Why?

Many are often understandably apprehensive about turning games into movies because a game fundamentally puts you in control of the experience. There are often tight parameters regarding choices but your actions dictate the game’s pace – something which no movie can replicate. However, the modern Grand Theft Auto series has excelled at telling stories that feel right at home on the big screen. With its focus on character development, visual spectacle and twisting narrative threads that are just as engaging to watch as they are to play through. 

Additionally, a GTA film’s more limited runtime would allow for a more precise distillation of what makes the series great rather than allowing for all the fun but often pointless overindulgences featured in many of the new games. Simply put, it is possible for GTA to become the basis for a good movie. 

What Makes Grand Theft Auto?

But what elements should a GTA movie include to capture the series’ mood?

1. Original Character-driven Crime Story

A GTA movie should tell an original story to avoid unfavourable game comparisons. It should focus on creating an engaging main character (given the toxic masculine mainstream image of GTA a woman lead would be a good idea) whose life is thoroughly explored through a well-plotted crime narrative.

2. Incisive Commentary

Despite its popular image of indulging in mindless sex and violence GTA also features sharp social commentary. Whether it be GTA IV’s exploration of the alienation forced on people emigrating to America, San Andreas’ examination of racism and police brutality or the series sending up American greed. A GTA movie should focus on delivering real-world critiques to keep its sting.

3. Detailed World

GTA’s game worlds are full of things to experience. Radio stations, in-universe films and TV shows, comedy shows, nightclubs and more. Those making a GTA film will have to put a lot of thought into the world’s details and how they serve the film’s story to make it feel as lived-in as the games.

4. Clever Controversy

Whether it’s the hot coffee mod or the increasing revelry in graphic violence Grand Theft Auto often courts controversy. Though as mentioned, underpinning this material is a commitment to commenting on social issues. Even if the writers fail sometimes, thus a GTA film shouldn’t be afraid to include edgy material. As long as it furthers its themes and its use is carefully considered. It shouldn’t just be needlessly offensive.

5. Humour

Any Grand Theft Auto movie needs a funny streak. The series often uses hyperbolic parody and its characters’ darkly humorous personalities to deliver the series’ dark themes and narratives. Many would argue the sense of humour is what really gets audiences to engage with GTA. 

Getting Away With It 

Lastly, let’s hypothesise about some creatives who could make a good job of a GTA adaptation.

Rose Glass

Her latest film Love Lies Bleeding shows Rose Glass can make a violent character-focused crime film that comments on social issues. If she was given an even bigger canvas to work with she could easily make an interesting GTA adaptation.

Dev Patel

Dev Patel’s Monkey Man is an excellent bone-crunching crime film that deals with interesting political themes about oppression, violence and patriarchy and gives us a very fleshed-out world. With a bigger budget, more humour and a willingness to push everything even further Dev Patel could easily make a GTA film. 

Martin Scorsese

Scorsese’s work has greatly influenced GTA already. With him having produced great character-focused, comically tinged, socially conscious crime films like King of Comedy and Wolf of Wall Street and his great ability to build detailed worlds that become characters in themselves Martin Scorsese would probably be everyone’s dream choice to bring GTA to the big screen.

Personally, I think a GTA film is on the horizon. So long as the makers include the elements crucial to the games’ success a GTA film would be a welcome cinematic sight.

Also Read: Is Hollywood Starting To Take Video Games Seriously?

The post Grand Theft Auto: The Movie – Coming Soon? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

So if these two actors and Scorsese have a special connection the question remains – who is the better muse for Scorsese?

The Stats

Number of Films – Robert De Niro – 10, Leonardo DiCaprio – 6

Oscars – Of De Niro’s two Oscars he won Best Actor for Scorsese’s Raging Bull. DiCaprio’s Oscar win was for The Revenant – not a Scorsese film. But Scorsese’s only Best Director Oscar came from The Departed, starring DiCaprio.

Reviews Aside from Oscars and looking at the general critical reception going through Rotten Tomatoes Scorsese-De Niro films have an average critic rating of 85%, compared to 80% for Scorsese-DiCaprio. Perhaps a small difference but the 5% between 80% and 85% might just be where a film becomes a classic.

Money In terms of box office – adjusted for inflation – Scorsese-DiCaprio films have made an average $168,000,000, compared to $84,000,000 for Scorsese-De Niro. DiCaprio’s box office is double that of De Niro, a huge difference…but what does Scorsese care of money? He is an artist and would rather make a good movie than a profitable one.

The Switch

De Niro worked steadily with Scorsese until Casino in 1995, when he didn’t work with the director again until The Irishman in 2019 and in this time it seems like Di Caprio replaced him as Scorsese’s go-to actor. Part of this could simply be down to age, Di Caprio could play roles that would be ridiculous for De Niro to play. Its worth noting that when Scorsese was confident enough in the technology he would digitally de-age De Niro for The Irishman allowing him to cover decades of the character’s life.

The Roles

De Niro is famous for playing gangsters, in Scorsese films and beyond, Goodfellas, The Irishman, Mean Streets and Casino all see him take on a gangster or someone in that world. Apart from gangsters De Niro has played a lot of troubled characters – King of Comedy, Taxi Driver and Cape Fear all feature characters who are deeply disturbed. The most glaring exception is New York, New York, a musical romantic comedy where De Niro plays a saxophonist.

DiCaprio has some similar roles – in The Departed he plays a cop posing as a gangster, in Gangs of New York he plays a gangster but this time in the nineteenth century, in Shutter Island DiCaprio plays a cop/patient at a psychiatric hospital. In The Aviator DiCaprio plays the real-life character of Howard Hughes, inventor, filmmaker and more. Then there is The Wolf of Wall Street, with DiCaprio playing the charismatic, ruthless stockbroker Jordan Belfort.

Obviously, when the technology exists Scorsese will splice together some terrifying DiCaprio-De Niro hybrid clone creature – terrifying but undeniably a compelling actor (Robnardo Dei Nirio?)- but until then can we determine who has the best working relationship? My instinct leans towards De Niro but that could be just because the passage of time has elevated these films to classics while Di Caprio’s are more recent. Outside of Scorsese DiCaprio’s recent film output has been vastly superior to De Niro’s…but this isn’t really about outside of Scorsese and so the title will have to be given to Robert De Niro.

Also Read: The Many Films of Martin Scorsese

The post Scorsese’s Silver Screen Legends: De Niro vs. DiCaprio appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The victims in the film are targeted by the surrounding White folks due to their ownership of oil found in their land making them one of the richest communities in the globe, and the carnage led to the creation of the Bureau of Investigations (BOI) which would later become the FBI. The Osage Nation killings are contemporary to the Tulsa Massacre, the wiping of an affluent African American community and the only time that airstrikes took place on US soil, which the HBO series Watchmen (2019) re-enacted thus bringing the event to mainstream discussions and is once more referred in the Scorsese film, while in its turn the Killers of the Flower Moon exposes to the world another of America’s grimiest moments.

The violence in previous Scorsese installments is abrupt, mercurial, and sometimes nihilistic be the outbursts and domestic violence in the LaMotta household in ‘Raging Bull’ or the vulgar displays of power by Tommy DeVito in ‘Goodfellas’ which latter erupts in an almost pubertal manner. In ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ it is methodical and orchestrated by the mastermind William Hale (Robert De Niro) thus more insidious. In this role the public is presented to a malevolent patriarch different from staple characters of De Niro as young mobster Vito Corleone, boxer Jake LaMotta, cab driver Travis Bickle or career criminal Neil McCauley.

The bloodshed is not like in a gang war picture but more personal with the perpetrators abusing the hosts’ naiveté with cunning schemes under the veil of friendship and love. World War I veteran Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio), the nephew of Hale, marries the Indigenous Mollie Kile, later Mollie Burkhart, under the guidance of his mentor to advance their takeover plans. Ernest poisons his wife slowly while experiencing a moral crisis while doing his role in the plan, still when going after the other Indigenous community members or rival white men aiming for their riches, the former military man lets slide all his perversion. One of DiCaprio’s best performances. DiCaprio and De Niro show how long-term partnerships between actors and directors can produce great artistic experiences.

In smaller roles, the veteran Cardinal Tantoo brings gravitas as the Indigenous matriarchy Lizzie Q, while Cara Jade Myers shines, showing a bohemian and rebellious side in this community by playing Anna Brown. The deep depression of Henry Roan interpreted by William Belleau serves as an analogue to the mental health issues that plague Indigenous communities around the world due to centuries of abuse, neglect, and oppression.
Brendan Fraser is having a second wind and with his imposing physique and powerful voice plays defense attorney W.S. Hamilton who clashes with his matinee idol of yesteryear coming as a surprise act. The BOI agent Thom White incorporated by Jesse Plemons, shows a quiet and almost non-threatening presence that throws off the murderers from his true intentions while keeping the authority that comes with being a lawman.

Among the supporting cast is also Jason Isbell who spars with DiCaprio for the sisters’ fortunes and treats his wife with tenderness, nevertheless in an almost imperceptible way is someone who wants to hold a prize and not the hands of a full-fledged human being.
However, the range portrayed by Gladstone deserves more screen time as it is filled with lust, doubt, insecurity, unconditional love, and despair, all painted in her face, voice tone and body language revealing a leading lady that for long has been as Gladstone gives the picture’s most compelling performance.

The cinematography is another strong point as it is conducted by Rodrigo Prieto who with Panavision engineer Dan Sasaki crafted custom lenses that give a distinct look reminiscent of the 1930s photographs composing a mixture of Western flirting with noir. The props department gives a sense of really being in those times and the clothing section comes with a distinct representation of the Osage Nation that separates them from other Indigenous cultures on the screen.

Opening doors for Indigenous storytelling from their own artists

Scorsese really consulted members of the Osage Nation as can be perceived in the language and the craft mentioned above as also with a more humanized vision towards them when compared to previous movies and series or even current ones. Nevertheless, the movie is not immaculate of criticism by Indigenous peoples on matters of representation.

After watching the picture, Christopher Cote, one of the Osage language consultants, has expressed nuanced and complicated feelings about the result as for him it should be from the perspective of Mollie and the ordeal of her family. Cote added in his Hollywood Reporter interview that to represent them in a proper manner it should be an Osage creative, still for him Scorsese not being Osage did a great job. His opinion can be seen in Burkhart, one of the conspirators, who became sympathetic in some moments which is due to DiCaprio’s skill set.

Indigenous actress Devery Jacobs (Reservation Dogs) has expressed in her X (former Twitter) account “strong feelings” towards ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ saying that it “dehumanizes people” and the difficulty of seeing their ancestors already brutalized in real history going through it once more in the silver screen with graphic detailing. For Jacobs the saving point of the whole picture is Gladstone.

It is understandable that some art can be triggering, in particular when touching delicate matters as the Osage Nation and the criticism from Indigenous voices should be heard as they are the ones living with the aftermath of said events that still influence their livelihoods. However, in defence of Killers of the Flower Moon, it opens the door for narratives on Indigenous lives and talent in front of the screen, although brutal to watch it is still respectful to their ordeal.

Scorsese had a hard time putting this film together and he is one of the most accomplished living directors who still has an impact, and if it is hard for Scorsese to convince the studios, it is sad to know that a director from a different background hardly would have the necessary pull within the studio game as Gladstone stated in an interview with British Vogue. Killers of the Flower Moon is a solid entry in the final stages of Scorsese’s career, a serious contender in awards season and part of its legacy is opening the discussion of having more Indigenous directors, producers and writers telling their own stories.

Rating: (5 / 5)

Also Read: Martin Scorsese and Denis Villeneuve Vs The “Marvel Movie” Formula

The post ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ Can Open For More Indigenous Storytelling and Talent appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Devil May Care

Las Vegas has long courted a controversial and unlawful reputation. Many speakeasies provided entertainment during the prohibition era. In the 1930s it became much easier to get married and divorced there than most other places in the US. The city has a thriving sex work industry despite it having been illegal for a long time. And it is of course famous for its large gambling establishments.

But the city is also known for its history of mafia activity. Gangsters like Bugsy Siegel, Meyer Lansky and other mafia figures played key roles in the development of Las Vegas establishments. This, coupled with the lack of action by police and elected officials, painted Las Vegas as a hotbed of crime and corruption. And while these elements may be less pronounced now the image of Las Vegas as “Sin City” remains largely unchanged.

Soul On Fire

It’s easy to see why filmmakers keep using Las Vegas in their work. Its image of excess presents great visual storytelling opportunities. But it also provides inbuilt possibilities for engaging stories.

Narratively, Las Vegas inherently provides strong forces to pit our protagonist against. Whether our lead is fighting corruption, organised crime (in whatever fashion) or addiction they are automatically up against an enormous challenge because of how historically embedded it is within the city. Las Vegas movies like boxing films centre on huge challenges we can all either sympathise or thematically empathise with.

It is also a great backdrop to create interesting characters. The city’s nature provides a basis to explore people who don’t fit the typical protagonist’s mould. Lead characters can be societally criminalised (mobsters, sex workers etc.) or villainized (people with addictions), making them inherently appealing because of their more realistic nature. And because they are battling against embedded dangerous forces protagonists in Las Vegas films are given a lot of room to showcase their personalities. It allows us to invest more in their struggle if we are attached to their vulnerability or determination.

So what great movies best show off the city’s darker side?

The Lady Gambles

An engrossing character study about how the risk, glamour and community of Las Vegas gambling serve to hook people into a dangerous addiction. It also features a great performance from Barbara Stanwyck.

Kolchak: The Night Stalker

This enjoyable TV horror neo-noir film follows the eponymous reporter trying to find the person (or something else?) responsible for a series of murders. While battling the authorities and his boss at every turn.

Leaving Las Vegas

A self-destructive alcoholic writer and a sex worker seeking genuine connection manage to find kinship but how long will it last? A brutal look at the alienation faced by those with no control over their lives.

Casino

Casino tells the thrilling story of two friends tasked with ensuring that their Las Vegas casino runs smoothly for their mob overlords. But when personal drama threatens the operation’s stability their lives hang in the balance.

Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas

Raoul Duke and his lawyer Dr. Gonzo head to Las Vegas, searching for the American dream. When their engagingly surreal odyssey ends, the American dream is revealed as a lie built on violence and exploitation. Something embodied perfectly by the setting.

Also Read: The Eternal Appeal of the Boxing Movie

The post The Dark Side of Las Vegas on Film appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

1. Less Than Shining

Incredibly, upon release, The Shining received quite mixed critical attention. It even got multiple Razzie nominations. So Opinionated Strangers’ sentiment is not unshared. Although since The Shining is now considered a classic, many may view this opinion to be as deranged as Jack Torrance.

2. The Boy Who Bored You Senseless

Harry Potter is one of the biggest film franchises ever and a special part of many childhoods, J.K. Rowling’s horrific transphobia aside. But not everyone could fall under the series’ spell. Jodie’s post proves that.

3. Mars Attacks vs Arrival

Arrival was loved for the interesting way it dealt with the Alien visitation concept. It dealt with language barriers, perceptions of time, and human nature. Nevertheless, according to Vin Hlz Mars Attacks, a critical disappointment, is much better at what it does than Arrival. Sometimes you just want a good old-fashioned alien invasion movie.

4. Oliver Stone’s Unsung Masterpiece?

How can you definitively state Oliver Stone’s best movie when Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, JFK, and Natural Born Killers are in his filmography? Well, Eric Rowe believes his best movie is actually the underseen Nixon. It’s always nice to see love for an underappreciated film.

5. An Offer Refused

As Family Guy showed, not loving The Godfather is a hard position to hold. And to not like other highly-rated gangster films like both Scarface movies and Casino as well? If nothing else one must admire FKA “Bulletproof Heart” Leo London for being honest. That’s the kind of talk that can leave someone sleeping with the fishes.

6. An Impossibly Underrated Sequel

One mission that mostly proved impossible for the Mission: Impossible series was getting people to praise Mission: Impossible 2. Unanimously considered the series’ low point. Thankfully this goal was finally accomplished thanks to Hasta Lavista Baby.

7. Dragon Wars

There have been several occasions when two movies with strikingly similar themes or plot elements have been released close together. Think Armageddon and Deep Impact. And in this battle, it would be easy to write off Wish Dragon given how high-profile Disney’s dragon animation Raya and the Last Dragon was. But sometimes underdogs can strike a chord with fans. As Wish Dragon did with TheCinematicBandicoot.

8. Defence of the Dead

It’s fair to say from the lacklustre reactions that many general moviegoers were probably expecting something different from what The Dead Don’t Die delivered. But to those familiar with Jim Jarmusch’s work, like Eden Limchawalit-Smith, it provided a unique entry into the zombie subgenre.

9. Not So Quiet on the Sequel Front

Both Quiet Place movies garnered a huge amount of praise from audiences and reviewers. That said ScareCandy Podcast thinks that the second film was much less effective because it felt like a repeat of Part 1. And no matter how good something is repeating the same thing is likely to wear patience thin quickly.

10. Calm Down Raging Bull

Last time we discussed how one Twitter user saw Martin Scorsese as a lesser filmmaker than Brian De Palma. Now we find user Reuben throwing shade at Raging Bull, widely considered one of Scorsese’s best works and the film which earned him his first Oscar nomination for directing. What a left hook sting.

Do you agree or disagree with these hot takes? And what unpopular film opinions do you hold?

Also Read: #FilmTwitter Gives Their #UnpopularOpinion On Movies – Do You Agree?

The post Even More #UnpopularOpinions From #FilmTwitter appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What Happens

Multi-millionaire and thoroughly corrupt stockbroker Jordan Belfort invites two FBI agents to his luxury yacht after he learns that they are investigating him. Agent Denham, and a virtually silent partner, arrive for what starts as a very friendly meeting. Belfort hands over some of the information the FBI has been trying to get while constantly trying to impress them with his wealth and insisting he’s done nothing wrong. Belfort draws Denham into a conversation and it seems the FBI agent is not happy at being given the case and would be willing to play ball with Belfort. At which point, Belfort tries to bribe Denham, and then the tone changes. It’s immediately obvious that Denham is not willing to play ball and is determined to bring Belfort down. The conversation gets increasingly acrimonious and ends with Belfort literally throwing lobsters and handfuls of cash at the departing FBI agents.

When you sail on a yacht fit for a Bond villain, sometimes you gotta act the part

DiCaprio is sensational in this scene. Despite getting very good advice not to contact the FBI and try some scheming, this is exactly what Belfort does. They meet on his insanely luxurious yacht, where Belfort has beautiful women lounging on chairs, he is dressed in bright white “yacht clothes” and constantly turning on his beaming smile. He offers them lobsters and drinks. It does not seem to occur to Belfort that showing off his immense, and ill-gotten wealth, might not be the best idea when you’re being investigated for crimes in the stock market.

Belfort’s attempt at bribery is fantastic. Basically detailing a story where he advised someone in need of money in what stocks to invest in and that person making a fortune and how Belfort “would be willing to do that for anyone”. When challenged about this being a bribe Belfort reveals he researched what legally constitutes a bribe and that wouldn’t count. Again, it’s a little suspicious for someone to be able to recite the criminal code of a crime if they’re not a lawyer.

Good for you, Little Man

Oh, Agent Denham, you film stealing hero. Denham is played by Kyle Chandler who, and this is important for the Denham role, is your go-to guy for American decency (if you need someone younger than Tom Hanks), he is probably best known for his role in Friday Night Lights where he played an honourable, upstanding and inspirational football coach. Denham’s casual chatting with Belfort seems to suggest he is not interested in the case and possibly dissatisfied with his job, the attempted bribe being when he flips to his real character.

As Belfort becomes more aggressive Denham responds in kind and leads to one of the all-time best deliveries, “Good for you, little man,” when sarcastically congratulating Belfort on becoming a Wall Street douchebag without any help from anyone else. Belfort is stunned by this comment but mainly in that he can’t understand it…he’s rich, really rich, how can he be a “little man”, he’s a giant. A colossus. The embodiment of the American Dream. The thing is, of course, Denham is right.

Fun Coupons

A lot of this scene is purely about status. Of all the places Belfort could have met with the FBI agents he chooses his insanely expensive yacht. He is obsessed with money and how much the FBI agents make, originally pretending to be sympathetic but quickly changing to just mocking them. Belfort assumes that because Denham works for the FBI for what to him is an insignificant amount of money he is a loser. The idea that Denham might believe in what he’s doing is either inconceivable or at best a pitiable weakness. To me, this is the best and most interesting scene in the whole film – not the drug-filled hedonistic parties, not the cult-like team talks Belfort gives his employees, not the incredibly charismatic phone calls Belfort makes when selling stocks but this scene where Denham sizes up Belfort and sees right through him.

Years ago David Cross and Bob Odenkirk made a sketch show called Mr. Show, which contained a sketch based on the premise “someone who makes more money than you is better than you”, so Van Gogh, Einstein and Galileo are actually pretty unsuccessful people. This is Jordan Belfort’s philosophy – he is better than just about everyone he meets because he is richer.

The Hero I’m Going To Be Back At The Office, When The Bureau seizes this boat!

All Belfort manages to do in this scene is upset the FBI and probably convince them that yes, he is absolutely breaking the law. It’s an interesting look at the dynamic of power in America (and indeed the whole world) – who is the more powerful person? Belfort with his huge personal wealth or Denham as a federal officer, a representative of the most powerful country on Earth. There was a lot of discussion at the time about if people actually saw Belfort as the hero of this film, that people liked him and wanted him to win. I saw this as Goodfellas but for white-collar crime. In this scene Belfort helps further his own downfall, antagonising the FBI. In the final moments of this scene, Belfort has just finished throwing money at Denham and his arrogance and deluded grandeur fade as he realises he has just made a terrible mistake.

Also Read: Iconic Scenes: American Psycho – Business Card Scene

The post Iconic Scenes: The Wolf of Wall Street – The Yacht Bribe appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Another film released twenty years ago and very deserving of a retro review is Gangs of New York, Martin Scorsese’s historical gangster epic.

What’s Going On?

The film is set mainly in The Five Points, a very poor area of New York, where the real authorities are the brutal gangs who struggle for supremacy. The film starts with a confrontation between the two broad groups – those who consider themselves real Americans, and those made up of more recent immigrants. This battle ends with victory for the “real” Americans, their leader Bill the Butcher killing the opposition leader, Priest Vallon. Vallon’s son escapes and is brought up by the state until he becomes an adult and returns, using the name Amsterdam, to find that Bill’s gang reigns supreme and many of his father’s old friends have switched sides. He seeks vengeance but pretends that he just wants a place to live and hides his identity. Amsterdam gets close to Bill in order to make his revenge possible but is at times overawed by the man. Inevitably their gang war starts again.

In Front of the Camera

The film has a sensational cast. This was the first film I saw Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays Bill, and gives a strong performance as the almost psychotically violent but charismatic gang-leader. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Amsterdam who is still seen as the guy from Titanic and Romeo + Juliet and this is perhaps where he starts his ascent to Oscar-winning critical acclaim. Incidentally, this is also the first Scorsese film to feature DiCaprio, who would go on to star in four more Scorsese films and will be starring in two yet to be released films.

Cameron Diaz is Jenny Everdeane, a criminal saving up to go to California and the target of many other characters affections. The cast is packed with amazing talent – Jim Broadbent is a powerful and corrupt New York politician, John C. Reilly is Happy Jack – gang member turned police officer, Brendan Gleeson is Monk – a seemingly unaligned legendary streetfighter.

Behind The Scenes

The film is directed by Martin Scorsese who is a titan of 20th and 21st Century filmmaking who has been making masterpieces for around fifty years. Nothing more needs to be said.

The Civil War

The film is set during the American Civil War and for much of the film, this is of absolutely no consequence and stated openly that none of them thought the war would impact them. In the first half of the film, we see the Emancipation Proclamation and newly arrived immigrants signing up to fight but it’s not much of a factor. This changes as the government propose a draft, the first in American history, names will be drawn at random and join the army, with the caveat that you can buy your way out if you’re rich and your name is picked. The unrest of the city caused by the draft builds throughout the film. It also means that there are a lot of soldiers in and around New York City. There is a very real parallel between the savage violence on the streets of New York and the savage violence taking place across the country, where casualties are measured in the hundreds of thousands.

Does It Work?

I have always been a big fan of this film and while it’s not up there with Goodfellas or Raging Bull it’s a great film. Day-Lewis dominates every scene he is in and prowls the set looking for the next person to stab. Bill is no mere thug – he is a leading figure in the community, feted by politicians and the wealthy. DiCaprio’s Amsterdam never quite measures up against him but I don’t think he is meant to. Bill explodes with charisma and showmanship while always maintaining a strong sense of violent menace. When he meets with political leaders he barely alters his behaviour, keeping his ferocity on the surface.

A big theme in this film is how people change. Of those who fought alongside Vallon, Happy Jack is now a police officer who takes orders from Bill, McGloin is part of Bill’s inner circle, Monk, who was always seemingly just a hired fighter, takes a semi-principled stand alongside Amsterdam. The person who doesn’t change is Bill. When he is told repeatedly that times are changing and he needs to change with them he refuses. He keeps the principles that he has, refusing to kill those who are unworthy of a death by his hands, and while he may sometimes wear fancier clothes he has not at all lost his edge. As for Amsterdam revenge has sustained his entire life and is given various opportunities to leave the fight behind and live a genuinely peaceful life and always refuses

The Ending

Spoiler Alert – the film ends with a battle set up between Bill’s gangs and Amsterdam’s. But the battle never happens. Riots have broken out across the city, even extending into the rich parts of town, and the army are called in. As the gang fight is about to begin the area is hit by cannon fire and then soldiers deal with whoever is left. The fight the whole film has built to – between Bill and Amsterdam – doesn’t happen. Sitting in the rubble and covered in the dust both notice that Bill has been impaled by shrapnel and is dying, Amsterdam however decides to speed things up and stabs him, getting whatever measure of revenge he can. A lot of people were unhappy with this ending but I like it. There’s only so much disruption the authorities can allow and sooner or later they will act. I also think this is the only way Amsterdam could have won, like I said, he never seemed to measure up to Bill and a fight where Amsterdam won would have been unsatisfactory.

Rating: (4 / 5)

Also Read: The Many Films of Martin Scorsese

The post Retro Review: Gangs of New York appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Blockbusters Vs Art

While these directors have specifically called out Marvel movies, the term “Marvel movie” has become a bit of a shorthand of late. Even “comic book movies” doesn’t feel accurate as the likes of Fast and the Furious are often mentioned in the conversation. So it’s likely they’re referring to the big-budget, CGI filled blockbusters, the likes of Avatar, Star Wars and Transformers should probably also be involved, but “Marvel movie” is a catchier term.

People looking down on comic book movies, in particular, is nothing new. Comic books themselves were looked down on for years, and the genre had a few stumbles like Daredevil and Green Lantern before The Avengers started its world domination. Part of that success is something called “The Marvel Formula”. While not a strict set of rules, there are noticeable similarities between a lot of MCU films that do make feel like copies of each other. Iron Man is often considered the blueprint. It introduces a snarky hero, knocks him down a peg, he’s humbled and fights a villain who is a mirror image of himself. A plot that could describe most MCU origin films.

Of course, these complaints are nothing new, and the franchise has made steps to avoid these criticisms. Phase Two in particular made efforts to make individual films stand out from each other, with Captain America: The Winter Soldier is influenced by spy/political thrillers and Ant-Man is a heist film. While they may not appeal to some people, the MCU is the highest–grossing film series of all time, so clearly lots of people do like them. Many families and groups of friends gather to watch the latest release, and many people are kept in jobs by working on them and writing about them. When they eventually go out of fashion, we’ll have a new popular genre that’s looked down on.

Prequels, Sequels and Remakes

All of this doesn’t mean that they don’t have a point. There has always been a divide between movies that are “popular”, designed to appeal to the broadest audience possible, and a directors passion projects. But the two aren’t as separate as one may think. Many smaller directors use films like MCU projects as stepping stones. Marvel likes to hire new directors, which gives them an experience of a much bigger production than they are used to. This puts them in a great spot going forward and often allows their next project to have a much bigger budget and/or reach. Filmmakers like Taita Waititi, Jon Favreau and even Christopher Nolan have all been given a much bigger platform and opportunities than they had before after directing a superhero film While Scorsese has had a very successful career making his own films, very few filmmakers are so lucky, with fewer opportunities for films to fail today. Likewise, many actors have got their big break from starring in these projects, with actors like Chris Evans, Tom Holland and Simu Liu becoming household names and getting many more great opportunities.

Of course, some directors just can’t get by with all the restrictions. The phrase “Creative Differences” is thrown around a lot when a director seems to clash with the studio. Edgar Wright spent years developing Ant-Man before it was intended to be in the MCU, eventually departing when the studio’s style clashed with his own. Although Wright has recently made peace with it and was still able to make his dream project Baby Driver (which was successful in its own right), it’s understandable why some directors would steer clear. It’s also important to acknowledge that these comments from Scorsese and Villeneuve came while promoting their own films, The Irishman and Dune respectively, so it makes sense they would be slightly frustrated at “Marvel movies” dominating the conversation.

At the end of the day, everyone has different tastes. Not everyone is going to like every film, and that’s ok if anything it’s good. That’s how we get different films. Some directors may not like Marvel movies and steer well clear of them, but for many of their peers, they are an important step in a career. Many great films may not exist if people didn’t go see big blockbusters, as they help bring in audiences and keep cinemas open. So don’t feel bad because you enjoy a nice bit of popcorn action, just don’t expect to see Scorsese’s take on Batman anytime soon.

Also Read: Is Hollywood Starting To Take Video Games Seriously?

The post Martin Scorsese and Denis Villeneuve Vs The “Marvel Movie” Formula appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Steampunk’s Aesthetic

Steampunk is a retro-futuristic aesthetic. The genre largely focuses on the fashion and/or settings of the Victorian/American Wild West era. And juxtaposes this against intricate technology. Which is too advanced or fantastical for that time. Often it emphasises adventure stories and a sense of discovery.

But creators aren’t restricted to working in the specific time period mentioned above. Steampunk stories have been set in many periods between the industrial revolution and the Edwardian era. Some creators make science fantasy stories divorced from our world. Others tell of futuristic/post-apocalyptic scenarios where the world we know is replaced by continuations of the steampunk era. Meaning the genre’s aesthetics allow for a lot of possibilities.

Genre Origins

Author K.W. Jeter coined the name in a 1987 letter to Locus magazine. In this letter, he jokingly referred to a group of writers who like him were writing Victorian fantasy science fiction as “steampunks”.

The genre also has roots in the Victorian science fiction stories of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. Works like The Time Machine and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea contributed a lot to the genre. And there are examples of steampunk works that predate the name such as The Wild Wild West TV show, books like Michael Moorcock’s The Warlord of the Air, and some of the manga of Osamu Tezuka. But how has cinema represented the genre?

Steampunk Precursor Movies

Arguably one of the earliest films to use elements that steampunk would later incorporate was Georges Méliès’ A Trip to the Moon (1902). Which features anachronistic technology, rocket ships landing on the moon, alongside characters from the Edwardian period. It was also influenced by Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon and H.G. Wells’ First Men in the Moon.

Other titles that would influence steampunk include Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) and Karel Zeman’s The Deadly Invention (1958). Both are Jules Verne book adaptations. Both also feature advanced machinery and submarines in Victorianesque settings. George Pal’s The Time Machine (1960) and Nicholas Meyer’s Time After Time (1979), are also examples of early cinema steampunk. Both having Victorian heroes with retro-futuristic time travel devices.

Modern Steampunk Movies

1986 saw the release of Hayao Miyazaki’s Castle in the Sky, considered one of the first true steampunk films. Then the 90s saw the release of the big-budget Hollywood adaptation of Wild Wild West (1999) and Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s wildly imaginative The City of Lost Children (1995). Which takes place in an undetermined time full of retro clothing, oil rigs, sea mines, and eyepieces that seem both advanced and simple.

However, steampunk cinema arguably became most popular in the 21st century. This time saw the big-screen adaptation of Alan Moore’s popular steampunk comic The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003). Miyazaki’s Howl’s Moving Castle (2004) employed retro-futurist technology alongside a magical fantasy world to showcase the wonders and atrocities that mankind is capable of. And short films like the Oscar-nominated The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello (2005) helped to showcase the genres growing popularity. Even films like Martin Scorsese’s Hugo (2011) showcased a fascination with the genre’s aesthetics. Despite being set after the steampunk era. Hugo’s world is full of steam trains, old-fashioned dress, and mechanical automatons. Eventually, the film even becomes a tribute to genre influencer Georges Méliès. And that’s only a few examples of steampunk cinema throughout this time.

Conclusion

Steampunk is a fascinating movement. Full of imaginative stories and worlds. And while it isn’t the biggest genre in terms of cinematic content its roots stretch back to the birth of cinema. And it has continued to grow in popularity over recent years. Not bad for a genre that got its name from a joke.

Also Read: From Blockbuster to Mockbuster: Big Films and Their Copies

The post Steampunk: The Origins, the Looks and the Films appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

1. Star Wars: The Rise of Positivity

The only thing Star Wars fans agree on is that Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back are great. However, from there opinions vary wildly. Some find Return of the Jedi either a fitting end to the original trilogy or a dumbed-down entry for kids. Most people initially didn’t like the Prequels and Disney’s handling of the property has produced mixed critical and fan reactions, to say the least. So perhaps the most controversial thing a Star Wars fan can do currently is resist the pull of the dark side and say, “there are zero bad Star Wars movies”. Well, MoviePreviewShow managed it.

2. My Not so Fair Lady

My Fair Lady was a real winner in its time. It won 8 Oscars including Best Director, Best Actor in a Leading Role, and Best Picture. Although, viewed all these years later people like Martin Something-or-other find that My Fair Lady leaves a lot to be desired.

3. Defending Daredevil (2003)

The exact opposite of our last entry. The Ben Affleck Daredevil movie was derided upon its release. However, since then it has gained a cult following. It was also given a director’s cut release which many say makes the film into something special. Because superhero movies are currently taking a break maybe it’s time to revisit Daredevil (2003)? You may find yourself like Retro Gamer.

4. Battle of the Directors

Martin Scorsese is considered one of the best directors of all time. Creating great films like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy, Goodfellas, and Wolf of Wall Street to name only a few. But can he compete with Brian De Palma the director of classics like Carrie (1976), Scarface (1983), The Untouchables, and underappreciated gems like Phantom of the Paradise and Dressed to Kill? Not according to RVD the Dudar.

5. Excellent Adventure Vs Bogus Journey

When most people speak about the Bill and Ted films, they talk about the first entry, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Which is understandable, because it is the highest-rated and highest-grossing film in the franchise. But Direct Questions thinks the claim that it’s the series’ best film is bogus. He believes Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey is the superior film.

6. Streaming Wars

With a lot of production companies moving into the streaming market, many are beginning to make their content exclusive to their own services. Which definitely doesn’t sit well with Jonathan Boyd.

7. The Horror of Children

The opinion that children in movies are more annoying than they are effective is nothing new. Though kids in horror films not being scary when movies like The Innocents (1961), The Exorcist, The Omen (1976), and The Shining (1980) exist? Eric S. Kim’s opinion is definitely controversial.

8. Trashing Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino is one of modern cinema’s most acclaimed filmmakers. With several of his films being considered among the best ever made. However, as with anyone who is well acclaimed there are always those who believe them to be overrated. But which camp do you fall into? Are you a true Tarantino aficionado or are you like Global Affairs?

9. Stay Mysterious

Many agree that trailers and reviews sometimes give too much away. But how much should you know about a movie to become interested? To Rigmarole Film a movie is improved vastly when you know as little as possible going in. And therefore, have more of an open mind.

10. Henry Cavill’s Superman

Henry Cavill’s Superman films generally divided opinion among both audiences and critics. However, some people, like (thereal)Chris Grant Jr., consider him to be their favourite Superman portrayal.

So ends our brief look at unpopular film opinions circulating social media. What do you think about some of these controversial opinions? What are some of your film hot takes? Please let us know.

Also Read: The Film Fan’s Guide To Time Travel

The post #FilmTwitter Gives Their #UnpopularOpinion On Movies – Do You Agree? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Long Stories

Martin Scorsese tells long stories, often spanning decades – Goodfellas follows Henry Hill from a child getting a part-time job in a cab stand to him turning on his Mafia friends many years later. The Aviator spans decades in the life of trouble genius Howard Hughes. Unsurprisingly the films have run times to match this, the last time Scorsese made a film under two hours it was The Colour of Money in 1986 – with one whole minute to spare. Scorsese’s most recent film, The Irishman, is also one of his longest, running at 3 hours and 29 minutes. This was released on Netflix which I think is important, as I imagine it being streamed at home was a factor in this and so eager to have this prestigious director working with them the streaming service would have agreed to anything. The story runs from 1949 to 2000 and seeing characters age, grow old and die has quite an impact. You don’t just assume characters are friends because you’re told this – you see it happening. The journey of Peggy Sheeran – the daughter of De Niro’s character – from child to adult and how she viewed her father is particularly devastating.

Casino is just shy of a three-hour runtime which showed the destruction of the relationships between three people: Ace Rothstein, Nicky Santora and Ginger McKenna. Ace and Nicky are childhood friends and Ace and Ginger have a somewhat unconventional marriage, and as rifts and new feelings develop between the three of them things get ugly. It doesn’t help that whilst this is going on Ace is running casinos for the Mafia with Nicky meant to be protecting him but is as much a liability as security. Nothing in the demise of these relationships feels forced or motivated to advance the plot but develops naturally from the flaws in the characters.

The Wolf of Wall Street was three hours long and the story goes that Scorsese wanted a four-hour cut and a lot was said at the time about how it felt long. Various people have suggested that this was a directorial choice in the sense that the main character’s seemingly endless party of drugs and sex was meant to feel gruelling, you were meant to feel like it was too much – because it was.

Quentin Tarantino is another director who makes long films but while I often feel with Tarantino this is self-indulgence, Scorsese earns this time and uses it to maximum effect.

Obsession

A lot of the stories in Scorsese’s stories revolve around obsessions characters have. Travis Bickle is obsessed with cleaning up the streets, Rupert Pupkin is obsessed both with talk show host Jerry Langford and being famous, Amsterdam is obsessed with getting revenge on Bill the Butcher. For each of these characters, their obsessions take them to odd places – Bickle becomes a hero to people when he could so easily have been the villain, Pupkin fulfils his ambition for fame by kidnapping his hero. Amsterdam saves Bill’s life at one point, just so he can kill him himself, and at times is taken in by the strength of Bill’s personality. Normally obsessions don’t go too well for people in films but looking at these characters it’s not that simple – Pupkin becomes famous, Bickle becomes a hero to people, Amsterdam gets his revenge and seems on the verge of moving onto a happier life.

Crime

I considered not writing about this but considering twelve of Scorsese’s films are directly about crime, criminals or law enforcement it was impossible to ignore. A lot of these films focus on people who don’t want to do things the typical way. In Goodfellas, Henry Hill spends a lot of time complaining about normal life and trying to get ahead that way is pointless. In Casino, the mob bosses baulk at the idea of just making the profit they could out of a huge casino in Las Vegas – they have to break the law to get every penny. Joe Pesci’s character in Casino is even frustrated with the “normal” way the mob conduct business and makes his own path. The Wolf of Wall Street is entirely about finding new ways to rip people off using the stock market. It’s important to say that I don’t think Scorsese celebrates this attitude – his crime films are full of death and violence, they’re not simply enterprising, they’re dangerous people. Casino and Goodfellas both contain sections of utter bloodbaths against people who by the supposed rules of the mob “shouldn’t” have gotten hurt. While The Wolf of Wall Street is not focused on violent crime Belfort’s contempt for the people (especially people who can’t afford to lose money) he cons is sickening.

Gangs of New York focused on vicious gang violence in 19th Century New York with the main issue being around the tension between newly arriving immigrants and longer established gangs (but, it’s America, so ultimately immigrants as well). More or less the city authorities abandon this area, the Five Points, to gang rule. Taxi Driver dealt with the crime-ridden streets of 1970s New York – given rise to Bickle who while wanting to clean things up was just as dangerous and unhinged as those he fought. Both of these films are set in New York and despite the hundred years between them the violence and the inability or indifference of the authorities is damning.

Iconic Cinema

Martin Scorsese has created countless iconic shots and scenes in films. Raging Bull is packed with amazing shot after amazing shot, the title sequence to the film has more artistic ambition than whole features. Travis Bickle is gifted with at least three truly legendary moments in one film, lurking in his taxi, his mirror conversation and stalking the streets with his mohawk. The unforgettable single-take scene in Goodfellas of Henry and Karen entering the Copacabana, moving around corridors and cutting through the kitchen still looks brilliant after thirty years, let alone Joe Pesci’s handling of the most tense example of “friendly banter” in the history of the world, with the audience thinking he might just murder one of his closest friends because Henry had the audacity to laugh at one of his jokes.

Acting Partnerships

Martin Scorsese has made nine full-length films with Robert De Niro and it would not be out of the question to call it the most successful director-actor partnership in cinema history. De Niro starred in The Irishman with a sizeable amount of money being spent on digitally de-ageing the actor. The buzz around Scorsese and De Niro reuniting was a huge draw for the film.

However, in the 2000s, Scorsese turned to Leonardo Di Caprio, who went on to star in five of his films (with Di Caprio also down to star in two future Scorsese films). Di Caprio’s change in reputation from teenage pinup to one of the most respected actors working today is due in no small amount to these films.

I’ve barely mentioned so much of Scorsese’s work and he’s done everything from religious epics to psychological thrillers – it’s hard to imagine a fan of film not finding something to enjoy. He is one of those directors where even films of his I haven’t seen, like Silence, for example, I feel on very safe ground saying it will be a good film.

Also Read: Dynamic Duos: Iconic Actor / Director Match-Ups

The post The Many Films of Martin Scorsese appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

The Irishman follows the life of Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) from meat-delivery driver to well… not in the Mafia, but certainly doing a lot of work for them, after all, he’s Irish, not Sicilian. Frank is effectively brought into this life by Russel Buffalino (Joe Pesci) a high up person in the Mafia. Frank does a lot of work for him up to and including killing people. After a few years, Russel sends Frank to watch over Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), head of the Teamsters union and very much in business with the Mafia. The film follows the course of this relationship and especially how Frank is pulled in opposite directions because of his friendships with Russel and Hoffa.

Behind The Scenes

I’m sure this isn’t a surprise to anyone – the director is Martin Scorsese, certainly one of the best directors alive if not one of the best directors ever. And this is a crime movie with an incredible cast, hardly unfamiliar territory for Scorsese. He’s already directed what in my opinion is the best Mafia movie ever – Goodfellas and expectations are high.

In Front Of The Camera

First, there is the key trio of De Niro, Pesci and Pacino, and already that’s amazing. De Niro is the narrator and gives an excellent performance especially as things become strained as the film goes on. Pesci, normally known for his wild, unpredictable and maybe a little crazy criminal characters plays against type as a very calm and, for the mafia, reasonable man. However, it’s Pacino who I think gives the best performance. Hoffa is a man surrounded by criminals, murderers even, and never bats an eyelid. He will argue with them, he will insult them, he’ll get in fistfights with them. He’s a larger than life character and you can see how he ended up union president.

Outside of those three roles, the cast is still full of diamonds. Actors like Bobby Cannavale, Stephen Graham, Jesse Plemons, Anna Paquin, Harvey Keitel and Ray Romano taking on small roles. I was convinced that Plemons was going to go through the movie and not actually have a line. Paquin, and indeed the child actors who play her characters, are excellent and act almost like the conscience of the film, judging the bad people around her, including her father Frank Sheeran. At one point Paquin says a single word that seems to break Sheeran.

Historical Note – Jimmy Hoffa & The Teamsters Union

Jimmy Hoffa was a very famous person in America, and in many ways still is, and I don’t think there will be a person in America who doesn’t already know where the story is heading and Scorsese made this film knowing that. I only knew of Hoffa from references to him in American film and TV but didn’t really understand who he was or what happened to him. After all, union bosses don’t tend to be that famous. Again, I’ve heard of “teamsters” but didn’t really know what that was but it’s enough to say this was the largest union in America at the time, giving Hoffa an incredible amount of power and influence, and in looking after their pension fund, access to literally billions of dollars. My perhaps controversial opinion is you look Hoffa up on Wikipedia before you watch the film.

He Looks Good For His Age

The film shows these characters at various stages of their life Scorsese employed some clever de-ageing special effects which I thought were flawless.

Does It Work?

My expectations for The Irishman were very high, not only is Scorsese one of my favourite directors many of the early reviews were saying that was his best film in a long time. Personally I would put this in the second-tier of Scorsese films, with Gangs of New York and The Departed, it’s great but not quite up there with his best. Let’s be clear, it’s a great film, it’s three and a half hours long and keeps you engaged throughout, the acting is all first-rate and is full of brilliant little flourishes – one scene of a person having to psych themselves up to start their car as they were worried it might explode was one such moment. But I was a little disappointed and perhaps thought it was a mistake for Scorsese to return to territory he has already thoroughly explored. I am a big fan of Wolf of Wall Street and see it as a kind of Goodfellas for a different sort of crime and was a good move for him and I think maybe another gangster film wasn’t the best use of Scorsese’s time and talent.

That said if this was a film by virtually any other director I would only be singing it’s praises and really the only problem is it’s Martin Scorsese so you’re hoping for a masterpiece.

Even before this film, the debate about are Netflix films proper films was surely settled and this just adds to the argument that they are. They’ve made everything from Oscar-winning drama like Roma to fantasy special effects-laden frippery like Bright, not everything is gold but the same is true for every studio.

Rating: (4 / 5)

Also Read: For Your Consideration: Sci-Fi, Comedy & Oscar Snubs

The post Review: The Irishman appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Martin Scorsese / Leonardo DiCaprio

This duo first appeared in 2002 with “Gangs of New York” and have produced four feature films together since, with two more in development as well as a promotional short. While this partnership has not produced as many films as Scorsese’s other famous partnership with Robert DeNiro, it is arguably more varied, with their collaborations including genres like crime, comedy (“The Wolf of Wall Street”)and biopic (“The Aviator”), with Leo helping the director win his first Oscar with his role in “The Departed”

Interestingly it was actually DeNiro who introduced the pair, after having worked with DiCaprio previously, DeNiro sang the young actors praises and that Scorsese needed to work with him, with the director referred to as “extraordinary fortune” and that they wanted to make movies the same way

Christopher Nolan / Michael Caine

When Christopher Nolan turned up at Micheal Caine’s house, he was initially going to turn down the part of Alfred, Batman’s loyal butler, as serving dinner and coffee didn’t really appeal to the veteran actor. Then he read the script and quickly changed his mind, noting that he had “written great parts for real actors“.

Michael Caine is a prolific actor who has been in the business for over sixty years, so it’s fair to say he recognises talent when he sees it, and that’s exactly why he keeps partnering up with Nolan. Since “Batman Begins” in 2005, Nolan has included him in every one of his films, with a small voice cameo in “Dunkirk” being the only time he hasn’t appeared in person.

Sam Raimi / Bruce Campbell

Raimi and Campbell have been friends since high school, making short films in their spare time. They eventually convinced some dentists to invest in their first feature “Evil Dead” and both of them became cult horror icons.

Bruce Campbell has gone on to have roles in various fan favourite projects, but aside from his role as Ash Williams, he is also known for his memorable cameos in various Raimi movies, especially his Spider-Man trilogy, appearing in various roles through the series. If Spider-Man 4 had ever gone into production, Campbell would once again appear, this time as the villain Mysterio.

Guillermo Del Toro / Doug Jones

Possibly the least recognisable duo on this list, not due to the body of work, but because Doug Jones’ face is often hidden behind hours worth of prosthetics, with his first big break actually being a McDonald’s ad. He first met Del Toro on the director’s English language debut “Mimic“. Despite the films’ troubled production, the two became friends, bonding over their love of monsters and movies.

Jones has appeared in all of Del Toro’s films since the original “Hellboy”, except for “Pacific Rim”, with his biggest arguably being the creature in Del Toro’s “Shape of Water” which won an Oscar for Best Picture.

Matthew Vaughn / Mark Strong

Some partnerships happen because of a pre-existing friendship or a recommendation. Some just happen because the pair find each other easy to work with, as is the case with Director Matthew Vaughn and actor Mark Strong.

The pair have worked together four times since their first collaboration in 2007’s “Stardust” with Strong only being absent for X-Men First Class. Having previously played villainous characters in “Stardust” and “Kick-Ass” he plays Merlin in the “Kingsman” films, in which he is a member of the super-secret spy organisation.

Wes Anderson / Bill Murray

Murray has worked with Anderson since his second feature “Rushmore”. Anderson sent him the script with no expectations, then had an executive leave their own office while Murray talked to him about the role. His role in “The Royal Tenenbaums” happened simply because Murray lived close to the shoot, the two talked about “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou”.

Murray and Anderson have such a good rapport, that he instantly says yes when the director calls, no matter the project. He must get the call a lot as Murray has appeared in all of Anderson’s film since, totalling eight, with some being important parts, and others just wordless cameos.

Quentin Tarantino / Samuel L Jackson

Tarantino has several actors that he frequently collaborates with, which he refers to as his “Tarantino superstars“. However. he clearly has a favourite, Samuel L Jackson, whom he frequently writes roles in mind for. The admiration goes both ways, as Jackson cites some of his roles in Tarantino’s films as his favourites.

Jackson has appeared in 6 of Tarantino’s 9 films (Tarantino considers “Kill Bill” one film, and Jackson does not feature in “Once upon a time in Hollywood”). He actually auditioned for “Reservoir Dogs” but didn’t get the part, when he saw Tarantino again later at the premiere, the director told him he was writing something for him, which would turn out to be his Oscar-nominated role in “Pulp Fiction”.

Also Read: Video Nasties: The History of Censored Films in the UK

The post Dynamic Duos: Iconic Actor/ Director Match-Ups appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Video Credit: Vanity Fair

The post What Happens When A Movie Has No Script Supervisor? | Vanity Fair appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.