the movie and the book (especially the ending). If you do not want to be spoiled about either, turn away now.
For anyone who hasn’t seen (or read) Life of Pi and isn’t concerned about having the ending spoiled, Pi’s adventure concludes in a Mexican hospital bed – where he is interviewed by a pair of Japanese Ministry of Transport officials. The agents tell Pi that his story – which includes multiple animal companions and a carnivorous island – is too unbelievable for them to report, so Pi tells them a different version of the story: one that paints a much darker and emotionally disturbing variation of events. After both stories have been shared, Pi leaves it up to the viewer (or reader) to decide which version they “prefer.”
Personal “preference” has larger thematic meaning, when viewed in the context of the overarching story; however, before we analyze the ending (via the question) in greater detail, we’re going to briefly lay out the two versions of Pi’s story.
In both accounts, Pi’s father contracts a Japanese ship to transport his family, along with a number of their zoo animals, from India to Canada in an effort to escape political upheaval in their native country. The stories are identical up until Pi climbs aboard the lifeboat (following the sinking of the cargo ship) only re-converging when he is rescued on the Mexican shore. The 227 days that Pi spends lost at sea are up for debate.
The Animal Story
In this version of Pi’s tale, the cargo ship sinks and, during the ensuing chaos, he is joined on the lifeboat by a ragtag group of zoo animals that also managed to escape: an orangutan, a spotted hyena, a zebra with a broken leg, and a Bengal Tiger (named Richard Parker). After some time, Pi watches helplessly as the hyena kills the zebra and then the orangutan before it is, subsequently, dispatched by Richard Parker. Pi then sets about conditioning the tiger through rewarding behavior (food and fresh water), so that the two can co-exist in the boat. Though Pi succeeds, the pair remain on the verge of starvation – until, after several months at sea, they wash ashore an uncharted island packed with fresh vegetation and a bountiful meerkat population. Pi and Richard Parker stuff themselves, but soon discover that the island is home to a carnivorous algae that, when the tide arrives, turns the ground to an acidic trap. Pi realizes that eventually the island will consume them – so he stocks the lifeboat with greens and meerkats and the pair sets sail again. When the lifeboat makes landfall along the Mexican coast, Pi and Richard Parker are once again malnourished – as Pi collapses on the beach, he watches the Bengal Tiger disappear into the jungle without even glancing back.
Pi is brought to a hospital – where he tells the animal story to the Japanese officials. However, when the agents do not believe his tale, the young survivor tells a different version of his journey.
The Human Story
In this version of Pi’s tale the cargo ship still sinks, but instead of the ragtag group of animals in the lifeboat, Pi claims that he was joined by his mother (Gita), the ship’s despicable cook, and an injured Japanese sailor. After some time, fearing for the limited supplies in the boat, the cook kills the weakened Japanese sailor, and later, Gita. Scarred from watching his mother die in front of his eyes, Pi kills the cook in a moment of self-preservation (and revenge).
Pi does not mention his other adventures at sea (the carnivorous island, etc) but it’d be easy to strip away some of the fantastical elements in favor of more grounded (albeit allegorical) situations. Maybe he found an island but realized that living is more than just eating and existing – deciding to take his chances at sea instead of wasting away in apathy on a beach eating meerkats all alone. Of course, that is purely speculation – since, again, Pi does not elaborate on the more grounded human story beyond the revelation that he was alone on the lifeboat.
Even if the connection between the lifeboat parties was missed, the writer makes the connection for the audience (or readers): the hyena is the cook, the orangutan is Pi’s mother, the zebra is the sailor, and Richard Parker is Pi. However, the film’s juxtaposition of the animal story and the human story has led many moviegoers to view the last-minute plot point as a finite “twist” – which was not the original intention of Martel (with the book) or very likely Lee (with the film). Viewers have pointed to the look of anguish on Pi’s face during his telling of the human story in the film as “proof” that he was uncomfortable facing the true horror of his experience. However, the novel takes the scene in the opposite direction, with Pi expressing annoyance at the two men – criticizing them for wanting “a story they already know.” Either way, much like the ending of Inception (read our explanation of that ending), there is no “correct” answer – and Life of Pi intentionally leaves the question unanswered so that viewers (and readers) can make up their own mind.
Facing the final question, it can be easy to forget that, from the outset, The Writer character was promised a story that would make him believe in God. In the first part of the narrative, we see Pi struggling to reconcile the differences between faith interpretations (Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam) – acknowledging that each of them contained valuable elements, even if they tell different stories (elements that together help him survive his ordeal at sea regardless of whether or not he was there with a tiger).
As a result, the larger question is impossible to answer definitely and, as mentioned, the “truth” of Pi’s story is of little concern to Martel or Lee. The real question is – which story do you, the viewer/reader prefer? Interpretation is subjective but the question is intended to serve as a moment of theological reflection. Are you a person that prefers to believe in things that always make sense/things that you can see? Or are you a person that prefers to believe in miracles/take things on faith? There are no right or wrong answers – just an opportunity for introspection.
Pi is faced with a heavy challenge: telling a story that will make a person believe in God. Some listeners might remain unconvinced but in the case of The Writer, who openly admits that he prefers the story with the tiger, and the Japanese officials, who in their closing report remarked on the feat of “surviving 227 days at sea… especially with a tiger,” Pi successfully helps skeptics overcome one of the largest hurdles to faith – believing in the unbelievable.
Since Pi marries The Writer’s preference for the Tiger story with the line, “and so it goes with God,” it’s hard to separate the question entirely from theology. Evidenced by his multi-religious background, Pi does not believe that any of the world’s religions are a one-stop shop for the truth of God – and his goal is not to convert anyone to a specific dogma. Instead, his story is set up to help viewers/readers consider which version of the world they prefer – the one where we make our own way and suffer through the darkness via self-determination, or the one where we are aided by something greater than ourselves (regardless of which version of “God” we may accept).
That said, aside from all the theological implications, and regardless of personal preference, it’s insular to view the ending as simply a dismissal of everything that Pi had previously described (and/or experienced) – since, in keeping with his view that every religious story has worthwhile parts, a third interpretation of the ending could be that the “truth” is a mix of both stories. Like Pi and his three-tiered faith routine, the viewer/reader can always pick and choose the parts that benefit their preferred version of the tale.
The “truth”: Pi survived for 227 days at sea, married the girl of his dreams, had children, and lived to tell two stories.
Ben Kendrick blogs at Screen Rant.
'Downton Abbey' will return for its third season in the US in January. (Nick Briggs/PBS/AP)
'Downton Abbey' creator will head to NBC for a period drama
The curious success of ITV’s Downton Abbey has raised the statuses of all involved onto the world stage. Part old-school costume soap opera and part socially conscious drama, Downton has no doubt sparked a renewed interest in period drama on network television.
In perhaps the first indicator of a new wave of historical series, NBC has announced that it has contracted with Downton Abbey‘s main creative force, Julian Fellowes, to pen the script for an American take on aristocracy. Taking place in the 1880s, The Gilded Age is expected to be the stateside answer to Downton.
According to TV Line, NBC hopes to replicate the success of Downton Abbey with the help of that series’ own creator. The Gilded Age will follow the lives of the so-called “Robber Barons” of late-1800s New York – families such as the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Astors, and Morgans. These millionaires and their families will navigate a period that was as simultaneously stagnant and in flux, caught up in rising social trends and technological change.
Julian Fellowes has a long and accomplished history both in television and film. He has acted onscreen since the 1970s and began writing screenplays in the early 90s. Before Downton Abbey, Fellowes penned the scripts to noted movies such as Gosford Park, Vanity Fair, and The Tourist (perhaps we should ignore that last one).
While NBC’s intent to create “an American Downton Abbey” with The Gilded Age is utterly transparent, it’s not exactly an unwelcome development. Downton‘s mixture of melodrama and nuance is lacking on many American network dramas. Julian Fellowes has a knack for making complicated social dynamics and class-conscious dialogue pop, which will go a long way toward making a series about the ultra-rich palatable. If Fellowes sticks to his guns, he will end up dividing time – like Downton and previous productions – for both the powerful and the servants that prop them up.
As interesting as the premise of The Gilded Age is, it does smack of leaping unashamedly onto Downton Abbey‘s bandwagon. Even with Fellowes involved, there’s a possibility that the series will simply ape Downton‘s style and cadence – only with a New York blueblood accent rather than a posh British one. That said, the difference in social dynamics – both in time and geography – could make for a completely different sort of show. At the very least, The Gilded Age may end up being the bellwether on a coming tide of American costume dramas.
Kyle Hembree blogs at Screen Rant.
Hugh Jackman is already set to play Wolverine in the upcoming 2013 film 'The Wolverine.' (Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters)
Will Hugh Jackman return as Wolverine in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'?
The pieces are falling into place, forming what may eventually become an all-out reunion for Bryan Singer and the casts of both the X-Men trilogy and its prequel, X-Men: First Class. We’ve known the potential of returning appearances of familiar characters since Singer confirmed the film’s title, X-Men: Days of Future Past, based on the title of the famous time-travel story arc from Marvel Comics, but it wasn’t until yesterday did we learn it’s actually happening.
Bryan Singer – taking over the director’s seat from Matthew Vaughn who may or may not be directing Star Wars Episode 7 – happily confirmed that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen will be back for the next X-Men team-up and as we suspected, they will likely be joined by franchise star Hugh Jackman.
According to THR, Jackman is currently in negotiations with Fox to return for what will be his sixth portrayal of the adamantium-laced feral mutant (the seventh being a cameo in X-Men: First Class). This would further solidify his status as the actor who holds the record for playing the same superhero character in the most films.
Jackman loves playing Wolverine and previously went on record saying he’s not in it for the money. He’s even producing The Wolverine, which tells the tale of Logan’s travels to Japan – a story that Jackman wanted to be a part of ever since he joined X-Men. Three years ago, when X-Men Origins: Wolverine debuted, he jokingly said he’d play the character “eleven more” times.
“I always say, ‘oh, I’m never doing another one,’ until I see the script. It has to be something. But in the superhero world, those kind of movies, ‘Wolverine’ is by far the most interesting… So I’ll do eleven more and that’s it!”
Of course, it was easy then for me to say yesterday, after the Stewart and McKellen casting announcements, that Jackman would sign up as well. And he will.
This raises two interesting questions:
- With headliners from the X-Men trilogy coming aboard, will that make it easier to bring back the others? Do they want to for this story?
- How will this affect The Wolverine?
You can count on Twentieth Century Fox and Mark Millar – their newly hired creative consultant on their Marvel movies – to find a way to work something into The Wolverine to bridge the gap between it and what’s coming up next. There’s absolutely no way they wouldn’t take advantage of this opportunity. Singer and Fox have big ambitions, and The Wolverine - which interestingly takes place after the trilogy – is step one of their plans, no matter how standalone Jackman and director James Mangold aim for it to be. Perhaps this lends more credence to the rumors that Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) will cameo in The Wolverine and that she’ll return for Days of Future Past.
Bryan Singer will direct X-Men: Days of Future Past with returning stars Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Nicholas Hoult, Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, who could be joined by the return of Hugh Jackman, Famke Janssen, Anna Paquin, James Marsden, Ellen Page, Shawn Ashmore. Stay tuned!
Rob Keyes blogs at Screen Rant.
Cate Blanchett's possible role in the Disney film would have her be the first actor to come aboard the project. (Reuters)
Cate Blanchett's possible role: a Disney villainess
If you thought Disney was done spinning live-action films out of its animation catalog after Alice in Wonderland, think again. Director Tim Burton’s $1 billion grossing take on Alice (which unfolds as a sequel to Lewis Carroll’s original novel… sorta) opened the floodgates for even more re-imaginings of famous children’s tales – and one of them is a live-action treatment of the Cinderella fairy tale from the House of Mouse.
Cate Blanchett – who returns as Galadriel in this December’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - is in talks to become the first cast member signed on for the project, which would feature the Oscar-winner in the iconic evil stepmother role (known as Lady Tremaine in Disney’s 1950 hand-drawn adaptation).
The Cinderella re-telling has been developing over at Disney since 2010, based on a pitch from Aline Brosh McKenna (The Devil Wears Prada, 27 Dresses). Back then, Amanda Seyfried was rumored to be playing the famous gal with glass slippers; however, there is no mention of the Mamma Mia! and Les Misérables actress in Deadline‘s scoop about Blanchett being “in deep talks” to join the new production (which should be a more conventional fairy tale re-envisioning that Joe Wright’s Hanna, featuring Blanchett as the ‘wicked stepmom’).
Disney has attached ex-music video director Mark Romanek to Cinderella, where he will draw from a screenplay crafted by Chris Weitz (About a Boy, The Golden Compass) based on McKenna’s pitch. That might sound like a weird mix of creative talent, seeing how Romanek’s previous feature-length efforts (One Hour Photo, Never Let Me Go) are worlds apart from the fluffy rom-coms and feel-good drama that Weitz and McKenna are known for writing. Then again, Tarsem Singh wasn’t exactly known for kiddie material before he delivered a bright and bubbly rendition of Snow White with Mirror Mirror (which, arguably, is a better riff on the fairy tale than the more-popular Snow White and the Huntsman).
Moreover, Deadline previously described the film as follows:
… The re-imaging of the classic tale where the prince is set for a politically arranged marriage, until the evil plan is threatened when the prince meets Cinderella.
That’s to say, Romanek’s retelling could fall closer to a ‘realistic’ take on the story (a la Drew Barrymore’s Ever After: A Cinderella Story) than Disney’s whimsical and fantastical animated version. Blanchett isn’t exactly known for signing off scripts unless they have the potential to be something special (yes, that includes Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull), so something about McKenna and Weitz’ take on the centuries-old story must have been promising enough to secure her commitment.
Perhaps the only significant concern at this point is that Blanchett could steal the show as Cinderella’s very evil (but also very attractive) stepmother – as happened with Charlize Theron as the Evil Queen in Snow White and the Huntsman. That will largely depend on who ends up playing the lead and how well-written her role is (say what you will about Kristen Stewart’s performance in SWATH, but she didn’t have much to work with).
Sandy Schaefer blogs at Screen Rant.
Previous
Become part of the Monitor community