MSN Movies Blog: The Big Picture

Quentin Tarantino's World War 2 epic Inglorious Bastards might just be the most discussed film in production right now. In fact it's not even in production yet. But QT's every casting decision is being monitored as if it were Osama Bin Laden's latest holiday plans.

So Simon Pegg, often seen pow-wowing with the chin and tied to the project for ages, is out. But that's not the real shock. Yes Austin, The Love Guru himself Mike Myers is on board the good ship Bastards!

Myers will play General Ed Fenech - the man in charge of an elite unit whose purpose is to spread fear through The Third Reich by torturing unfortunate Nazi captives. Is this a good idea? Well the immediate reaction is a big fat NO!

But hang on. There is an argument that an unexpected level of sincerity can be discovered when funny men take on something a tad more serious. Billy Connolly was brilliant when he turned to proper acting in Mrs Brown. Tom Hanks was a comic all the way through the eighties and now he's considered one of the best actors in the world.

Could this funny-man-goes-serious dynamic work with Myers as a Nazi-torturing General? Probably not. What do you guys think? Please add your comments below.

Oh, and if you're a QT fan, you should definitely check out our recent exclusive interview with Mr Tarantino in which he talks through his directorial career film by film.

For Tom Cruise, it has been a bad day. You might even say it has been as bad a day as the day where that lunatic scientology video leaked onto the net and the world collectively ridiculed him. But probably not.

Nonetheless, when you're being muscled out of a role by Angelina Jolie, and you're supposedly the world's biggest movie star, you've got to pretty hacked off. Espionage Spy Thriller "Edwin A Salt", due out next year, is undergoing a gender change to accommodate Angelina Jolie in the lead role - a part long occupied by The Cruiser.

There's always been a bit of tension between Cruise and Brangelina. A couple of years back, Tom slammed them for selling their baby pictures. Remember these comments?

"By auctioning the rights to the first pictures of their child and donating that money to charity, they come off looking pretty sweet, but think about it. Did that $4.1 million or $9.5 million or whatever come out of their pockets? What's more, by donating other people's money to charity, Brad and Angie buy themselves a cool tax deduction and a priceless amount of good will. That's what I call leverage."

Cruise said that in The New York Times - hardly friendly. And now Ange has stolen his part.

Further to that, Cruise's long-term business partner and agent of sorts - Paula Wagner - has stepped down from her position at the head of United Artists, ending her long-term business partnership with Cruise when he needs her most.

Bad luck Tom. Never mind. At least you're still one of The Best Paid Actors In History as detailed by Jonathan Crocker on the site today.

Blimey, this was all a bit celeb wasn't it?!

Bookmark with:
Digg	del.icio.us	Reddit
Facebook	Newsvine	StumbleUpon

Following next year's much-hyped World War Two film Inglorious Bastards, Quentin Tarantino will take the reins of a remake of cult 1965 soft-porn thriller Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!.

And guess who's been cast in the lead role?

Yes it's Britney Spears - the woman whose last film appearance won her a Razzie award for Worst Actress. Spears will play the leader of a group of three prostitutes who kill a man in the desert before going on to try and separate an unsuspecting older gentleman from his cash via an array of sleazy seduction, ending in a nasty bloodbath.

QT said: "I love the film - what's better than a movie which has three strippers going on a killing spree in the desert?

"It would be great to do a remake, and casting would be easy. Top of my hit list would be Kim Kardashian and Eva Mendes. And you know what, I think Britney Spears could really work in this film. I'd love to get her involved."

Can Tarantino make this work? No. No he can't. Here's why.

1. No talent

Appearing in a feature film requires far more than staring into the camera, pouting and making seductive faces whilst miming someone else's lyrics. Crossroads demonstrated this. Whatever 'it' is, Spears doesn't have it.

2. It's SHAMELESS.

The PR-heavy box-office tactics of this move are incredibly transparent.  Britney Spears remains one of the most searched terms on the internet and people will flock to cinemas to see if she can resurrect her career via that funky Kill Bill director guy. But, be warned QT, such obvious use of a hollow celebrity name will alienate you from your fanbase as well as those, such as yourself, who liked the original.

3. A resurrection too many?

Tarantino has garnered a reputation for resurrecting stars' ailing careers. He rescued John Travolta with Pulp Fiction and brought back the near-forgotten Daryl Hannah in Kill Bill. He also brought Kurt Russell back to the masses with Death Proof. The key difference with Britney is that she doesn't have the wealth of screen experience that these icons had when getting the QT treatment. He'll have to handhold her through it - something he's not done before.

4. Nightmare!

The movie's success will hinge on Britney's performance. Based on the last couple of years, do we really think she'll be showing up to rehearsals bright and early every morning? No. No perhaps not...

On the subject of his lesser-doomed projects, QT spoke to us at The Cannes film festival this year, talking us through his directorial career film by film. Check out Tarantino's account here.

Please excuse a moment of smug self-satisfaction (as if there isn't enough in the ego-buffing world of blogging). But... the good people at Warners have deemed my Dark Knight review worthy of being quoted as part of their enormous marketing campaign. Sadly, I didn't actually get on to the poster, but I'm on the ad that appeared recently in The Times, The Independent, The Guardian and The London Metro!

Of course the fact that I used the phrase, 'The movie of the year' must have helped. But, believe it or not, I meant it. It's great to receive this kind of recognition - we're the only website on the ad so yay us. That's us saying 'The Movie Of The Year' - right below The Times.

Apologies. Smug-entry over and out.

For many of you, tonight is the night you've been waiting for. The Dark Knight is released into I-Max cinemas tonight. And if you're lucky enough to have booked yourself a ticket, you are in for an experience unlike any other.

When I reviewed the film, I probably gushed more than I ever have. I do tend to take a positive attitude to films (usually - sorry POTC fans), but I've never heaped this much praise on a film.

It's worth noting, however, that I did see the film in 2D Imax. I was lucky enough to bag a seat right in the centre of the Waterloo Imax theatre. I was completely immersed. I quite literally could not see anything except a gigantic wall of beautiful high-definition Dark Knight.

Did this affect my judgement of the film for the better? I hope not. I like to think that the critical side of my brain can keep its distance from the wow-factor tech side. But I can't be sure. All I can say is that the Imax version is simply amazing.

Christopher Nolan shot six sequences from The Dark Knight with gigantic Imax cameras. These things shoot film so sharp that you could project the screen over eight stories and it would still be just as defined.

The most amazing of these is the opening shot. This is quite literally the opening second of the film in which we fly over Gotham in high def. My heart rate shot up at this point. All I can say is that it's mind-blowing. Can you spot the other five sequences? I like to think I could.

So, in summary, it's well worth the extra money for the Imax version if you're lucky enough to live near one of these globe-like cinemas. The one I went to is so booked up that they've started running screenings at 5am for Bat-fans that demand the Imax version. Set your alarms and get there people!