No, horror fans, we don’t know if we’ll see the next round of fun and games in the Ready or Not universe on the 2025 movie schedule. However, what we do know about Ready or Not 2 has just changed pretty drastically. While horror icon Sarah Michelle Gellar isn’t appearing in this year's legacy-quel I Know What You Did Last Summer, she now has a role in this Radio Silence sequel's deck of winners! And if you thought that was impressive, wait until you see the rest of this hand of winners stacked in the deck.

The good folks at Searchlight Pictures made this exciting news known through a short, but sweet video. While it’s nowhere near as lengthy as the Avengers: Doomsday cast announcement, there are enough names here to boost the anticipation level for this upcoming horror movie:

While Sarah Michelle Gellar was featured on Showtimes’ Dexter: Original Sin, her character, Miami Metro forensics chief Tanya Martin, wasn’t really involved in any sort of horror activity. Also keeping in mind her role on the defunct Paramount+ original Wolf Pack, this is Ms. Gellar’s return to film-based horror.

It’s a feat absolutely worth celebrating, especially since the Buffy the Vampire Slayer icon is going to be mixing it up with this cast! Which leads to another interesting note, which came from Deadline’s reporting.

That outlet’s story not only confirmed this casting, as well as today’s production start on Ready or Not’s next chapter, they also had another name to share that’s not on this list: fellow retired vampire slayer/Abigail vet Kevin Durand.

But of course, if we’re talking about the words “horror” and “legend” in the same sentence, we need to discuss two very distinguished names you probably noticed on this roster.

Elijah Wood And David Cronenberg’s Additions Have Me Even More Hyped For Ready Or Not’s Sequel

I loved the work that writers Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy had accomplished with directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett on the first Ready or Not, so a strong roster for part two always seemed to be in the cards. Keeping that in mind, seeing Sarah Michelle Gellar in the same list as genre mastermind David Cronenberg and acting/producing powerhouse Elijah Wood brought an even wider smile to my face.

Mr. Cronenberg's resume on both sides of the screen makes the Videodrome helmer an inspired addition, especially with dry acting appearances as a guest star on shows such as Star Trek: Discovery. And turning to the Lord of the Rings star in the room, Wood’s creep-tastic roles in ensemble casts like that of Sin City, The Monkey, and the upcoming Toxic Avenger reboot put him on deck to potentially let loose once again.

It’s hard to tell how this all-star cast is going to interact, as Ready or Not 2’s story is under lock and key. That kind of doesn’t matter though, as the same madcap spirit looks like it’s very much infused in this hotly-anticipated sequel. Since Sarah Michelle Gellar, Elijah Wood and David Cronenberg are all usually game for anything in their acting lives, having them play this unique game promises to be a rewarding roll of the dice.

It's not unusual for directors to star in their own movies. Alfred Hitchcock famously made cameos in almost all of his movies and Quentin Tarantino appears in all of his in one way or another. It's rarer for a director to appear in a fellow director's movie. It's hardly unheard of, as we found plenty of interesting examples. So without further ado, here is our list of directors who appeared on other directors' movies.

Steven Spielberg - The Blues Brothers

Before the tragic accident on the set of The Twilight Zone, John Landis and Steven Spielberg were good friends. So good, in fact, that Spielberg showed up in a cameo in the Landis classic The Blues Brothers. Spielberg plays the Cook Country Accessor at the end of the movie who takes payment from Jake and Elwood.

David Lynch - The Fablemans

In a very meta moment, David Lynch plays another great director, John Ford, in Steven Spielberg's The Fablemans. The late Lynch didn't show up in movies often, even his own, so it's a fun moment in a movie by a legend, starring a legend as a legend.

John Landis - Spider-man 2

John Landis has twice done cameos in Sam Rami movies, both times appearing as a doctor, the most famous of which was in Spider-Man 2 where he plays a doctor killed by Doctor Octopus after performing surgery on the villain. It's a super quick moment and one that is easy to miss.

David Fincher - Being John Malkovich

David Fincher has occasionally popped into his own movies, including playing the voice of John Doe on the telephone so as to not give away the surprise later. He also has shown up in other directors' movies, specifically as a puppet expert in Spike Jonze's Being John Malkovich.

Roger Corman - The Silence Of The Lambs

Legendary B-movie director Roger Corman has a habit of showing up in other directors' work. It makes sense as he's a huge hero to many filmmakers who grew up watching his movies. In Jonathan Demme's The Silence of the Lambs, Corman plays the FBI director in one scene.

George Lucas - Beverly Hills Cop III

Beverly Hills Cop 3 is a pretty terrible movie, though thankfully the franchise was redeemed decades later with Axel F. Still, there is a pretty funny cameo in the movie when none other than George Lucas pops into the movie as a disgruntled patron of the amusement park that is central to the story.

Tim Burton - Singles

Tim Burton is not a director that shows up on the other side of the camera very often. In fact he has fleetingly few acting roles, but he does appear in Cameron Crowe's Singles. Crowe also has a cameo himself in the film.

Sam Raimi - Miller's Crossing

Sam Raimi is a director with a lot of acting roles on his resume, in his own film and in the movies by friends of his. One such cameo is in Miller's Crossing, a movie by the Coen Brothers. Raimi also has a cameo in another Coen Brothers movie, The Hudsucker Proxy.

Gus Van Sant - The Canyons

Gus Van Sant has a bit more than just a cameo in The Canyons, a movie that flew way under the radar when it was released in 2013, starring Lindsey Lohan. Van Sant plays a psychologist in the movie and has more than a couple lines, unlike many on this list.

Quentin Tarantino - Sleep With Me

Quentin Tarantino is always happy to cast himself in his own movies, but even before he was one of the premiere directors in Hollywood, he was popping up in movies he didn't direct. In Sleep With Me, by director Rory Kelly, which came out a month before Pulp Fiction, Tarantino has a memorable moment as a chatty party guest who breaks down the movie Top Gun in a very unconventional way.

Martin Scorsese - Quiz Show

Martin Scorsese's most famous on screen moment is as a rider in Travis' (Robert De Niro) cab in his own movie, Taxi Driver. He also shows up in Qui Show, directed by Robert Redford.

Tobe Hooper - Sleepwalkers

Tobe Hooper is a horror movie legend for his work directing the slasher classic The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the 1970s. In 1992 he popped up in a cameo working alongside Stephen King in the adaptation of King's novel Sleepwalkers.

John Waters - Something Wild

Director John Waters has been in many of his own movies, but he occasionally shows up in other movies as well, like Something Wild by director Jonathan Demme in 1986. Waters plays a sketchy car dealer in the movie and is one of the most fun parts of the movie.

Amy Heckerling - Into The Night

1985's Into the Night was John Landis' return to directing after being cleared of manslaughter charges as a result of the on-set tragedy during the filming of The Twilight Zone movie. In the movie, another director, Amy Heckerling, shows up in a cameo as a waitress.

Jonathan Demme - That Thing You Do!

Appropriately Jonathan Demme, who had a number of directors appear in his films, plays a film director in That Thing You Do! It's a brief role, of course, and it is one of the only times the late Demme appeared in another director's film. Into the Night by John Landis being another.

Roger Corman - The Godfather Part II

Roger Corman, one of the most influential directors of all time had a few cameos over his career with one of the most memorable coming in The Godfather II, where he played one of the senators grilling Michael Corlene (Al Pacino) in the Francis Ford Coppola classic.

Spike Jonze - The Game

Before David Fincher returned the favor for Spike Jonze in Being John Malkovich, Jonze appeared in Fincher's The Game, one of the most underrated movies by a big-time director.

Wes Craven - Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back

The late Wes Craven appeared in movies or TV shows as an actor 24 times according to IMDB, though most of his movie appearances were in his own movies. One exception was when he appeared in Kevin Smith's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back playing a version of himself directing a cartoonish version of Scream.

Frank Oz - Spies Like Us

Frank Oz has appeared as an actor in a bunch of movies, including The Blues Brothers, Trading Places, Knives Out, not to mention all his puppet and voice work over the years. One of his best cameos came in Spies Like Us where he played the proctor of a civil service exam. It's truly a classic and maybe the funniest moment in the movie.

Cameron Crowe - Minority Report

Cameron Crowe has a very brief cameo as a man on riding public transportation in Minority Report by director Steven Spielberg. If you blink - or aren't sure what he looks like - you're sure to miss the moment, but it's there. In fact, another Cameron, Cameron Diaz, is in the background of the same scene.

Robert Downey, Sr. - Boogie Nights

In his day, Robert Downey Sr. was pretty famous. Of course, that fame has been eclipsed by his son, but that doesn't mean he did carry a lot of respect within the industry even late in his life. Like when Paul Thomas Anderson worked him into a cameo in Boogie Nights.

Frank Darabont - King Kong

For many, The Shawshank Redemption is the best movie of the 1990s. It's director, Frank Darabont, doesn't make a cameo in Shawshank or any of his other movies, but he is very briefly in Peter Jackson's King Kong. It's another "blink-and-you-will-miss-it" kind of role.

Lawrence Kasdan - As Good As It Gets

Writer and director Lawrence Kasdan is most famous for writing both Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. He's also directed movies like Grand Canyon, The Big Chill, and Silverado. On rare occasions, he's taken acting roles like he did in As Good As It Gets, by director James L. Brooks of Simpsons fame. Kasdan plays a psychologist in the movie.

James Cameron - The Muse

The Muse, directed by Albert Brooks, features a handful of cameos by famous directors including Martin Scorsese and Rob Reiner. In a rare appearance on the other side camera is also director James Cameron, who only has a few acting credits to his name.

Mel Brooks - The Muppet Movie

it's certainly not surprising to see Mel Brooks on the big screen, but it is rare to see in a movie that he didn't write and direct. That's part of what makes his cameo in The Muppet Movie so much fun. The legendary EGOT winner plays the evil Professor Krassman who is working to control the minds of frogs. It's worth noting that despite his delightful performance, it's not one that contributed to his EGOT.

Eli Roth - Inglourious Basterds

Eli Roth is as much an actor as he is a director, though in recent years he's concentrated on the latter. Sure he appears in his own films, but he's also been a collaborator with Quentin Tarantino a couple of times, first in Death Proof and then in a more prominent role in Inglourious Basterds.

Jim Jarmusch - Sling Blade

Director Jim Jarmusch has a unique style as a director and so it makes sense he would appear in a movie with its own unique angle, Sling Blade, by director and actor Billy Bob Thornton. Jarmusch plays the server at a food truck in the movie, serving up French fried potaters.

David Cronenberg - Jason X

David Cronenberg has a long history with the Friday The 13th franchise, having directed an episode of Friday the 13th: The Series in 1988. He shows up in a cameo in Jason X.

John Sayles - Malcolm X

John Sayles has directed some great movies over the years including Eight Men Out and Passion Fish. He's also occasionally done a bit of acting, mostly in cameos like as a memorable FBI agent in Spike Lee's classic Malcolm X.

Werner Herzog - Jack Reacher

German director is never shy about being in front of the camera as he often appears in his own films and occasionally acts in other stuff, like playing a wonderful role on The Mandalorian on Disney Plus. He also makes a great cameo in the Tom Cruise-led Jack Reacher from 2012.

Martin Brest - Fast Times At Ridgemont High

Before Martin Brest hit the big time as a director of such '80s classics as Beverly Hills Cop and the criminally underrated Midnight Run, he scored a small acting role as a coroner in Fast Times At Ridgemont High by director Amy Heckerling.

Orson Welles - The Muppet Movie

Mel Brooks has a fairly substantial role in The Muppet Movie, but he's not the only director to appear in the movie. Hollywood legend Orson Welles also appears in the movie. Welles was a huge fan of Jim Henson and the Muppets and worked with them on more than one occassion as well.

Warning: SPOILERS for the Star Trek: Discovery series finale are ahead!

From the moment he was introduced in Star Trek: Discovery Season 3, David Cronenberg’s Kovich was established as an odd member of Starfleet in the 32nd century, from him wearing glasses in a time period where such optical correction is no longer necessary, to putting in the effort to find a legal pad from the 21st century to write on. Well, by the time the Paramount+ subscription-exclusive show’s series finale, “Life, Itself” was done, viewers finally learned Kovich’s true identity. The character told Michael Burnham that his real name was Daniels, making him the time traveler who’d previously recurred on Star Trek: Enterprise. However, Dominic Keating, who played Malcolm Reed on Enterprise, was not impressed with this reveal, saying that it “pissed” him off.

Keating shared his thoughts on the Kovich twist while being interviewed by TrekNews alongside Connor Trinneer, who played Trip Tucker opposite him for the entirety of Enterprise’s run, and now these two host the web series The D-Con Chamber together. The actor explained that the reason he was dissatisfied with Kovich being Agent Daniels was because it reminded him of when the original version of the character, played by Matt Winston, would show up on Enterprise, that resulted in him and other main cast members being pushed to the side. He explained:

So as you can see, Dominic Keating doesn’t hold anything against Matt Winston, but after all these years, he’s still annoyed at how often Daniels was utilized throughout Star Trek: Enterprise to the detriment of some of the other series regulars. That said, Keating went on to note that feelings stem on this subject from a larger dissatisfaction from him and other cast members being “underused,” as well as him not enjoying the Temporal Cold War storyline that leaned heavily on Daniels. In his words:

The baseball refers to how Kovich had several items from past Star Trek TV shows on display in his office, including Benjamin Sisko’s baseball from Deep Space Nine and Geordi LaForge’s VISOR from The Next Generation. By the time the Discovery crew arrived in the 32nd century in Season 3, time travel technology had been banned, so the older Daniels played by David Cronenberg’s temporal missions were long behind him. His true name was also considered a “a bit of a Red Directive,” but he trusted Michael Burnham enough to share that information. She was pleased to hear it, but Dominic Keating, not so much.

Like all the Star Trek shows with the exception of Prodigy (which is now a Netflix offering), Enterprise can be easily streamed on Paramount+. Next up on the Star Trek front is Lower Decks’ fifth and final season, which will premiere sometime on the 2024 TV schedule. If you’re wanting to look further ahead into the future, consult our guide of upcoming Star Trek TV shows.

Warning! The following contains SPOILERS for the Star Trek: Discovery finale "Life, Itself." Watch it now with a Paramount+ subscription, and read at your own risk!

Star Trek: Discovery is finished, but not before giving fans some big things to ponder as it bows. While upcoming Star Trek shows may eventually unravel the full story of the USS Discovery's fate, CinemaBlend was able to get the details on that fun little connection between this beloved series and another great one, Enterprise. As we learned in the finale, Kovich was actually a character from the previous show; we just didn't know it.

The big moment came when Michael Burnham met with Kovich and finally felt brave enough to ask what his "real" name was. The mysterious Federation figurehead stated that he was Daniels, also known as the Temporal Agent who kept in contact with Captain Archer during Enterprise. It was a fun twist I didn't see coming, so I asked showrunner Michelle Paradise how it came to be. She told me:

The showrunner praised David Cronenberg's portrayal of Kovich, and she's not the only one. Doug Jones confessed to CinemaBlend that he didn't recognize him the first time they worked together, but was so surprised by his performance. It turns out the acclaimed director behind so many great movies is also a great addition to Star Trek and a link between Enterprise and Discovery.

It's a fun connection and something I had to know more about. Michelle Paradise shared how the idea of Kovich playing Daniels came about, as well as the cool thing for Discovery fans to do now that it's over:

Kovich, being a well-known Temporal Agent, raises many questions, some of which I'd love to get answered in the spinoff Starfleet Academy if he appears. At this time, the only casting known for the series is award-winning actress Holly Hunter, and I happen to believe Mary Wiseman will be announced, especially after this nod in the finale that Tilly was the most tenured member of the Academy.

Ultimately, I would love to see more of David Cronenberg in Star Trek's future, especially with this connection. At the same time, I know he's not primarily known as an actor, so if he's fine with Discovery being his sole contribution to the franchise, I'm ok with that too. Still, with all the crazy time-related stuff happening in Strange New Worlds, wouldn't Daniels' re-emergence clear up some misconceptions on whether the Temporal Wars are over?

Unfortunately, we won't be getting those answers from Star Trek: Discovery because it's over. On the bright side, we have a satisfying ending to celebrate and the opportunity to binge all five seasons all over again whenever we choose to do so. For those who need a little time before that, our 2024 TV schedule should be the first stop for anyone who needs something new to watch.

Star Trek: Discovery is gearing up for Season 5, and the upcoming season has already confirmed the return of the show's most cryptic character: Kovich. Legendary director David Cronenberg, who plays Kovich, may be well-known in Hollywood to many, but apparently, Doug Jones hasn't seen him too much in person. The actor recently shared a funny story about not knowing he was on set the first time they filmed together. 

I spoke to Doug Jones about Star Trek: Discovery in promotion of the release of Season 4 on Blu-Ray, and during our conversation, got on the subject of working with David Cronenberg. Jones confirmed that the famed director and Discovery actor was a joy to work with and admitted that he initially didn't recognize him when they were filming his first scenes: 

It's not too much of a surprise that Doug Jones wouldn't know David Cronenberg at first glance, as the acclaimed director isn't exactly known for his acting. While he's appeared sporadically in a handful of projects throughout his career, his role on Star Trek: Discovery as Kovich is one of his longest-running. There might even be some Trek fans out there who didn't recognize him but were fans of The Fly or any number of his other memorable movies. 

And while his directing credits may be more known than his acting roles, Doug Jones assured CinemaBlend that David Cronenberg performs as well as any seasoned actor. In fact, Jones noted that Cronenberg is not one to make mistakes while performing, as much as Jones might want him to every now and again: 

David Cronenberg had a pretty meaty episode alongside Doug Jones in Star Trek: Discovery Season 4 episode "...But To Connect." Kovich, Saru, Stamets, and others debated on what to do when the ship's A.I., Zora, became sentient and capable of making decisions that defied the orders of humans aboard the ship. That episode, as well as the 105 minutes worth of bonus features, should convince fans to pick up the Season 4 Blu-ray, especially at this time when we're waiting on upcoming Trek shows. 

And of course, anyone with a Paramount+ subscription can stream Star Trek: Discovery and all the scenes featuring David Cronenberg and Doug Jones to their heart's content. Season 5 is coming in 2023 as well, and based on what we know about it so far, it looks like fans are in for a treat. 

SPOILERS are ahead for David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future. 

Since the 1970s, David Cronenberg has established himself as a distinct filmmaker with a tendency to shock and challenge his viewers with ideas of visceral bodily transformation and and distinct themes to ponder as the credits roll. That continues with the Crimes of the Future ending following an intriguing imagining of a time where humans have a different definition of the line between pain and pleasure. It’s time to break down how the movie concludes and what it's perhaps trying to say. 

Crimes of the Future takes place on an unspecified date in the future where pollution and climate change have seriously affected the human race. Due to this, there have been significant advances in biotechnology and human bodies are perhaps changing in a way where they no longer feel physical pain the way they used to (and we do now). As members of the Crimes of the Future cast, we follow two performance artists, Viggo Mortensen’s Saul Tenser and Léa Seydoux’s Caprice, the latter who regularly performs advanced surgeries on her partner for the entertainment and awe of audiences. Now, to break down the ending: 

What Happens At The End Of Crimes Of The Future

Throughout Crimes of the Future, Saul is trying to make best use of his body for his art. As we learn, Mortensen’s character has the unique ability to grow new organs, which he is using to his advantage in his shows, because Caprice can remove them for performances in front of a live audience. Amidst this, Saul and Caprice are logging the new organs he creates to the “National Organ Registry,” which is a fairly new governmental office designed to uphold the state’s restrictions on human evolution. 

As Crimes of the Future hits its third act, the focus moves toward another body rather than Saul Tenser. The focus becomes on the corpse of Brecken, a young boy who was killed by his mother in the beginning of the movie. After his father, Lang (Scott Speedman), retrieves his son’s corpse, he offers the body up to Saul and Caprice to have an autopsy performed on him for their show. The autopsy would not only shake up the pair’s act but show the public something new in the direction of human evolution with Brecken’s insides. Lang tells them that Brecken genetically inherited the ability to eat plastics following a synthetic surgery Lang received. 

Saul and Caprice agree to the public autopsy, but it does not prove to be the “miracle” Lang sells it as, but we do see a ton of organs flooding his body. Lang is then brutally killed and the final scene is between Saul and Caprice in their home. There, Saul decides to try a plastic chocolate bar that Lang had created and used to kill someone earlier in the film. As Caprice films him eating it, he ingests it and is able to successfully consume the plastic. 

What Was Going On With Saul Tenser? 

Saul Tenser was working undercover with Detective Cope throughout Crimes of the Future, frequently meeting with him throughout the film, dispelling information based on his own dealings within the performance art scene he is part of. But, due to his actions throughout the movie, it’s clear that Saul didn’t take a particular side on the debate over human evolution except for when it served his own job as a performance artist. 

As far as what was going on with Saul’s body, it is explained in the film that he has Accelerated Evolution Syndrome, which allows him to grow these organs for his shows, but also somehow makes it more difficult for him to process regular foods. Saul is seen eating his meals in a specific chair that looks to help him cope with the condition by moving his body around while he eats. 

What The Abrupt Ending Means And Symbolizes 

Crimes of the Future begins with Breckin, and the child becomes a major part of the story David Cronenberg aims to tell. As we see early in the film, Breckin pretty much eats anything and is able to digest it. His mother, disturbed by his eating habits, kills him in his sleep and then calls his father to pick up his body. Knowing the information we do from the previous sections, it seems he had a similar condition to Saul. Seeing as Breckin was able to eat plastics and other odd items as food and be OK, Saul in the final scene decides to eat a plastic chocolate bar. 

As the conclusion shows, he is fine afterwards, showing that perhaps in this future humankind is being so affected by pollution and climate change, they will not need human food to survive at some point. It could be a discovery that would change the society of Crimes of the Future as they know it. The bite of the plastic chocolate bar is an abrupt way to end the movie, but also is a way for audiences to think and imagine how our evolution could potentially take us further away from being human. 

Other Themes Crimes Of The Future Explores 

Aside from the ending of Crimes of the Future, the movie explores a number of ideas, including those Viggo Mortensen and Léa Seydoux spoke to CinemaBlend about in our interview. Seydoux, of the James Bond movies, told us, 

Cronenberg, who wrote the script over 20 years before shooting it, has also spoken to the movie being about artistry. He told Variety this: 

Seydoux shared honestly that she didn’t really know what to make of the film when she first read it, but really latched on to the characters when playing the role. Mortensen called the movie a “very tender love story,” about a committed relationship that includes sacrifice for one another. Perhaps, Crimes of the Future is this complex painting we’ll all take something else from? What we're certain of is there are a lot of different meanings one can take from it. 

After nearly a decade since David Cronenberg’s last feature, The Fly and Crash filmmaker is back with Crimes of the Future. The movie takes him back to his science fiction roots as he imagines a world where “surgery is the new sex” and human bodies are starting to evolve in new ways. The story, which feels like a relevant social commentary for today, was actually written over 20 years ago, and Cronenberg recently shared how the movie might have been different if it was made in the early 2000s instead. 

During CinemaBlend’s exclusive interview with David Cronenberg, the filmmaker spoke about how Crimes of the Future is perhaps different from how it would have been if he had shot the script right after finishing it. In his words: 

A big takeaway here is that David Cronenberg apparently didn’t change a single word of his Crimes of the Future script between the time he wrote it and beginning production in 2021 in Athens, Greece. As he shared, there are a few small elements of the film that would have been different if he made it back in the day, including his now-frequent collaborator Viggo Mortensen likely not being involved, the shooting location and perhaps his own improvement as a filmmaker. 

Crimes of the Future was reportedly originally going to be made back in 2003 with both Nicolas Cage and Ralph Fiennes rumored to star as Viggo Mortensen’s role of Saul Tenser, via Science Fiction & Fantasy Chronicles. Later, Cronenberg shared that he had lost interest in the script at the time, and he later met Mortensen following the actor's work on the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The two then worked together for the first time on A History of Violence. 

In the context of today, Crimes of the Future works in a new way that might have been seen another way if it was made in the early ‘00s. In 2022, it feels like the movie is speaking to this idea of humans being desensitized in the age of social media, along with the persistent environmental concerns on our evolution of humans. 

Crimes of the Future has been released with an overall mixed response (check out our review of the Cronenberg movie). CinemaBlend also spoke with Mortensen and co-star Léa Seydoux about their thoughts on the meaning behind the movie. Check out the upcoming 2022 movie calendar to see what other cinematic entertainment there is to look forward to following the science fiction release. 

Since David Cronenberg’s latest movie Crimes of the Future has focused its marketing around images of sliced-up bodies and the tagline “surgery is the new sex,” there’s been an interesting discourse about what The Fly filmmaker could possibly have in store for audiences with his return to sci-fi horror. Then, when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, there were reports of viewers walking out of the debut screening during its grotesque sequences. Léa Seydoux and Viggo Mortensen, two of the movie's stars, have ideas about the movie’s themes, and their answer opposes the popular belief about it. 

When CinemaBlend virtually sat down with Seydoux and Mortensen, we spoke about the themes of the film from their own point of view. First, in the No Time To Die actress’ words: 

Both Seydoux and Mortensen seem to agree on the core element of the movie, and to them, it’s nearly a love story. Check out the Lord of the Ring actor’s thoughts: 

You can check out the Crimes of the Future actors’ full responses in the video above. Cronenberg’s latest movie centers on their characters, Mortensen’s Saul Tenser and Seydoux’s Caprice, who are performance artists in an imagined future. In this future, humans have evolved past simple pleasures and turn to pain to turn them on and entertain themselves. Weird? Yes, but as the actors shared, there’s a deeper storyline between its main characters they enjoyed exploring. 

While much of the conversation around Crimes of the Future is in its blood and gore, which is often associated with David Cronenberg’s best work, the movie itself has an emotional story involving these performance artists who have a unique partnership and care about one another in an intriguing way. As someone who has seen the movie (check out CinemaBlend’s review of Crimes of the Future), I can see how the actors have gravitated toward this element of the film, because it was truly the most human and oddly most interesting element of the movie. 

Crimes of the Future feels like a thought experiment of where we could go as a society in hundreds of years as we continue to become numbed by the entertainment that used to blow our minds. And amidst the ideas being explored, the audience is grounded by the affection two people can have for each other, even if their careers and way of having sex are super uncomfortable and alien to modern times. 

You can also check out CinemaBlend’s interview with David Cronenberg about working with Kristen Stewart and stay tuned for more exclusive coverage on upcoming 2022 movies.  

After Kristen Stewart reached a career high just months ago with her role as Princess Diana in the Oscar-nominated Spencer, the actress is continuing to make interesting career choices, now with David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future. The movie, which recently premiered at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival to buzz of festival-goers walking out during grotesque scenes, features an especially memorable scene of Stewart and Lord of the Rings’ Viggo Mortensen, with which she apparently surprised the director. 

When CinemaBlend spoke to David Cronenberg, the legendary filmmaker, known for ‘80s science fiction horror movies like The Fly and Videodrome, shared what it was like to work with Kristen Stewart. In his words: 

In Crimes of the Future, Kristen Stewart is among a star-studded cast also including Léa Seydoux of the recent Bond films. Stewart plays a character unlike we’ve seen the actress take on named Timlin, who becomes fascinated with Viggo Mortensen’s Saul and seduces him later in the film. It’s a long sequence you wouldn’t imagine Mortensen and Stewart would nail right away. Cast member Scott Speedman co-signed on their work on the scene too. As he told CinemaBlend: 

Kristen Stewart got the chance to work with David Cronenberg after her Twilight co-star Robert Pattinson introduced him to her after he was cast in his 2012 film Cosmopolis. As Cronenberg also said, Stewart really brought his character to life through her performance in a way he wasn’t necessarily expecting: 

Crimes of the Future is set in a future where pain is the new pleasure and “sex is the new surgery.” Mortensen and Seydoux’s Saul and Caprice duo performance artist team delight audiences with their surgeries that serves as a new form of entertainment during the time. However, when they are presented with a new act, they must decide if they are willing to cross a new line for their art. 

After debuting at Cannes to a six-minute standing ovation, the movie debuted to limited theaters over the weekend and will go nationwide this weekend. The movie was overall praised by critics, including CinemaBlend’s 3.5 out of 5 review of Crimes of the Future. Audiences, on the other hand, are so far mixed on whether it was worth their time. Keep up with more upcoming 2022 movies coming this summer here on CinemaBlend. 

Twilight stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart are having especially exciting moments in their careers right now separately. For example, Pattinson recently became Batman, and Stewart was just in the Oscar conversation for her role as Princess Diana in Spencer. But could they ever work together again? The two actors do have a major connection to Crimes of the Future filmmaker David Cronenberg, who is interested in bringing them together for a “theoretical” movie of his. 

Stewart just worked with David Cronenberg for the first time on Crimes of the Future, which is a gnarly sci-fi thriller also starring Viggo Mortensen and Leá Seydoux. A decade ago, just as Robert Pattinson was on his way out from Twilight, the actor worked with Cronenberg on Cosmopolis, which had him starring as a billionaire’s odyssey through Manhattan. When recently speaking about the actors, Cronenberg shared the connection to them and his thoughts on reuniting Pattinson and Stewart. In his words: 

David Cronenberg shared with World of Reel that he got to know Kristen Stewart through Robert Pattinson, and he enjoyed working with both of them a decade apart. He would entertain the idea of bringing them together for a movie of his; however, has some trepidation about it due to these two being so tied to Twilight, it seems. Plus, Cronenberg's placing his focus on his next movie after Crimes of the Future, Shrouds, first and foremost. 

If the filmmaker, who is often called the “The Baron of Blood” and the “King of Venereal Horror,” would bring something entirely new to the narrative of Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson should this “theoretical” idea happen, saying he’d create new characters for them that would be completely different than what Twilight fans might expect would at least shake things up a bit. 

David Cronenberg movies are the exact kind of thing that Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson’s tastes meet on, given Cosmopolis marked a beginning for the Edward Cullen actor’s transition to primarily independent and more intimate films following the Twilight movies. Stewart has also been an indie darling for most of her career between bigger films, and at Cannes, she admitted to watching Cronenberg’s Crash “far too young” but “loved it,” per Variety. 

It’s not completely impossible that Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart could reunite in a film, especially for a Cronenberg project. But as the filmmaker shared, it could prove “problematic.” The pair were so attached to one another in headlines amidst their dating history and Twilight fame. Stewart was even asked if she’d like to play the Joker to Pattinson’s Batman ahead of The Batman coming out. The actors might understandably want to keep their lives separate. 

Check out CinemaBlend’s review of Crimes of the Future ahead of the 2022 upcoming movie’s release in theaters on June 3. 

When we look at the history of the human race, one pattern that continues to progress is our eagerness to push the envelope and lean into things that generations before us would snicker at and be bewildered by. In David Cronenberg’s latest film, Crimes of the Future, that modernization is a redefinition of how we view our bodies as a vessel for pleasure. The dubbed “King of Venereal Horror” imagines that far into the future we may become bored with our current notions around sex, and the regular twisting and turning into our skin and organs is the kind of intimacy we may crave. Surgery is the new porn and eroticism of society. The thought is enough to make you squirm, isn't it? 

Following David Cronenberg’s more recent, contemporary works from the ‘90s to 2014’s Map To The Stars, the filmmaker has finally returned with Crimes of the Future to his sci-fi/horror roots, for which he is still most beloved. The power of the concept itself is enough to induce horror considering our own obscene tendencies as humans, because hey, in a few hundred years, we might go there.

The title was previously used for one of his first features in 1970, but this is not a remake. It is however, the realization of a project Cronenberg has had in the works for nearly twenty years – and it shows. Crimes of the Future is incredibly rich in its ideas and world building – it feels like the stellar adaptation of a dusty ‘80s sci-fi novel you might find adjacent to Dune on a bookshelf. But, to its credit, the stickler for Crimes of the Future is presenting this expansive idea in a way where one craves for it to go even further down its hole of visceral imagery. But, within its incredibly crafted and terrifying visions, audiences never are quite sent to the deep end of its thematic horrors.

Crimes Of The Future balances its slow burn science fiction vision with effective body horror, but sometimes it gets silly. 

Crimes of the Future follows two performance artists – Viggo Mortensen’s Saul Tenser and Léa Seydoux’s Caprice – who have become well-known within the movie’s somewhat ambiguous setting and far future. Caprice, who was a trauma surgeon prior to her current profession, performs surgeries on Saul while audiences ‘ooh’ and ‘ahh’ at their shows. Saul has the unique ability to will new organs to grow into his body, which Caprice regularly removes during their shows. 

They are logged into an Organ Registry – which is where Kristen Stewart’s Timlin and Don McKellar’s Wippet come in. They are logging these organs for them, which in this society adds a certain sexual appeal and scientific intrigue to Saul’s profile as an artist. 

Saul and Caprice’s act is one of many, all of whom serve as the new primary form of entertainment in between couples in dark alleys cutting up each other for sexual pleasure in a world numb to “the old sex.” The lengths this science fiction concept goes to imagine how people live their daily lives in this dark, twisted fantasy. That being said, there are also a few moments that come off as laughable in the wrong places. It can be tough to follow the tone when jokes are being cracked amidst some otherwise disturbing material. It’s welcome in a sense because you don’t want Crimes of the Future to be cold as ice, but tones don't always blend with ease. 

Amidst this, Saul finds a new show for himself and Caprice that will really push the boundaries of their performance art relating to a child. In this thread, Crimes of the Future feels like Cronenberg’s version of a science fiction, slow-burn noir. The movie is careful with how it builds tension. Its frequent body horror moments don't emerge into a the big scares one might imagine from it, but instead it's an interesting (sometimes boring) set mystery specifically within Saul and Caprice's world. 

Léa Seydoux and Kristen Stewart particularly astonish with offbeat but enrapturing performances. 

As Léa Seydoux has become a highlight within the Bond franchise and other recent roles, the actor brings her comforting presence to Crimes of the Future as the movie’s most exciting character. Seydoux's Caprice is calm, cool and completely passionate in her work. She elevates Mortensen’s character, who is a more reserved and indifferent character, with a unique weight to bear in his performance. 

In contrast to Seydoux, comes another particularly terrific performance from Kristen Stewart – a mousy investigator of the Organ Registry who also becomes very invested in Saul. Her delivery somehow fits in the world and is animated, bold and unlike anything we've ever seen from the Oscar nominee. Both Seydoux and Stewart also sell a sex appeal that's key to Crimes of the Future in its own weird, very particular, classy, not insanely perverse way. 

Cronenberg has something profound to say about human nature’s evolution. 

As Crimes of the Future reaches its final moments before Howard Shore’s effective score ramps back up in the credits, it's clear David Cronenberg’s film is firmly centered on not only its concept, but what he wants to say about humankind through it. Among the stomaching of the blood, guts and weird eroticism of Crimes of the Future, the sci-fi drama is slow-building and steady with its hand. If only all the slicing and thought-provoking exercise had paid off in a third act as powerful as the subject and the rest of the tension Cronenberg builds. There's either an extra 20 minutes the movie could have benefitted from, or it needed to be a tighter film overall. 

Throughout the movie there are a number of lines that don’t dance around, but rather in plain words state the legendary filmmaker’s thesis for the film. The next stage of human evolution down the line could transform us into something genetically new. Crimes of the Future asks the question: if we grow numb to the human warning system of pain, are we human anymore? It succeeds in asking the question and provides a distinctive vision for how horrific humankind is and can be. 

Nobody makes movies like David Cronenberg. Nobody. While Cronenberg's movies have influenced a ton of filmmakers, especially in regards to "body horror," which is a unique brand of horror that focuses on the effects of aging, decay, and disease, only Cronenberg can really make the perfect blend of horror that is both visceral and cerebral. With his upcoming horror movie, Crimes of the Future (not to be confused with his 1970 movie of the same name), he looks to be at it again. 

Cronenberg has had a long and fascinating career. I've focused on Paul Thomas Anderson's best movies, as well as George Lucas' best directed films, but, unlike those two directors where I could recommend at least a few movies from their filmographies that I think anybody could enjoy, I have a much harder time doing that with David Cronenberg.   

Honestly, it's a rare breed of film fan who I think would actually enjoy most of Cronenberg's work. I'm not saying that most people are dumb, but if you're going to watch David Cronenberg movies, then you're going to have to think. In other words, he doesn’t make flicks where you can just turn off your brain, like bad disaster movies. His movies always make you question. And wonder. Now, before I get into what I deem are his best films, I just wanted to shout out Scanners (which has my favorite final battle ever), The Brood, and Fast Company. All three came close to being on this list, but just narrowly missed it.     

10. A Dangerous Method (2011) 

In this historical drama starring Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender, and Kiera Knightley (as the psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Sabina Spielrein, respectively), we get an in-depth look at Jung’s affair with Spielrein, and also the complex war of ideas between Jung and Freud. If you like history, then you should like this movie. 

I certainly did, and I’m a big fan of Jung. A million years ago, I wrote an article titled “What if Inception Were Analyzed By Dream Experts,” where I focused on Jungian concepts, and it was really interesting seeing a movie like A Dangerous Method that dives deep into Jung. Cronenberg’s clinical approach is present here, and some may view the film as a little stiff. But, for anybody even remotely interested in Freud, Jung, and Spielrein, then you should really enjoy this film.   

9. Naked Lunch (1991) 

Peter Weller stars in this very Cronenbergian picture based on the novel of the same name. In this story, an exterminator (Weller) gets super high on bug powder, and starts to think he’s a secret agent. It’s…bizarre.  

Beyond belief, actually. Naked Lunch is one of those books that I’ve started several times, but just couldn’t finish (so, I have no idea if the movie is better than the book). But, I can tell you that the film, as strange as it is, is at least digestible in a sort of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas sort of way. Most of the film is a hallucinatory trip, and I view it as one of Cronenberg’s best, as he was able to make an interesting film from what was long considered “an unfilmable book.”  

8. Crash (1996) 

Based on the controversial 1973 novel of the same name, Crash is about a man who gets turned on by car crashes, and he soon dives into a cult-like group of like-minded people who can only get their rocks off in the backseat of cars, or by getting into crashes themselves. It stars James Spader, Holly Hunter, and Rosanna Arquette, and it's just as bizarre and disturbing as it sounds. 

It's also quite slow, which is why Crash might just be the least accessible movie in Cronenberg's career. But, it's also deeply perplexing, making it both alluring and off-putting at the same time. Lots of the movie is just sex and scars, but it all feels so distant and impersonal.

In a sense, it's like we're watching a slow moving car wreck ourselves when we watch this film, and it begs the question: By watching other people have sex, as we do with pornography, does that also make us participants in the act? Also, how are any of the sexual fetishes that people have any less "normal" than somebody else's? Like I said, you have to think when you watch a Cronenberg film. He never lets you off the hook.  

7. Dead Ringers (1988) 

Dead Ringers stars Jeremy Irons…and Jeremy Irons as twin brother gynecologists. One is confident, and the other is meek. Well, the confident one sleeps with his patients, and then he hands them over to his meek brother when he’s bored with them, without the women knowing. That is, until the meek one falls in love, gets super drugged, and…honestly, I don’t know if I’m even describing this movie well, so I’ll just leave it at that. 

I once did an article on the most Nicolas Cage movies Nicolas Cage has ever done, and Dead Ringers is probably the most David Cronenberg movie that David Cronenberg has ever done. It’s disturbing, but also has much to say on the double-sided nature of people, both literally (in this case), and figuratively. It’s horrific, but also fascinating. In other words, it’s a Cronenberg picture, and definitely one of his best.   

6. Cosmopolis (2012) 

Robert Pattinson stars as a bored billionaire who rides in his limousine on the way to getting a haircut, and then weird stuff happens to him, including an assassination attempt and protests. I know some people who actually hate this movie, citing that it’s boring and pretentious. 

But, I love it! It’s based on a novel of the same name, which I’ve never read, but this almost feels like a David Lynch movie, story-wise, at least. That said, it’s pure Cronenberg. That detached sense that he loves to employ in his films is on full display here, leading to a story of a man who is both isolated from the outside world, but also immediately connected to it. Body horror by way of detachment from the human race? Only Cronenberg could pull that off. And he does! I think so, at least.    

5. Eastern Promises (2007) 

In another movie starring Viggo Mortensen, as well as Naomi Watts, Eastern Promises is about a midwife (played by Watts) who finds a diary on a young, dead prostitute's body after the girl delivers a baby, and it all ties back to the Russian mafia. Violence and intrigue ensues. 

Eastern Promises feels like a film that truly explored the Russian Mafia, but not for exploitation's sake. In fact, the emphasis on loyalty gives it an almost The Godfather vibe, but from a very different perspective. Yes, most people probably remember this film for Viggo Mortensen’s naked fight scene, but that naked honesty (no pun intended) to the material is just what makes this film so riveting in the first place.  

4. The Dead Zone (1983) 

A teacher (played by Christopher Walken) gets into a car crash, falls into a coma, and awakens with the ability to foretell the future when he touches somebody. He eventually shakes the hand of a potential Presidential candidate (Martin Sheen), and sees that the man will wreak havoc on the world if he gets elected. So, the former teacher decides to kill him. Sounds legit.  

The Dead Zone, which was adapted from a very good Stephen King story, is definitely one of the better Stephen King adaptations (If not one of the best). It plays it remarkably straight, making for a perfectly competent adaptation, and Walken and Sheen are great in their roles. Overall, it’s an excellent film.      

3. A History of Violence (2005) 

In this film, starring Viggo Mortensen (again!), Ed Harris, and Maria Bello, a man named Tom Stall (or so we think) runs a diner and ends up killing two robbers who were out to kill him. But, things aren't what they seem with our hero, and we learn that he and his family might be in even more danger than they ever imagined.  

You know how Martin Scorsese has controversial comments about Marvel movies? Well, I doubt he has any complaints about A History of Violence, which, while not based on a Marvel property, is, in fact, based on a graphic novel of the same name. And, that's because A History of Violence is taut, intelligent, and always engaging. It also doesn't glorify violence, but instead, like Eastern Promises, displays it in all of its ugliness. If there is one Cronenberg movie that I would recommend to the general public, it's probably this one. It never disappoints.    

2. Videodrome (1983) 

James Woods stars in this super prescient film from 1983 that kind of predicted the world that would eventually become the internet. In this film, Woods plays a president of a low budget TV channel and happens to receive a pirate broadcast of a violent show called Videodrome. But, when the girl he’s hooking up with (played by Blondie’s Deborah Harry) goes to be on the show and never returns, he learns that maybe Videodrome isn’t just a TV show at all. Madness ensues. 

Videodrome is a trip, boy. Have you ever seen the Nic Cage movie, Mandy? Well, Mandy has very little plot, and it’s more of a hallucinogenic trip, and Videodrome is much the same. But, this film actually has a message about society’s desensitization from consuming entertainment, and how distant we’re all getting from reality, which, again, kind of foretold how we'd be on the internet. 

When Woods’s character, whose hand fuses into a gun by the end of the movie, proclaims, “Long live the new flesh!” it raises countless questions about where we were, and where we’re ultimately heading, and that’s why it sits so close to the top of this list. Audiences are still digesting it, even today.  

1. The Fly (1986) 

In what is undoubtedly one of the best '80s movies ever made, The Fly (which is a remake) stars Jeff Goldblum as a scientist who creates a teleportation device that ends up splicing his DNA with a fly's, and it's high art. Geena Davis also stars as his concerned (and horrified) girlfriend.    

It's strange to think that a remake is David Cronenberg's best film, but it is. In fact, one could say that it's a remake that’s arguably superior to the original film that it's based off of. I think it's because the film is so accessible, but also mysterious. Gory and disgusting, but also intelligent, it may even be an allegory for the AIDS epidemic. The Fly is not a crowd-pleaser by any means, but it's a movie that anybody can at least get something out of, and for that reason, I think it's Cronenberg's very best film. It's a masterpiece.   

So, those are what I would deem David Cronenberg's best movies. Only time will tell if his upcoming Crimes of the Future will end up on this list as well, but I'm banking on it. Cronenberg can do no wrong!  

As detailed in the essay “The Wheel of Fortune” by Bev Vincent, Stephen King experienced a touch of creative frustration in the mid-to-late-1970s. During that period he developed a number of ideas that had issues becoming fully formed, including two novels that he ultimately abandoned. One of the ideas he wouldn’t give up on, however, was about a child killer in a small town, and a teacher struck by a psychic vision. Begun in 1976, it was a project that he put aside multiple times, changing gears to work on other material, but he kept coming back to it. Depressed and a touch desperate, King completed his first draft of the book in 1979, and it was published later that same year.

That book, titled The Dead Zone, became the first by the author to reach the number one spot on the New York Times bestseller list, and it is now regarded as a favorite among not only fans, but by King as well.

As had become pattern, Hollywood was quick to act on the release. And while it took a few extra years for a movie version to get made (the fact that the initial rights holder folded its feature film division had a lot to do with that), eventually The Dead Zone came together with David Cronenberg at the helm, and Dino De Laurentiis and Debra Hill steering the ship as producers. It earned great reviews and was a box office success – but 38 years later, how has it aged, and how does it stack up compared to the book? That’s the subject of this week’s edition of Adapting Stephen King.

What The Dead Zone Is About

“Can a political assassin ever be right? And if he is, could you make him the protagonist of a novel?” As described in Stephen King’s On Writing, these are the questions at the heart of The Dead Zone. It has an atypical structure compared to the author’s other works, playing out almost episodically as it builds to its climactic finale, but by the end it answers both proposed questions with an emphatic “yes.”

Opening with a prologue, The Dead Zone introduces said protagonist, Johnny Smith, as he experiences a childhood accident during a game of ice hockey that leaves him with seemingly innocuous injuries (an incident based on an experience from King’s own youth). But while outwardly it appears that the biggest consequence is a headache and a “knotted bruise” on his forehead, the aftermath also finds the young boy occasionally having hunches that wind up being accurate about people and things in his small Maine town.

A couple years after that, in another part of the country, a traveling bible salesman named Greg Stillson kicks a dog to death when the animal gives him a less than friendly greeting as he makes some door-to-door stops.

Decades after his scary experience on the ice, Johnny Smith becomes the ordinary man that his name suggests, working as a beloved high school English teacher and falling in love with fellow educator Sarah Bracknell. Their relationship is tragically cut short, however, when Johnny drives home after a date and smashes headlong into a muscle car drag racing on the dark roads. He survives, but falls into a coma that lasts for four-and-a-half years.

When he does finally awaken, the world has moved on without him, but he also isn’t the same man: rather than just having hunches, making physical contact with another person or an item of significance results in him having psychic visions of both the present and the future. His “gift” first demonstrates itself when he is able to sense that his physical therapist’s house is on the verge of burning down after she leaves the stove on, and it further proves to be real when Johnny is able to sense that the mother of his doctor, who was separated from her son during World War II, is still alive and living in California.

Johnny struggles with the fame – as he is able to do good, such as assisting in tracking down a serial killer in the town of Castle Rock, but he is also inundated with both requests for help and hate that paints him as a slight against God. All the while, though, he is on a direct path to collide with Greg Stillson, who has graduated from being a bible salesman to becoming a politician with a destiny to end the world in nuclear holocaust.

How David Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone Differs From Stephen King’s Book

In the 1980s, Dino De Laurentiis was a key conduit between Stephen King and Hollywood, producing five adaptations released between 1983 and 1985, and the relationship began with David Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone. However, things got off to a bit of an odd start. As noted in “The Complete Stephen King Universe” by Stanley Wiater, Christopher Golden, and Hank Wagner, De Laurentiis gave the author first crack at penning the screenplay for the film when it was in development, but he ultimately rejected King’s take as being “[too] involved and convoluted.” According to the AFI Catalog, there was an expanded focus on the Castle Rock Killer storyline, and while five drafts were put together, De Laurentiis and Cronenberg opted for a different direction.

In contrast, the screenplay by Jeffrey Boam that ended up being produced is a clean and streamlined take on the book – though the process of molding the story that way does result in The Dead Zone changing key details and events. What’s featured on screen very much comes from the Stephen King novel, but with some significant cuts, swapped parts, and noteworthy alterations.

To start with what has to be one of the strangest changes made from a Stephen King book, the title itself holds different meanings in the original text and the adaptation. The movie refers to a “dead zone” as part of the protagonist’s visions – something that Dr. Sam Weizak (Herbert Lom) interprets as a suggestion that fate isn’t sealed and can be changed. How it got there from what’s in the novel, where it is a part of Johnny’s diagnosis and an explanation for his powers (he has a “dead zone” in his brain that forces other parts to overcompensate) isn’t totally clear.

A far more significant change is the presence of Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen) in the story, as his part is greatly reduced in the film compared to the source material. You can understand why the movie decided not to reenact the character’s infamous introduction (King says in On Writing that his mailbox was flooded with letters complaining about his completely imaginary cruelty to animals), but also cut down are details about his abusive upbringing, his ascent in the political world, and his ruthless maneuverings to achieve power.

Martin Sheen doesn’t appear until about an hour into the 103-minute film, and is only featured in one scene not seen through the eyes of Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken) – and even that bit is a more muted version of events in the book, with the murder of an FBI agent “replaced” with the blackmail of an investigative journalist.

The reduced emphasis of Greg Stillson allows for greater focus on Johnny Smith, but still there are big sections of the story that are removed. The ice hockey incident when Johnny is a kid, for example, is excised as a prologue, but then it is reconfigured later when Johnny is trying to save one of his tutoring students, Chris (Simon Craig), from a horrific fate. In the movie the psychic hero insists that the child’s father (Anthony Zerbe) cancel a planned excursion for his kid’s hockey team when he predicts that the ice is going to break, but in Stephen King’s novel Chris is a high school senior getting ready to graduate, and is saved when Johnny realizes that the location where a party is set to be held is going to be struck by lightning and burn down.

Other standout trims include Johnny winning big on a wheel of fortune carnival game while on a date with Sarah before his coma; his mother becoming a religious fanatic; and an encounter between the psychic and exploitative tabloid reporter Richard Dees, who King would later go on to feature as a main character in the short story “The Night Flier.”

Where the last significant change can be found is in the Stephen King question that initially inspired The Dead Zone and the structure of the story. Where the last significant change can be found is in the Stephen King question that initially inspired The Dead Zone and the structure of the story. Part of having Greg Stillson as a more significant presence in the book means that Johnny Smith learns of the doom the politician is destined to bring earlier in the narrative – and thus there is more time spent with the debate of whether or not the hero can morally justify an assassination. Also providing a very important wrinkle is that while Johnny learns relatively early on in the movie that his body is suffering as a result of his psychic ability, there is a suggestion at the end of the novel that an important factor driving him to pick up a gun is being diagnosed with a brain tumor and learning he has only so much time left to live.

Is It Worthy Of The King?

Stephen King has referred to The Dead Zone as being among his favorites of the plot-driven novels that he has written, and watching David Cronenberg’s movie that particular classification stands out. The structure is not just clean cut, but unambiguous, as the narrative elegantly plays out across three acts: first the introduction of Johnny Smith and how he gains his psychic abilities; followed by the heroic albeit taxing exploration of his gift; and finally his sacrifice in the name of stopping the rise of evil. And while the film trims away a lot of the material that gives the book extra flavor, it prioritizes what is captivating, emotional, and thought-provoking about the work, and that’s why it remains one of the all-time best King adaptations.

It’s a different kind of story than what audiences typically expect not only from Stephen King, but also David Cronenberg, best known for his contributions to the body horror subgenre. All the same, the filmmaker adds stylistic flourishes that make heightened scenes from the novel visceral and powerful – arguably the most iconic being Johnny surrounded by fire in his hospital room, and Frank Dodd’s masochistic suicide after being discovered as the Castle Rock Killer. The Dead Zone is more thriller than horror, but still provides exceptional terrible moments that print themselves on the backs of your eyelids.

Perhaps the most special aspect of The Dead Zone, though, is the lead performance by Christopher Walken, who beautifully embodies the character. While the actor is best known for playing more erratic personalities, what he captures so well in Johnny Smith is his everyman quality. What makes the protagonist special is that he is an ordinary individual thrust into the world of the extraordinary, and the way in which Walken carries the burden and weight of that in his turn is perfect.

The film has aged so well that it would be patently unnecessary for any filmmaker to attempt a feature remake. If there were any direction to go with a new adaptation, it would take the material into a medium with more expansive real estate, allowing for proper exploration of all the book’s plot beats as well as deeper exploration into the lives and histories of the characters. But that’s a subject and an argument that I will hold on to for a few months until it is time to explore the 2002 Dead Zone television series.

How To Watch David Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone

It is beyond stupid how long it took for The Dead Zone to finally get an HD home video release, but Paramount finally put one out in September 2020 – including it as part of a Stephen King 5-Movie Collection. That release is super bare bones, though, and if you’re willing to have some patience right now you’ll soon be rewarded. Scream Factory will be releasing a special Collector’s Edition Blu-ray in July that will be packed with special features. If you’re really desperate to scratch your itch and watch the film now, it is available for both digital rental and purchase from major retailers, and is presently streaming on Hulu, Amazon Prime, Philo, Paramount+, and Epix.

For next week’s Adapting Stephen King piece I will once again be examining what happens when two Masters of Horror collide, as I’ll be doing a deep dive into John Carpenter’s Christine. You’ll find it here on CinemaBlend next Wednesday, and for now click through the banners below to explore my previous columns!

It’s been a long time since the film adaptations of Twilight and Lord of the Rings came out, but the fandoms still remain pretty strong. That’s why when such reference-worthy stars from either franchise start a new project, it’s kind of a big deal to a lot of people. Well, one new project is getting a top star from both of these franchises, so fans better hold on to their popcorn! Crimes of the Future is the title of the double whammy of a film, and stars both Twilight's Kristen Stewart and Lord of the Rings’ Viggo Mortensen.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Kristen Stewart and Viggo Mortensen are set to star together in David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future. If that name sounds familiar, you must be a 1970s sci-fi fan. This new project is actually a remake of another film by the same name that is also directed by Cronenberg, who is arguably most well known for directing The Fly.

Yes, that’s right, David Cronenberg is remaking his own film. It kind of makes sense, though, if you really think about it. It’s a sci-fi film that is set in the “not-so-distant” future, and the original was made in 1970. 50 years is a huge chunk of time, and it’s even larger when you think of the technological advances we have made since then, which is kind of important for a sci-fi film. It’s more than enough time to give Cronenberg the means to make the film he had the ideas for 50 years ago.

It totally makes sense that he would cast Viggo Mortensen and Kristen Stewart too. Even if we ignore the fact that they both have very large and very different fan bases, their background and main claim to fame is through their fantasy work. Yes, fantasy isn’t exactly sci-fi, but it’s pretty close. Also, Stewart recently dived into the sci-fi genre with Underwater and Mortensen... well, it’s Viggo Mortensen. Put him in anything, and I will watch it, because he is an amazingly versatile actor. He did play a pretty great dystopian land dweller in The Road, though, and that’s pretty close to sci-fi too.

Even with Kristen Stewart’s and Viggo Mortensen’s somewhat loose connections to the sci-fi genre, David Cronenberg more than makes up for it. Conenberg is one of the kings when it comes to horror and has a recognizable name in sci-fi too - he was even considered to direct Total Recall and turned down directing a Star Wars film, two major additions to sci-fi culture. Cronenberg has also recognized Mortensen for more than just Aragorn in Lord of The Rings for a long time, as they worked together on A History of Violence, so it’s no wonder the filmmaker is keen to work with the actor again.

The Crimes of the Future reboot is still in its early phases and is set to start filming in Greece this August. Although it may not be a film that Twilight and Lord of the Rings fans have come to know from Kristen Stewart and Viggo Mortensen, it’s really not that far off base, and fans may step out of their comfort zone to support the two fan favorites when it's finally released.

Martin Scorsese lit the film community on fire recently when he was heavily critical of the superhero movie genre. Fans were outraged and defensive, and argued amongst themselves about his comments. It's quite the reaction, especially given that Scorsese is far from the first notable director to say something demeaning about Marvel or DC movies.

In fact, he's the latest of many big name directors who have found themselves under scrutiny for being candid about their views on superhero movies. Here are some of the takes from other notable directors, and interestingly enough, a few of these individuals have actually directed a superhero movie or two in the past.

Ridley Scott

Ridley Scott is an acclaimed filmmaker, Oscar nominee and someone who doesn't care all that much for the superhero genre. Apparently, he's been asked to do one a handful of times, but feels like he already did a movie in that vein with Blade Runner. I'm not sure I would consider Rick Deckard a superhero, but he can for sure take a punch!

What's funny is that Ridley Scott has dipped his toe in so many other genres and concepts that superhero films are one of the few remaining genres he has yet to touch. At 81, odds are we may never get to see a Ridley Scott-directed superhero film, which is somewhat disappointing, though he's given us plenty of other great movies to enjoy over the years. If superhero movies aren't his thing, who can fault him for not wanting to take part?

David Fincher

David Fincher hasn't been too keen on the world of superhero movies, but he definitely has one of the more mild takes of this bunch. The director has stated he wouldn't be opposed to making a superhero movie, though he followed it up with the fact he wouldn't do it for a previously established character. Translation: unless he's making an original hero, don't expect it to happen. Hey, at least he doesn't hate the genre entirely!

Some have speculated David Fincher's aversion to outfits like DC and Marvel comes from his experience on Aliens 3, which he has since disowned as a film due to studio interference and other things of that nature. Fincher probably wouldn't mesh well in the MCU (even if he likes the actors attached) then, considering he'd have to follow a pre-established plan for his film and highlight a previously established hero. He may surprise us one day by signing onto something, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

James Mangold

Logan and The Wolverine be damned, James Mangold has a problem with superhero films. Never mind the fact that he's been responsible for those two, and gave actor Hugh Jackman a phenomenal exit to his long-running role as Wolverine. Mangold just isn't a fan of superhero movies and we just need to accept that. How can a director of superhero films be actively against the idea of superhero films?

In his defense, James Mangold said it was his aversion to the tentpole structure of the genre that helped him make Logan. He didn't want to make an overtly long movie with a bloated cast, he wanted a meaningful arc with a conclusion. Typical superhero ensembles have character arcs that he described as being the equivalent of "Elmer Fudd in a Warner Bros. cartoon."

Tim Burton

Tim Burton wow'd audiences with Batman and Batman Returns, and he was involved in the never-released Superman Lives, but he's soured over the years on superhero movies. Burton went on the record in 2014 and credited Marvel for finding a successful formula, but noted he felt the premise was burning out. He also told Yahoo! Movies he was growing weary of the "damaged superhero," and wondered if Marvel couldn't do films on happy heroes.

He's not going to be the director to make that film though, as Burton stated earlier this year that he doesn't see himself doing another superhero movie. It just doesn't interest him anymore, which makes sense. He's been there, done that, and after Batman Returns, he doesn't really have anything left to prove in regards of proving he can do a superhero movie.

Roland Emmerich

To say Roland Emmerich was heavily critical of superhero films may be an understatement, as the director went on a tear about the genre while doing the press tour for Independence Day: Resurgence. Emmerich started out slow, saying he doesn't care much for the concept of superheroes in general. The capes and powers thing went over his head, which he said could be tied to his upbringing in Germany. Hey, superhero films aren't for everyone, it's understandable.

Or at least, it would've been, but then Emmerich suggested that superhero movies were all just copying what he did in Independence Day. Apparently, Emmerich believed that the teams behind Man of Steel and The Avengers saw aliens destroying buildings in his movie, and they decided to add it in their films. It was a bold and questionable claim, and the internet reacted accordingly. It turns out the masses didn't agree that the past 20 years of the genre was all because of his movie.

David Cronenberg

David Cronenberg is known for films that have been pretty out there in premise and execution, so it shouldn't be too surprising he isn't keen on the superhero genre. The director famously went on a rant about the genre in 2012, which many thought was a direct call out to Christopher Nolan and his recently released Batman flick The Dark Knight Rises. Cronenberg called Memento Nolan's best movie, and said his Batman movies are half as interesting.

Cronenberg later said his criticism was more meant to be taken for the genre as a whole and not to be a direct criticism of Nolan. Ironically, Cronenberg's comments came when he was promoting his Robert-Pattinson-led Cosmopolis. Will Cronenberg soften his thoughts on superhero films now that one of his former stars is playing Batman?

Martin Scorsese Clarifies Controversial Comments About Marvel Movies

When a director has something to say, CinemaBlend will be there to report on it. Stick with us for that and for the latest and greatest in movie and television news.

Stranger Things has been dropping nods and references to classic '80s movies from the very beginning, and drawing clear inspiration from projects like E.T. and Stand by Me. The upcoming third season was influenced by a number of films as well, although one of them technically comes from the early '90s.

Stranger Things showrunners Matt and Ross Duffer are keeping a pretty tight lid on spoilers, but they did reveal several movies that inspired the third season. Take a look:

Fans may have had reason to expect that Stranger Things Season 3 would be packed with references to and inspiration from '80s movies, but there are definitely some surprises in there. In fact, not all of the movies revealed to EW by the Duffer brothers were even out by the summer of 1985, which is when Season 3 is set. So, let's take a look at these movies and consider how they might influence the next batch of episodes.

Indiana Jones. The Duffer brothers apparently didn't specify if it was Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, or The Last Crusade that inspired Stranger Things Season 3. (I'm just going to assume that it wasn't Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.) Perhaps it was more the tone of the films than any specific event or plot. Then again, maybe there are specific elements from all three movies that will be included, and the Duffers just didn't want to bother listing all three separately.

Interestingly, Stranger Things has included homages to Indiana Jones before with relation to Hopper. In Season 2, he even went back to grab his hat in the Upside Down tunnels despite a threat to his life. Would I be on board with somebody needing to flee a monster like Indy from the boulder in Raiders? Absolutely. But the nods could be more subtle than that. The Last Crusade came out four years after Season 3 is set, so we shouldn't expect anybody overly referencing that movie.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is a comedy that features some older and younger high school kids, including one who gets embarrassed when he's caught wearing a pirate costume to make a food delivery for his job. It's probably safe to say Fast Times at Ridgemont High was an inspiration for Steve and Dustin's story, along with new character Robin and (based on first looks at Season 3) everybody's favorite breakout character from Season 2.

The Thing. This movie is definitely not a comedy, so I'm guessing it won't involve Steve and Dustin as much as other characters. In the classic sci-fi horror movie, an extraterrestrial parasite takes over the bodies and minds of people. The Thing has a group of characters isolated, and the paranoia as they lose track of who is and isn't taken over results in serious conflict.

Based on the trailer that shows some folks in Hawkins looking somewhat zombie-esque, there could definitely be a parasite taking over locals. Will the characters lose their trust in each other?

Romancing the Stone. This movie is packed with romance, comedy, action, and adventure as Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas' characters follow a map to try and find treasure and save a family member. Although Stranger Things Season 3 is being touted as the "summer of love" and footage has showcased Mike and Eleven's romance over others, my money is on Nancy and Jonathan's story as the one inspired by Romancing the Stone. The treasure they're searching for probably isn't an emerald, but rather the truth.

I could see it as Hopper and Joyce's story, but it feels more Nancy and Jonathan, who seem to be working for a newspaper in Season 3. Besides, Hopper and Joyce are supposed to be the responsible ones in the story, right?

Midnight Run. This is another movie that came out after 1985, so we shouldn't get any characters mentioning Midnight Run specifically. This is also the movie that I'm betting is the inspiration for Hopper and Joyce's storyline. In Midnight Run, one of the major characters was once a big city cop, and the protagonists are struggling with the authorities and confidential information. Again, this could work for Nancy and Jonathan as well, so I could be wrong. We'll have to wait and see.

Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park was produced in an entirely different decade than Stranger Things, so the kids of the show are still eight years away from being able to endlessly quote the iconic dino film. Interestingly, a lot of Stranger Things fans felt there were some serious Jurassic vibes from the Season 2 sequence of Bob switching on the power at Hawkins Lab, a la Dr. Sattler in Jurassic Park. Will Stranger Things be more overt in Season 3? Perhaps recreate some iconic scenes with a monster instead of a dinosaur?

David Cronenberg films. David Cronenberg is one of the pioneers of the body horror genre of films, with films like Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, and The Fly to his name. Since the Duffer brothers didn't mention any specific Cronenberg film -- one of which could have been Return of the Jedi if he hadn't turned it down -- then we may want to just count on a lot of grossness. Could it be even grosser than Season 1, with the Demogorgon drooling over Jonathan, and Season 2, with demodogs ripping Bob apart? I'm guessing yes.

Fortunately, the Season 3 premiere of Stranger Things is finally coming up. The hiatus following Season 2 will have lasted for more than a year and a half by the time Season 3 debuts on July 4, 2019, so fans are more than ready for some new episodes. It will bring back New Coke, of all things, and probably plenty more '80s classics. It also won't be the last season, but hopefully future seasons will premiere after a shorter hiatus.

Star Wars history is full of fascinating directorial what-ifs; realities that were possible, but never came to be. What if Ron Howard directed Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? What if Lord and Miller finished directing Solo: A Star Wars Story? And what if any number of names approached, from Guillermo del Toro to David Fincher to Brad Bird, directed The Force Awakens? It's compelling to think about how those films might have been different with someone else behind the camera. On the surface, all of those names make sense for a galaxy far, far away, but perhaps the strangest possibility that didn't happen was David Cronenberg directing Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. The director of The Fly and Videodrome actually turned down the opportunity to direct the last of the original trilogy, as he remembered:

This is definitley a funny story, and I can't imagine the look on the caller's face when David Cronenberg responded in such a way. Star Wars wasn't some unknown quantity at the point of this call; it was a massive cultural phenomenon that you would think any director would jump at the chance to be a part of. So when David Cronenberg equivocated over the fact that he wasn't used to directing someone else's script and wasn't even interested in taking a meeting and considering it, he was met with stunned silence. The caller was apparently either so offended, or so lost for words or some combination of the two, that he or she just hung up on David Cronenberg.

Based on what he told Entertainment Weekly, David Cronenberg does seem to chalk up turning down the then titled Revenge of the Jedi to the arrogance of youth, and not wanting to direct someone else's material. That's not an uncommon sentiment either, just the other day we heard that Bradley Cooper didn't want to direct Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 because he couldn't direct something he didn't also write. Cronenberg eventually changed his position on that, and he has directed other people's scripts over the course of his career since then-- but at the time he didn't really do that. The director does seem like he's a bit curious about the what-if of it all, but also expressed that he felt being boxed in to an existing world would have been frustrating creatively.

David Cronenberg isn't the only famous name approached in the search for a director for Return of the Jedi before Richard Marquand got the job. The long-standing rumor is that George Lucas' first choice to direct Return of the Jedi was his friend Steven Spielberg, but Spielberg was unable to do it because of George Lucas quitting the director's guild. While we all would like to see Spielberg take on Star Wars, it might not have been that different. Yet another possible director for the third film in the original trilogy is one that may seem even more wild than David Cronenberg, and that's David Lynch. That's another wild possibility that's hard to imagine. Either way, I don't think that the Ewoks would have fared too well or been nearly as cute and cuddly.

Check out our guide for all of the upcoming Star Wars movies, real and rumored and for all the latest in movie news, stay tuned to CinemaBlend.

It goes without saying that the internet has done its part to completely change the world of film criticism - however, it's arguable whether its been for the better or worse. The technology provides a platform for everybody's opinion to be heard, but at the same time so many voices can drown out the professional, educated ones. It's obviously a rather divisive issue, but it's one that director David Cronenberg has taken a staunch position on - while aiming a good portion of the blame at Rotten Tomatoes.

The great Canadian filmmaker recently revealed his thoughts about the online review aggregator during an interview with CBC News, suggesting that the site's parameters for who should and shouldn't be considered a film critic are currently far too lax. Cronenberg noted that there are writers - namely those designated 'Top Critics' by Rotten Tomatoes - who he considers "legitimate" and are connected to reputable websites, but added that there are far too many other less qualified people who have their opinions weighted in equal measure. Said the director,

He added that the internet has been a positive force in some respects, as it has provided a way for some talented writers to have their voices heard, but ultimately he believes "it's diluted the effective critics."

While I will agree with David Cronenberg to a certain degree in his argument, I actually think that he's missing the larger issue that comes with Rotten Tomatoes and other review aggregate operations. Those kinds of sites are great for determining what kind of buzz a movie is getting, but where they become a problem is when people simply focus on the percent score and don't actually bother to look at the opinions and reasons for how that score was earned. As a film critic who personally puts a lot of hard work and time into the reviews I write, I hate to think that some people will simply see my opinions as either a plus or a minus to a number that doesn't necessarily properly reflect the quality of a particular movie.

It's interesting that David Cronenberg would be the one to come out talking about this given how well Rotten Tomatoes has treated him over the last few years, as every post-2000 film he has made has received a 'Fresh' rating - but that almost helps his argument given that it doesn't really seem to be coming from an emotional angle. Do you agree with his thoughts about modern film criticism and the role played by aggregate sites? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.

With films like The Fly, Videodrome and eXistenZ, David Cronenberg's name has become synonymous with body horror. But in his latest, Maps to the Stars, Cronenberg's brand of horror is one of metaphorical human damage. And surprisingly, filling his film with Hollywood satire and deeply evil people, he's made what might well be the most hilarious film playing at the New York Film Festival.

Maps to the Stars is a Greek tragedy, chiseled in the heart of Hollywood, introducing us to an ensemble of stars, wannabes and has-beens, whose lives will all collide in a fateful climax. There's Agatha (Mia Wasikowska) a newbie to Los Angeles, with a pleasant demeanor and terrible scars from a childhood fire, Robert Pattinson as a a limo driver/aspiring actor/writer (because of course), and child star Benjie Weiss (Evan Bird), who is essentially Home Alone-era Macaulay Culkin mixed with scandal-era Justin Bieber. Then there's John Cusack as a psychobabble Hollywood guru, Olivia Williams as a steely stage mom, and Julianne Moore as a fading star fighting against time and for a comeback. Each is in ways hideous and hysterical, but in a brand of comedy that not for everyone.

It could be said that Cronenberg's Cosmopolis was a comedy, admittedly of the pitch-black variety. Maps to the Stars is as well, though this one earns flat out guffaws over nervous chuckles. Most of these won from scenes of grand depravity and ghoulish acts of selfishness or obliviousness. "So how did you get AIDS, Cami?" asks a blasé Benjie as he visits a sick fan, who--for the record suffers from Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Out of context, this may not seem like much of a joke, but within the stylish but soulless world of Cronenberg's Hollywood, this is a major laugh line. (My apologies to anyone's eardrums my own laugh may have injured at the press screening.)

Maps to the Stars is satirical, pushing the self-obsession, new wave medicine, and lust for fame of Hollywood to absurd places and a jaw-dropping finale. But between namedropping gags that target everyone from Gary Marshall to Robert Downey Jr. and Demi Lovato, Cronenberg has carved out a parable about sin and its retribution. None of these terrible people will escape doom. And as bleak as that sounds, watching them race toward it is strikingly entertaining, and at time poignant.

There's a staccato delivery to the casts' performances here that takes some getting used to, but it does set up this heightened reality where stars are monsters and ghosts serve as spirits of vengeance. The pill-popping celebs within Maps to the Stars worry they are hallucinating long lost and loathed mothers and disappointed dead girls, but there's hints in this telling that suggest there's more to these nightmares than delusion. But to say more would be to give too much away. Instead, let me sing the praises of this fearless and largely flawless cast.

Mia Wasikowska is hypnotic as the enigmatic Agatha. With a tender chemistry, she and Evan Bird managed to earn audience empathy, even after revealing dark secrets and ugly natures. John Cusack is chilling and bleakly bawdy as a gruesomely pragmatic Hollywood healer. Robert Pattinson has a small role, but uses it to continue to carve out a path apart from his Twilight dreamboat niche, wallowing in a chance to be repulsive. Sarah Gadon (also of Cosmopolis) offers a turn so unnerving that she should be getting a call from Ryan Murphy for American Horror Story, as does Kiara Glasco in a small role as a divine ghost girl. But it's Julianne Moore who owns this movie.

Moore has long been heralded for the risks she'll take in cinema. She'll go nude. She'll do lesbian sex scenes. She'll say horrendous things as the script demands. She'll look ugly or look the fool. Here, she does all of the above while offering what I'd call one of the best performances of her career.

With her cruelly bleached out hair, petulant nature, and willful delusions of self-import Havana Segrand seems an older analogue to Lindsay Lohan. But Moore is by no means attempting an impersonation. Instead, she crafts a woman who is deeply damaged. She is shallow. She is selfish. She is vile. And in Moore's hands she is completely captivating from every snotty remark, shriek, and half-hearted attempt at self-improvement.

All in all, Maps to the Stars is challenging and bold. Of course it is, it's Cronenberg. But this auteur who revels in giving audiences something sickening does so this time with a critical eye at celebrity and its headquarters that makes for a deranged but wildly funny film. Maps to the Stars is mythic, macabre and merciless. And I loved every twisted minute of it.

Map to the Stars will make its U.S. Premiere at NYFF on Saturday Sept 27th.

As a horror fan, it’s been a frightfully good time paying attention to this year’s Comic-Con, which has unveiled everything from an Evil Dead TV series to a suspense-filled Walking Dead trailer. And now, because everyone knows a little head explosion never hurt anyone, here’s an update on the barely-discussed TV series adaptation of David Cronenberg’s Scanners.

Two years ago, Dimension Films and everyone’s favorite institution The Weinstein Co. partnered up with High Tension director Alexandre Aja to turn the telekinetic thriller into a worthwhile series, and then…nothing. Aja went on to co-script last year’s Maniac remake and is currently at Comic-Con promoting Horns, his adaptation of the demonically stellar Joe Hill novel. (That film has had its own share of issues in getting to a release.) Thankfully, Shock Till You Drop had the presence of mind to ask the filmmaker about Scanners when they caught up with him. And Aja’s words are somewhat surprising.

Did he just slam Cronenberg’s Scanners, or was his tone lost in translation? In any case, STYD also reported Aja’s claims that the series has found a home, but that any more details on that matter would have to wait. Everything about this project screams “cable,” so let’s hope CBS and The CW has zero interest.

Telepaths don’t get the most attention on TV (probably because telepathy isn't real), and Scanners would be a worthy way for the subject matter to be approached. In the film, which Cronenberg also wrote, the security and weapons corporation ConSec uses scanners (people who can hear others’ thoughts and control their body functions) for their own nefarious means. One angry scanner, Darryl Revok (Michael Ironside), is dead set on revolting against ConSec by any means necessary, and the company tasks a powerful scanner, Cameron Vale (Stephen Lack), to track him down and stop him.

Cronenberg hasn’t made a project like this in quite a long time, and while I’m usually against remakes and expansions of this sort, I’m interested to see if Aja can bring a grander scale to the underused body horror sub-genre. A TV show seems like a better option than a 90-minute movie remake, which was also in the cards at one point. Maybe I should have my head examined.

Hollywood’s streets are littered with the scraps of "What if?" stories that have tumbled off faulty casting couches. What if Tom Selleck had starred in Raiders of the Lost Ark instead of Harrison Ford? What if Eric Stoltz had stayed in Back to the Future instead of Michael J. Fox? And a new, horror-centric one just crossed our desk that we’re eager to share.

In an interview with the Toronto-based In Magazine (via The Playlist), the great John Lithgow admits that he was offered the part of Seth Brundle in David Cronenberg’s 1986 version of The Fly, but passed on the role because it was "icky." Said Lithgow:

At the time, John Lithgow was either coming off of either Peter Hyams’ 2010, or possibly The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, which could have been a labor-intensive shoot. It’s likely Lithgow read the screenplay for The Fly, or even spoke with David Cronenberg about the heavy make-up process that woud be involved with telling author George Langelaan’s story, and didn’t want to endure the lengthy pre-visualization process that would be necessary to create this:

Jeff Goldblum, on the flipside, was coming off of 1983’s The Big Chill, and had 1985’s Transylvania 6-5000 in the can before he took on The Fly. And while David Cronenberg’s movie has been one of the movies that turned him into a viable leading man, it probably still ranks right behind Jurassic Park on a list of "definitive" roles for Jeff Goldblum. I mean, how does Brundle Fly possibly hope to contend against the ridiculously confident Dr. Ian Malcolm?

John Lithgow, meanwhile, didn’t suffer by passing on The Fly. He had a hit on his hands a few years after with Harry and the Hendersons, and has stayed consistently busy in movies and on television. He might have made for an excellent Brundle, but his performance remains on the heap of "Could Have Been" opportunities that fans cling to, in dreams.

Kinky, off-center, and borderline inscrutable. Those words have come to define the latter-day work of David Cronenberg, director of Maps To The Stars, the trailer for which you can see above. This macabre drama spotlights a broken legacy of a Hollywood family, each member hiding dirty secrets and bizarre obsessions. Things get psychosexual and even a little supernatural, and early word suggests this moody drama has got something for everybody.

This trailer appears to be a very early peek at the movie - so early, in fact, that it actually looks more like a sizzle reel - so the language and some of the content (LIMO SEX) is a little on the NSFW side. And while it looks plenty chatty, it also seems like the whole thing builds to some violence and/or a tragic death, particularly involving kids. Would YOU let your kid pop up in a Cronenberg movie? I mean, yikes.

Written by Bruce Wagner, the long-in-the-works film re-teams Cronenberg with the actor who may very well be his new muse. Twilight hunk Robert Pattinson previously worked with the director on the wickedly complex and unusual Cosmopolis, which dove into peculiar themes about free market and the dissolution of communication. The movie almost feels like it's in a foreign, possibly invented language itself. Such is the appeal of the mystery of that film, an elegiac story of a Faustian businessman letting the structures surrounding him fall to their destruction. If you've only given it one chance, you may want to consider giving it a second. You can start by giving the trailer a look below:

Pattinson is joined here by a fierce cast. Mia Wasikowska and Julianne Moore are present, making this a strange The Kids Are All Right reunion. Olivia Williams and Sarah Gadon also pop up in the trailer, Gadon being another holdover from Cosmopolis as well as Cronenberg's 2011 film A Dangerous Method. Strangest of all, however, is the presence of John Cusack, who has never previously worked with with the movie's director. Where Cusack stands currently in his career is a bit of a mystery: he's done some dodgy low budget stuff as of late, but teaming with the Canadian mastermind behind Videodrome, The Fly and A History Of Violence is probably a smart decision for the enigmatic actor.

Few directors have had such noticeable career arcs as mad genius David Cronenberg. His early career was filled with paranoid science fiction that thrived on mutilated humans, and that aesthetic was left behind and a more thoughtful approach to the stranger plateaus of the human condition took over his work during the 1990s. And in the last ten years, he’s given us a handful of stories drowning in gritty realism as well as an uncharacteristic novel adaptation and the birth of psychoanalysis.

So of course it makes sense that his next project would have one of the stranger plotlines around, but as per usual, he’s got a great cast already involved. Variety reports Julianne Moore, John Cusack, Robert Pattinson and Sara Gadon have all signed on for Cronenberg’s thriller Maps to the Stars. If any of this sounds familiar to you, it’s because Cronenberg has been developing the film since 2006, and even last year it attracted the talents of Rachel Weisz and Viggo Mortensen, as well as Pattinson. But this time, it’s for real.

Cronenberg will be working with the screenplay written by Bruce Wagner, who is most known for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 and a bunch of State of the Union episodes. It seems like it will have changed from the earlier 2006 draft, as that was referred to as a dark dramedy, and this is a thriller. In particular, the only plot points given out were that it’s a ghost story and the film will be a scathing attack on the celebrity-obsessed side of L.A. Because those two things go hand in ghostly hand.

This will be Moore and Cusack’s first time working with the director, but both Gadon and Pattinson were in Cosmopolis, while Gadon was also in A Dangerous Method.

Maps to the Stars is being co-financed by Entertainment One Films and Prospero Pictures, and will begin production in July, filming in Toronto and Los Angeles.

If you've ever seen a David Cronenberg film, you'll probably agree the writer-director of such bizarre features as The Fly, Videodrome, and eXistenZ marches to the beat of his own drum. So maybe it won't surprise you to discover Cronenberg isn't a fan of superhero movies. Actually, he kind of loathes them.

While promoting his latest odd odyssey, Cosmopolis, Cronenberg spoke with Next Movie, and revealed his thoughts on the genre that has long dominated summer box offices. With so many respected directors (Kenneth Branagh, Christopher Nolan, and Michel Gondry just name a few) attempting to elevate the genre, the interviewer inquired, would Cronenberg ever consider helming a superhero adventure? The short answer is no, but specifically, he replied:

This is sure to be considered fighting words to the hoards of devoted Nolan fans who made such an uproar about any negative word about The Dark Knight Rises about its opening. But Cronenberg ups the ante by attacking comic books directly, declaring:

He goes on to say he's aware some people feel horror movies—of which he's made many—can't be considered art, but he believes a horror film can also be an art film. The difference between his preferred genre and superhero movies, he suggests, lies in part in budgets and studio expectations. He posits that superhero movies with their enormous budgets and star-studded casts attract a lot of studio oversight, and he believes this damages the artistic integrity of a movie:

Personally, I think he makes an interesting point about the power struggle between studios and their directors. One reason many felt The Avengers was such a successful film was that Marvel Studios and Paramount Pictures backed writer-director Joss Whedon's instincts on the project, from bringing back The Black Widow, to focusing on Loki, to not revealing the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier in Captain America's finale.However, I do think it's unreasonable to write off comics and their adaptations so casually. As a horror movie director, you'd think he'd better realize that any genre can produce cinematic excellence.

Eastern Promises isn’t the first movie that comes to mind when you are asked to name the seminal David Cronenberg films. The Fly, Naked Lunch and even A History of Violence likely come before it. But Eastern Promises remains a rock-solid crime thriller, a continuation of Cronenberg’s outstanding collaboration with Viggo Mortensen that also boasts a memorable turn by the regularly great Vincent Cassel. And it actually was supposed to get a sequel...but Cronenberg now says that’s no longer happening.

The director is on the media circuit this week talking up Cosmopolis, his adaptation of Don Delillo’s novel that casts Robert Pattinson as a limo-riding asset manager dealing with a day’s worth of obstacles, and while talking with The Playlist the filmmaker Cronenberg admitted that while Promises sequel was meant to be his next project it's now dead, “We were supposed to start shooting Eastern Promises 2 in October," Croneberg said. "[But] It's done. ... If you don't like it talk to James Schamus at Focus. It was his decision."

In Schamus’ defense, Eastern Promises only banked $17.2M in the States … which is not exactly sequel dollars. But it added an additional $38.8M overseas, where Cronenberg’s name helps sell tickets and if the director had an idea for a Promises sequel (with the talent ready to return), we’d argue that he deserves the right to tell the story.

Maybe the power of Robert Pattinson will help Cosmopolis to break the bank, and Entertainment One (who has partnered with Cronenberg at the moment) will want to stay in business by bankrolling the Eastern Promises sequel. There certainly are plenty of stories to tell in that environment – though I’m hesitant to talk too much about the Promises plot because it’s rife with secrets and twists that shouldn’t be spoiled here. For now Eastern Promises 2 is dead and we’re left to wonder where Cronenberg will head next.

We're dying to see what will result from the unlikely team of David Cronenberg and Robert Pattinson in Cosmopolis, the new film from the Canadian director that's premiering at Cannes this week. Will Cronenberg be able to help Pattinson give the kind of performance that hasn't been evident in any of the Twilight movies? Will the slightly trippy material get Cronenberg back to his freaky roots and away from the dull likes of A Dangerous Method? Everyone at Cannes is getting ready to find out, while the rest of us have to wait patiently for the film's actual release.

But even after Cosmopolis opens, we may find ourselves waiting impatiently for an entirely different Cronenberg/Pattinson collaboration. Talking to the French magazine Inrockuptibles (via Bleeding Cool), Pattinson revealed that he and Cronenberg are already planning a reunion, and this one in a location that will keep them pretty close to Cannes:

That uncertainty about when they'll start filming is probably because Cronenberg has about half a dozen other projects he's been talking about making recently. Primary among them is a sequel to Eastern Promises, which Cronenberg has talked about seriously several times recently, and which seems like the perfect opportunity for him and Viggo Mortensen to get back together. Is Robert Pattinson becoming Cronenberg's new muse and getting all the good stuff? Or have Cronenberg and Pattinson just had time to chat at Cannes and make plans for a reunion at some point in the future? Of course we have no idea, and independent productions like Cronenberg's are usually determined much more by where the money comes from and when than what they actually want to make next. But if it turns out that Cosmopolis is a masterpiece, know that a second Pattinson/Cronenberg collaboration could be right around the corner.

What does a guy have to go through to get a damn haircut in Manhattan these days? If you’re Robert Pattinson, starring in David Cronenberg’s adaptation of Cosmopolis, the short answer is, "A lot." This clip from the upcoming movie (which was posted to Commeaucinema.com) gives you a pretty good idea of some of the hardships Mr. Twilight will endure in this Cannes Film Festival entry. Check it out below:

That busted-up stretch limo shepherds Pattinson’s character, Eric Packer, around New York City as he avoids traffic jams, dodges his difficult ex-wife, and buys and sells the futures of his financial clients. Who’s that shooting at RPatz? Well, that’s for us to eventually find out, I suppose. He seems so unfazed by the fact that someone is trying to take his life. Then, of course, he returns the fire … and the clip ends. Bizarre.

Cronenberg directs from Don DeLillo’s best-selling book, surrounding Pattinson with the cream of the crop for supporting talents. Paul Giamatti. Juliette Binoche. Samantha Morton. Pattinson should be in good hands. But trailers and clips for this, so far, have been off-the-charts strange. That’s not a bad thing. Maybe this is Cronenberg trying to do his After Hours or Talk Radio, in which case, we’re in for a sleazy treat. We’ll know more soon. Cosmopolis should reach theaters later this year.

What are we supposed to make of Cosmopolis? It's the new film from David Cronenberg, which automatically gets one segment of the film-loving world excited, and it's also the new film starring Robert Pattinson, which gets a much bigger segment of the world in general excited. But from what we've seen so far it's pretty much nothing like what we've seen from either of them lately-- Cronenberg is coming off the stuffy period drama A Dangerous Method, Pattinson is coming off the Twilight franchise, and Cosmopolis looks absolutely nothing like either of them.

The first trailers have given us a pretty good sense of the movie's strangeness, but it gets even weirder when you watch a full-length clip, like this one below.

So, it looks like pretty much none of this is happening in a real world, as much as it may look like authentic New York. Everything that Pattinson and the mysterious woman say feels arch and strained, and I promise that's not just Pattinson's stiff Twilight acting coming forward-- that's deliberate writing to make everything feel a little unreal. It gets even weirder, of course, when the protesters holding rats enter the room, and though their chant sounds ominous when you first hear it-- "A spectre is haunting the world!'-- what does it actually mean? It's like Cronenberg, adapting Don DeLillo's novel, is deliberate picking words that sound powerful, but arranging them in a way that they're just slightly meaningless.

As inscrutable as Cosmopolis seems right now, it's also completely fascinating, and with the Cannes premiere coming in a few weeks we'll know soon if this oddball gamble has paid off. Let us know in the comments

If you're worried you're a little too excited about David Cronenberg's upcoming Cosmopolis, don't worry-- the new trailer for the film is surely even more excited than you are. Boldly claiming that it's "finally the first film about our new millennium," this glimpse at the film is longer than the ones we've seen before, heavier on dialogue and cameos from a lot of recognizable actors, and yet, just as inscrutable. That's totally a good thing, mind you, but when you get to that big claim at the end and the long list of famous names, the hard sell begins to get a little… well, weary. See for yourself in the trailer below.

What I like is that the trailer for the movie boasting about its relevance to our modern age is also so damn weird, with the giant rat crawling through the streets, Robert Pattinson sitting in the back seat of a limo making what seem to be illicit deals, and a lot of people talking in big terms but not really making any sense. It's disorienting just to watch this trailer, after Cronenberg's last film A Dangerous Method seemed to adopt the stiff and formal rules of the period, it's fantastic to see the director of The Fly once again cutting loose. Taken with the earlier trailer, there seems to be a lot of strangeness to reckon with here.

Cosmopolis will premiere at the Cannes Film Festival next month, but we're going to have to wait a little longer to see it here in the States. If the movie follows through on the promise we're seeing in these trailers, though, we probably won't have to wait all that long.

This year was already shaping up nicely for fans of filmmaker David Cronenberg. His latest release A Dangerous Method is currently in theaters, and while his next film Cosmopolis is still in post-production without an official release date, a Toronto International Film Festival is now looking likely thanks to some interesting news from up north.

With the help of the Canadian government, the festival (TIFF) is planning a large interactive retrospective of Cronenberg's work; the grant proposal for government funding was called "The Worlds of David Cronenberg: An Augmented Reality Game." A what? Well, at it's most basic, an ARG is essentially any game where the real world is augmented by a computer generated sensory experience. Here's a basic example of the principle at work in the trailer for Sony's Reality Fighters on the PS Vita.

Pretty awesome right? Now, imagine that gaming experience extrapolated online and onto multiple platforms, including social media tools and locative services (like GPS), and utilizing the latest 3D modelling technology in order to recreate the characters, narratives and worlds of David Cronenberg's films. And you get to use all this advanced tech in what the TIFF proposal describes as "stylized social-media meets psychological-thriller game play."

The job posting on the TIFF website (for a "Project Manager, David Cronenberg Augmented Reality Game") offers a few more important details about the project, including what appears to be the actual title of the game - "Body/Mind/Change." - as well as their projected development schedule. The post says that the game will be launched in phases with playable content ready for September 2012. I don't think it's a coincidence that TIFF is hoping to have this Cronenberg ARG at least partially ready for the Film Festival next fall. The game should be completed in its entirely by the end of 2013.

Could you possibly think of a more fitting tribute (or retrospective) for the man known for his exploration of the mind, the body and our ever changing and immersive relationship with technology than this? The last screenplay Cronenberg wrote himself was eXistenZ. A natural profession of the ideas he explored in Videodrome, eXistenZ is about the future of gaming as well as the accompanying loss of agency and blurring reality that comes with the exploration of virtual worlds achieved through a marriage of biology and technology. Well, gaming may not have come that far yet, but we'll all get a chance to immerse ourselves in the fantastical, deranged and oddly beautiful worlds that David Cronenberg has created over the last 40 years. I don't fully know what to expect, all I know is I can't wait to find out more... but I'm not getting a bio-port.

Here's the full description of the project from the Government of Ontario website,

David Cronenberg's new movie might not be what you expect from the famously provocative director behind The Fly and Scanners, or even more recently the guy who put Viggo Mortensen through the wringer (and into an unforgettable shower scene) in A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. A Dangerous Method, the Cronenberg film that opens Wednesday, deals with psychoanalysis and hysteria and sexual violence, but almost always in words instead of action. It's the story of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, their friendship and how it was tested by a woman named Sabina Spielrein, who started out as Jung's half-mad patient and soon became a prominent psychoanalyst herself. Instead of letting the camera dive into Sabina's hysterical mind or linger on the S&M sex sessions between her and Jung, the movie-- adapted from a play by Christopher Hampton-- is steady and talky, allowing these brilliant minds to communicate in words rather than action.

But this is Cronenberg-- all that talking is as deliberate and well-crafted as anything else he's made in his career, and this time he's swapping out visceral body-horror for more intellectual discomfort for the audience. I spent half an hour talking to Cronenberg last month about A Dangerous Method, starting with the fact that he kicks off the movie with Sabina (Keira Knightley) in the midst of a hysterical fit, deliberately trying to throw off the audience. From there we talked about his reunion in this film with his Eastern Promises stars Viggo Mortensen and Vincent Cassel, his interest in the history of early 20th century Vienna, and then got really technical about how he learned his own camera style over the years-- it's a must-read for any aspiring filmmakers out there. There are also a few nuggets about his work with Robert Pattinson for the upcoming Cosmopolis, and one moment when he offhandedly mentions directors who do 99 or 100 takes and how he sees that as "madness, frankly." So I guess we can assume Cronenberg and David Fincher won't be working as co-directors any time soon.

Check out the conversation below, and see A Dangerous Method in limited release this weekend.

People have been asking you a lot about Keira Knightley's performance, and its not just that she's playing this incredibly extreme hysterical character, but that she's literally the first thing we see in the movie. Did you feel like you had to help the audience get into it at all, or did you want to just toss us in there with her? There's the opening credits sequence, but it's still a pretty jarring start.

Yes, that's good. People say "it made me very uncomfortable," and comfort is not what I'm selling really. I don't think movies are comfort food. Some movies are, but that's not what I"m interested in making. I don't mind that it should disorient people at the beginning, but I would hope that by the end of the movie they realize that, because of how beautifully modulated Keira's performance is, that that's quite accurate. That's an accurate depiction of what was called hysteria. You can't have her sit there and be mildly neurotic or something like that, because that's not what it was.

The research that we did included notes that Jung made about what Sabine's symptoms were. Incredible facial tics and deformations, inability to speak, partial paralysis, distortions of her body and posture. Keira and I talked about what the meaning of this was, and basically I felt that it was a symptom of the times, the repression of women and their sexuality. They were idolized, they were worshiped, they were put on a pedestal, they were made to be goddesses, but of course that's a trap, that's a cage. If you're a goddess you don't defecate, you don't have sexual desires, you don't masturbate, you don't do any of those things. Those were unspeakable things. And here's a woman who is saying that her father beating her sexually excites her and makes her masturbate, this is unspeakable. So we're saying part of her is trying to speak these words and part of her is trying to repress these words. I said to Keira, it really has to be in your face. She said, should I just do in the body so you can cut around it? I said no, I'm not going to cut around it.

I think people's misunderstanding-- and yeah, you can blame me for not providing the context- I felt really what are you going to do, have somebody lecture? It's boring. I'm depending on my audience's understanding and intelligence. I can understand them having that initial reaction, thinking wow, this is really extreme, but then later realizing what it's all about. We ultimately felt that we were being rather subdued. When you look at the real stuff, it's totally unwatchable, and it's slightly comic too. You can't believe these people are repeating these weird twists and tics. It's very disturbing.

Otto Gross kind of shows up and careens through the story. How did you pick Vincent Cassel for that role and then decide to keep him in the movie in that form, as kind of the force of chaos?

Otto is kind of an irresistible character. He was a proto-hippie. He lived on a commune, he was a vegetarian, he believed in free love, he took drugs, he slept with his patients-- he would have fit in perfectly in the 60s in America. But because he was sent by Freud to go to Jung for therapy, and actually did have an influence on Jung in terms of his relationship with Sabine, it made sense for him to be an actual character. Jung says "He's dangerous to me because he's so convincing"-- we need to see him be convincing. We need to see what this guy is.

Vincent-- well, with casting, there's so many factors you have to consider. Primarily, there are only a couple of photos of Otto Gross, and he looks like Vincent. It's a Canada-Europe co-production, so because Vincent is European, we can have him. This is a consideration with casting-- what is their passport? And can we afford them? All of these things you have to take into account. It's not just "I'll have anybody I want." And he was excited to do it. And it's ironic because he's in a movie with Viggo, but they don't have any scenes together.

What's the value in having that existing working relationship with Viggo and Vincent Cassel, as opposed to that process of discovery working with someone like Keira for the first time?

You can't possibly work with only people you know, but on the other hand it gives everybody some stability and comfort to have familiarity around. It's a matter of trust, and your faith in your own ability to assess their talent. For example, Viggo is not obvious casting for Sigmund Freud. But because I know him and I know his research and the depth of preparation and devotion to a project, I was confident that he could be the Freud of my dreams. Would I have thought of that if I had never worked with Viggo before? Probably not.

There's a lot of history around this story, like the impending world wars and all the historical knowledge we have about Freud. Obviously you're really interested in that stuff, but where did you decide to put it in and where to let the audience figure it out?

Mostly it was Christopher. It's true that I did edit his script and make suggestions and cut some things. It is intuitive. You want to give your audience enough, but you don't want to give them too much to absorb. This movie, if you see it a second time, a lot of things will be much clearer. These people were very articulate, they spoke quickly, they used big words and they used very abstract concepts. It's a lot to absorb for a modern audience. But it's always a question of balance in a script, especially a historical one.

There's one specific shot in the movie that I have to ask about. It happens after the sex scene, and Keira is sitting on the couch with her breast poking out of her corset in this really, really uncomfortable looking way. That has to be deliberate-- why did you set up the shot that way?

What's interesting is my wife and I just went to the de Kooning exhibit at MoMA, and one of his portraits is called Woman Sitting, and it's exactly Keira (click here to see the portrait). Her left nipple is showing above a corset as she sits. It's extraordinary, and I had no idea. I thought, it's something archetypal about this. When she sat there that's what happened, and I decided that it was terrific. At that moment she's in a position of power. She's about to tell Jung that she's going to leave to study and she might even study with Freud, and she's feeling her power, and she's also no longer ashamed of her masochism and her sexuality and her slightly perverse bondage beating sexuality. Then she just ignores it, and she's not even almost conscious of it. For her, we don't think it was discomfort. She even said to me, "Would I even be sitting after getting whacked on the rear like that?" And I said, "Well, you're a masochist remember, so it's fine." So I felt it was brazen of Sabine, deliberately brazen. If that's what happened she would let it happen, and she's no longer going to repress herself in any way.

There are a lot of ways to display mental instability with a camera, but here you really leave it to the actors. Was that always the way you wanted to tell this story?

It depends on what you mean by "always." I don't do storyboards, and I don't come to set with a big overall concept of "I must do this, I must do that." Of course there's a lot of preparation. You set yourself up automatically by choosing the locations you do, designing the sets you do. In this case of course we had historical things we wanted to reproduce accurately, like Freud's office. Until I actually got to the scene with the actors, I had no idea how I was going to shoot it. And it's all intuitive. I don't really have an agenda or a schematic concept. But I've aways felt, you're always sensitive to what the movie asks you to do. The movie will tell you what it wants, it will tell you what it needs.

In retrospect, it's the era. It was an era of great stability, soon to be upturned by the First World War. But this was an empire. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had existed for 700 years, and in Vienna they felt they were the super-civilized, you could deal with everything through reason and rationality. They did not want to know about the underbelly, they did not want to know about what Freud was saying about the turbulence that's underneath this thin veneer of civilization. It's a process of resurrection, basically, if you're doing a biography. I wanted these people to come back to life. But I also wanted the era to come back to life, I wanted to feel their context. That very controlled, very precise, everything clean, everything neat, everything ordered, that is what my style reflects. While I wasn't conscious in the sense of, oh yeah, I'm going to have to do this. It just comes out of shot by shot, it either feels right or it doesn't. It's just bit by bit.

Is that an instinct you've only developed as a result of making movies for so long? When you first started did it feel that way too?

When I started to think about filmmaking, I had been thinking of myself as a writer. My father was a writer, and I thought I would be a novelist. So I thought, well, I understand drama, and I understand writing, and therefore I feel that I can write dialogue. But do I have a visual sense? I don't know. I had never been an artist. Will I know where to put the camera? Will it feel right when I do one thing and wrong when I do others? And there are directors who do not have a visual sense. Some of them are theater actors, they had good rapport with actors but no idea where to put the camera, or depend on their cameraman, or somebody else to help them. Sometimes they don't have help and you can see the visual thing is all over the place. Other directors have a great eye but they don't have a good rapport with actors, and you can feel that as well. You want to have as much of that as you can. Some people are great but they have no ear for music, so they work with composers-- you collaborate with people to fill in the things you can't do well.

Early on it didn't take me too long to learn that I did have a visual sense, that I could really feel when it was, literally I could feel almost nauseated if the camera was in the wrong place with the wrong lens. When it clicked in, when it was right, it felt fabulous. I couldn't always make it happen the way I wanted to, because very low-budget filmmaking is very fast with not a lot of time, and sometimes you're working with crew people who are not the best, although I've been pretty lucky that way. By this time, yes, I think my director of photography Peter has told me that I direct very differently than I did when we started in 1988 with Dead Ringers. Particularly I just don't shoot as much. I don't shoot as many angles. I don't cover a scene from beginning to end with every angle.

Is that because you can see the movie for yourself as you do it?

Yeah. As we do it I feel, OK, I see how the scene is blocked. You get the feeling, and you get confident that you will not suddenly be in the editing room and say "Why the hell didn't I do that shot?" There are little escape hatches you can use, ways that you can edit your way out of the coverage. But it takes time to learn that, and have confidence that your decision on the set will hold up in the editing room.

Doesn't it allow you to rely on performances more, like in Keira's first scene, you're really just watching her. Do you like giving that power to the actors?

I do. And I think they feel it too. And I'm not driving them crazy by doing 100 takes or 50 takes. You hear about guys doing that and I think, "What are they expecting to get out of take 99?" I think that's madness frankly.

Working with Robert Pattinson in Cosmopolis, is it that same process of really focusing on your actor and giving him a lot of freedom?

He's in every scene. It's quite a different structure from A Dangerous Method. I think the only similarity really is that there's a lot of dialogue, but it's a very different kind of dialogue, a completely different kind of movie. I did shoot it even more ascetically. We finished 5 days early, and I did my director's cut in two days. That's a record for me. And yet it seems to work really well. Basically you're not giving your editors much to work with. At moments he was begging me to do coverage and I wouldn't. I said I don't need that closeup, I don't want that. I'm confident that letting it hang in the long shot is the way to do it. There are classic mistakes that young directors make, they get so enamored of this tricky dolly shot or steadicam shot, then they don't want to do closeups because they think they've done this genius shot, then in the editing room they realize all the emotion, they can't see it. you have to do closeups. But that's a lesson you learn very early on in your career as a director. You have to have unshakeable confidence if you're not going to do that coverage. You have to know this is exactly what I want it to be.

Even though 20th Century Fox drafted master filmmaker David Cronenberg to write a sort-of sequel to his 1986 masterpiece The Fly, he's been pretty open in recent months that the film is unlikely to happen-- though, as he told me during our interview last month, "for various reasons I'm not going to get into." So while it's a slight mystery why Fox would pass on another take on such a revered cult film, and Cronenberg isn't really explaining what he means when he says the film is "not really a remake" and not a sequel either, he is willing to talk about why he wrote the film to begin with, and what he found interesting about it.

Because, as Cronenberg told me, he hasn't turned his back on horror, but a lot of the horror scripts he's offered retread material he covered early in his career, with films like The Fly, Scanners and Videodrome. So what made The Fly worth revisiting this time around? Well, it started with ignoring some advice from Mel Brooks:

He went on to say "I would be happy to be in prep on the new Fly if it could happen," which is a pretty sneaky way of leaving the door open for something to happen. But given how frank Cronenberg has been about Fox's lack of interest in moving forward with his script, I wouldn't count on actually seeing this new take on The Fly-- in whatever shape it takes-- any time soon. Much more likely to happen, at least as Cronenberg sees it, is Eastern Promises 2, a sequel to his 2007 film that has seen several script drafts from writer Steve Knight. No one is officially committed, and Cronenberg stresses that star Viggo Mortensen has to like the film before anything can happen, but here's what he told me about where the film will take Mortensen's hitman character Nikolai:

While Cronenberg talks up these ideas, he's got plenty of other films coming much sooner. Opening tomorrow is his new drama A Dangerous Method, and next year comes Cosmopolis, which pairs Cronenberg with teen heartthrob of the moment, Robert Pattinson. Later today I'll post my full interview with Cronenberg, in which we dive into details about A Dangerous Method, how he acquired his skills as a director, and how hard Pattinson had to work to keep up with his massive role in Cosmopolis. Check back for that interview soon!

The news that came out two years ago seemed so simple, so natural, that you couldn't even complain about it being a remake-- David Cronenberg was planning to remake his own 1986 film The Fly, which itself was a remake of a 1958 schlock horror classic. There weren't many details about the kind of script Cronenberg was planning to write, and given that since then he's made the Sigmund Freud-Carl Jung drama A Dangerous Method, it's clearly not a priority for him.

But, as it turns out, The Fly is still a possibility, and according to Cronenberg himself it's not as straightforward a remake or sequel as it sounds. Talking to Shock Till You Drop, Cronenberg explained thusly:

Even though Cronenberg is an undisputed auteur of the modern age who ought to have the power to do whatever the hell he wants, it's clear this is a case where the studio holds all the cards, and he just have to be ready for whatever they decide. And given how much Cronenberg's filmmaking style has changed since The Fly, you have to wonder just how interested he would be in revisiting the same territory. Can the man who made the restrained, talkative A Dangerous Method bring the visceral intensity needed for The Fly? Or is a different version of it actually what we need? Feel free to speculate over these questions for a long time, or maybe forever, since even Cronenberg doesn't seem certain that this sorta-kinda sequel will ever actually exist.

Let's talk about Michael Fassbender. Nobody in Toronto right now, myself included, seems unable to stop marveling at the actor, and once the general public has gotten a look at the two films he brought to this festival, A Dangerous Method and Shame, I imagine the general public will get on board as well. Of course, you might think you're already fascinated by Fassbender, thanks to performances in Inglourious Basterds and Hunger and Jane Eyre and Fish Tank and even X-Men: First Class. But you really haven't pondered the Fassbender appeal until, within two days of each other, you've watched him spank Keira Knightley and go full-frontal naked in two separate films.

His first movie to premiere here was A Dangerous Method, by far the least interesting of the two, despite the fact that it's directed by Canadian auteur David Cronenberg and co-stars both Knightley and Viggo Mortensen. On paper it all seems perfect-- the story of the friendship and eventual rift between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, set off by one of Jung's patients, a hysterical Russian woman (Knightley) with serious sexual issues. In his previous films Cronenberg has carefully, sometimes creepily examined issues of the mind and the body, and you couldn't ask for bigger talent to bring it all to the screen. But somehow the intellectual conversations between Mortensen's Freud and Fassbender's Jung have less crackle than Magneto and Professor X chatting it up in X-Men: First Class, and all that spanking-- which is wryly funny in its own way-- somehow feels tangential to the groundbreaking psychological theories these two are developing together.

You can lay some of the blame on Christopher Hampton, who adapted A Dangerous Method from his own stage play and relies far too much on telling us about these characters-- especially Jung's spirituality, which distanced him from Freud but is never really demonstrated onscreen-- than digging into their psyches the way any good psychoanalyst would. But Cronenberg is no help in removing the film from its stagebound roots either, bouncing from one conversation in a room between two characters for another, rarely opening up the camera to the early 20th century Vienna setting or allowing us inside these characters at all. The actors get some of the work done for him-- Fassbender plays Jung as a placid exterior masking a lot of coiled frustration, with Mortensen's Freud a kind of twinkly, fatherly side presence. Knightley is another issue entirely, kicking off the movie as a howling, toothy madwoman and gradually developing into a doctor who will become a significant force in psychology in her own right. Her performance is bold and big, and gets downright good once her character is allowed to calm down; in those opening moments of madness, though, Knightley has to ask the audience to engage with a character who's almost impossible to believe in.

For all the ways A Dangerous Method feels drained of meaning and artistic intent, though, Shame is brimming with it. The second feature film from British artist Steve McQueen, who gave Fassbender his breakout role in Hunger, is a simple and somewhat familiar story of addiction, told with visual style and powerhouse acting that renders it something entirely new. McQueen brings his story to New York, but a version barely familiar from other movies, shot entirely in brand-new apartment buildings and offices and high-end hotels, places where glass walls and sleek appliances convey not glamour and wealth, but a terrifying emptiness. Even the crowded subway feels cold and isolating, even when our terribly conflicted hero Brandon (Fassbender) makes eyes at a pretty young thing on the subway and loses her in the crowd. It's not just that he's alone in a city of millions, but as McQueen makes inexorably clear throughout the film, everyone else is alone there too.

Brandon is a sex addict, essentially scheduling his life around masturbation, random hookups, sex with prostitutes-- anything but lasting, meaningful relationships. The one exception is his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), who comes to stay against Brandon's wishes and tries and repeatedly fails, in her own harsh way, to establish any real connection with him. They share a troubling history that is almost never spoken but hinted by McQueen's camera, long takes emphasizing tense space between them or casual nudity that's both familiar and unnerving for them both. McQueen became famous partly for the massive long take conversation in Hunger, and there are no showstoppers like that one in Shame his camera definitely lingers-- the scene in which Carey Mulligan sings history's slowest rendition of "New York, New York" in tight close-up feels like a slight indulgence. But the combination of the cool, clinical settings and McQueen's rigorous camera compositions puts the audience firmly inside Brandon's isolating, passionless but destructive world.

I haven't entirely worked out my thoughts and final feelings about Shame-- it's that constant film festival problem of too many movies, too little time. But the fearless performances from Fassbender and Mulligan, the uncompromisingly explicit sex and McQueen's vigilant, confident camera make Shame very much a movie to reckon with. Both McQueen and Fassbender have arrived together as formidable talents, and this second collaboration between them makes you feverishly anticipate the provocative, perhaps brutal work that's to come.

For my continuing converge from the Toronto Film Festival, go here.

Cronenberg, Fassbender, Mortensen, Knightly,Freud and Jung. What do all of those words have in common? They look incredibly awesome when put together in a plot synopsis and that's exactly what A Dangerous Method has done. An adaptation of the play The Talking Cure, the film is about the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung when a female patient enters their lives. Thus far we've seen some on-set video from the film and some set photos, but now we get our first official look at the film.

Spanish website Soypelopo82 has received the first three stills from the film that feature all of the main players. It's actually somewhat scary how well Fassbender and Mortensen fit their respective parts. While the film has completed filming and has entered post-production, it doesn't have a US distributor just yet so it may be a little while until we actually get to see it (think last quarter of 2011, this one is aimed for award season).

Scope out the photos below and head over to Soypelopo82 to see them full size.

(via The Playlist)

The Colin Farrell comeback, which got started with his surprise Golden Globe win for In Bruges last year, led up to a bit part in Crazy Heart and rolls along with June's Ondine, may have just hit its peak. Variety reports that Farrell and Marion Cotillard are attached to star in Cosmopolis, an adaptation of Don DeLillo's novel to be adapted and directed by David Cronenberg.

Farrell will play a rich guy who takes a 24-hour journey across Manhattan, losing all of his money, occasionally running into his wife (Cotillard), and being stalked by two men over the course of one very eventful day. The project will be presented for potential buyers at Cannes this week, and filming is already scheduled to take place a little under a year from now in New York and Toronto. Cronenberg is planning to film his Sigmund Freud/Carl Jung project A Dangerous Method starting this month in Europe, but apparently the guy just can't sit still. We'll only be more excited for Cosmopolis if he comes up with a way to work Viggo Mortensen in there somehow.

We're very used to bemoaning remakes of classic films, but it's something completely different to see a filmmaker, a respected filmmaker at that, participate in a remake of his own movie. Somehow, in some way, David Cronenberg has been sucked into that trap. According to THR, Cronenberg has signed on to remake The Fly, the 1986 movie in which Jeff Goldblum turns into, well, a fly.

Yeah, sure, Alfred Hitchcock remade The Man Who Knew Too Much, and Michael Haneke decided he needed to specifically punish Americans when he made an English-language version of Funny Games. But Cronenberg has always seemed like a filmmaker who moves forward, not the kind who revisits his own work. He should consider himself lucky he's not out promoting any movies at the moment, because otherwise he'd be faced with a litany of geek questions that would never, ever end.