People love crime dramas. People love food. People love David Schwimmer. (Note: someone fact-check this just in case.) But when all three of those things came together for the AMC drama Feed the Beast, it was proven a flawed recipe. And one month after the show's initial season finale, the network has announced the table is calling for the check, and Feed the Beast has been cancelled. No Season 2 for you.

While there are probably some disappointed people out there reading this news, there definitely aren't THAT many. Part of the reason why Feed the Beast isn't going beyond those first ten episodes is because the ratings were so bad. No, wait, getting a steak slightly overcooked is bad. Feed the Beast's ratings were abysmal. The biggest live audience it got was its series premiere, which aired after Preacher, and it barely got half of that after shifting nights starting the next week. While the DVR numbers were promising and generally doubled the normal audience, there still were't over 1 million people watching. And just imagine what how dreadful the key demo numbers were.

Driving those numbers down was the almost universal shrugging and "meh" noises coming from critics and viewers. (I wasn't that impressed.) It seemed like a promising effort, with the normally reserved David Schwimmer jumping on it as the far more appreciated American Crime Story was still taking people by storm. But the end result just didn't grab people the way AMC hoped, and according to THR, the statement made by the network addressed the substandard results as the reason why Season 2 failed to materialize.

Created by TV vet Clyde Phillips, and based on the Danish series Bankerot, Feed the Beast centered on Schwimmer's wine-obsessed Tommy Moran and his best friend, Jim Sturgess' rambunctious chef Dion Patras, as they attempted to reach their dreams of opening a restaurant in the Bronx. (Something the show made it clear was about as difficult as doing brain surgery in the dark with your feet.) Of course, the criminal element doesn't make that the easiest thing in the world, with Michael Gladis playing the main tooth-pulling mobster. A great show existed somewhere in this, I'm fairly certain, especially with John Doman involved.

For what it's worth, this is the first series that AMC has had to cancel in a few years, and while nothing else has replicated the success of The Walking Dead, it appears most are keeping their metaphorical heads above water. Preacher cemented its second season, and we're waiting on the sophomore efforts from Humans and Into the Badlands coming later this year.

Luckily, there are all kinds of not cancelled shows on the way later this year, and you can find all of them in our fall premiere schedule. Have a bite to eat while you look through it.

The near-universal acclaim for Breaking Bad and the dominant ratings of The Walking Dead are doubled-edged swords for AMC, since it’s easy to assume that nothing in AMC’s future will ever be lauded more than Breaking Bad or watched more than Walking Dead. But every new show will likely be judged by those standards anyway, and while some, like Preacher, will rise above thanks to envelope-pushing originality, others like the upcoming crime drama Feed the Beast will underwhelm because the lack of originality overshadows the more defendable elements. Somebody update this menu, si vous plait.

Feed the Beast, based on the Danish series Bankerot, is the quick rebound TV project for David Schwimmer, whose return to TV for The People Vs. O.J. Simpson was met with praise (as well as viral videos of him saying “Juice.”) Schwimmer stars as Brooklyn resident Tommy Moran, a once-proud sommelier whose life was dismantled by the death of his wife and mother of their young son T.J. (played by newcomer Elijah Jacob). Tommy’s mourning includes drinking wine for leisure more than work, and he’s resorted to selling wholesale wine to pay the bills. T.J., meanwhile, hasn’t spoken a word since watching his mother die, which creates its own set of difficulties both at home and at school.

Enter Dion Patras, played by Across the Universe and 21 star Jim Sturgess. Dion and Tommy are best friends, although it’s plainly obvious that their friendship started at a time when they probably had something in common, because there is very close to zero good-natured chemistry between them. They do share substance abuse problems, though, with Dion spending his first days out of jail snorting his money away instead of paying back the gang boss he has a debt with. This debt is what brings Dion and Tommy back to their dream of opening a restaurant, a dream that originally died when Tommy’s wife did.

On paper, this could be a solid hook. People love seeing the darker side of chef culture, which often sees drugs and alcohol being used to cope with the intensity of the job, and a criminal debt is a decent enough way to add stakes to any kind of story. But Feed the Beast puts that hook in the fat rather than the lean and clear-cut meat. Tommy proves himself to be bad with decisions early on, but he should not in any frame of mind feel confident about going into business with Dion, who does absolutely zilch to come across as a good boss/employee/co-worker/friend/human. His pro column is that he can cook, and his kitchen-based influence does good things for Elijah’s well-being. Oh, and he might be a good lay, if his lawyer has anything to say about it. That’s how wild Dion is.

Not that Sturgess and Schwimmer are bad in these roles, but the roles aren’t that great for them, and other characters present similar issues. Mad Men’s Michael Gladis is decent as the crime boss Patrick Woichik, but his refreshingly reserved etiquette in certain situations is inexplicably paired with a penchant for pulling people’s teeth out when they anger him, behavior that earned him a suitable nickname. Lorenza Izzo is the show’s brightest light as Pilar Herrera, someone from Tommy’s grief support group who he brings into the restaurant plans for no real reason other than there’s unearned romantic tension between them.

The standout of the bunch, though not without certain faults, is Tommy’s father Aidan, played by the dependably excellent John Doman. Aidan and Tommy do not get along at all, although Tommy and Dion are forced to enlist Aidan’s help on the financial side of getting the restaurant off the ground. The most genuine moments in the early part of this season featured Aidan in some capacity.

Clyde Phillips, Feed the Beast’s creator, was also one of the brains behind the classic Parker Lewis Can’t Lose and the NBC sitcom Suddenly Susan, as well as a writer/producer on Dexter and Nurse Jackie. There are definitely aspects to Feed the Beast that are appealing, but one wishes that Phillips might have shot for more nuance with these characters rather than dealing mostly in tropes and overwhelmingly self-referential dialogue. You cannot imagine how many times you hear about Tommy being the bee’s knees of sommeliers, at least when he’s not complaining about something wine-related or distressing over something wine-related. Or how many dumb things Dion does for the sake of making the conflict worse. Or how many scenes can be predicted because they’ve been done before. Or how many times people make running a restaurant in Brooklyn sound harder than perpetual motion.

In the end, I did enjoy Feed the Beast more by the fourth episode than I did when the premiere ended, partly because the narrative flows more like a book than episodic TV. But that might not work so well to keep people tuning in on a weekly basis. And as I drink my glass of sangiovese and prepare my lamb brochettes with pepper jelly compote (or eat a takeout hamburger with a daiquiri), I will consider whether or not there’s enough in Feed the Beast to keep chewing on for the rest of the season.

Rating:

Feed the Beast will premiere the first of its ten-episode first season on Sunday, June 5, on AMC.

Director Daniel Alfredson, best known for helming the Swedish adaptations of both The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, has put together a strong ensemble of stars to frontline his next film, the thriller Kidnapping Freddy Heineken, with an Oscar winner sitting pretty at the top of the list. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Swedish filmmaker has enlisted Anthony Hopkins, Sam Worthington, Jim Sturgess, Ryan Kwanten, Dutch star Mark van Eeuwen and newcomer Tom Cocquerel to star in the new movie, which is based on a true story.

Set in 1983, the film will follow a team of criminals who attempted to kidnap Alfred "Freddy" Heineken, the grandson of the founder of the Heineken Brewery. The crime stands out in history because the case involved a ransom of 35 million Dutch guilders - the largest ever paid up to that point and equivalent to about $21,704,000 today. Sadly the trade doesn't mention who most of the cast will be playing in the movie, though they do say that Hopkins will be playing the title character/kidnapping victim.

Alfredson has not previously ventured into American filmmaking, but I'm willing to bet that the mix of his heritage and name is bound to cause some confusion. "Daniel" also happens to be the first name of fellow Swedish filmmaker Daniel Espinosa, who brought us both Snabba Cash and Safe House:

And "Alfredson" is the surname of fellow Swedish filmmaker Tomas Alfredson, best known for making Let The Right One In and Tinker Tailor Solider Spy.

Trying to keep all of those names and filmmographies straight could end up being a good challenge.

Production on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken is gearing up to start later this month and will be filming all around the globe, shooting in Belgium, Amsterdam and New Orleans.

About a month ago it was said that Joel Edgerton, Jack Huston, Jim Sturgess, Lee Pace, Eddie Redmayne, Garrett Hedlund, James Marsden and Sullivan Stapleton were all being tested by Marvel Studios for the lead role in the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy, but apparently they've been keeping extremely busy over at headquarters because that list has shrunk significantly. With the holiday weekend quickly approaching, it's being reported that the role of Star-Lord in the upcoming galactic comic book movie will go to either Sturgess or surprise contestant Zachary Levi.

Variety has the initial report, but there is something rather strange about it: Levi already has a part in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In Thor: The Dark World the Chuck star will be playing Fandral, as actor Joshua Dallas wasn't able to reprise his role from the first movie. The trade notes that Marvel has had its eye on Levi for a while now - he was actually the original choice for Fandral before scheduling conflicts got in the way - but makes no mention of the conflict that's caused by having two characters look exactly the same within the same universe without being related in any way.

Whether it's Sturgess or Levi playing the part, Star Lord will be portrayed to be the son of an alien and a human who takes to the stars to become an intergalactic policeman. In the process he joins up with four others, Rocket Raccoon (a talking racoon), Groot (a talking tree), Drax The Destroyer (a green warrior who wants revenge against Thanos), and Gamora (an alien who was actually trained by Thanos), and they form the Guardians of the Galaxy. James Gunn is writing and directing the film, which will be in theaters August 1, 2014.

So who would you prefer to see play Peter Quill a.k.a Star Lord? Let us know in the comments below.

Lone Scherfig had said after she made An Education, the 60s period romance that turned Carey Mulligan into an international star, that she might want to move on to a genre piece, something with a little more action or, at least, not a historical romance. Then One Day, David Nichols' novel about two people and their love story told across 20 years, fell on Scherfig's desk, and with the film adaptation set to go in front of cameras too, she had another period romance on her hands. Starring Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess, One Day opens this weekend; I interviewed Scherfig about her favorite elements of the wide-ranging film, how it compared working with Nichols and Nick Hornby (who adapted An Education for the screen), and how Hathaway and Sturgess's natural chemistry made the movie that much stronger.

Did the success of An Education make it hard to figure out what to do next?

It gave me some possibilities. If it hadn't been for that film I probably wouldn't have been asked to read this script. Maybe it was a good thing that I didn't go straight into a new project after An Education. But I also wanted to see it to the door and do what I could for the film, and enjoy all that attention.

The connection between David Nichols and Nick Hornby is interesting. did that have anything to do with you coming to this?

It could have something to do with David thinking it might be a good idea. But they are not that much alike. They do live very close to one another and they do share a certain tone, but it's been very different to work with David than with Nick. Both very positive, but Nick is a completely different type of personality.

With Nick he was adapting someone else's story, but David is so close to this. Was it tough to work with him in adapting the screenplay from his own story? How do you put your own stamp on it?

Nina Jacobson the producer did a really great job getting the best out of him and of me, to get the synergy that you want. It's his book, his characters, his world, and you almost can't do it in a way that would be the way he would have done it had he been a director. I think the most loyal thing to do is to make sure that it's cinema, , and that I use the craft that I can bring into the mix, with confidence and with the expertise that is my advantage in this sense. It becomes a different creature, and an work in its own right.

Was there a specific scene, or year, that you felt was an opportunity to make more cinematic?

The scene on the rooftop-- it's in a maze in the book. I remember David, he thought that the maze was a good metaphor for the life situation they're in. There's a romance and a beauty that they're at a party but they end up in the middle of this maze. I knew that it would be very hard to shoot it, that it would just be a lot of dark foliage. I thought it would be very nice to have a scene that was rooted in London. Because London is so suburban, here we have a scene where we do have St. Paul's Cathedral, the London Eye, and make something that's less claustrophobic. Maybe not true to the book at all, but more cinematic. France is another example. In the book they're in Greece [on vacation], and I thought we could get more out of the day in France. The whole light is completely different, of course. And also for logistic reasons it made sense to shoot in France, and for thematic reasons. The film was not in as many different locations but more condensed. But it's a shame, because in the book he's in India and Italy. There were things we could not do.

That early morning scene in Edinburgh is so perfect in capturing dawn light. Was that something you knew you just had to put in the effort to do?

I thought it was really important that the film starts at dawn. In the first scene in the bedroom the sun rises. We shot it so the first scenes are dark, and little by little the sun rises, hopefully unnoticeably through the scene. Then at the end, when they come running down, it's daylight, and when she walks away the streetlights cow on. Almost like the bookends of the film are a day. That's not scripted, it's just something I thought would be a visual way of making those locations work. It is scripted, because of course it is the first day when they meet. But you wouldn't want them to start the film with a scene that's pitch black at midnight.

When you know that the audience is going to be very deeply emotionally affected by some of the sad moments, how do you not pound it into them, and calibrate the emotions?

Calibration is a good word. Part of my job is to try again and again and see the film as if I haven't seen it before, so my own emotional barometer remains somewhat intact, even if I know every frame of the film. When is it soapy, when are they behind their emotions? It's always a balance, because you do want it to be emotional and grand and say that this is the most important moment of these peoples' lives. But you also don't want to be sentimental or syrupy. But the humor helps a lot. Humor is such a good asset to have, so the mix doesn't get too syrupy. But it's a constant balance. And I can't really tell if we got it right now. I may see the film in a year, and then I can judge a little better. The music is also an element where you, at the last moment, can adjust.

Even the titles are this big script, emphasizing the romance. A lot of movies don't' want to be a romance.

That was a decision, and we put very big, classic titles on the film at a much earlier stage than you normally do. I felt something more slick, elegant, small, modest would not be right. Something that signaled, this is going to be bold and emotional. In the back of your mind you know that you will get to something more heartbreaking than the film looks at first sight.

When you cast JIm to join Anne in the film, what were you looking for?

It makes my job a lot easier that they did get along. It's helpful that they would rehearse spontaneously. There's a sweetness in the scenes that you don't force on to them that they have. I saw a photo of them where you can see that, under the frame, the hold each others' hands like colleagues and friends. But the timing is important. It's good for actors to make each other feel good. And her interpretation of Emma is also defined by how he acts. It's a collaboration, so that was important too, that they seemed to belong together and were believable as lovers.

As Jim Sturgess sees it, there wasn't really a downside to suddenly being a heartthrob, thanks to roles in Across the Universe and then the megahit 21 that turned the dark-eyed Brit into a very big deal. But instead of cashing in and going after whatever next big role Hollywood could throw at him, Sturgess used his newfound fame to go back to Britain and make two small movies, films that eventually led him to a role in Peter Weir's epic The Way Back and now to One Day, the romance with Anne Hathaway that opens this Friday.

Sturgess and Hathaway play Dexter and Emma, two people who almost have an one-night stand on the last night of college, but instead strike up a friendship that carries throughout the next 20 years. True to the tittle, we meet up with Dexter and Emma on one day every year-- July 15, St. Swithin's Day-- to see where their lives have taken them, whether it's Emma's crappy job at a bad Mexican restaurant or Dexter's accidental career as a TV host. This being a movie starring two very attractive young actors, Dex and Emma eventually do fall in love, but it's the journey that gets them there-- and what it takes them to realize what they want-- that makes One Day both a deeply romantic movie and a special one.

I talked to Sturgess last week about how he managed his career post-21, how shooting One Day was a kind of vacation after the brutal conditions of The Way Back, and how it wasn't that shocking seeing himself with gray hair once Dexter made it into middle age.

After 21 and Across the Universe made you this kind of heartthrob figure in the media, did that give you pause and make you want to back away from those kinds of roles?

What it did is 21 opened up a lot of opportunities, and made it possible to help get a film financed, which is really the exciting part, when you can really get a film off the ground. There were two films I did after that that weren't heartthrob-type movies. I wasn't trying to get away from it, but I did two films that were interesting to me. I did Fifty Dead Men Walking and a British film called Heartless.

Those are both small films too. Were you trying to balance it out and not get thrown into the Hollywood machine?

The films that I really liked and the ones that really blew my mind when I was younger were independent films. They're like great records to me. Rather than a shiny Hollywood movie or whatever. I was excited to get the opportunity to act in an intense sort of film with great filmmakers. If you make some of the smaller films, I think some of the really good filmmakers, interesting directors, look at the smaller [films]-- you don't need that box office hit. So then for Peter Weir, to get the phone call and for him to want me to be in his film, made everything so worthwhile.

The contrast between The Way Back and this is so significant, since here you're just shooting in London and France. It's like a vacation compared to The Way Back.

That's what I thought. I thought, this will be a nice remedy to this intense experience I just had. But every film comes with its own complications. In this film every day was the 15th of July, so that was nice, you knew you weren't going to have to battle some winter scene. It was in London, it was at home, it was a romance film. But it came with its own complications and difficulties.

Is it the deep emotions in the movie that make those difficulties?

Yeah. Whatever the character is feeling you have to be in that kind of a mood, and it does affect you in some sort of way. I don't go around being in the zone all day, I'm not like that. I started off the film thinking, well, Dexter's a fun-loving crazy guy, but there's a real down side to his behavior. We played a lot more on that, his insecurities and troubles and tragedies he goes through. Plus the hard part about this film, it was like making a new film every time you went into work. With The Way Back there was a consistency. You started to live and breathe what these people were doing. Showing up to work and getting into the spirit of the film was very easy. With this, every time you come into work it's like, "OK, what are you going to throw at me today." OK, now you've got a baby-- deal with that. Then you go home and you pass out, wake up and come into work-- now you're a TV presenter, interview this hip-hop band and dance around. Every day was like making a new genre and a different film.

Was there a particular age for Dexter that you most liked playing?

I really enjoyed playing him older. I liked all the stuff in Paris, and I really enjoyed the stuff with his daughter, when they're together.

Was seeing yourself with gray hair startling?

I've seen myself looking weirder, definitely. But yeah, it was interesting. We sort of did these tests that you can do on a computer, to see what happens to you when you age, run yourself through this software. Looking at family members and how they aged, to mimic what my genes may or may not do.

Do you feel like you looked like you did when you were 22 in the movie?

I did. There's a picture I had of myself when I was about 16, and i had floppy, curtain hair. When I had a shave and they put the wig on, I was like "I looked just like that."

It's been seven long years since Peter Weir has had a directorial effort in theaters. A six time Academy Award nominee for great films like Witness, Dead Poets Society and The Truman Show, the man has been sorely missed, but now he's back and taking us across the span of Russia.

The Guardian has posted the first trailer for The Way Back, a film based on the novel by Slavomir Rawicz in which a group of soldiers try and make their way home after escaping from a Siberian gulag. In case you never bothered to take notice, it's not exactly an easy trip, filled with some of the harshest terrain on Earth, from frozen tundra to the Himalayan mountains. The film stars Colin Farrell, Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Saoirse Ronan and Mark Strong and is currently scheduled for a limited release in January (though it will be premiering in Los Angeles on December 29th so that it can be eligible for Oscar consideration). Check out the trailer below.

I'm not sure if "excited" even begins to cover the way I feel about One Day, the next film from An Education director Lone Scherfig that stars Anne Hathaway and Jim Sturgess as two people who meet for one day every year over the course of 20 years, until they finally realize, of course, that they're meant for each other. It has the feel of a typical romantic comedy, but Scherfig isn't really a typical director, and Hathaway and Sturgess feel like they might really have the potential to make a rom-com couple you're actually rooting for.

But if you're going to have a made for-each other pair who can't be together, you've got to have someone to come between them, and that's where Romola Garai comes in. THR reports that she'll play the woman who Sturgess's character marries, a female version of the old Ralph Bellamy type who is perfectly nice but ultimately not right for the central character. With production going on in London this summer, and Sturgess and Garai both being British, Hathaway will be the odd American out. In the original novel by David Nicholls the character is British, so we may be seeing some accent work from the girl who became famous as an American princess.

Like many of you I'm sure, I've all but written off Sony's plans to reboot the Spider-Man franchise. Their treatment of Sam Raimi during pre-production for Spider-Man 4 was nothing short of childish, and restarting the franchise without him is simply a cheap form of revenge. There are those that are still interested, however, particularly in the recasting of Peter Parker. Names like Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner have already been floated (giving Spidey fans thoughts of seppuku), but now a name has surfaced, and the catch is that he's already been considered for the role before.

Jim Sturgess, according to Hollywood News (via Screen Rant), has officially been offered the role of Peter Parker in the upcoming restart of the Spider-Man franchise. The story comes from Twitter, where director Noel Clarke retweeted what actor Arnold Oceng wrote (Oceng's twitter account is protected): "Got inside track. jim sturgess has bin offered the new spiderman in spiderman reboot, U know I always get da inside scoop." While I don't know if Oceng always "get da inside scoop," Sturgess was previously rumored to star as the superhero in the Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark, which has since been suspended.

Can someone explain to me where all the young, strong American actors have gone? Should the rumor be true and Sturgess accepts the part, we will live in world where Spider-Man is English, Batman is Welsh, and Wolverine is Australian (yes, I know the character is Canadian, but close enough). That is not to say that the last two haven't done an exceptional job, but it does make you think, what has happened to our stateside talent?

It's been over six years since Peter Weir last released a movie, and fans of the Truman Show and Master and Commander director have probably been frustrated by the lack of detail about his next movie The Way Back. Now the silence has been broken! Quiet Earth found seven images and a synopsis for the film based on a true story about escapees from a Siberian labor camp. First the synopsis:

Sounds good, especially if they leave out all the hokey trailer talk. The movie starts Colin Farrell, Ed Harris, Jim Sturgess and Saoirse Ronan, all actors I'd watch doing pretty much anything (yes, including Sturgess). Check out a handful of the new images below and click on them for a link to Quiet Earth's full gallery. The Way Back doesn't have studio distribution yet as far as I know, but with a cast and a director like this, it probably won't be long before it's picked up. We'll let you know what happens.