Reports that the iconic British actor passed away this morning from cancer have been confirmed by his family.
Last night the 69th annual Golden Globe awards took place in Beverly Hilton Hotel, California. Ricky Gervais hosted for the third consecutive year, but this time, instead of causing controversy, people complained that he was too tame. Now, before you go off to proclaim to your friends that you knew who would win, take a look at the winners.
First up are the movie categories:
Best Animated Film
The Adventures of TinTin
Best Actor in a Drama
George Clooney, The Descendants
Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Best Actress in a Drama
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy
Michelle Williams, My Week with Marilyn
Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen
Best Score – Motion Picture
The Artist – Ludovic Bource
Best Original Song – Motion Picture
“Masterpiece” – Madonna
Best Foreign Language Film
A Separation, Iran
Cecil B. Demille Award
And now on to the television categories:
Best TV Comedy or Musical
Best Television Series – Drama
Best Actor in a TV Drama
Kelsey Grammer, Boss
Best Actor in a TV Musical or Comedy
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes
Best Supporting Actor in TV Series, Mini-Series, or Made-for-TV Movie
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Best Actress in a TV Drama
Claire Danes, Homeland
Best Actress in a TV Musical or Comedy
Laura Dern, Enlightened
Best Supporting Actress in TV Series, Mini-Series, or Made-for-TV Movie
Jessica Lange, American Horror Story
Best Actor in a TV Movie
Idris Elba, Luther
Best Actress in a TV Movie
Kate Winslet, Mildred Pierce
What do you think? Did you guess right? Are you happy with the winners? Who do you think should have won? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to follow/subscribe and click the like button, only if you liked the post. I have a Twitter account too, it’s https://twitter.com/#!/AdamODwyer1, just saying.
It’s a good day to be a comic book geek as we finally get a look at the stars of two upcoming superhero movies in their costumes, English actor Henry Cavill as Superman and Anne Hathaway as Catwoman.
Though it resembles the classic Superman suit, there are some noticeable differences. The costume is darker and made of a different material, also the single curl, which is normally on Superman’s forehead, has been cut off. Having seen the reaction to the new Wonder Woman costume a few months back, I am curious about how people are reacting to the changes. Personally, I do think that the costume looks more manly and will fit the big screen better, especially considering that this movie is intended to be darker than previous Superman films.
Catwoman without any catlike features? That’s an interesting choice. If I’m not mistaken, the goggles have some sort of cat ear, but that’s about it. Since she’s on, what is speculated to be, the bat-cycle, it’s hard to judge the costume. However, if the rest of the suit is completely lacking in the feline department Nolan’s going to have some pretty disappointed fans on his hands. It’s thought that the reason pictures of Catwoman have been released is because Nolan knew paparazzi would snap a few photos while they were filming, so he beat them too it.
What do you think? Are you impressed by the costumes? Do you think they should have gone with the more classic version of the suits? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
By now most fans know that Ashton Kutcher is replacing Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men and now we have a poster to prove it.
Let me just start by saying that a poster with three, presumably, naked male actors on it will not draw in the same people that watched the show before Sheen’s departure. The idea was clearly to capitalise on the sex appeal of the new star, which will completely isolate existing fans who are predominantly older males.
Having spoken to many people about Kutcher being cast, I know that there was already doubt as to whether or not he would be able to maintain the same audience as Sheen. However, Kutcher may bring in a different type of audience, a younger generation. Obtaining in a younger audience could be just what the show needs, but the dynamic of the show will change completely, which could very well get rid of the things that made it funny in the first place.
What do you think? Do you like the poster? Are you going to watch the show? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
How can you replace a tiger blood filled 45 year old comedian? You just call someone younger and more stable, which this time means Ashton Kutcher.
Kutcher first gained a following playing Kelso in the sitcom That 70s Show, but has since gone on to star in movies. Landing a role in Two and a Half Men will mark his return to the wonderful world of sitcoms, but will he be a welcomed addition to the show? Let’s face it no matter how you feel about Charlie Sheen his character is the better of the leads. Its art imitating life, but when you take out drunken Uncle Charlie and add in someone much younger the whole dynamic of the show is changed.
Two and a Half Men has a huge fan base. The younger fans will probably give Kutcher a chance, but he may find it hard to appeal to the older male audience, which is definitely a large percent of the shows fan base. As I said before, the dynamic of the show will have to change significantly, so they’re probably going to try to obtain a younger audience in the process. Maybe Charlie won’t be the only character that leaves the show.
I have to say I was surprised by the casting choice, it’s a bold move. I guess they figured that trying to literally replace Charlie with an identical character wouldn’t go down well. Also, from a financial point of view, Ashton works out better as he is cheaper than Sheen. Kutcher is reportedly going to receive 1 million per episode, opposed to the 1.2 million that Charlie Sheen got.
What do you think? Do you think Ashton Kutcher was a smart choice? Will you give the show a chance? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe.
A trailer for the upcoming movie Final Destination 5 has been released and it looks as though producers have taking fan criticism onboard.
Many people have been complaining that the Final Destination series has gotten stale, seriously how many times can you make the same movie. The first too were great, because they had a link to each other, the third one introduced the photos which was a fun way to get the audience guessing, but the fourth just ditched the cleverness and went for 3D instead. The result was an overly bright example of how bad some actors are.
The trailer for Final Destination 5 shows that the franchise is going back to its roots. It’s darker and the deaths are less comical and more cringe worthy. The opening deaths are always one of my favourite parts. However, the writers try to make each opening better than the last and number three’s rollercoaster was hard to beat, four failed, but I think five might have succeeded.
Number five’s premonition takes place on a wire bridge. It doesn’t sound like much, but it looks great. There’s so much going on and so many characters to choose from, I’m already wondering who survives. Those that do survive will have a good chance of clinging on to their survivor status, because this movie will see the return of Bludworth (played by actor Tony Todd) who was last seen in Final Destination 2 and last heard in Final Destination 3. I was worried that he would appear for a few seconds, but from the trailer I can see he gives a whole speech to the survivors. I’m excited to see how they find him considering that all the survivors from the movies that featured him are dead.
Another good point about the trailer is that, and I could be wrong here, but it looks like the actors can act. I know I’m as shocked as you are. I never had a problem with the actors in the original trilogy, I hate to keep picking on it, but it was only four that I thought had really bad actors. Other people think the bad acting goes back furthered, but I think we can all hope that it ended with number four. We won’t really know until we see more though, but enjoy the trailer and let me know what you think by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe.
Was the moon landing faked? Who cares, all I know is that a spaceship from Cybertron was discovered on the moon way back on the first moon trip to the moon and the US government have kept this a secret, even from the Autobots. Thank you Obama.
Just a few days ago, a new trailer for the third Transformers movie, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, was released. It gives a lot more detail than past trailers and I have to say, despite earlier hesitation, I didn’t hate it. It looks like it’s going to be an action packed adventure from start to finish, which is surprising considering how bad number two did.
By know you probably know that Megan Fox is not longer part of the franchise, unfortunately Shia LaBeouf still is. Was Fox’s absents felt in the trailer? Nope they replaced her with some blonde girl. The blonde girl, also known as Rosie Huntington-Whitley, plays Carly, a character that is actually from the 1984 Transformers animated series. Finally one of the shows human characters has made it into the movies. The actress playing her has no prior acting experience though so it could go either way.
The plot explores the final battle between Autobots and Deceptacons. Each group is trying to get their hands on the ship that the humans found on the moon many years before. The secrets that the ship holds may well decide the winner of the war. I have mixed feelings about the plot. It just feels like they always have to go back and discover secrets. Didn’t the Transformers ever actually live on Cybertron? Shouldn’t they know some of this stuff already?
A real tragedy occurred while they were filming. An extra suffered from permanent brain damage when a stunt, that she wasn’t even part of, went wrong. A cable broke and came through the front of the car she was in, hitting her in the head and cracking her skull. She is paralyzed on one half of her body and her left eye had to be stitched closed. Paramount promised to pay for the medical expensive and her family is suing for seven counts of negligence. The extra’s name is Gabriela Cedillo and she is 24 years old. I legitimately hope that she wins the lawsuit.
Another accident happened on the set, this one involving a police officer who clearly was out sick the day they announced that some streets would be closed for filming. The car that plays Bumblebee was crossing an intersection when a police car came from a different direction. Unable to stop in time Bumblebee crashed into the side of the cop car. The officer was not supposed to be there, but at least no one was injured.
What do you think? Is this film cursed? Are you glad to see a human from the animated series appear in the film? Do you miss Megan Fox? Will this series be able to recover after the disappointing, perhaps racist, second film? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to vote.
Robert Pattinson goes from an animal eating vampire to a circus veterinarian as he attempts to take his career in a more serious direction. Will his plan work or will he always be haunted by Edward Cullen?
Water for Elephants started out as a book by Sara Gruen. It was Gruen’s third book and was initially turned down by her publisher. Since publication, in 2006, it has become a bestseller and can be read in 44 different languages. The story is narrated by Jacob Jankowski, a 90 something year old man living in a nursing home. Jacob reminisces about his life as veterinarian in a circus. While working at the circus, he met, and fell in love with, a married woman named Marlena, as if that wasn’t bad enough, her husband is a paranoid schizophrenic.
The movie follows the same plot and stars Robert Pattinson as Jacob, Reese Witherspoon as Marlena and Christoph Waltz as August, Marlena’s Husband. Both critics and movie goers have criticised the chemistry, or lack of chemistry, between Pattinson and Witherspoon. It seems that the 11 year age gap may have taken a toll on their performances, which, to be honest, isn’t surprising. Besides that there isn’t much criticism to be said, but chemistry between characters can make or break a movie. It really makes me wonder if, when casting for the movie, they were looking for chemistry or just big names.
Though not my type of movie, I have to say that, from the trailer, the movie looks very well put together. If you’re an animal lover you should be warned that there are some scenes of animal cruelty. The cruelty toward animals was also present in the book, because it was very common in circuses back then, but no animals were actually hurt it’s all just Hollywood magic.
What do you think? Does this movie help Robert Pattinson become a more serious actor? Is the book better or worse than the movie? Did you think there was chemistry between Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe.