Although Heath Ledger’s Joker is frequently talked about when The Dark Knight, he wasn’t the only member of Bruce Wayne’s rogues gallery to appear in it. The Christopher Nolan-helmed feature, which ranks as both one of the best Batman movies and best movies of the 2000s, also chronicled Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent falling from grace and becoming Two-Face. So The Dark Knight is understandably one of the most well-known entries on Eckhart’s filmography, and the actor name-dropped Ledger and Nolan while recently explaining why this movie is so beloved, as well as described it as “beyond entertainment.”

Aaron Eckhart Was Enamored With The Dark Knight Script

Eckhart discussed The Dark Knight while talking about his new movie Chief of Station with Comicbook, and he started off by commending the script that Christopher Nolan wrote with his brother Jonathan, as well as threw in a quick compliment about Heath Ledger’s Academy Award-winning performance:

Taking place one year after the events of Batman Begins, The Dark Knight followed Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne dealing with a different kind of criminal in the form of The Joker, who wasn’t motivated by things like money, revenge or power, but simply wanted to cause chaos. As this battle between the unstoppable force and the immovable object unfolded, Harvey Dent, Gotham City’s district attorney, slowly descended into darkness and was pushed over the edge by the death of Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel Dawes and half his face being horrifically scarred. It’s like Harvey said, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

Aaron Eckhart Liked How The Dark Knight's Setting Reflected Real Life

Aaron Eckhart continued by talking about how the Gotham City Christopher Nolan and his cast and crew brought to life was so visceral, as this is a place so seeded in crime and corruption that only a vigilante dressed as a bat can steer things back in the right direction. In his words:

By the end of The Dark Knight, Harvey Dent/Two-Face was dead, but rather than let the public learn about how the district attorney killed five people and have his reputation be ruined, Batman agreed to take the fall for the murders, which ultimately led to him retiring from vigilantism for nearly a decade, as revealed in The Dark Knight Rises. While Eckhart’s Batman media experience was a one-and-done affair, it’s good to know that he still looks back fondly on the movie and considers it to be more than just a cinematic good time.

If you’re in the mood now to watch The Dark Knight, it can be streamed with a Max subscription alongside Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises. Otherwise, look ahead to the future with our upcoming DC movies guide.

There are only a handful of stories about what goes on in the White House and in the country from the point of view of the U.S. President’s spouse. The premiere season of creator Aaron Cooley’s new series offers three that are ripped straight from the history books and performed by some of the most renowned actresses of their generation. Take a look at who is playing whom in Showtime’s The First Lady cast, starting with one of the most powerful and beloved women in Hollywood as one of the most powerful and beloved women in the world.

Viola Davis (Michelle Obama)

The 44th First Lady, Michelle Obama, is the most recent real-life person Viola Davis has portrayed after playing James Brown’s mother, Susie, in Get On Up and the title role of Netflix’s Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom - both music biopics also starring late Marvel star Chadwick Boseman. Speaking of superhero movies, the actress has also appeared in three DCEU installments so far (both Suicide Squad movies and Peacemaker) as Amanda Waller - a character who bears a few similarities to Annalise Keating, her Emmy-winning role from How to Get Away with Murder. Davis also has an Oscar for giving, arguably, her all-time best performance in 2016’s Fences after previously being nominated for Doubt in 2009, The Help in 2012, and later receiving a nod for the aforementioned Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.

Michelle Pfeiffer (Betty Ford)

Before playing Betty Ford, who served as First Lady from 1974 to 1977, the last real person Michelle Pfieffer played was Bernie Madoff’s wife, Ruth, in the HBO movie, The Wizard of Lies - which earned her her sole Emmy nomination. The actress (also known for the 1999 thriller What Lies Beneath, the 1996 rom-com One Fine Day, 2007’s Hairspray, and more) also starred in 1993's politically inspired drama, Love Field, which earned her her third Oscar nomination after 1989’s Dangerous Liaisons and The Fabulous Baker Boys from 1990. Like Viola Davis, Pfeiffer is a DC movies veteran, haven given one of the greatest Catwoman portrayals ever in 1992’s Batman Returns, and would also join the MCU as Janet Van Dyne in Ant-Man and the Wasp in 2018.

Gillian Anderson (Eleanor Roosevelt)

Before playing Eleanor Roosevelt - the United States’ longest serving First Lady (1933-1945) - Gillian Anderson played royalty (Catherine the Great’s mother, Joanna, with Hulu’s The Great cast for Season 2) and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on Season 4 of Netflix’s The Crown - for which she received her second Emmy. The Chicago native won her first Emmy for her most iconic role, FBI agent Dana Scully, on one of greatest sci-fi shows ever, The X-Files. Anderson has also starred on NBC’s Hannibal as the title character’s psychiatrist, the personification of all media on Starz’s American Gods, and a sex therapist and mother in the Sex Education cast for Netflix.

O-T Fagbenle (Barack Obama)

As Michelle Obama’s husband and the 44th U.S. President, Barack Obama, we have O-T Fagbenle, who - like his on-screen wife on The First Lady - is also known for superhero movies, having appeared in the Black Widow cast in 2021. The British-born actor of Nigerian descent is even better known as Luke Bankole from Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale cast, for his recurring role on HBO’s short-lived queer dramedy, Looking, and appearing alongside the WeCrashed cast for Apple TV+ more recently. Fagbenle also works behind the scenes, most notably on his satirical comedy series Maxxx, which he created, produces, composes, occasionally directs, and stars on in the title role.

Aaron Eckhart (Gerald Ford)

As Betty Ford’s husband and the 38th U.S. President, Gerald Ford, we have Aaron Eckhart, who last played a (fictional) U.S. president in Olympus Has Fallen and London Has Fallen (but not the third installment, Angel Has Fallen). The Thank You For Smoking star - like his on-screen wife on The First Lady - also has a history of comic book movies, having played Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight and a modern interpretation of Mary Shelley’s “The Creature” in I, Frankenstein. More of Eckhart’s more notable credits include 1999’s Oscar-winning Erin Brockovich, the 2003 sci-fi adventure The Core, the dreary family drama Rabbit Hole from 2010, and the 2016 biopic, Sully, opposite Tom Hanks.

Kiefer Sutherland (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

As Eleanor Roosevelt’s husband and the 32nd (and longest-sitting) U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, we have Kiefer Sutherland, who last played a (fictional) U.S. president on Designated Survivor after years of defending the country by more aggressive means as Jack Bauer on 24. After debuting alongside his father, Donald Sutherland, in 1983’s Max Dugan Returns, he went on to become one of the biggest stars of the decade (and the next) with roles in Stand By Me, the star-studded Western Young Guns and its sequel, and his multiple collaborations with Joel Schumacher (such as The Lost Boys, Flatliners, and A Time to Kill). His additional, notable 21st Century credits include Alexandre Aja’s Mirrors, Lars von Trier’s Melancholia, and a few video game series - namely Call of Duty and Metal Gear Solid.

Jayme Lawson (Young Michelle Obama)

Playing Michelle Obama’s younger self (when her last name was Robinson) is Jayme Lawson, who was last seen holding a political position in The Batman cast as Gotham City mayoral candidate Bella Reál in 2022. She made her feature film debut two years earlier in Farewell Amor and will next share the screen with her The First Lady co-star, Viola Davis, in the historical epic, The Woman King, in 2022. Also, later this year, she will play another historical figure - civil rights activist Myrlie Evers, widow of Medgar Evers - in an upcoming biopic about Emmett Till.

Regina Taylor (Marian Shields Robinson)

Playing Michelle Obama’s mother, Marian Shields Robinson, is Regina Taylor, who made her feature film debut opposite Morgan Freeman in 1989’s Lean on Me and went on to be cast on the Emmy-winning series I’ll Fly Away from 1991 to 1993. This led to a career in more classic films - such as director Spike Lee’s Clockers from 1995, 1996’s Courage Under Fire (opposite Denzel Washington), and 1998’s The Negotiator (opposite Samuel L. Jackson). These days, Taylor is best known for making notable guest appearances on TV shows like NBC’s The Blacklist, The Good Fight on Paramount+, and two episodes of Lovecraft Country on HBO.

Dakota Fanning (Susan Elizabeth Ford)

Playing Gerald and Betty Ford’s daughter, Susan, is Dakota Fanning, who debuted in an ER episode before becoming one of her generation’s most renowned child stars with movies like 2004’s Man on Fire, War of the Worlds the following year, or Coraline as the title role. Playing Cherie Curie in The Runaways (opposite fellow Twilight movies cast member Kristen Stewart) led to more adult roles like Squeaky Fromme in the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood cast or Sara Howard on TNT’s period crime drama, The Alienist. Fanning’s upcoming film, The Nightingale, will be her third collaboration with her sister, Elle, after I Am Sam and the Syfy miniseries, Taken, and their first time not playing the same character at different ages.

Judy Greer (Nancy Howe)

Playing Betty Ford’s friend and secretary Nancy Howe is Judy Greer, who recently portrayed a highly exaggerated version of the very first First Lady, Martha Washington, in Netflix’s America: The Motion Picture voice cast and actually has another fact-based political drama in the works called The White House Plumbers. The actress has well over 100 other acting credits, but is best known as Cheryl Tunt in the Archer cast and for multiple blockbuster franchises - namely the MCU as Ant-Man’s ex-wife, Jurassic World as Bryce Dallas Howard’s sister, or the new Halloween movies as Laurie Strode’s daughter. You may likely recognize her from countless other films, like 13 Going on 30, and TV shows, like Arrested Development, just to name a few.

Ellen Burstyn (Sara Delano Roosevelt)

Playing Eleanor Roosevelt’s mother-in-law, Sara Delano Roosevelt, is Ellen Burstyn, who previously played a U.S. president’s mother twice (Barbara Bush in W. and Elizabeth Hale in Netflix’s House of Cards cast), as well as mother of a former First Lady on USA’s 2012 miniseries, Political Animals, for which she won her second Emmy. The screen legend is even better known for her Oscar-nominated roles in movies like The Last Picture Show, The Exorcist (one of the best horror movies), and Requiem for a Dream, and her Oscar-winning performance as the title character of Martin Scorsese’s Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Burstyn also played an older Jessica Chastain in Interstellar, Blake Lively’s daughter in The Age of Adaline, and recently reprised her Emmy-winning role as Bernadette Stabler on Law & Order: Organized Crime.

Lily Rabe (Lorena “Hick” Hickok)

Playing Lorena Hicock - a journalist and close friend (or, allegedly, more than a friend) of Eleanor Roosevelt is Lily Rabe, whose last major role in a fact-based political drama was Liz Cheney in Vice from 2018. Ten years after making her screen debut in the 2001 rom-com, Never Again, opposite her mother, Jill Clayburgh, the actress made her first appearance on the show she is best known for: American Horror Story. Some of Rabe’s other notable acting credits include HBO’s six-part drama The Undoing, a couple of episodes of The Underground Railroad on Amazon Prime, and the streaming platform’s acclaimed period drama, The Tender Bar, from director George Clooney.

Jackie Earle Haley (Louis McHenry Howe)

Playing Franklin D. Roosevelt’s advisor Louis McHenry Howe (with no relation to Nancy Howe) is Jackie Earle Haley, who last played a real-life political official (Confederacy VP Alexander Stephens) in 2012’s Lincoln. Like some other The First Lady cast members, he was once a popular child star (best known for the classic sports movie The Bad News Bears), has an Oscar nomination (for 2006’s Little Children), and has starred in a number of comic book adaptations (2009’s Watchmen, the short-lived Human Target series, AMC’s Preacher, Amazon Prime’s The Tick, and Alita: Battle Angel). 

Kate Mulgrew (Susan Sher)

Playing Michelle Obama’s Chief of Staff, Susan Sher, is Kate Mulgrew, who is a bit of a legend on the small screen. She is best known as the first woman to play a Star Trek captain (Kathryn Janeway, whom she debuted as on Star Trek: Voyager and most recently reprised on Star Trek: Prodigy) and for her Emmy nominated role in the Orange is the New Black cast as iron-mitted prison cook Galina “Red” Reznikov. She is also no stranger to comic book adaptations (she voiced Red Claw on Batman: The Animated Series) and still dabbles in sci-fi, such as Showtime’s upcoming series remake of The Man Who Fell to Earth.

See how well Showtime’s The First Lady cast portrays these historical and modern political figures when the series premieres on Sunday, April 17, 2022, at 9 p.m. ET.

When director Roland Emmerich comes to mind, the images that accompany the name are likely those of some of the most over the top action in recent cinematic history. Global environmental disaster in The Day After Tomorrow. Landmark's destroyed by alien invasion in Independence Day. Lots of big, beautiful explosions.

Emmerich's new film Midway, about the historic World War II battle, is therefore, by comparison, one of his most grounded pictures to date. It's based on an actual event that really happened to real people, after all, with some of those individuals still being around (my screening included a special guest, a 106-year-old former member of the U.S.S. Hornet's crew). But make no mistake, Midway is no less a traditional Roland Emmerich movie.

Midway actually starts a few years before World War II ever gets underway. Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson) is a U.S. Navel attache stationed in Japan. At a dinner among allies, Layton receives a warning from his host, Isoroku Yamamoto (Etsushi Toyokawa). Japan wishes to be a world power, but because it is dependent on allies for resources like oil, the nation is in a precarious position. If those resources are threatened, Japan may strike back.

This of course, leads us to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which opens the film proper. And start off with a bang is something Midway certainly does. The battle is big, chaotic and explosive. This is Roland Emmerich's comfort zone, and it shows. While this is the fight the "good guys" lose, the sequence isn't short changed at all. It would work as the explosive finale of any other action movie, and this is where we start.

The film's narrative follows three concurrent groups of characters. Story one is Dick Best (Ed Skrein), Wade McClusky (Luke Evans) and Roy Pearce (Alexander Ludwig), as Naval pilots, serving under Admiral William Halsey (Dennis Quaid). Story two follows Edwin Layton, who is now an intelligence officer stationed at Pearl Harbor, working alongside Admiral Chester Nimitz (Woody Harrelson), the new commander of Naval forces in the Pacific theater. Story three gives us the Japanese side of the fight, primarily through the eyes of Yamamoto.

You might want to brush up on the Battle of Midway before seeing Midway

Those are far from the only characters, however. There's a brief diversion to follow Jimmy Doolitte (Aaron Eckhart) and his raiders on a bombing run of Tokyo. Mandy Moore plays Anne Best, wife of pilot Dick, who is holding down the home front with her daughter. Nick Jonas plays Machinest Mate Bruno Gaido on board Halsey's U.S.S. Enterprise who gets a side story of his own. And that's not all.

As you can probably start to tell, there are a lot of people in this movie. Midway wants to tell the entire story of World War II in the Pacific Theater from Peal Harbor to the titular battle, and that means covering a great deal of ground from many different angles and a lot of moving parts. That means there's little time for things like character development, arcs, or in some cases, even introductions.

Woody Harrelson's Admiral Nimitz appears on screen and is handed command of the Navy, but he's not even given a name in his opening scene. It's not until a half drunken sailor shouts at him later that we learn who this guy is. Names like Nimitz and Halsey probably ring a bell if you've ever studied this period of world history, as they have bridges and buildings named after them. If you're already well versed in the history of World War II then you may know who many of these players are and how they all fit together, but it's essentially required that you have your own knowledge because Midway doesn't have time to stop and tell you who these people are.

That's a shame, because these are some pretty impressive people. Midway makes a point to tell you up front that the events of the film really happened, and what's mostly remarkable is how accurate the movie truly is. Many of the events portrayed in Midway, even some of the most dramatic aren't invented to make the movie more exciting, they really happened.

Midway’s immense and impressive cast, including Woody Harrelson and Aaron Eckhart, does well with what little each is given to do

And there are some great actors here playing those great people. It's a shame that we don't get to see more of them. Woody Harrelson is great in pretty much everything that he does, and he is just as great here... in the few scenes he has. Aaron Eckhart's role is blink and you'll miss it short. His character is never mentioned until the first scene where he appears an hour into the movie, and about 10 minutes later we're off to focus on other things. Little to none of it is bad, it's just entirely unsatisfying.

The other part of the movie that gets short changed is the entire Japanese side of the battle. For a movie which claims in the end to be dedicated to both sides of the Battle of Midway, the Japanese are, without question, the "bad guys" here. Once again, you're largely expected to already know why this war is even happening, because you certainly don't get any understanding from the Japanese perspective.

While more modern World War II movies have tended to take a more nuanced approach with the events, especially on the side of the war that didn't include actual Nazis, Midway feels like a bit of a throwback. The Americans are all (mostly) perfect heroes and the other side are the clear and obvious villains. There's little room for nuance here. It feels a bit more complex than a John Wayne World War II movie from the 1950s, but only just. Fans of those sorts of films will be right at home.

In the end, of course, this isn't designed to be a character driven story. Most of the characters of Midway aren't the ones who are making war, they're the ones war is happening to, and so the events of the story are what is driving them toward the event that movie is named for — and it drives them at a pretty good speed. While Midway is just short of two and a half hours long, there are only a couple of brief moments where you consider checking your watch.

Roland Emmerich’s skill as an action director shines through in Midway

And when we get there, yeah, The Battle of Midway is pretty impressive. Dogfights, dive bombers, submarines, battleships, everything comes together in a massive and impressive dance of bullets and explosions. The sound design and surround sound mix are top notch, making you feel like planes and bullets are all around you. Roland Emmerich knows how to make action spectacle.

Midway is likely going to be a movie that has trouble finding an audience. The further we get away from World War II the less it seems that there's a taste for films on the subject. Since the movie basically requires you to already have some working knowledge of the events, it seems quite likely that only history nuts and those that already love to consume mass amounts of World War II media are likely to be particularly excited for this one.

In short, if you want to take your grandfather to the movies, he's going to love Midway.

Seventeen years ago, Bryan Singer's X-Men changed the way we looked at comic book adaptations, as it undid a lot of the damage that Batman & Robin had done to the still growing genre back in 1997. Part of that movie's success is, without a doubt, thanks to Hugh Jackman, who was then an up-and-coming actor that landed the role of a life time: Wolverine. Now, we can't picture anyone else playing the role, but in that pre-watershed era of history, there were others who were considered for the duty of popping claws and screaming out in berserker rage.

Some of the men that were sought after for the role were natural choices, while others are quite off the beaten path. All would have brought something unique to the role, and all 13 are going to be revealed throughout this list. So keep an open mind, and get ready to imagine several different futures past, as the following line-up could be considered Wolverines of alternate timelines.

Bob Hoskins

We'd previously reported that X-Men comic writer Chris Claremont had a specific choice for Wolverine, and his was a rather unconventional, but still badassed choice. He thought that esteemed actor /hard case Bob Hoskins could have been a great Wolvie for the silver screen. Since Claremont wrote the X-Men during the period of 1975 and 1991, we're going to assume that his vision of Hoskins as Wolverine was more inspired by The Long Good Friday and less Super Mario Bros. Which would have been totally sweet, considering his reputation stemming from that film.

Russell Crowe

Bryan Singer must really like Australian actors, as he reportedly selected Russell Crowe as his original choice to take the part of Wolverine for 2000's X-Men. At least, that's what the trivia on IMDb has to say, and it names a lot of actors that were in the running. Though this potential casting was also mentioned by Hollywood.com, Uproar Comics, and NotStarring.com. Now keep in mind, this was peak Crowe, coming off of the era of L.A. Confidential and The Insider, which saw him go onto play Maximus in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. Of course, seeing as both projects released months apart from each other in 2000, we're to assume Crowe dropped Marvel's pet project for the Oscar-winning juggernaut. But he did win an Oscar, make friends with Ridley, and suggest Hugh Jackman for the role instead of himself. So, while the prospect could have been awesome, it clearly wasn't the end of the world.

Glenn Danzig

X-Men didn't happen overnight, as it was being developed through a good portion of the late '90s at 20th Century Fox. So, with a lot of time, comes a lot of choices, and both NotStarring.com and Uproar Comics have mentioned that rocker Glenn Danzig was one of the big choices the studio had. Of course, this was before a director / producer had been decided on. But, the dealbreaker was naturally the clause in his contract that would have kept him on the set of X-Men for long enough that his touring days would have to be postponed. Which is a shame, because the dude totally could have made Wolverine his own, and might have launched his impressive physique into a slew of action franchises afterwards.

Aaron Eckhart

This is probably the first name on this list that'll raise some eyebrows, and stumbling upon his name both on IMDb and Hollywood.com's lists certainly threw us for a loop. It's not that Aaron Eckhart is a bad actor, or that he's a puny mortal. But if we had to choose a factor that didn't work in his favor, despite being a studio favorite, is that he was probably seen as too small for the role of Wolverine. But then again, the comparison of Eckhart to Hugh Jackman is probably what's throwing us off, because other than that factor, his quiet range and physicality should have been a good fit.

Jean-Claude Van Damme

Now here's a pick that could have been pretty close to what Hugh Jackman brought to the role of Wolverine, and it's been recorded by Hollywood.com and IMDb. Jean-Claude Van Damme, the "Muscles from Brussels," could have matched the stature of Jackman's peak physique, if not exceeded them. However, if Van Damme was cast for X-Men as 20th Century Fox had wanted, we might have seen a faster moving Wolverine, rather than the brawler that Jackman's incarnation embodied. Also, his accent would have probably had everyone wishing he'd been cast as Gambit anyway, and that would have been amazingly distracting.

Viggo Mortensen

When it came to casting Wolverine, Fox had a bit of a wandering eye. And yet, that eye did settle on the man who would be king of Middle-Earth, Viggo Mortensen, just as he was rising in profile and stature. His running for the role has been reported on all four of the lists we've sourced. While he could have made an interesting choice, we have a feeling that he might have been a bit too "quiet" for the studio's tastes, as he really didn't have a lot of action under his belt. Though that certainly didn't stop him from getting cast in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, so again, the universe worked things out for the best.

Edward Norton

Time for another oddball choice, folks! Also sitting on the 20th Century Fox shortlist was none other than Edward Norton, with Hollywood.com and IMDb listing him in the running, and even NotStarring.com putting him down for both Wolvie and Cyclops. Primal Fear and American History X did a lot of great things for the man's career, and his up-and-comer status probably put him on the list due to his severely fantastic acting chops. But alas, Norton turned down the opportunity to audition, and probably for the same reason we're thinking: there's no way in hell anyone would have bought Edward Norton as Wolverine. You can only imagine someone so jacked before it becomes ridiculous, and Norton probably saw that before anyone else did (even if he would go on to play the Hulk later... sort of).

Thomas Jane

While Hugh Jackman IS The Wolverine, hearing that Thomas Jane was being considered, at least according to Hollywood.com, to play Logan in Bryan Singer's X-Men is something that just sounds like it could have been magic. With both Deep Blue Sea and Boogie Nights under his belt, the man showed to the world he could rock action moves as easily as he could grow hair. Sadly, unspecified "contract issues" prevented Jane from even trying out for the role, which might have been for the better, because he was one hell of a Punisher.

Keanu Reeves

The oddball parade continues, as IMDb and NotStarring.com have both shown that 20th Century Fox was keen on signing Keanu Reeves to play Wolverine during their massive scrum to put X-Men into production. Again, the same possible problems with Jean-Claude Van Damme would have reared their head with Reeves, as his work on The Matrix probably wowed the executives, but would have inspired a more fast paced "wire fu" approach to Logan's fighting style. Plus, shades of Edward Norton would have shown themselves, as Reeves could only get so jacked before you realized it just wasn't a good fit.

Johnny Depp

When you see Johnny Depp on a casting list, it's going to be a polarized experience. There's no in-between, as Depp's casting in projects tends to be either spot on brilliant, or just plain loony. In the case of X-Men's Wolverine, you can cue up the circus music, as it would have been absolutely absurd to have cast Johnny Depp as the Canadian mutant. Perhaps the strangest thing about Depp's supposed casting is that NotStarring.com's list seems to be the only one that mentions his candidacy. Though when you think about it, he could have made an interesting pre-Alan Cumming Nightcrawler. So maybe that's how that train got started to begin with.

Gary Sinise

If there was anyone harder to evaluate than Gary Sinise for the role of Wolverine, we're having a hard time finding them. It shows in the fact that Hollywood.com, IMDb and Uproar Comics all have him named on their lists of Wolverines that could have been, and it's not a terrible fit. On one hand, he would have been a little over a decade older than Hugh Jackman when he first stepped into the role, which wouldn't have lent itself to the longevity that Jackman has had with the role. But on the other hand, we can imagine what Sinise would have looked and sounded like in full, primal rage mode, and it will remain one of history's greatest "what if's."

Mel Gibson

Now we enter what could be considered the "Hall of Fame" of Wolverine choices. As the casting search wound down, Mel Gibson's name came up in Fox's search for burly fighting men that could don Adamantium claws and wreck shop. And in the case of Gibson, he was featured in a round of concept art that the producers got their hands on, and MovieWeb made public knowledge. But, for one reason or another, Mel's Wolverine was never meant to be. Though considering he also turned down playing Thor's dad, yet somehow has entertained talks to direct Suicide Squad 2, we think that he might be more of a D.C. Comics guy.

Dougray Scott

Ok, so picture this: you're hand-picked by Tom Cruise to be the villain in Mission: Impossible 2 AND Bryan Singer wants you for his X-Men movie. Pretty sweet line-up, isn't it? At least, it would be, until you're forced to choose between the two posts, which is exactly what happened to Dougray Scott. While Scott was cast as The Wolverine, his time on the Mission: Impossible 2 set was prolonged due to a production overrun. Which lead to Scott unfortunately having to drop the role, allowing some newcomer to pick up the mantle after him. Something tells us he was kicking himself for his decision once X-Men opened to massive acclaim.

Full disclosure: going into Incarnate, I'd written the film of as "The Insidious Exorcist," considering the trailers I'd seen had portrayed the film to look as derivative as any other cash-in horror title. While I'd amend that title to "The Insidious Incepting Exorcist," I wouldn't do so out of snark or disapproval. Rather, as much as I was prepared to dislike the film, Incarnate is a surprisingly decent movie. While it could still use some polishing, and a little more meat to the bones of the plot, it left me actually wanting the sequel that it teased.

Dr. Seth Ember (Aaron Eckhart) isn't an exorcist in the traditional sense. Rather, he's more of a search party that can go into your mind and rescue you in the event of a demonic possession. Like any good hunters, Seth has a particular prey he's hunting, an old foe whose only goal is to make his life a living hell. Its latest victim is a young boy (David Mazouz) who will need all the help he can get if he ever hopes to live a normal life again. Lucky for him, Dr. Ember is ready to tangle with his nemesis, and save the boy through any means necessary.

Perhaps the greatest surprise that greeted me during my viewing of Incarnate is the fact that, despite its central conceit acting as a mash-up between ideas executed in other films, it actually stands as an individual project that makes it work. While the film's story certainly still has its flaws, and feels like it could have taken its time to tell the story a little better, the final product doesn't rely on jump scares and convoluted mythology to build itself up. Rather, the story of Incarnate opens the door to a very interesting possibilities for the future, while at the same time offering a satisfying one-off story that can be passed along horror aficionados hungry for a good film.

Ultimately, the success of Incarnate rides on the back of Aaron Eckhart and the supporting cast that make up the film's roster. While everyone's fine in their respective support roles, Eckhart is definitely the core of this film's cast, and he does not disappoint. With Seth treading the usual road of an embattled hero with a score to settle, the character can easily fall into one-note territory in the wrong hands. But with Aaron Eckhart's chops, Dr. Ember is as three dimensional as the writer would have hoped, with just that little extra to help pave over some of the cracks in the foundation.

Incarnate is not a perfect film, by any means. But instead, it exists as an entertaining film that could mark the beginning of the next horror franchise to bring audiences into theaters on a regular basis. It's a rough draft, but the film's still worth seeking out, if only to help foster an original voice in horror and to possibly give the folks behind this first potential installment a chance to refine themselves the second time out.

Hollywood loves its boxing movies, but there are many cases that suggest a certain narrowness to the creativity in pugilist stories. After all, you can only have a heroic fighter battling his demons both inside and outside the ring so many times before it all starts to feel worn and done. That isn't the case for Bleed For This, however. Instead, director Ben Younger has uncovered an excellent true story about a boxer that is legitimately worth bringing to the big screen, putting together a movie that is impressive, unique, and inspiring.

Set in the late 1980s, the film centers on Vinny "Paz" Pazienza (Miles Teller): a young Rhode Island-based boxer who regularly wins, but needs to starve and dehydrate himself to make weight, and takes serious beatings. When these shortcomings lead to his career being in jeopardy, he starts working with a new trainer, Kevin Rooney (Aaron Eckhart), an alcoholic who used to train Mike Tyson. At first, this transition winds up being very successful, and after Vinny is bumped up a weight class, his potential starts to seem limitless. Unfortunately, it's a journey that winds up being devastatingly interrupted.

Shortly after a major victory, Vinny is involved in a terrible car accident while driving to a casino with a friend, and wakes in a hospital to learn that his neck has been fractured. While his doctor recommends that he have his spinal column fused, it's an option that he refuses, knowing that it would mean never being able to box again. Against professional advice, he instead opts to spend six months in a Halo rig -- an option that he's repeatedly told is both dangerous and no guarantee of a path back towards fighting shape. While everyone in his life is terrified for him, Vinny is nothing but headstrong and determined, doing everything that he possibly can to get back in the ring.

To revisit the subject of boxing movie tropes, it's important to note that Bleed For This does have its fair share of derivative elements, as it's not only a familiar underdog story, but with its big ensemble of New England family members, it definitely shares some DNA with David O. Russell's The Fighter. What raises the film above these familiar elements, though, is just the fact that Vinny Pazienza's story is so unique. The narrative put forth by the movie is textbook "stranger than fiction," and even subconsciously (or consciously) knowing how it will all play out, you still can't really believe it all as you watch it unfold.

Further establishing himself as one of the best actors of his generation, Miles Teller puts on yet another fantastic performance as Vinny Pazienza, utilizing his impressive charisma in different ways within the role: first showcasing it within his energy as a real winner before the accident, and then letting it sell Vinny's impressive determination when he's fighting his way back into the world that he loves.

Great as Teller is, however, the big surprise MVP of Bleed For This is Aaron Eckhart, who puts in his second terrific supporting performance of the season following Clint Eastwood's Sully. To once again echo earlier sentiments, the drunk, has-been trainer is hardly the most original element that the film has to offer, but Eckhart plays Kevin Rooney in a way that has you cheering for his bounce back on the same level as Vinny Paz, and the level to which he supports his friend in his recovery as everything plays out makes his redemption feel equally satisfying by the time the credits are rolling.

Bleed For This is Ben Younger's first film in more than 10 years, and completely different than his previous titles (Boiler Room and Prime) -- but it's an exciting comeback to the medium say the least. It's a boxing movie that is successfully as compelling as it is stylistic, with some legitimately beautiful cinematography both in the ring and out of it. It has a lot to offer as the telling of a true story, and comes together as a fun cinematic treat.

Even for the president of a movie universe, having two separate attacks on your life is pretty special. Just ask Aaron Eckhart's President Benjamin Asher, who has survived two horrific attempts on his life and office in both Olympus Has Fallen, and its follow-up London Has Fallen. With the recently announced Angel Has Fallen, one would have assumed that President Asher would have been back for the ride as well, if only to lend his friend/protector Mike Banning a helping hand. Sadly, Banning's going to have to go it alone, or at least without his presidential bestie, as Eckhart doesn't think he's coming back.

Collider had a chance to sit down with the actor, as he's promoting his new film, Bleed For This. With his role as trainer Kevin Rooney in the impressive looking Miles Teller boxing vehicle, Eckhart is back on our screens and ready to rumble. Though, as expected, talks turned towards the recently announced third outing in the Banning saga. So where does Aaron Eckhart see President Banning during the events of Angel Has Fallen? The actor said:

While it may not seem like a lot to us fans of the franchise that are looking forward to Angel Has Fallen, considering how much hell President Asher went through in the first two films, it's no surprise that he's not along for a third ride. Not only is he probably out of office by now, but even if he wasn't, it's not like the man is looking to break his record for "most devastating day at the office." Though, on the more reality based side of things, the fact that the film is focusing on Mike Banning as the potential target this time out pretty much eliminates the need to put the president through any more stress. Especially since the last outing was pretty brutal.

Just because Aaron Eckhart won't be back in the White House any time soon doesn't mean you won't be able to see him in action. You can next see Eckart in Bleed For This, which punches its way into theaters this Friday; as well as in the horror offering Incarnate, which opens on December 2nd. Angel Has Fallen is scheduled for a 2017 production start, with a release date unannounced, but probably landing in 2018.

When Olympus fell, it apparently landed on a giant stack of cash. When that happens it means it’s sequel time. But how do you up the ante for a sequel when you’ve already destroyed the White House? Well, you go overseas and blow up some of their shit. It’s been there longer, so it’s a much bigger deal when it comes crashing to earth. Check out the new trailer for London has Fallen.

All of the major world leaders from across the globe are in one place. Why? The trailer from Fandango doesn’t say, but we know it’s to attend the funeral of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. "It is the most protected event on earth" the voice over is sure to tell us. If that’s not an invitation for terrorists to attack, then I don’t know what is.

Sure enough, that’s exactly what happens. A terrorist wants to execute the President of the United States as a show of strength against the west, and only one man can stop him. That one man is once again Secret Service Agent Mike Banning as played by Gerard Butler. Aaron Eckhart returns as the most unlucky US President ever, and Morgan Freeman is back as the newly promoted Vice President of the United States.

If nothing else, the new setting gives the filmmakers a larger playground to set up in and knock things over. Much of the film appears to be a chase movie where Butler and Eckhart attempt to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. This should give Eckhart more to do than just play hostage, and since the events of the first film, hopefully he has received his own basic combat training. Dare we hope to have the most ass-kicking President on screen since Harrison Ford in Air Force One?

All of this is assuming of course that the movie ever actually comes out. Originally set for release one month ago, it was first pushed back to January at the beginning of the summer. It’s now been pushed back again, and the trailer lists March as the new release date.

Olympus Has Fallen was a solid hit, but not a runaway smash by any means. It’s not clear this was a movie anybody was waiting for a sequel to, and the continued delays combined with the fact that nobody wanted to direct the thing to begin with do not make us hunger with anticipation.

Now, a sequel to White House Down where Jamie Foxx has been named Secretary General of the United Nations and Channing Tatum is the personal security for the American UN Ambassador before terrorists take over the building? Where’s that movie?

Two months ago, Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood made big, early Oscar-related waves when it was announced that the two men would be teaming up to make a biopic about Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger - the pilot who was controlling the plane during the famed "Miracle on the Hudson." Now the project has added a second big name to the cast, as its been confirmed that Aaron Eckhart will be co-starring in the film as well.

The Hollywood Reporter has the details about this development, noting that Eckhart will be playing Jeff Skiles in the movie. During the aforementioned averted plane disaster, Skiles was Captain Sullenberger's first officer and co-pilot, and was flying the vehicle when birds crashed into the engine - causing it to fail. Both he and Sullenberger were responsible for safely landing the Airbus A320 into the nearby river. Their actions resulted in them saving the lives of 155 people, but also potentially hundreds more because of the safe landing zone.

Todd Komarnicki, whose most well-known credit is the 2007 Halle Berry/Bruce Willis thriller Perfect Stranger, is writing the film, and using material from Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's memoir, "Highest Duty: My Search For What Really Matters." What remains unclear is exactly how the movie will expand upon the actual "Miracle on the Hudson" moment, given that the event could essentially be summed up in one big action sequence. With Eckhart now involved, it's a potential sign that the film will deal as much with the aftermath of the incident as what happened to Sullenberger in his life before it.

In case you couldn't already figure this out, this biopic is already carrying a lot of clout - and it's arguably the best role that Aaron Eckhart has landed in about seven years. It's true that the guy has still been playing leading man roles, and I will give a lot of props to the 2010 drama Rabbit Hole, but it feels like the days of Thank You For Smoking and The Dark Knight were a long time ago. He's a talented actor, though, and while titles like I, Frankenstein have hurt his reputation, he's not down for the count. A collaboration with Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood could be a great opportunity for him, and eventually lead to some even bigger roles in more high profile titles.

At this time, there doesn't seem to be an announced production schedule for the Captain "Sully" Sullenberger movie, though it's pretty easy to imagine that this one is to be starting to shoot soon. Not only is casting starting to pick up, but Tom Hanks will have a hole in his schedule soon - specifically once he's done reprising his role as Robert Langdon in Ron Howard's Inferno. The only movie competing for the star's attention is the sci-fi thriller The Circle starring Emma Watson. Stay tuned for more updates about the project, because we will likely be hearing more very soon.

London Has Fallen’s latest poster has been released and it proves that the film isn’t going to treat the English capital’s landmarks in the nicest fashion. In particular, Big Ben, which it looks as though will be trashed during the blockbuster. You can check out the stunning poster for London Has Fallen below.

Brutal, tragic stuff from Focus Features. I mean how are the people of London going to be able to tell the time now? Also, I’m going to put it out there, Big Ben In Big Trouble probably should have been the film’s title. London Has Fallen will re-team Gerard Butler’s sensational Secret Service agent Mike Banning with Aaron Eckhart’s President Benjamin Asher. However, rather than being stuck inside the White House, this time round they’ve travelled across the pond and have to stop the world’s most powerful men from being murdered. Along the way it looks like a variety of London’s most iconic landmarks will be destroyed. Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square better watch out.

London Has Fallen’s plot will be kick-started by the death of the British Prime Minister, who has perished in rather suspicious circumstances. As you’d expect, his funeral is a must attend event for every world leader that can muster the energy to travel to London. Security is tight, but that doesn’t stop a fiendish plot to kill them all from being unleashed. Unfortunately for these cretinous terrorists there is one man that they didn’t count on: Jack Bau- sorry, Mike Banning. And alongside President Asher and Charlotte Riley's untrusting British MI-6 agent, he looks to stop the attack from happening.

London Has Fallen is of course the sequel to Olympus Has Fallen, the 2013 blockbuster that revolved around a terrorist attack on the White House, which Butler’s Branning expertly thwarted.

If that sounds vaguely familiar, it was also the exact same plot as White House Down, which had Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx as the head of security and President, respectively. However while London Has Fallen was ordered because its predecessor managed to gross a relatively impressive $161 million from a $70 million budget, White House Down wasn’t quite as successful. Well, that’s not technically true, because it did gross $205 million, but it was made for $150 million, so was ultimately deemed a failure. London Has Fallen will arrive in cinemas on October 2, 2015.

Most seem divided as to whether "issue" movies work, but bringing attention to a horrible tragedy is a reminder that history is what we make it. In certain circumstances, advocacy can be the difference between saving a life and ending a life, and if a movie regarding certain issues is big enough, those issues become conversation. Such is the case with the appropriately-titled Spotlight, the true-life story of reporters uncovering a massive priest sex-abuse case.

Deadline reports that Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Michael Keaton, Aaron Eckhart, Liev Schreiber and Stanley Tucci will star in Spotlight. The film concerns a Boston Globe investigation into a Catholic priest abuse case that reveals a decade-long cover-up on the part of the church. Academy Award nominee Tom McCarthy wrote the script for the film along with Josh Singer, and Open Road is set to distribute the film, which is being made with the assistance of Participant Media. McCarthy, an actor, writer and director who has steadily moved behind and in front of the camera, should bring a sure hand and an even-keeled approach to the film. One of his strongest movies is the sweet-natured The Station Agent, which features Game Of Thrones star Peter Dinklage in a much more contemporary role.

The Spotlight Team of reporters that discovered this coverup and inspired the name of the new film includes Globe editor Marty Baron (Schreiber), Spotlight editor Robby Robinson (Keaton), and reporters Michael Rezendes (Ruffalo), Sascha Pfieffer (Rachel McAdams) and Matt Carroll, who uncovered a massive backlog of coverups when investigating what they thought was merely a local case. Tucci will play attorney Mitchell Garabedian, though its unclear who Eckhart would play right now. This is a hot cast who have done some substantial work lately: Ruffalo, a very politically savvy actor, appeared in HBO's recent The Normal Heart this year and in a few months will show up in Foxcatcher. McAdams, meanwhile, is excellent in the currently-in-theaters A Most Wanted Man . Keaton's set to be seen in Birdman, which is drawing strong pre-Oscar notices.

The question is, how will this movie work? Yes, it's a significant story that must be told, but how do you make it cinematically compelling when half of the audience is turned off by the story of pedophilia, and the other half is simply waiting for the reporters to come across the revelation that the cover-up extends beyond Boston? Furthermore, making a film where reporters who are heroic and priests are monstrous should be easy: you'll have to trust McCarthy can find the complex human dimension behind such a case, the humanity within the humanity, and take the appropriate risks to bring this tragedy to life. If it were anyone else, it would be questionable. Because it's McCarthy, it's a leading contender to be one of 2015's toughest and most compelling movies.

Boy, it sure is great to be in the month of February, where movies like I, Frankenstein and That Awkward Moment are a part of our past. Granted, it’s a very recent past, as both films are currently still in theaters, but we’re grateful nonetheless. Stars from both of those movies will soon come together to create what will hopefully be a late fall release, as Aaron Eckhart and Miles Teller are attached to join Bleed for This, a boxing biopic that Martin Scorsese will oversee as executive producer. That’s a good thing, right?

Bleed for This will follow the tumultuous life of world champ Vinny Pazienza, with Teller inexplicably taking on the lead role. The way THR explains it, the film will focus on the Pazmanian Devil’s 1991 car accident that nearly killed him and his career, as well as his somewhat miraculous return to the ring only a year later. He wasn’t supposed to walk again, but a heavy gym regimen and help from his legendary trailer Kevin Rooney (Eckhart) allowed him to continue a career that would last another twelve years.

This will be the third feature for director Ben Younger, who also penned the screenplay. His previous films include 2005’s romantic drama Prime and 2000’s Boiler Room, which was based on the life of Jordan Belfort (who also served as the subject of Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street).

While I have no strong feelings for or against Eckhart playing Rooney, I’m a little bothered by Teller playing Pazienza. He’s mostly known for his comedic work, and even if his recent Sundance hit Whiplash gives him more dramatic weight as an actor, it still doesn’t mean he’ll exude the Italian machismo that Pazienza so effortlessly put forth. I’m willing to be blown away by surprise, though.

Interestingly enough, two of Pazienza’s more memorable fights include defeating an older Roberto Duran, who is getting his own biopic with Jonathan Jakubowicz’s Hands of Stone, with Édgar Ramírez as Duran. It would be pretty amazing if these films met at a crossroads that linked them together.

Teller, who gained acclaim with last year’s The Spectacular Now, will soon become omnipresent as the Divergent series enters our lives, along with the comedies Two Night Stand, involving an unwanted second date as dictated by a snowstorm, and the long delayed, R-rated Get a Job, which follows college kids seeking employment. Eckhart, meanwhile, has Incarnate, the first thriller from Journey 2 director Brad Peyton, and the upcoming thriller Fadeout expected to hit in the next year or so.

All this talk about boxing has gotten you in the mood to see a classic fight, am I wrong? While it’s too bad we can’t watch I, Frankenstein and That Awkward Moment come to blows, below you can watch Pazienza taking on Roy Jones, Jr. in their classic 1995 bout. No spoilers, but the fourth round is a boxing anomaly.

Author Nelson DeMille has a number of great recurring characters, but the witty, occasionally cocky detective John Corey may be the most memorable of the bunch, so it stands to reason that we’d see the character on the big or small screen sooner or later. As it happens, it’s looking like Corey is TV-bound, as Demille says he’s secured a deal with Lionsgate to adapt Plum Island for the small screen. Details are vague at the moment, but it doesn’t sound like we’ll have to wait long as he says the first episode could air as soon as next Summer (2014).

Post by Nelson DeMille.

So, Lionsgate is producing, “hopefully” John Corey will be played by Aaron Eckhart, and with any luck this project will air next summer on a yet-to-be-revealed cable channel.

Plum Island introduces us to NYPD homicide cop John Corey, who is resting up out east on Long Island after being wounded in the line of duty when he’s drawn into a murder investigation after a young couple he knows — two biologists from the Plum Island research facility — are murdered. As you might guess, the nature of the work the two victims did on the top secret island factors into their death and the bigger picture points to a situation that could have global implications. It’s been years since I’ve read this book (it was published in 1997), but I liked it and Corey enough to read The Lions Game and Night Fall, the next two books in what went on to become the John Corey series. I may have to revisit Plum Island at some point before this TV project debuts.

Looking at DeMille’s post, I have a number of questions, including: When he says hopefully John Corey will be played by Aaron Eckhart, is he just expressing his own personal hope that the I, Frankenstein star will play the lead? Or is Eckhart in talks for the part? That part is unclear, but it’s intriguing, especially considering Eckhart’s work has consisted mostly of feature roles (Olympus has Fallen, The Dark Knight, Battle Los Angeles).

Also unclear is the network. DeMille says "cable channel." Does that mean premium cable or basic? Looking at Lionsgate, it could be either. The studio’s TV branch has series on multiple channels, including AMC (Mad Men), FX (Anger Management) and Showtime (Nurse Jackie). They’ve also worked with Starz (Boss, Crash) and even Syfy (The Dresden Files), though I’m thinking Syfy is unlikely here, as the cable channel has Helix set to go next month. Unless they’re looking to do another show with a plot related to a possible viral outbreak.

And then there's the question of the format. Is this a full-on series or a limited series/mini-series? Given that it’s an adaptation of a book, the latter might be the assumption, but lead character John Corey’s story resumes through numerous books, dealing with a number of other investigations, so this could very well be stretched into a full series. Plum Island is the first John Corey book. It’s followed by The Lion’s Game, Night Fall, Wild Fire, The Lion and The Panther. There’s no shortage of material to work with here.

DeMIlle’s previously adapted books are Word of Honor, which was made into a TV movie that aired in 2003, and The General’s Daughter, a feature film that starred John Travolta and released in 1999. DeMille says more details will follow on the Plum Island TV project, so we may expect to hear a full announcement soon. In the meantime, as a fan of his books, and of Corey in particular, this is exciting.

Olympus Has Fallen essentially was a new take on the Die Hard formula, so it only makes sense that the movie would earn a sequel.

ScreenDaily reports that Nu Image will "kick off talks" on London Has Fallen, a continuation of the story of a beleaguered President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart) and his tough-as-nails personal guard, Mike Banning (Gerard Butler). The site reports that Eckhart, Butler and Morgan Freeman are expected to reprise their roles, alongside Angela Bassett and Radha Mitchell. Original director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter) is not being mentioned with regards to the sequel, though, and ScreenDaily says the producers "are out to directors."

That makes me wonder if Fuqua passed, because when a film performs well at the box office (and Olympus did), the director usually gets the chance to return and build on what he or she has started. Fuqua is in post-production on The Equalizer with Denzel Washington, Chloe Moretz and Melissa Leo, but easily could slide back into the director’s chair for an Olympus sequel if he wanted him to. It sounds, in this report, like the producers want to go in a different direction.

The sequel reportedly will go into production in London on May 5, 2014. The plot will follow, according to the site, "a plot to strike the city [of London] during the funeral of the British Prime Minister. Only the President Of The United States, his secret service head and an English MI6 agent can save the day."

News of an Olympus sequel woke Twitter out of its slumber, and triggered the snark … particularly from supporters of White House Down, which arrived in theaters a few months after Olympus Has Fallen and was significantly less successful at the American box office. Our own Katey Rich lamented:

The jokes just kept on coming.

But the winner of the day clearly was:

I preferred White House Down, which was fun in the places where Olympus was dark, violent and uber-serious. We know the producers can create carnage. Will London Has Fallen lighten things up, or continue punishing audiences (and potentially breaking the bank)?

Last week, in the wake of the box office success of Blumhouse Productions’ Insidious Chapter 2, microbudget feature producer extraordinaire Jason Blum announced that he would be exorcising another horror plot from someone’s head and turning it into its own potential franchise. And it turned out to be an exorcism movie called Incarnate, with Aaron Eckhart to star. Instead of changing their mind after looking around at the billion terrible exorcism movies in recent history, Blum and director Brad Peyton have added Rosario Dawson to the cast, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

While I’m sick of movies about possession, this is pretty strong casting, especially for a flick that’ll probably only cost a few million to make. Dawson, like Eckhart, is a strong performer the majority of the time, even when the movie she’s in isn’t particularly memorable.

Eckhart will play “an unconventional exorcist with the ability to tap into the subconscious of the possessed, who meets his match when a 9-year-old boy is possessed by a demon from his past.” Keeping it to the afflicted child motif that runs through Blum productions like Paranormal Activity, Insidious and Dark Skies. Unfortunately, they’re keeping a tight lid on the role that Dawson will be playing. I’m hoping for Satan, but it’ll probably just be a nun or the kid’s mom or something.

The fact that this will be directed by Peyton, whose only two films were Journey 2: The Mysterious Island and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, is more confusing than foretelling what kind of a movie this might look like. And it was written by Ronnie Christensen, who wrote the 2008 Anne Hathaway mystery Passengers and last year’s Dark Tide, a Halle Berry film nearly as terrible as Catwoman. (Not really.) I just hope Incarnate offers something a little different story-wise, and stays far away from the found footage treatment. It’s really just the actors and Blum’s track record that have me interested.

Dawson recently starred in Danny Boyle’s Trance and has a slew of films coming out in the next year or so, with the Diego Luna’s Cesar Chavez biography and Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City: A Dame to Kill For as the highlights, though Brian Horiuchi’s offbeat romantic drama Parts Per Billion sounds intriguing. She’s also in Atom Egoyan’s kidnapping thriller The Captive with Ryan Reynolds and Scott Speedman, but that just sounds like a walk in the park compared to Prisoners, which is now in theaters.

Since Insidious Chapter 2 made over $60 million in two weekends on a $5 million budget, production companies would probably sell their souls to get on board with this one. Blum has a first-look deal with Universal, but no deals have been made just yet. A Los Angeles production is being planned to start in November.

Since they’re already tossing the word franchise around, you can bet this movie has an open ending. But it can’t possibly be any worse than The Devil Inside’s ending, can it?

UPDATE: Miles Teller has confirmed his participation on Twitter. Still no word on which role he'll play though.

After looking at vaguely recognizable young hunks like Alex Pettyfer and Lucas Till, Summit Entertainment has finally settled on up-and-comer Theo James for the lead male role in Divergent, their upcoming young-adult novel adaptation. James, an English actor who put in a lot of bit work in the likes of Underworld: Awakening and even Downton Abbey, recently broke out as the star of CBS's new drama Golden Boy, playing the ambitious lead character Walter Clark.

In Divergent he'll play Four, one of the leaders of the "Dauntless" faction, which our heroine Beatrice (Shailene Woodley) joins once she's decided she no longer fits in with the faction she was born into. Like another wildly successful young adult adaptation produced by Summit's parent company Lionsgate, Divergent takes place in a dystopian future after the fall of society, in which teenagers are trained to be warriors and struggle to reshape the world for the better. Joining James in the head of the Dauntless faction will be Jai Courtney, who was cast yesterday.

In addition to Summit's official announcement of James joining the cast, Variety has word that three more actors are considering roles-- including Woodley's own Spectacular Now co-star Miles Teller, They have no details on which roles any of the three actors might play, but it's not hard to imagine either Stevenson or Eckhart as Woodley's character's father, and Teller as a fellow Dauntless fighter. Those who know the book better than I do ought to step in here and rescue me with some speculation of their own.

Divergent is coming to theaters on March 21, 2014-- a spot that Summit itself calls "The Hunger Games slot."

Are you prepared for Aaron Eckhart to be Bourne again as an action hero? In Erased, the character actor takes a stab at Liam Neeson’s territory by playing Ben Logan, a decommissioned CIA Black Ops agent who is pulled into a violent web of conspiracies and lies when the people he worked for try to eliminate him from existence.

The trailer for the new thriller arrived on Yahoo Movies. We have it for you below:

For so many reasons, Erased (which once was called The Expatriate) looks like Taken mashed together with Unknown, two recent Neeson joints that found him plowing through faceless adversaries. Pairing Eckhart’s character with a daughter (Liana Liberato) shouts out to Maggie Grace in Neeson’s movie. The lack of a proper identity slides right into the Unknown groove. And the soaking-wet, anonymous European settings give it that freshly-glazed Bourne appearance that studios are anxious to imitate.

Eckhart’s usually believable in films that he tries, though I wouldn’t peg him as an action superstar after Paycheck or Battle: Los Angeles. I’m sure he sees the tide turning toward older action stars collecting paychecks of their own in movies like Neeson’s offerings, and he wants a piece of the pie. The action in Erased looks generically forgettable, but if there’s any hook we can dig a finger into, it’s the father-daughter bond, which Eckhart should be able to sell.

German filmmaker Philipp Stolzl directs Erased. His previous credits include North Face (2008) and Young Goethe In Love (2010). His movie will be available on demand on April 5, moving to select theaters on May 10.

Just like when we had two Truman Capote movies (Capote, Infamous), two sex friends movies (No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits) and two Snow White movies (Mirror, Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman) in development, Hollywood is currently trying to make two separate movies that have been described as "Die Hard in the White House." The first project, White House Down, has already begun rapidly moving through its pre-production phase, hiring Roland Emmerich to direct, Jamie Foxx to play the president, Channing Tatum to play the hero at the center of the story, and Maggie Gyllenhaal to play the female lead, but the opposite project, Olympus Has Fallen, has been making some moves of its own. Antoine Fuqua is attached to direct the project and Gerard Butler will star, and now, according to Variety, the movie has found its president.

Aaron Eckhart, last seen getting drunk with Johnny Depp in The Rum Diary and kicking alien ass in Battle: Los Angeles, has signed on as the President of the United States for Olympus Has Fallen. Based on an original script by newcomers Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt, the movie is about a retired secret service agent who is forced back into action when terrorists break into the White House and hold the POTUS hostage. The film will be Fuqua's first feature since 2009's Brooklyn's Finest. Avi Lerner and Trevor Short are both part of the project as executive producers, while Butler and his manager, Alan Siegel, and Millennium's Mark Gill are also behind the film. Production on the action flick will start in September.

Strange that this casting announcement would come just one day after Robert Rodriguez announced that Charlie Sheen would be playing the president in Machete Kills. I wonder what would happen if they were in an election running against each other...

I joked weeks ago about Hollywood looking to Dr. Frankenstein’s monstrous creation now that our fascination with vampires appeared to be waning. But with yet another Frankenstein project being tossed onto the production heap, maybe that joke was more accurate than funny.

The latest, I, Frankenstein, casts Aaron Eckhart as a unique version of the Frankenstein monster who, according to Variety, is living in our modern time thanks to “a genetic quirk in his creation.” Stuart Beattie will direct this film from an adaptation of Kevin Grevioux’s graphic novel. Lakeshore Entertainment, Hopscotch Features and Lionsgate will combine to release I, Frankenstein. Production is due to start in Australia in January. The film is eying a February 22, 2013 release date.

''Mary Shelley's story is about the creation of the first human being. This is the story about that being becoming human,'' Beattie says.

Is this the era of Frankenstein? How many Frank features do you think audiences will want to see? And if you were casting a modern-day Frankenstein feature, would you think to cast Eckhart? Sure, he was fine as Two-Face in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, but I’m not convinced he’s right for the lumbering, bolts-in-the-neck beast Shelley wrote about so many years ago.

If this version doesn’t work, no fear. There are others in the pipeline. Real Steel director Shawn Levy has a Frankenstein picture on his radar. And that one will be penned by John Landis’ son, Max, so there’s hope. But with Twilight fading, and vampires and werewolves drifting into the background, this might be Frank’s time to shine.

Peter Pan is one of those classic stories that gets trotted out once every decade or so; it happened twice recently, in a glossy straightforward adaptation of the story and, more obliquely, the Johnny Depp period piece Finding Neverland. And while it's a little more unusual to see two takes on the story show up at the same time, that seems to be the trend lately-- there have been pairs of Snow White films, Wizard of Oz revamps and even biopics of John DeLorean in the works in recent years, with studios playing chicken about who will blink and cancel theirs first (in the case of the Snow White movies, they're both going for it. God help us all).

So to add to the Peter Pan origin story that Channing Tatum is developing and the prequel that Disney might make called Peter and the Starcatchers, we'll have Pan, a "dark spin" on the story that will star Aaron Eckhart and AnnaSophia Robb. According to Screen Daily the producers will sell the project at Cannes this week, with Ben Hibon directing the screenplay by Ben Magid; at one point Guillermo del Toro was going to direct the film for New Line, but at some point between del Toro's many commitments and New Line falling completely apart, this one obviously fell by the wayside. Hibon got the job last fall after his gorgeous animation work in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 got the attention of everyone, but perhaps most importantly del Toro.

Given the way they're twisting the plot, you may not even recognize this as a Peter Pan film. Eckhart plays Captain Hook as the hero, a former detective hunting down a childlike killer (most like Pan himself) with the assistance of his ally Smee, to be played by tortured Game of Thrones hero Sean Bean. Robb will play Wendy, who has survived a kidnapping by Pan and leads the hunt to bring him to justice. Totally a buzkill if you hold tight to your childhood dreams of sewing on your shadow and flying around the room, but at least more interesting than yet another story about Peter Pan and his magical life. Is it twisted to be a little interested in this? Hey, if it was dark and creepy enough to get Guillermo del Toro interested, it ought to be good enough for me.

Aaron Eckhart is in Battle: Los Angeles this weekend and that means he’s out promoting the film, which also means everyone who interviews him has also been asking him questions about Batman. His character, Harvey Dent, was killed off in The Dark Knight sort of. Actually some people saw Harvey’s ending as leaving room for his survival and, even though Eckhart has confirmed before that Harvey Dent really did die, he’s now begun to behave cryptically when asked if he’ll be in The Dark Knight Rises.

For instance during an interview with CBS News when asked if he wouldn’t be appearing in Dark Knight Rises, Eckhart responded, “I’m not?” Then asked if he might be making a cameo in the film he responded even more cryptically by telling the reporter, “I could not possibly say.”

Later during the Battle: LA junket on Thursday he continued to be coy. He confirmed that, “Harvey Dent is dead,” again, but then went on to be cryptic, When asked if he’s involved in the next film Eckhart responded with, “How can I possibly answer that question? That would be career suicide.” And then when asked if he’d talked to director Christopher Nolan about being in The Dark Knight Rises responded with, “I won’t say that, but I will say Harvey Dent is dead.”

Confused? Maybe that’s his intention. Bottom line here, it’s good for Aaron Eckhart’s career if people ask him about Batman, because it helps get his name out there. If he tells people to stop asking and really shuts this whole thing down, then his name gets out in the media just a little bit less. I call this the Arrested Development syndrome. That’s probably what’s going on here. After all awhile back he flat out told everyone here that he’d asked Nolan about the movie and was told he wouldn’t be in it.

I suppose there’s another possibility here. Maybe Nolan has changed his mind and Eckhart will get some sort of cameo, or maybe appear as Harvey Dent in a flashback. I doubt it. We’ll keep covering it if there’s any definitive on the Aaron Eckhart front, but for now, it’s time to let Harvey Dent go, even if Aaron Eckhart doesn’t want to.

Battle: Los Angeles may be a loud and action-packed alien invasion movie, but Aaron Eckhart definitely didn't treat it like your average blockbuster. The actor known for his verbally dexterous work with Neil Labute or in Thank You For Smoking describes his dream movie as one in which "I just run around and grunt," and threw himself forcefully into his Battle: Los Angeles role as Staff Sergeant Nantz, on the brink of retirement when an alien invasion throws him into direct combat with a team of young Marine recruits on the bombed-out streets of Los Angeles.

Before the movie even had an official green light from the studio Eckhart met with director Jonathan Liebesman to film test footage on the Sony back lot-- you can read lots more about that in my on set interview with the two of them. And before filming began, Eckhart and his costars underwent three weeks of boot camp training, to the point that "the line was very blurry between whether we were actors or Marines." He admits that his intense focus on the role kept him at a distance from the rest of the cast, but that he was also there to encourage his younger co-stars-- "Whenever I saw them lifting off the gas or whatever, I was right in their face." Just like an actual Staff Sergeant would be.

W Below is the rest of my interview with Eckhart, in which he talks about showing the movie to Marines, why he still wears khakis every day, and yes, how he and Liebesman are already talking about what they'd do for a sequel.

I visited the set in December 2009, and you and Jonathan were so enthusiastic about the film then, and you seem to have kept up that energy level this whole time. It's amazing to see you still so pumped about it.

But it's not a front. I am so proud of Jonathan, and I have to say Sony and myself. When this was an embryo, Jonathan said we want to make a documentary war film. And I think we've achieved that within the genre of an alien film. I've never seen anything like this.

You committed to this so early on, shooting the test footage on the back lot of Sony. What was it about Jonathan and this film that made you want to jump into this with both feet?

Jonathan came in and from the beginning was ultra-prepared. He let me see what he was seeing. He did that through YouTube, showing me a video of Marines going house to house in Fallujah, said "That's what this is going to look like." Then he says, "This is what the aliens are going to do, this is your character." And he was very open to my suggestions, and throughout the filming I very much felt part of the creative process and defining my character in the film.

You showed the film to Marines on two different bases. Did you have to convince them that even though it's an alien movie, it's really a Marine movie?

Yes, of course. First of all, any actor playing a Marine, they're skeptical. Then throw aliens on top of it. But then watching them come out of the movie, hearing them in the movie. Within the first five minutes I heard the theaters in both places erupt. Movies, certainly within the last decade, have been cynical-- there's a lot going on in the world. Not every war movie or movie involving the armed forces is a love letter. I think this movie is an entertaining look at that sort of thing, and I think they appreciate that.

Did you worry you were painting a target on your back by playing a Marine?

I remember doing my first costume fitting and putting on my uniform, I think I scared the costume designers. I took this role far too seriously. If I'm going to go out and make an alien movie, I'm going to do the best damn war alien movie I can do, for my craft. I see no sense in going to do a movie for months in which I'm not pushing myself as an actor. I had to prove it to myself, and I had to prove it to the Marines, and I had to prove it to the other actors playing Marines. You cannot let up. If you let up and give them an excuse not to work hard one day, you're dead. This movie had to be believable. Whenever I saw them lifting off the gas or whatever, I was right in their face.

You go through so much training and bulk up, so when you get in front of the camera, are you just reacting as the character? Does that change your acting?

That's the only way to do it. You're talking three weeks of intense boot camp training where you're around each other every day. By the time we even started filming the line was very blurry between whether we were actors or Marines. If I have to call out, "Lanahan!" I don't know his real name. They call me Staff Sergeant. It has to be that way, because the audience is dealing with aliens, so they already know it's not real. They have to fight all of those preconceptions to get you to sit back and lose yourself. We have to be absolutely convincing so we make the job that much easier. If you sit there and think "That doesn't sound like a Marine," then you're fighting two battles at once-- the Marines and the aliens.

How do you get this kind of thing out of your system when it's all over?

I didn't. I love this guy. I absolutely love him. I know it's weird to say, but I went home and started at a wall until the sun came up.

Has that happened to you on other films?

Yeah, that's what I do. On Rabbit Hole or whatever it is. For this movie I was so tired at the end of the day, but-- I still wear khakis every day. I'm ready.

So when the invasion hits, we need to find you.

[Laughs] Yeah. When the invasion hits I hope they'll be friendly.

Rabbit Hole is an interesting contrast, because it's so verbal and based in language, and this movie has so little dialogue. That switch has to be interesting.

I think there's way too many words in movies. My dream movie is I just run around and grunt. I think it's fun for the audiences to watch actors express themselves behaviorally instead of verbally. We have a tendency not to trust ourselves, and rely on a writer's version of something. That's why everybody loves 70s movies. The Steve McQueens of the world, the Mitchums, the Eastwoods-- they give a look and it says so much. especially in war, you don't have time for that kind of stuff.

You and Jonathan have talked to openly about wanting to make more of these. Have you guys talked details, or are you waiting until the movie comes out?

Yeah, I think so. We would be happy if this weekend this movie were successful so we could make another one, we've talked about it.

It all depends on how the movie performs, if people like it or not. Sony hasn't said anything to me. In the poster it says something like "This isn't the only place." I don't know what it is, but I would very much look forward to doing anything.

When you think Battle: Los Angeles, odds are, you think of Aaron Eckhart. Well, Eckhart may play the leader of a platoon of soldiers going into battle against invading aliens, but it's be worth your while to get to know some of the Staff Sergeant’s men.

Adetokumboh M’Cormack is Corpsman Jibril Adukwu, the group medic. Like his co-cast, M’Cormack had to go through boot camp training, but he had the added assignment of learning the ins and outs of being a Marine medic as well. The key to this role was being as in touch with the character as possible and in that sense, M’Cormack and the rest of the cast went above and beyond.

During our recent interview, M’Cormack shelled out tons of details from the entire process from working hard during training, to taking what he learned to set and even the friendships that remained after shooting wrapped. Based on our conversation, it seems as though Battle: Los Angeles might actually not be your run-of-the-mill alien invasion film, rather a wholly real-feeling experience and, if that is the case, we really have something special to look forward to. To hold you over until the battle begins on March 11th, check out what M’Cormack had to say about working on the film.

Can you tell me about your character?

Adetokumboh M’Cormack: I play a character called Corpsman Adukwu. He’s originally from Nigeria and basically, my character’s a medic that goes along with the platoon lead by Aaron Eckhart’s character and we go into battle. We try to save the world against the aliens.

Where does he fall amongst the other soldiers? What makes him stand out as a person?

I think his history. The character originally is from Nigeria so he has a different background from the other characters and he brings definitely a different back-story. Before we started the film, the director asked us to create back-stories for our characters; my back-story was really interesting because it told of a character that went through war, that went through a lot of problems and ultimately came to American to just try to become a better person, become a doctor. It’s interesting that he came to be a better person and try to get a better life and then ultimately ends up being part of this war against an alien species he’d never imagine to encounter.

How’d you approach this back-story work? Did you keep a journal as your character or something like that?

I wrote a journal. He also gave us a little bit of a back-story and I went off and made my own and just made my character more complete and more multifaceted, so to speak, and just made him more interesting. When you see these characters on screen, you buy that they are people with lives and with histories. It’s more relatable that way so you’re just not seeing these two-dimensional characters on the screen; you’re actually seeing real people.

And in terms of the physicality of the role, I hear the boot camp you guys went through was pretty tough.

Yes, I went through three weeks of boot camp prior to filming, which consisted of waking up at five in the morning and running several miles and learning how to shoot those weapons, like M4s and M16s and 50 cals, and we ended up learning the different terminology that Marines use just so that we could be as authentic as we could. [Director] Jonathan Liebesman really wanted to make a movie that felt real on all levels and so that meant us going to boot camp and getting our butts kicked. [Laughs] But, ultimately, he wanted us to just appear to be real Marines on screen.

Was there any one part of that boot camp that kicked your butt the most? Neil Brown Jr. told me he wasn’t a fan of the running.

[Laughs] That was hard! Yeah, the running was hard because I do a lot of running as is, but seeing these men, the Sergeants who were assigned to do our training, just seeing them run so much faster, do everything so much stronger, so much harder, that was the difficult part because you’re thinking, ‘I’m in really good shape,’ and when it came down to it, you realize you’re not in that great shape with someone who is twice your age and kicking your butt. [Laughs]

Did it change your impression of people in the military?

It did. I have an enormous amount of respect for people in the military. I think our training, it wasn’t a real boot camp in that sense. I think it was a close as we could get to being real Marines and just the amount of work that goes into it, the amount of physical, emotional work that goes into being a Marine, it’s really intense and I definitely respect them so much more at the end of it.

How was it bringing what you learned in boot camp to set? Did you go right from one to the other?

Yes, as soon as we finished boot camp we went straight into work and we used everything we learned. The way that we handled the weapons, the way that we walked in and cleared a room, just the way related to each other, the way we fired our weapons, we brought all of what we learned in boot camp into the film. Jonathan Liebesman, sometimes he would ask us to improvise and so I’m really glad we had that boot camp training because it allowed us to pretty accurately improvise dialogue in certain situations. In addition to my boot camp, I also had to learn certain things medics would do in the field, so if someone had a certain type of injury I’d have to learn how to use quick clots to stop the bleeding or have to learn to bandage a wound a certain way. Jonathan would actually call on you to do things like that just out of the blue sometimes. He’d be like, ‘Listen, if this situation happens like this, what would you do?’ and then film it, so you’d have to be on your toes at all times. For four and a half months you were living and breathing this character.

Did anyone on set actually ask you for medical help?

[Laughs] Yeah, that would actually happen! They’d be like, ‘Doc, I need help with such and such,’ and sometimes I’d actually know what to do! I’d actually have a kit, you’ll see in the film, there’s this item that I carry and it has all this first aid equipment and so I was always ready should something happen. And that kit was really really heavy. All through the film you actually see me carry around a real life first aid kit and the idea was that sometimes when people were injured I would have something on me and I could offer my medical assistance. We also had real medics on board as well, so if it was something too serious of course I wouldn’t [laughs]. We definitely blurred the lines between reality and unreality.

And what about for your stunts? Did you do all of your own stunts or did you need a double for anything?

Jonathon really encouraged us to do our own stunts and we did a lot of the time. Ne-Yo did a lot of his own stunts and I did a couple of my own stunts as well. Actually, also [Jonathon] really didn’t want people to be taken out of the reality of the film, so what you’re seeing when a lot of the stuff happens is that you’re seeing the actual actors do their own stunts. And, of course, the more dangerous ones we would have our stunt doubles do those, but sometimes we did pretty risky stunts and thankfully we were okay. We never felt that we were in harm’s way. We had Joey Box, who is one of the best stunt coordinators in the business; he was fantastic and just made us feel really safe and went through each stunt over and over again and you have a team of people who made sure that we were completely comfortable and made sure that we never did anything that we didn’t want to do,

What was the shooting process like during those stunt-heavy moments? Were there a limited number of takes per shot because of heavy effects and explosion?

Ideally you don’t want to spend a lot of time on a stunt. Sometimes you’d have maybe two or three takes to get it right, sometimes just one. The rehearsal process was pretty intense. We’d rehearse it over and over again and sometimes they’d have the stunt double rehearse it two times, so you’d see the stunt double do it and then you go ahead and do the stunt. They tried to make sure you got it within the first couple of takes, if not the first take.

And what about just organizing all of the primary cast and extras?

We shoot fast. Thankfully we had really good production assistants and assistant directors who were able to just gather everyone together and just make sure that the scene flowed really well. If you think about it, you have scenes where you’re on the Santa Monica streets and you have hundreds of extras and just coordinating them was almost like coordinating a little town!

You also mentioned Jonathan wanted you to improvise quite a bit. How was it incorporating that in such a structured environment?

It was interesting. We’d shoot the script pretty much a couple of times and then sometimes he’d ask us to adlib a little bit and the great thing was, because we were all so in tune in our characters and in tune with our relationships with each other that we were able to just go, but still stick within the confines of the story and ad lib within the structure of the story, so it wasn’t too far off. I’m just looking back and I just watched the film for the first time last week and it works so well. We just all knew our characters so well and we knew each other so well, we knew our relationships, who we liked, who we didn’t get along so well with, who our best friend was in the platoon, who you’d die for, who would be your best man at the wedding, all of those things. Those were questions we all asked ourselves during boot camp just to make sure that when filming started, it wasn’t something we thought about, it was just something that organically happened.

Even beyond just coming up with your own dialogue, you also had to come up with some of your own visuals. How much of what we’ll see on screen did you actually get to interact with on set?

Well, there was actually a balance. There’s a lot of green screening. There’s the highway sequence, for example, where there’s a lot of explosions and alien aircrafts and all these things, so a lot of that was just using your imagination. We had to call on our imaginations a lot during this film, but then there were also a lot of times where you have real life explosions and they had tons and tons of explosions going off simultaneously and that made you really feel like you were essentially in a war. Sometimes in a scene you would have the props/weapons guy, he’s firing bullets off screen and then an explosion goes off to your left and another explosion to your right, so you’re responding to real explosions. You don’t really have to imagine [laughs], it’s actually happening right then and there. And then of course, with the aliens, sometimes we’d have to imagine the aliens were there, but sometimes they would have these guys in these motion wrestling suits and they were on these elevated pogo shoes and so we would basically be responding to them. They would be representing the aliens and sometimes it was terrifying because these guys were just so great at embodying the aliens and the way they moved, and the way they attacked and so it was great to have that to respond to.

Wow, it sounds like you guys had to know exactly what was going on everywhere as much as Jonathan did!

[Laughs] I definitely felt like it was a collaborative process, but Jonathon definitely held this movie. The man is a genius. I think he’s completely retimed the alien, sci-fi, action genre. It’s the way we have the battles; battles are urban combat, you’re not being sought after in the sky. You’re actually engaging in a war on the ground. He really created a film that I’ve never seen like this before. Watching it just blew me away. I was completely blown away by what I saw because he asked us at the beginning of filming just to trust his vision. He had an idea and he showed us a presentation of test footage that he shot on Sony lot prior to coming down and I remember thinking, ‘Okay, how are we going to set ourselves apart from any other sci-fi alien invasion film,’ and then I watched that and got completely blown away and completely trusted his vision and I’m glad I did because it’s truly amazing.

He’s directed a few movies, but never anything on this scale. Do you think not being saturated in Hollywood blockbusters helped make this a more grounded production? Do you think he’s the right guy to do the second Clash of the Titans film?

I think possibly because he was able bring just a reality to this film. He was able to bring something different, so it’s not just a big blockbuster film; it’s a film that’s gritty, it’s real, it has a lot of heart and I think that’s probably what he’s also going to bring to Clash 2. It’s going to be something that people are going to just be able to relate to more with action, but also with a lot more substance. So, yeah, Jonathon definitely is the man. I think he’s the next director to look out for, honestly.

Can you tell me about working with some of your co-stars? Who’d you get to work with the most?

It’s funny; these guys now are like my best friends. [Laughs] At the end of the experience we felt like we’d gone to war and back. I’d say I had a lot of my scenes with Cory Hardrict, who is just a tremendous actor, and also, of course, Ne-Yo. Neil Brown Jr. was a lot of fun to work with. He always made us laugh. He’s very similar to his character, funny enough. And Will Rothhaar, great guy, definitely a lot like a brother to me. And, of course, Michelle Rodriguez. I spent a lot of time working with her and getting to know her and she’s just a wonderful lady.

Do you have anything else in the works?

I’m writing and producing a movie that’s set in Africa and I’m starring in it as well. And we start production pretty soon actually, so that’s my next big project that I’m focusing on.

How do you feel about wearing three hats for one film? Have you ever done anything like this before? Write or produce?

Only with shorts and things like that, so this will be my first venture into putting on the producing hat for a feature as well and so that’s a whole different experience. It’s a lot harder than I thought it was going to be [laughs], but it’s a lot more fun because it’s basically bringing something you created and seeing it to fruition. I’m excited about it. I think the character that I play in this is a lot closer to who I am and I think a lot of people don’t really see that in my work, so it’ll be interesting for people finally to see something that’s very close to me.

Yesterday I brought you my report from the Louisiana set of Battle: Los Angeles, the Jonathan Liebesman-directed "war movie with aliens" that stars Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Pena and rapper Ne-Yo, among others. Today I've got excerpts from my interviews with many of the film's stars, director and producers, all of them talking about the intensity of the experience on the set, the extensive military training they underwent, the elaborate video Liebesman shot to convince the studio to make the film, and how crappy war scenes on TV look to them after this whole experience.

Check out the interviews below, compiled from two different roundtable interviews conducted on the set in December 2009. Battle: Los Angeles hits theaters March 11.

The project started when director Jonathan Liebesman got a look at Chris Bertolini's script, which he described as "the type of movie I would line up around the block for." What got the studio to give a greenlight, though, was a massive presentation Liebesman gave, complete with visual aids and test footage he had shot on the Sony backlot, along with Aaron Eckhart. Liebesman downplays the presentation a bit before the producers give him proper credit.

Eckhart was on board even before the film was greenly to shoot the early test footage; it's hard to overstate how passionately both he and Liebesman spoke about the project together, even starting with the day they shot 100 set-ups on the destroyed Sony back lot.

The actors underwent four weeks of boot camp to get in something approximating Marine shape before shooting; that included Eckhart, who is a solid 15 years older than most of the rest of the cast, and rapper Ne-Yo, making his acting debut in the film. All 13 slept under the same tent that they put up themselves each night, under the supervision of three different actual military Sergeants.

Eckhart's character is the oldest of the Marines, but he's not in charge of the unit-- that job falls to Ramon Rodriguez's Lt. Martinez. Not only is Rodriguez more experienced than any of the younger actors in terms of large action movies-- he had a supporting part in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen-- but he had to deal with being their boss onscreen.

Liebesman and his cast are all well-aware of how many alien movies and war movies have come before this one, and are deliberately drawing influences from both previous films and, maybe even more influentially, the hyper-real war video games of the last few years. Michelle Rodriguez was playing Call of Duty frequently when off the set, and everyone, Liebesman and even his military adviser included, happily acknowledged the similarities between their movie and the games-- and how much realism the games actually brought to the movie.

The alien creatures in the movie will be represented with a mix of physical puppets, actors in suits and CGI, which made for a challenges for the actors doing battle against creatures who weren't actually there-- particularly Ne-Yo, the freshest actor of the group.

A cluster of gray buildings on the outskirts of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Celtic Media Center looks for all the world like an old Coca-Cola bottling plant--because it is one. Retrofitted for Hollywood production thanks to Louisiana's generous tax credits and a resulting filmmaking boom, the center still looks as ordinary and drab as any average manufacturing plant-- that is, until a ball of fire erupts from behind a wall.

Because for the past few months the Celtic Media Center hadn't been home to Coca-Cola bottles but to a destroyed southern California, setting of the alien invasion/war movie Battle: Los Angeles. As we approached the set on a chilly, early December day the filming had moved outside, as a group of determined Marines did battle against an evil alien force that, for the moment, was being represented by a big orange balloon floating in the distance. The destruction was pure movie magic-- styrofoam rubble, broken-down buildings revealed as mere scaffolding, even palm trees shipped in from who knows where. But the action itself, which included star Aaron Eckhart and a handful of other cast members, felt surprisingly real. Sure they were firing blanks and starting down an absent enemy, but the screams and the intensity felt honest take after take; at one point when Eckhart jumped down from some concrete to shoot from a different angle, he faceplanted in the dirt but gestured the director to keep filming.

"I don't even go up to Aaron any more and go, 'Are you OK?" confessed director Jonathan Liebesman later that afternoon, with his actor sitting next to him and doing just fine. "He doesn't want a medic, and I go to him and I don't even ask if he wants one. I say let's go back to playback and see." Eckhart is by far the biggest name in an enormous cast that includes Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Pena, Bridget Moynahan and even rapper Ne-Yo, but his passion for the movie is far more than that of an actor picking up a star's paycheck. When Liebesman was first pitching the project to Sony, Eckhart joined him on the studio's Hollywood back lot to shoot test footage; the initial plan had been to shoot six or so shots, and according to Liebesman, "we ended up shooting I think 100 and something setups." Though none of the footage will wind up included in the final film-- Eckhart underwent a lot of training afterward to get in proper Marine shape-- the studio at one point considered keeping it in.

Within minutes of arriving on set we were watching the big scene, then shaking hands with a grubby and energetic Eckhart during a break before he and everyone else was called back to set with, of all things, the theme from Magnificent Seven (hey, whatever keeps you going). But while the battle raged on it was time to get a look at the rest of the indoor sets, which were taking up the entire, enormous complex-- Battle: Los Angeles at the time was the biggest film to shoot almost entirely in Louisiana. With only one week of filming taking place in Los Angeles itself the production had recreated southern California in the lowcountry, shooting everywhere from a freeway to a Baton Rouge neighborhood called Spanishtown that made a perfect stand-in for the streets of L.A. Our first stop on the set was the team's precise recreation of a Spanishtown street, complete with garbage cans and hanging powerlines, that led into a somewhat dilapidated apartment complex surrounding a kidney-shaped pool. The apartments weren't a recreation of anything real, but a meticulously designed set that would host an intense battle scene between our team of Marines and one of the aliens who had touched down in their city.

The next set, in a warehouse just a few yards over, comes into play near the finale of the film; just before the climactic scene we saw them shooting outside, the Marines tramp through the Los Angeles sewer system in knee-deep water, past mysterious amber-glowing pods that serve an important but unexplained (to us, at least) purpose for the aliens. We donned thigh-wide wading boots to walk through the tunnels, constructed out of fiberglass but looking for all the world like a worn-out sewer system-- even the water was a convincingly gross shade of brown. The tunnel they had built was fairly complex in its twists and turns, but movie magic will heighten that even more in the final product; as production designer Peter Wenham explained as he walked us through the set, "This tunnel kind of doubles up for three sets. We revamp it and redress it, coming from different angles and directions. They ultimately end up, disappear up a ladder somewhere." He told us about the locations they've shot on-- the Shreveport freeway, the streets of Spanishtown and described a production designer's challenge that also makes for a thrilling action movie: "There's no going back to any location like normal storytelling. This is a continual journey that doesn't stop from start to finish."

With the aliens literally kept under wraps the whole time we were there-- physical models were draped under sheets, and of course there was plenty of CGI work left to come-- the Marines became the focus of what we saw and talked about. It didn't take long to learn that Battle: Los Angeles isn't an alien movie with soldiers, but a war movie that happens to include aliens. Eckhart and the rest of the actors playing Marines underwent weeks of boot camp training, and everything about the shoot from camera angles to plot went toward making this Marine platoon feel as true to life as possible. As actor Noel Fisher, who plays rookie Private Lanahan, put it in a roundtable interview later, "We've spent four months now together. We go out, we work out, we go for dinner. These are our boys now, which is what a Marine platoon would hopefully be." Even though Eckhart's character is older than the others and therefore a little bit separate, he went through every bit of the hellish training alongside them; "He was running around with his M-16 past when we were a lot of the time. Fully doing it," explained Taylor Handley, who plays surfer kid Lance Corporal Simmons.

And watching Eckhart refuse to yell "cut" even when he'd fallen on his face was all part of the process Jonathan Liebesman used to capture battle scenes in realistic and gritty ways; inspired by video games like Modern Warfare as well as the input from military adviser Sgt. Jim Dever, Liebesman has brought his camera operators into the middle of the action, emphasizing both the kinetic energy of the scene and the confusing fog of war that happens when fighting human enemies, much less aliens. Explains producer Jeffrey Chernoff, "To keep it real we want to shoot continuously and quickly and keep it in camera, and keep the whole energy moving forward. There's been a bit of a sacrifice, but it's not going to hurt the look of the movie or the feel of it. You saw today, we shoot. There's no bounce boards or silks or anything. It's going to feel very, very real."

Liebesman, who was disappointed when his last film The Killing Room went straight to video, was open about the fact that Battle: Los Angeles marked an important step forward-- but wasn't about to call it a redemption. "I worked out of redemption on my last film and it went straight to video," he explained. "I think what I'm doing now, I'm just super passionate about the film. If you had a microphone with me and Aaron every day on set, all we talk about is how can we make this film as great as possible. And that's really what I've focused on. If the redemption comes from that, that's great. But it's not as important to me as it was in my 20s, when it was so important to be like my idols. Now I realize, I think, you're on your own path."

That path, as it turns out, wound up leading Liebesman to direct Wrath of the Titans, taking the helm of a brand-new franchise worth many hundreds of millions even before Battle: Los Angeles hits theaters. On that set in December 2009 Liebesman was brutally honest about what the movie's success or failure would mean for his career-- "If this one fucks up, everyone's going to think I suck for the rest of my life. I'll be stuck in Suckville forever." And even though no audiences have seen Battle: Los Angeles yet, some producers somewhere got enough of a look to trust Liebesman on something even bigger-- strong evidence that neither Liebesman or the audience who pays for this movie will be anywhere near Suckville.

Come back tomorrow for more of our interview with Eckhart and the rest of the cast, plus producers Jeffrey Chernoff and Ori and the always candid Liebesman. Battle: Los Angeles opens March 11; here's one more slightly profane promise from Liebesman about why it'll be worth seeing:

As of today, Battle: Los Angeles is 50/50 on trailers. The first teaser trailer was absolutely brilliant, setting up the mood, showing off action and was fueled by an awesome soundtrack choice. The second trailer was clunky and weighed down by unnecessary voice-over that erased all of the subtly of the first. Today the Jonathan Liebesman alien invasion flick tries to raise its average.

The third trailer for Battle: Los Angeles has popped online, courtesy of Yahoo! In the film, Los Angeles is under attack by an aggressive group of extraterrestrials a small marine platoon is charged with fighting them off. The film stars Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Pena, Ne-Yo, and Bridget Moynahan and is set to be released on March 11.

Check out the trailer below or in HD over at Yahoo!. For my reaction, check out the paragraph under the video.

My verdict? We're up to 66% successful. While the newest look at the film shows off it's cast much more than it has previously, the tension is palpable and the movie simply looks too intense for words. The helicopter getting hit and Eckhart's reaction are perfect, not to mention the fact that they brought back the song from the first trailer. Count this one in the win column, ladies and gentlemen, and start looking forward to March 11.

For Battle: Los Angeles info, images, and video visit the Blend Film Database.

David Lindsay-Abaire's career as a playwright had been marked by absurdist comedies like Fuddy Meers until he responded to advice to write about the thing that scared him most. A new father, Lindsay-Abaire penned Rabbit Hole, about a couple coping with the accidental death of their four-year-old son. The subject matter is grueling, but Rabbit Hole is suffused with Lindsay-Abaire's comedic wit and pitch-perfect sense of how humans relate to each other through sarcasm and jokes even in their most despairing moments. Rabbit Hole won the 2007 Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize for drama, but even following all that success, Lindsay-Abaire hadn't thought about turning it into a movie until he was approached by, of all people, Nicole Kidman.

Kidman spent four years securing the funding for the film, which hits theaters this week directed by another New York theater veteran, John Cameron Mitchell, best known for directing and starring in the rock musical Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Mitchell's participation is just one of many unexpected things about Rabbit Hole, from its biting humor to Kidman playing a woman raised in a working-class background to the fact that, for once, it was a writing process for Lindsay-Abaire that wasn't somehow torturous. While he's still at work writing major would-be Hollywood blockbusters-- you can read what he told me about his work on Sam Raimi's Oz: Great and Powerful here-- Lindsay-Abaire said working on Rabbit Hole was the first time he's written a screenplay that actually resembled what made it onto the screen.

In the movie Kidman and Aaron Eckhart play the central couple, coping with the loss of their four-year-old son Danny even as Kidman's character Becca's sister Izzy (Tammy Blanchard) is learning she's pregnant. Dianne Wiest also stars as Becca's mother, still coping with the death of her son many years earlier, and Miles Teller plays the teenager who accidentally hit Danny in his car. Becca reaches out to the teenage boy in cryptic ways at first, while Eckhart's character Howie strikes up a friendship with a woman (Sandra Oh) in his bereaved parents support group.

Read below for my extensive interview with the playwright and screenwriter, about the process of building Rabbit Hole as a movie, the changes he had to make from his original play, his nightmare idea of what the movie could have been, and why it's still just as funny as the play was. Rabbit Hole opens in limited release this weekend.

You've done a lot of writing for Hollywood to supplement your playwright income, and from what I can tell, you haven't had much control over the what actually made it to the screen, especially as compared to Rabbit Hole.

When you do a studio picture it starts off, everybody agrees on the movie that you're going to write. It's good for a little while, but my experience has been you do a first draft and then you start getting notes. You get notes from 9 different people, and every one of those 9 different people are making a different movie in their head. Then you're trying to address their notes. Then you do a second draft, and now you have 15 people with notes, and they've making 15 different movies in their head. When people giving notes don't agree with each other, the story becomes confusing and watered down, and all sorts of awful things can happen with a studio movie. That doesn't always happen, but that has been my experience. Writing those sorts of things became less and less exciting to me.

For Rabbit Hole, when i was approached by Per Saari, who's Nicole's producer, and Nicole, they said "We love this play, do you think there's a movie in it?" I said, "I think there could be a movie in it."

Had you thought about it before?

No, I honestly hadn't. I said, here's how I think I would open it up, and a lot of things i said ended up in the movie. But I said, "I really have no interest in turning it into something that it isn't." They assured me that they wanted me to be part of the process every step of the way. I felt like that was the movie we had all agreed on, and when it was finished, I still felt that way.

Did you have the nightmare version of the movie in your head, with the violin music and the big sweeping cameras and all the melodrama?

No question. The tone is so delicate, so easy to mess up. Of course I was terrified of it. When I sat down with John, John understood the script implicitly, and understood the tone, and had no interest in turning it into the sentimental movie of the week, which it could so easily be. He understood the humor in it, which is so important to the tone of the story. Every step of the way, it was still the movie that I imagined it to be, and it never lost its way, because this miracle thing happened where everybody involved understood the movie we were making and made that movie.

And it wasn't a huge transition from the play.

It was exactly as I imagined it. And better! Of course everyone contributed things that had nothing to do with me, but it was truthful and organic to the story, and therefore right.

You've got other scripts developing at studios. Does your experience on Rabbit Hole give you more faith in the process?

I don't know. I just have to accept the process for what it is. I guess I don't expect this to happen if I'm writing a studio movie. I love doing movies, and it pays my mortgage to do a studio movie, and the two movies I'm working on right now have been terrific and respectful, but there are still a lot of people involved. It could easily go in a different direction. What was great about Rabbit Hole is it was a small group of people, and no crazy notes. It was just a different environment and it's rare. Most of those movies don't end up getting filmed. If you get really smart people with a nice small story, where do you get the money? Nicole worked four years trying to raise the money for this movie. And she did it, but it took the starpower of Nicole Kidman to make this happen.

She made this happen, but the character of Becca comes from this working class background, while Nicole has this very patrician air, being so tall and striking. It's a contrast with the character and I wondered if you had to wrap your head around that.

No, not at all, if only because the character has so reinvented herself, has worked so hard to redefine herself from her family. She is clearly the golden girl who has gotten out of a chaotic family situation. This is a character who somehow got out of that environment and got to a great school and got an amazing job and married the perfect guy and got the perfect house and chose to leave her professional career at the moment she chose to start a family. Yes, she comes from a working class background-- so do I . I know this world incredibly well.

Is that why you wanted to include that contrast between the classes, because you're so familiar with it?

I didn't go into Rabbit Hole wanting to write about class. I think because of who I am it somehow found its way into it. My new play is very much about class. I just wrote about what I knew. Sometimes it was conscious, sometimes it wasn't. I knew I wanted to write a story about loss and people grieving in different ways. When I started meeting her family I thought, oh, I want there to be some friction in this family, and how do I help the tension and the conflict. What if they are different in other ways, not just that the mother lost a son? What if they really have trouble communicating because they're different in other ways? This woman is educated, her mother is maybe less educated. It just added an interesting spice to the stew, I guess.

You said you wrote this because it was the thing you feared most, losing a child. When you adapted this for the screenplay, did you have to dredge all those fears back up? Or did you not go quite as deep because you had done the hard work already?

Adapting it became much more of a technical exercise than an emotional one. When I wrote it my son was probably 4, and that actually was really useful to me a a writer, because I had access to all those emotions and fears. I didn't lose any of that in the adaptation, I still had access to that, but it was like, "I know what that is, because I've spent four years…" It was less difficult to write the adaptation than to write the original play.

And where did those decisions get made about what to expand and what to cut? For example, Izzy is slightly less present in the movie.

The Izzy character was much bigger in the original screenplay. Something that I couldn't predict as a writer was that the balance of what the story was was out of whack. It was, "this is a movie about two sisters" for the first 20 minutes, because she's so present and it's so much about her pregnancy. We didn't shoot this, but even in the very first draft we saw the bar scene where Izzy gets into a fight. I just love that character so much. If we're going to make it sharper and leaner and about this woman's journey, then the sister is important and integral, but we can lose a lot of that stuff.

Was it hard to kill your darlings in that process?

I was pretty ruthless in the adaptation, only because I really wanted to reinvent it, and if it didn't work for the screenplay, I got rid of it. There were vestiges of things that i knew killed--particularly funny stuff.

The thing that I initially missed was, because Izzy's character was cut so much, she had a lot of the comedy, especially at the beginning of the movie. I thought, "I want the audience to know it's OK to laugh.". It wasn't until I got to Toronto and saw the movie put together, and there was laughter throughout. I had to remember, oh right, there's all the new stuff that I added that I had never seen in front of an audience, that got all the laughs. We didn't lose any of the humor at all.

A huge change is Becca going after the boy who drove the car that killed her son, almost stalking him. This obsession isn't really in the play.

It's in the play, it's just different. In the play he reaches out to her. But I wanted to activate her character more, and make it more cinematic. The moment where she sees him in the bus, it's useful for a bunch of reasons. One, it builds up some expectations in the audience, mystery: "Who is this kid? Why is she chasing him?" I don't think she knows why she's semi-stalking him, but underneath it is this desperate need to connect with someone, and particularly that boy, and I don't think she knows why until the end. I don't think she knows it other than, there were only three people at that event, and one of them is dead, and one of them is in that bus. You see all of her maternal instincts coming out. She's always taking care of that boy, even though he's a stranger. All of those things make us see, oh right, she was a mom, and we knew what kind of mom she was, but also what kind of mom she could have been.

Having gotten through this, adapting your own work, do you think it's made you better at screenwriting?

I don't know yet. I guess it's too soon. I know i enjoyed it better than any screenplay, but I had such ownership over it to begin with that it made me feel more in control. And I knew the material better than anyone. Sometimes I would disagree with notes, and they would turn out to be terrific notes. With studio work I'm always the bottom man on the totem pole. But also I like the give people the benefit of the doubt. If I've been hired to write something, I don't know the material, and I'm discovering it with these people who may not be very smart. It's a completely different process, and it's way more difficult.

One of the big questions on the minds of fans after the end of The Dark Knight was whether or not Two-Face was really dead. Aaron Eckhart, who played the character, seemed as though even he was unsure of the villain’s status, which left the door open for some sort of possible return in the next movie, Dark Knight Rises. But now, the door just shut.

Talking to MTV Eckhart revealed that he definitely will not be involved in the next Batman movie. He’d been wondering if there might be a place for Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight Rises script, and so he caught up with Christopher Nolan and simply asked him. Eckhart relays their conversation this way: “Chris, a lot of people are asking me if I'm in the next 'Batman.' And Chris said, 'Yes?' I said, 'Am I?' He looked at me and he said, 'No.’”

Apparently the whole exchange took place on a stormy beach, which seems like a wholly appropriate place to deliver bad news to a Batman villain. As for Eckhart he says, “I was heartbroken. But Chris has his reasons and my life must go on.”

We post a lot of miserable and mediocre posters here on Cinema Blend, so when some movie artwork comes around that is actually good, we like to celebrate it. Enter the new poster for John Cameron Mitchell's Rabbit Hole.

Having caught the film at AFI Fest earlier this month (you can read my review here), I can assure you that the artwork reflects well on a truly fantastic film. The movie stars Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart as two parents who have lost their young son in a car accident and are faced with the incredible struggles in trying to overcome the tragedy. Check out the new poster below, which premiered over at Cinematical, and join me after for some analysis.

While the clip doesn't show the lighter side of the film that I loved so much, this is a truly great poster. Though not nearly as simple as the movie's first one-sheet, the new artwork beautifully displays the range of grief experienced in the film while also effectively showing off its two main actors. I also love that the bars are of uneven sizes, which adds a perfect touch and makes everything seem a little off-kilter, reflecting the emotional state. In summation: this is how you make a poster, people. For more on Rabbit Hole, head on over to our Blend Film Database and be sure to check the film out when it hits theaters on December 17.

This time of year, known as Oscar season ‘round movie parts, typically sees its fair share of heavy drama. We watch as characters break down, filled with pain, sadness over loss, out of depression or both. But for each real heart wrenching story, there are three that exist simply as emotional exploitation – the director and writer get people to cry on screen in order to evoke tears from the audience but have no further depth. Fortunately, John Cameron Mitchell’s Rabbit Hole doesn’t fall into the latter category.

Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning play by David Lindsay-Abaire, Becca and Howie Corbett (Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart) who continue to feel the loss eight months after their young son was killed when he run over by a car. Battling to both keep the memory of their lost son alive and trying to overcome their grief, the relationship between the two is tested as they try separate methods to heal their pain.

What’s truly impressive about the film is not its ability to induce intense emotion, but, rather, the complete opposite. When dealing with a heavy subject like grieving parents and a child’s death, the first instinct may be to bring out those intense feelings in every scene, but Cameron Mitchell instead chooses another path: levity. There are many places in the movie that are filled with loud laughs instead of tears and while it may be awkward for the audience at first, you eventually see the light behind the dark. This even includes scenes vital to the plot, such as Becca’s dislike of the “God freaks” in support group and a scene in which Howie decides to smoke a little pot with Gaby (Sandra Oh) as the two characters grow closer. Because of these scenes, the audience doesn’t feel the weight of the film pushing them deeper and deeper into their seats.

Beyond the subject matter, it’s impossible to comment on Rabbit Hole without discussing the jobs done by the leads. As we’ve come to expect, Kidman’s performance is top notch as Becca, projecting her pain at a perfect pitch while playing a woman being torn apart. Not to be forgotten, however, is the effort put forth by Eckhart, who once again shows an incredible knack for aggrieved anger. It’s simply amazing watching a character who seemingly has no control over their emotions with the knowledge that the actor playing them has complete control over their own.

John Cameron Mitchell’s film is destined for success this winter, but truly shouldn’t be written off as “Oscar bait” as I’m sure many will. Sporting a surprisingly balanced tone and phenomenal efforts by every actor involved, Rabbit Hole is an impressively good movie that refuses to take advantage of its audience and manages to be both entertaining and moving.

Follow along with all of our special AFI Fest coverage right here.

Even when I caught up with Rabbit Hole director John Cameron Mitchell a few days after his film's Toronto debut, it was clear that the low-key drama was emerging as one of the festival's big hits. Adapted from David Lindsay-Abaire's Pulitzer Prize-winning drama and starring top-of-their-game Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart as grieving parents, Rabbit Hole isn't just a movie with Oscar written all over it, but a damn good one as well. Maybe the most fascinating thing about it is Mitchell himself, making a significant transition from his first two films Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Shortbus to this restrained, tender, sometimes surprisingly funny film.

Mitchell is the first to admit that Rabbit Hole isn't part of some master career plan-- he's a director for hire, jumping on to the project well after Nicole Kidman got the ball rolling as a producer-- but he also talked to me about his plans for the movie's style, working with Lindsay-Abaire to make sure the story worked cinematically, and also keeping that humor in check in the face of tragedy. Check out our unfortunately brief conversation below, read my TIFF review if you like, and look for Rabbit Hole in theaters and in For Your Consideration ads later this fall.

This is going to sound very naive, but you would think a project with this kind of talent and based on such a prestigious play would be coming from a major studio. Why isn't it?

It would have been a couple of years ago. It would have been $10 million, with these stars, and they just don't make 'em anymore. They'll make it if it's a sweeter comedy. This you have to market carefully as as an award thing. Because of the subject matter some people are going to be like, "Oh, I don't want to see that, it's about loss." And then you have to overcome. For example, Precious, if you knew the premise separate from the buzz about it…that's the first barrier. But when you have a great distributor saying, "no, this is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of experience, and if you see one drama this year let it be that." [Note: At the time I didn't know Precious backers Lionsgate would also be distributing Rabbit Hole, but this analogy now seems even more apt].

Luckily if there's enough muscle behind it you can overcome some of the things we might know as obstacles to get people to see your film. The distributors have just preferred to focus on the ones that are less challenging like that. Searchlight tends to do the sweet comedy thingy-- Sunshine Cleaning, Little Miss Sunshine, anything with "Sunshine" in the title. Focus has often mixed it up, like with Brokeback Mountain. But imagine if those had just been two straight guys. In our case, it became possible because of the recession to realize you had to make something really cheap. Nicole had the property and was ready to go, it was very important to her. We made this for a good recession rate. And we didn't really want to be encumbered by a studio.

Because they might try to change the content?

Yeah, yeah. Even the small, good [studios], there's nickel and dimming, there's lazy notes. Bureaucracy happens at the smallest levels. I would much rather avoid a studio and just deal with producers and investors. Because you can do some research and find those investors who are cool and respectful. They let you make your film.

What kind of stuff were you particularly afraid a studio would make you change?

Another version of this film is huge banks of violins, crane shots, backlighting when she's sitting on the toilet-- everything would have been pushed. Like The Blind Side or something. "This is a drama!" And wall-to-wall music.

How did you develop the score? It's so deliberately low-key and sets the film apart.

We had a few composers. One we lost to his schedule, the second one wasn't quite working out-- this style was just a different style. So we looked again. I feel like we almost did three scores, and last time we had people do spec pieces. They kind of auditioned. And then one person became my favorite. I actually preferred someone else, but he wasn't that experienced, and the producers really had the final say. This wasn't really my film-- I'm for hire-- so I had to be careful about picking my battles. This guy Anton Sanko had the warmth of it. A lot of it was feeling very cold, the same kind of marimbas-- a lot of scores sound the same nowadays. This wasn't an out-of-left-field kind of score, but it's a lighter one. It buoys the scenes up rather than telling you what to feel.

What's the process of having the writer of the play, David Lindsay-Abaire, adapt his own screenplay? It seems like you'd be able to just stick to the script while shooting.

Though there is the danger of him falling in love with things that aren't necessary in the film. I would encourage him to let that thing go, and maybe it's better with no dialogue there-- he was open because I was not trying to push him aside. And then in editing you have your own writing process, because the editor is the co-writer. I told the producers when I told him I wanted to do this, I saw the camera as quite invisible. You don't have a lot of time when you're shooting on that schedule. I would do a lot of two [cameras] running at once, which is hard when you're facing each other. But that kept the performances fresh. Everything on set was in service of getting interference out of the actors' way. Promoting their safe space in order to create.

The movie is funnier than you think, and has a fairly optimistic ending. How did you develop that humorous side?

When I'm in that kind of situation, there's a time when you cry, and then you make a joke. It's the only way I can deal. You've got to, "What am I doing here in this funeral home that looks like my aunt's house? Why this furniture?" You start laughing. Death is funny too. If they're only down there [gestures low], there's never going to be a way to get out.

More Cinema Blend coverage from the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival right here.

Adapted by David Lindsay-Abaire from his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play, Rabbit Hole bears its theatrical roots in mostly good ways-- the highly literary writing, the emotionally fraught scenes stacked up on top of each other, the small cast of characters. Director John Cameron Mitchell, making a major change of pace from the likes of Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Shortbus, opens the story up to the screen without ever overdoing it, emphasizing the oppressive architecture of a lonely house or the power of a silent moment. Most importantly, he leaves room for his stupendous actors to take over, and if Rabbit Hole feels a little more neat and contained than a movie ought to be, the performances almost entirely make up for it.

Leading the charge is Nicole Kidman, portraying a grieving mom with the kind of restraint we're accustomed to seeing from her, but with an acerbic bite and sarcasm that makes her character Becca less of a tragic martyr than, well, a real human. Becca lost her 4-year-old son Danny in a car accident 8 months earlier, and Becca and her husband Howie (Aaron Eckhart) have moved on only in the sense that they're pretending to the world that they're OK. Howie tries to find solace in a support group, which Becca finds too sentimental and religious, reaching out instead to the teenage driver (Miles Teller) who killed Danny, and both return home to their sprawling suburban New York home not to ignore each other, exactly, but persistently skirt around the looming figure of their dead son.

While any number of important things happen to Becca and Howie during Rabbit Hole, including Becca's sister Izzy (Tammy Blanchard) getting pregnant and their decision to sell their house, the movie is much more about the aftermath of the life-changing event, revealing these characters and their pain in small moments and decisions. There's a lot less screaming and crying here than you're expecting, and even a little humor as these two learn daily how to move on; instead of wallowing together, Becca and Howie are bumping up against the rest of the world alone, a terrible decision for their relationship but a far more interesting one to watch.

Not everything in Rabbit Hole avoids cliche-- the one screaming and crying scene between Becca and Howie feels a little forced, and Howie's budding friendship with a fellow support group member (Sandra Oh) isn't sketched out enough to provide more than rote "will they or won't they?" tension. And while Lindsay-Abaire's writing can put too fine a point on things in some scenes, it frequently takes your breath away with its insight; playing Becca's mother, Dianne Wiest delivers a monologue about grief that is all the more stunning for how simply and succinctly she presents it.

Much like fellow Broadway adaptation Doubt before it, Rabbit Hole will be treated more as an actor's showcase when it inevitably enters the Oscar race either this year or next, though Cameron Mitchell's restrained, elegant work is impressive precisely for how little you notice it. Kidman is the true standout here, outmatching Eckhart scene-by-scene to the point that it's almost a problem, but Wiest is also terrific in her quiet but key role. Though Rabbit Hole is in some way yet another story about grieving rich white people (and not as good as, say, In the Bedroom), it's a pretty exceptional example of the form, and if nothing else an opportunity for actors we love to get out there and impress us again.

More Cinema Blend coverage from the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival right here.

Johnny Depp made The Rum Diary, an adaptation of a Hunter S. Thompson's novel, what seems like forever ago. It was really just early last year, but ever since the film wrapped Thompson fans have wondered when the hell it might come out, and no one has been able to get a good answer. You'd think a movie starring Johnny Depp would have no trouble getting released on at least a few screens, but as it turns out, it might be another Johnny Depp movie-- a much bigger one-- that's getting in the way.

That's Aaron Eckhart's theory, at least. Talking to Jack Giroux at Film School Rejects, Eckhart speculated that one of the reasons The Rum Diary hasn't come out yet is that Depp won't be around to promote it:

Of course, "we're waiting until next year" is the classic statement when a studio has no idea what to do with a movie and just wants to stall for a bit. But I'd still expect The Rum Diary to show its face eventually-- Depp is so associated with Thompson thanks to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas that it won't be hard to cash in. Though, as Eckhart points out, they'll need Depp out of his Jack Sparrow costume to do it.

Back in late June a story broke that writer/director Adam McKay, best known for his collaborations with Will Ferrell, was in talks to direct an adaptation of Garth Ennis and Darick Robertson's The Boys, a comic about a group of super-powered foreigners who are hired by the CIA to keep an eye on the members of the American population with gifts like theirs. Today I had the opportunity to sit down with McKay at the press junket for The Other Guys, and while the project is not yet finalized and he hasn't officially been named as the director, he was more than happy to talk about it at length with me.

Starting with the crux of the film - his involvement - I asked McKay, a lifelong comic book fan, how he came to be attached. Before he was offered the script he had read the first few issues of the comic series, and while he thought it was alright, it wasn't something that he immediately jumped on board with, particularly because he wouldn't be writing the script. Then he decided to revisit the comics:

Fans familiar with the series may note that McKay, who's previous work includes Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers, isn't the most obvious choice to helm the film. Though her certainly has experience with raunchy material, the high level violence and sexuality seen in the books is very different from McKay's previous films. Fear not, however. He has no intention of changing the content or the tone.

Also interesting to note is that McKay doesn't necessarily see the film as a single entity, but possibly the start of a franchise. The books have already established a wide universe that McKay would take pleasure in expanding in multiple films and that it could potentially have the same impact that Watchmen had when it was released back in the mid-80s and have the proper post-9/11 tone that Christopher Nolan achieved in The Dark Knight.

As I noted in my original article about McKay's involvement, one of the characters in the book, Wee Hughie Campbell, had his likeness based on Shaun of the Dead star Simon Pegg. While this was done without Pegg's permission, the actor ended up loving the book so much that wrote the forward for the first collected edition. While McKay didn't know about this until after reading the books, the story was enough of an impact: he wanted Pegg from the second he closed the back cover:

With the possibility of Pegg on the table, I then asked if they had been rolling around any ideas for the rest of the cast. Including Pegg, McKay has already mulled over four different characters, with two possibilities for the role of The Female:

When it comes to comic book adaptations, it can't be understated how much of a role passion plays. Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan all had love for the characters that they were putting on film and it always shined through. It goes without saying that an adaptation of The Boys would be a major change from the films he typically makes. I can tell you with no uncertainty that if Adam McKay is given the reigns to this film he will not disappoint.

Check out some images below of McKay's potential casting choices. I think you'll agree that they are spot on.

It’s time for Jennifer Aniston to make an action movie. Or maybe play a stripper. Or hey, how about an abusive step-mother? A tough-as-nailed bank robber? Anything but yet another movie where she stands in frame and simply looks pretty. Maybe that’s not fair. Sometimes she sits. But seriously, how about showing us a few karate kicks or fire off a couple of rounds from a firearm? Even Julia Roberts made The Pelican Brief. I’m pretty sure Jennifer Aniston has never needed a stunt double, and so far there’s no reason to believe she ever will. Here’s a good bet: Which will happen first? Jennifer Aniston wins an Oscar or Jennifer Aniston breaks a sweat on camera? I’m taking neither. .

Her latest movie is Love Happens, a generic meet-cute, romance movie if there’s ever been one. In it she plays a florist and most of the five clips from the film that we have below seem to involve her standing next to pretty lights or colorful roses, cocking her head, folding her arms, and staring. The closest she comes to doing something risky is a five second moment in which she sort of makes fun of deaf people. Is that real sign language?

It’s good to be Jennifer Aniston. Watch her earn another paycheck in the five clips embedded below:

It's high time that the alien invasion make its way to the West Coast. Roland Emmerich is apparently destroying L.A. in the upcoming 2012, but really, they missed a golden opportunity when the giant spaceships of Independence Day failed to hover over the Hollywood sign.

It won't be Emmerich righting this wrong, but Jonathan Liebesman, who's directing the sci-fi adventure movie Battle: Los Angeles. Variety reports that Bridget Moynahan-- know to most people either as Mr. Big's wife from Sex and the City or Tom Brady's baby mama-- will be joining the cast to star alongside Aaron Eckhart. No word on whether she'll be playing a soldier as well, but presumably she'll be called upon at some point to kick alien butt.