When a new Stephen King book is released, the safe bet is on Hollywood quickly taking action. His symbiotic relationship with the film/television industry is evident by upcoming Stephen King projects in the works, and has been active since Carrie''s release in the mid-1970s… so is anyone really surprised to learn that a Fairy Tale TV show is in the works?

An adaptation has been in the works since just after the novel first hit shelves, undergoing some significant changes behind the scenes since while still remaining in active development. So when can we expect to see the adaptation of Fairy Tale hitting the upcoming TV schedule? What is it about? And who is making it?

We’ve put together this feature to address all of those questions and more, and we will continue to update and add to this article as more details are revealed and we get closer and closer to Fairy Tale's eventual release.

What Is Fairy Tale’s Release Date?

Stephen King fans are going to have to exhibit a bit of patience with Fairy Tale. While the show is in active development, an official release date has not yet been announced. That likely won’t change until after production begins – and it feels like a fair bet that we won’t get to see it before 2026.

For those of you in need of a regular King fix, however, you need not fear, as there are plenty of adaptations on the way in the coming months to satisfy your cravings – including:

• Osgood Perkins’ The Monkey (arriving in theaters February 2025)
• Mike Flanagan’s The Life Of Chuck (on tap for summer 2025)
• Edgar Wright’s The Running Man (scheduled for release in November 2025)
• Francis Lawrence’s The Long Walk (which has completed production)
• HBO's IT prequel series Welcome To Derry
• MGM+'s series The Institute

What Is Fairy Tale About?

While Stephen King’s name will forever be associated with horror fiction, Fairy Tale – as you might guess from the title – is fare of a different genre variety. Following other titles including The Eyes Of The Dragon and The Talisman, the 2022 novel is a work of fantasy, though it’s also very much a coming-of-age story and has a good number of scary moments between its covers.

Protagonist Charlie Reade is an Illinois teen whose life changes dramatically one day during a walk when he's alerted to an emergency by a dog's distressed barking. He discovers that his elderly neighbor Howard Bowditch has had an accident, and not only does he help the man get to a hospital, he also ends up agreeing to take care of the dog – a German Shepherd named Radar – while Howard recovers.

At first, Charlie simply feels he owes a debt to the universe because his widower father is finally sober after years of grief-fueled alcohol abuse, but the protagonist ends up growing close with the old man. It’s only after Howard dies, however, that the teen is drawn to a magical secret: a locked shed in the backyard protecting a portal to an alternate universe called Empis, where a special sundial exists that can reverse the aging process.

With Radar growing old and Charlie unwilling to lose another friend, the teen decides that he is going to travel to the parallel world and save the dog – but what truly awaits him is a wild reality where he discovers his true destiny as a hero worthy of a classic fairy tale.

Who Is Making Fairy Tale?

Some Stephen King adaptations have been known to move through development exceptionally fast — John Carpenter got a pre-release copy of the novel Christine and the movie hit theaters less than eight months after the book’s publication — but others have been known to hit speedbumps along the way. Fairy Tale is a project that fits into the latter category. As noted earlier, the adaptation was announced mere days after the source material hit stores, but the project has undergone some significant behind-the-scenes changes since then.

In September 2022, it was announced that writer/director Paul Greengrass was attached to make Fairy Tale as a feature film – his first crack at adapting the work of Stephen King – and things looked exceptionally promising for the project just a few weeks later when it was announced that Universal Pictures won a “heated auction” to produce and distribute. (The studio had an established working relationship with the filmmaker via the Bourne franchise, United 93, and News Of The World). Unfortunately, the movie lost momentum after that point.

The good news is that the project didn’t just die in development hell – as you can probably gather from the fact that you are reading this article about it. Instead, it has merely changed forms. In October 2024, two years after development started, it was reported that the adaptation will no longer be a movie and instead Fairy Tale is now becoming a 10-part miniseries. Paul Greengrass is still attached as a writer, and there are deals in the works that will see him direct episodes of the show as well. He is collaborating with Fringe and Almost Human writer J.H. Wyman to expand his existing feature screenplay, and Wyman will serve as the miniseries’ showrunner.

Also significant is that Universal Pictures is no longer involved. When it was deemed impossible for Fairy Tale to be made as a film, the studio opted to let the project go, and it is now being produced as a show by A24. It will be the first Stephen King adaptation produced by the indie label.

Who Is Set To Star In Fairy Tale?

Still being in early development as a miniseries, Fairy Tale has not yet reached the point where it has started the casting process. As such, there aren’t currently any actors attached to star in the show. Finding a young star to play Charlie Reade will be paramount for the production, but there are a number of rich roles to fill, including the aforementioned Howard Boditch and the colorful characters the protagonist meets while in the world of Empis.

We will continue to update this feature as Fairy Tale takes further steps through development and we learn more about it. Stay tuned!

One doesn’t have to look far back into history to discover evidence of a Stephen King novel being uncomfortably squeezed into a standard-length feature film. As I noted in my CinemaBlend review, Gary Dauberman’s Salem’s Lot does an effective job with King’s story and characters, but it suffers from lacking the source material’s scope. It’s often been the case that miniseries are much better fits for the author’s expansive narratives – which was why I was very happy to learn the latest news about the adaptation of Fairy Tale: after initially being developed as a movie, it’s now moving to the small screen.

That’s just the lead story of this week’s edition of The King Beat – which is so jam packed with news that I don’t have room to fully discuss the surprisingly funny trailer for Osgood Perkins’ The Monkey that dropped on Tuesday. In addition to the news about Fairy Tale, there are casting updates for both Edgar Wright’s remake of The Running Man and MGM+’s The Institute, and we now know when we’ll get to read the upcoming anthology with short stories set in the world of The Stand. There’s a lot to go over, so let’s dig in!

A24 Is Getting Into The Stephen King Game Developing Fairy Tale As A TV Series

It took practically no time at all for an adaptation of Stephen King’s Fairy Tale to enter development. The novel first arrived in stores in September 2022, and it was less than a month later that the news broke of writer/director Paul Greengrass developing it as a feature. Since then, little has been reported about its progress, but that changed in a big way this week, as the project has pivoted and is becoming a 10-part miniseries.

According to Deadline, Fairy Tale has changed studios, but Paul Greengrass is still attached as a key creative. According to the trade, it was deemed “impossible” for the source material to be packed into a feature, and Universal let the project go (they had initially acquired the project in what was described at the time as a “heated auction”). A24 is now backing the miniseries – the studio’s first Stephen King-related project – and Greengrass is teaming up with Fringe and Almost Human writer J.H. Wyman to expand Greengrass’ film script (Wyman will take the reins as showrunner).

There is expectation that the Bourne franchise/Captain Phillips filmmaker will be contributing to Fairy Tale as a director as well, but deals have reportedly not yet been completed.

The fantasy novel is about Charlie Reade, a teenager living in Illinois who ends up saving the life of his elderly neighbor one day while out for a walk and hearing a dog’s distressed barking. He ends up taking care of the pet while the old man, Howard Bowditch, is in the hospital, and he becomes Howard’s caretaker after he’s discharged. During their time together, Charlie begins to make some strange discoveries about his new curmudgeonly friend, and it ultimately leads him to discovering a fantastical alternate world.

As much as I love to see new Stephen King movies on the big screen, I love that this medium switch is happening, as it’s clearly what’s best for the source material. A significant part of what’s great about the novel is the genre change that it executes only after earning it. Before it becomes a full-on fantasy story, it begins as a coming-of-age tale about a boy grappling with higher powers in the universe after he makes a prayer that his widower father stop drinking. This character development, and the creation of a bond between Charlie, Howard, and Howard’s dog, Radar, is all essential, and one can imagine it being cut and hollowed out to be a 30-minute first act of a film that puts a much heavier focus on the alternate universe the protagonist discovers.

With five times the narrative real estate provided by the miniseries medium, Fairy Tale can treat this part of the story with the attention it deserves before providing audiences with a fantastical adventure full of wild oddities, magic, and evil monsters.

On a side note, I’m also thrilled to see A24 – one of the most respected indie studios of the moment – getting into the Stephen King game. This news comes in the same year in which Neon has become attached to two upcoming King movies (the aforementioned The Monkey and Mike Flanagan’s The Life Of Chuck), and because of established genre reputations, it’s exciting to see distribution diversification beyond the major studios and streamers.

The only bit of bad news here is that the trade report doesn’t mention the speed of Fairy Tale’s development and when it might be targeting a start of production – but as more is reported about the project, you can be sure to find updates here on CinemaBlend.

Both The Running Man And The Institute Have Added To Their Casts

Before the end of 2024, two more Stephen King adaptations are scheduled to start filming, and they’ve both been active in recent weeks building their respective casts. On the movie side, there’s Edgar Wright’s remake of The Running Man, and on Team Small Screen is the upcoming series based on The Institute. In the last couple of days, both have seen their ensembles grow.

Per a report from Deadline, Karl Glusman has become the latest actor to join the cast of The Running Man, which is set to hone much closer to its dystopian science-fiction source material than the 1987 action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Glusman’s standout credits include two collaborations with writer/director Alex Garland (the TV series Devs and 2024’s Civil War) and he recently starred alongside Austin Butler, Jodie Comer and Tom Hardy in Jeff Nichols’ The Bikeriders. Sadly, we don’t know what role he’ll be playing in the new Edgar Wright movie, which already has Glen Powell, Katy O’Brian and Daniel Ezra in its cast.

The Running Man is being produced by Paramount Pictures and will be in theaters November 21, 2025.

Sadly, we don’t know exactly when MGM+ is planning to start debuting episodes of The Institute, but the developing show has rounded out its cast with three new additions. Created by director/executive producer Jack Bender and writer/executive producer Benjamin Cavell, the series is set to be based on the 2019 Stephen King novel, and the casting department has been busy in recent months. It was first reported in June that Mary Louise-Parker and Ben Barnes would play key roles, and the ensemble has been growing ever since.

This week, it was revealed that the eight-episode series has added Brendan Beiser as a regular and Mary Walsh and Jordan Alexander in recurring roles. All three will be playing characters who exist outside the titular Institute – which is a facility that houses and experiments on kidnapped children who are believed to have telekinetic or telepathic abilities. Young actor Joe Freeman has landed the role of protagonist Luke Ellis, and as previously reported in The King Beat, he is joined in the series by Fionn Laird (Under the Banner of Heaven), Hannah Galway (Under the Banner of Heaven), Julian Richings (Beau Is Afraid), Robert Joy (Julia), Viggo Hanvelt (Our Christmas Mural), Arlen So (Something Rotten), Birva Pandya (The Umbrella Academy), Dan Beirne (Ginny & Georgia), Martin Roach (Suits) and Jane Luk (Streams Flow From A River).

Filming of The Institute will commence in Nova Scotia before the end of the year.

The End Of The World As We Know It: New Tales Of Stephen King’s The Stand Is Now Available For Pre-Order

It was right around this time last year that Constant Readers everywhere first learned about a very cool Stephen King-related literary project that was in the works. With approval and support from King, writer/editors Brian Keene and Christopher Golden have been working hard to put together The End Of The World As We Know It: Tales Of Stephen King's The Stand – which, as its title suggests, is an anthology of stories set within the world of The Stand. A few details about the project have leaked out since then (like the fact that it will include stories set outside of the United States), but we got perhaps the most important pre-release news of all this week: a release date.

The short story collection, which will include an introduction written by Stephen King, is set to be published by Simon & Schuster, and it will be heading to stores on August 19, 2025. Both hardcover and eBook options are now available for pre-order from outlets including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million and Bookshop.org.

The full list of contributors to The End Of The World As We Know It: Tales Of Stephen King's The Stand has not yet been revealed, but it includes a number of talented and popular writers including Paul Tremblay, Josh Malerman, Richard Chizmar, Bev Vincent, S.A. Cosby, Tananarive Due, Robert Cargill, Alex Segura, and Wayne Brady.

That wraps up this week’s edition of The King Beat, but I’ll be back with all the latest news from the world of Stephen King next Thursday here on CinemaBlend.

One of the nicest things about being a Stephen King fan is that we don't ever have to wait all that long between adaptations. Whenever one premieres, it's typical that the next is right around the corner, and it often feels like new projects are announced regularly. Take this week for example: John Lee Hancock's Mr. Harrigan's Phone, based on King's novella of the same name, just became available for Netflix subscribers yesterday, and today we have the news that the film based on his latest novel, Fairy Tale, has been picked up for development at Universal Pictures.

It was announced in mid-September that writer/director Paul Greengrass had come aboard to direct the adaptation of Fairy Tale, and today Deadline is reporting that the developing feature has found a home at a major studio. The trade reports that there was a "heated auction" as different companies tried to pick up the movie, and Universal ended up having the winning bid.

The story adds that Paul Greengrass' past experience with Universal helped make the deal happen, as the studio previously produced his contributions to the Bourne franchise, United 93, and News Of The World. 

Fairy Tale, which only hit store shelves a month ago, centers on Charlie Reade, a teenager who lives in a small town in Illinois with his father – a widower and recovering alcoholic. While out walking on his street one day, Charlie hears a dog barking and sounds of distress, and he ends up saving the life of an elderly neighbor named Howard Bowditch who fell off a ladder doing housework and broke his leg. 

Feeling that he owes the universe something because of a prayer he made to get his dad to stop drinking, the protagonist ends up watching after Bowditch's dog Radar while he is in the hospital, and he becomes the man's caretaker during his recovery at home. He starts to recognize strange things about the old recluse – such as the fact that he doesn't know his own age and that he has a safe containing a bucket of gold pellets. Eventually, Charlie discovers the full truth and it leads him on an adventure in another world to try and save Radar's life.

As one may gather from the title, Fairy Tale is more fantasy than horror, which is a genre Stephen King has previously explored with books including Eyes Of The Dragon, The Talisman (which is now in the works as a Netflix show), and the Dark Tower series. 

This will mark the first time that Paul Greengrass has made a Stephen King adaptation, but he has the author's support because he is a fan. When Greengrass' involvement was first announced, King issued a brief but positive statement, saying,

Fairy Tale getting the support of a major studio like Universal Pictures is exciting given the ultimate scale of the story, but how quickly it will move through development is unknown at this point. With any luck it will get fast-tracked and become a priority for the studio, and if so it's possible that we could see the film in theaters sometime during the 2024 calendar year.

While we wait for more updates about about Fairy Tale, you can learn about the long history between Stephen King and Hollywood via my weekly Adapting Stephen King column, and discover all of the other projects that are in development with our Upcoming Stephen King Movies And TV guide. If you're looking for something spooky to watch in the run-up to Halloween, you'll find a lot of great options in my ranking of the best Stephen King films.

News of the World is a Tom Hanks western (which hit theaters in December 2020 and became available on video on demand in January 2021) about a former Civil War captain, Captain Kidd, who travels through Texan towns to deliver the news. On his journey, he meets Johanna, wonderfully played by Helena Zengel. The film follows Kidd and Johanna as they face many dangers while he tries to get Johanna to her only living relatives in Castroville, Texas. The News of the World ending showed Kidd and Johanna reaching the end of their journey, but not how either of them initially expected.

SPOILER ALERT - We're about to discuss News of The World and its ending in more specifics, so read no further if you haven't seen it yet!

News of the World is already getting Oscar-buzz, and Tom Hanks and Helena Zengel are gaining a lot of praise for their performances. The film is a Western for everyone, especially those who don’t consider themselves Western film fans, because at the heart of this film is Johanna and Captain Kidd’s bond and how it transforms both of them. The News of the World finale gave viewers a happy ending, hope for Johanna and Kidd’s world, and the world in general. Let’s examine how the News of the World ending earned its happily ever after.

What Happened At The End Of News Of The World

Kidd and Johanna arrive at her aunt (Winsome Brown) and uncle's (Neil Sandilands) home. Immediately, Johanna protests. She doesn’t want to stop here, she wants to continue with Kidd, reading the news and getting dime-ahs (what Johanna calls dimes). Kidd explains to Johanna’s aunt and uncle how they’ll have to show patience with Johanna because she’s slowly readjusting to western civilization. Her uncle insists that Johanna will have to work, and Johanna’s aunt starts rehashing what happened to Johanna’s parents and sister.

Kidd leaves and continues on to San Antonio. He finally goes to see his wife’s grave, and with some help from a life-long friend, Mr. Branholme (Bill Camp), he’s able to forgive himself for the war, all the bloodshed, and not being there for his wife when she died. He then returns to Castroville for Johanna. He tells her that he made a mistake bringing her there. She belongs with him.

After some reluctance, Johanna joins Kidd and they leave. Flash forward: Kidd and Johanna are entertaining a new audience with their stories. Kidd reads as Johanna adds sound effects. Kidd concludes by introducing himself and Johanna Kidd. They take a bow.

The Role Of Hope In News Of The World

The News of the World ending gave such a hopeful outcome for Johanna and Kidd. After all their struggles to get to Castroville (and general life struggles), the pair has found some peace and happiness with each other.

In an interview with Variety, News of the World director, Paul Greengrass, said he “wanted to explore what the road towards hope looks like.” The entire journey of Johanna and Captain Kidd is one of Kidd trying to do this good deed in hopes that Johanna can finally escape this cycle of tragedy and violence. In many ways, Kidd sees Johanna as an opportunity to free one of them from their demons. However, by the end of News of the World, it’s not about freeing Johanna, it’s about giving them both an opportunity for a new, hopeful, better life.

Tom Hanks’ character is a beacon of hope for those he brings the news. He chooses the stories that he reads to them, and even when he reads stories about death, etc., he makes sure to read positive stories as well. Hope is a constant thread that runs through News of the World. Despite violent and gruesome pasts, poverty, divisions, and ailments, there is always hope that things can be better one day.

Tom Hanks’ Captain Kidd And The Healing Power of Stories

In a King5 interview, Tom Hanks said that Kidd’s job is to enlighten his listeners. Part of this enlightenment is to help them heal from the scars of the past. In Vanity Fair, Greengrass added that in a “singular, small way [Kidd] is a thread who connects one community to another.” There is some power and respect Kidd has because he keeps these people informed.

We also see throughout News of the World that Kidd’s audience isn’t just the poor and working white class. The audience varies from town to town, and sometimes it’s a mixed bunch of people in one reading. Kidd also caters his attire and approach according to the audience. Greengrass told Deadline how he wanted to explore themes of healing with News of the World. The film takes place in 1870, five years after the Civil War has ended, and America still hasn’t quite healed after it.

Neighbors are still very much divided, but on a small scale (as Greengrass stated) Kidd is able to lessen this division by showing that they’re all dealing with the same struggles, and how some of these stories offer hope for the future. Kidd's able to offer these people a temporary sense of freedom from their burden. These stories do the same for him as well. The news and the communities he brings it to are his way of staying grounded, and having a purpose and connection to the world, so he doesn’t completely isolate himself from humanity.

Johanna And Captain Kidd's Search For Home

Johanna and Kidd are both without a family. Johanna lost her original family when they were murdered by the Kiowa tribe. Then she lost the tribe when they were murdered by settlers. Captain Kidd lost his family when his wife died, and they had no children. Kidd and Johanna are also kind of outsiders in this world, in general. Johanna is not quite German, not exactly Kiowa, and definitely not a Southerner. She’s something in between, so she belongs to no group. Kidd is an older man who has some respect within the communities he reads stories to, but to others, he’s an old man with no value, which is shown with how some people treat him.

Kidd doesn’t want to return home because he doesn’t want to reconcile with his past and his deceased wife. His former home no longer feels like his true home. He’s now a nomad. With each other, Johanna and Kidd understand one another (despite language barriers) and fit together. They find a home not with a physical place but with each other.

How News Of The World Tells Modern Stories In 1870

The topics in News of the World, like poverty, epidemics, racism, fake news, corrupt leaders, and so on, are all stories that remain relevant in today's society. We see the idea of “fake news” when one of the leaders tries to force Kidd to read propaganda, and there are threads of racism all throughout the film, from the lynching of a black man, to the prejudice displayed about the Kiowa people and Native Americans.

One of the first stories Kidd reads in News of the World is about various illnesses killing massive amounts of people. In the Deadline interview, Greengrass addressed how the themes fit with today’s landscape.

He added in an Entertainment Weekly interview that the story feels relevant because everyone is searching for better days. This makes the optimistic ending so much more powerful, because it addresses some of the same problems facing people right now, and shows that through hardship, there can be hope, joy, forgiveness, and unity.

News of the World is available to rent on Video on Demand. Rent it here.

Paul Greengrass’ News of the World is a film that delivers on much of what audiences have come to expect when it comes to big screen westerns, but if there’s one particular thing that sets it apart it’s the profession of its protagonist. Tom Hanks stars in the film not as a sheriff, a bounty hunter, or a farmer, but rather as a journalist who travels from town to town delivering staged readings of the national news. It’s a fascinating aspect of the movie and one of its great strengths, as the performances fully capitalize on Hanks’ natural charisma, but what makes them even more interesting is that they were apparently a subject of serious debate between the director and star, who fundamentally disagreed on exactly how the news should be delivered.

Tom Hanks and Paul Greengrass have previous work history together, having collaborated on 2013’s Captain Phillips, but they found themselves butting heads over that particular issue in the making of their second movie, as I learned earlier this week during the News of the World’s virtual press day. As captured in the video up top, I asked the star if his experience with the filmmaker was different during the production given that they were making was a totally different kind of feature, and Hanks detailed how they had trouble seeing eye-to-eye over a crucial element of the story.

Talking about the day on set when they shot his character’s first news reading, Tom Hanks said,

Considering how significant the news readings are in News Of The World, that was a pretty big issue to be at loggerheads about. And while it doesn’t sound like the two men were exactly ready to start throwing blows, the actor explained that they were seriously staunch in their opinions, and suggested it wasn’t always what one might call friendly.

Emphasizing with his hands, Tom Hanks continued,

What Tom Hanks and Paul Greengrass ultimately found, however, was that the conflict was a good thing for the film. Clearly it’s a nice thing when everybody on a set is totally on-board with the way things are happening, but even when that’s not happening that creates the opportunity for constructive conversation. The actor and the director held strong, opposing viewpoints on the way a key piece of News Of The World was handled, but their clash gave them the chance to find a middle ground that made them both satisfied.

When I asked Paul Greengrass about the clash in a one-on-one interview later that day, he described the experience with an apt hiking metaphor, saying,

While a filmmaker can make every possible effort to organize their work in pre-production, there is in truth no way to fully prepare for the on-set experience, as new perspective are constantly earned and offered. As Paul Greengrass explained, however, that’s what makes trust incredibly important, and he definitely trusted Tom Hanks in the making of News Of The World:

Based on the novel of the same name by Paulette Jiles, News Of The World co-stars Helena Zengel, Elizabeth Marvel, Ray McKinnon, Mare Winningham, Thomas Francis Murphy, and Michael Angelo Covino, and will be playing in theaters where available on Christmas Day. We have plenty more coverage coming your way from our interview with Tom Hanks, so be sure to stay tuned here on CinemaBlend.

Tom Hanks has gone through quite a lot in 2020, undergoing a significant range of highs and lows. After all, it’s not often that you go from earning your sixth Academy Award nomination to being the celebrity in the world to be diagnosed with a pandemic-level virus. Then there was the good news that his summer movie, Aaron Schneider’s Greyhound, was going to be “rescued” following theater closures, but that was unfortunately proceeded with the revelation that the film really wasn’t very good. These are the kinds of emotional ups and downs that have the potential to cause whiplash, but the silver lining is that the year is ending on a high note for Hanks.

Crazy as things have been, the actor can reflect back on Paul Greengrass’ News Of The World with great positivity, as the film is among the best he’s made in the past decade – serving up big cinematic thrills, emotional storytelling, and impressive cinematography.

Based on the novel of the same name by author Paulette Jiles, the film is somehow Tom Hanks’ first venture into the Western genre, and stars him as Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd – a former member of the Confederate States Army who, five years after the end of the Civil War, has taken on a new occupation. Saving people the trouble of being bored by newspapers, he travels from town to town delivering on-stage updates about the latest developments going on around the country. It’s a nomadic lifestyle, but his work is appreciated at every stop he makes.

It’s following a performance in Wichita Falls, Texas that everything for him changes. After coming across a raided wagon on the road he discovers that the lone survivor is a young girl named Johanna (Helena Zengel). While she doesn’t speak English, Captain Kidd learns from a record book that she was abducted by group of Kiowa Native Americans as a young child and raised by them for six years. She was being brought back to her closest living relatives, an aunt and uncle in a town called Red River, when her transport was attacked.

He attempts to shirk the responsibility of making sure she gets where she needs to go, attempting to leave her with friends in a nearby town, but when she continues to try and escape their custody he realizes what he must do. It’s a perilous multi-week journey, but Kidd agrees to travel with the child and make sure that she gets to Red River unharmed so that she may try and live some semblance of a normal life.

News Of The World plays very episodically, but each story is more thrilling than the last.

Past its setup, the narrative of News Of The World is primarily driven by the variety of conflicts that the protagonist and his ward encounter on their journey, and while the structure is obvious and simple, it’s hard to argue with the captivating results. Along the way the central duo crosses paths with disturbingly determined pedophiles, fascistic bandits, blinding dust storms, and more, and each and every time the film finds clever and thematic methods for resolution. Just when you think it has run itself into the corner, but pulls off a nimble surprise, and it’s thrilling each and every time.

Given the construction and the propensities of modern Hollywood, it’s actually somewhat surprising that the story wasn’t carved up and expanded as a miniseries, and it’s almost a shame that it wasn’t – which is another way of saying that I would have happily spent eight to ten hours with these characters instead of just two. That doesn’t make it any less satisfying, however.

You’re reminded why Tom Hanks is one of the best in the business.

It’s a funny thing to realize that News of the World marks the second time that Tom Hanks has played a captain under the direction of Paul Greengrass, the two having previously collaborated on 2013’s Captain Phillips, but there really isn’t much of a comparison between the two features otherwise; the 2020 release is vastly superior. While the previous movie was a middling drama with a solid performance from the star, this one is a superlative adventure with an exceptional turn. While Captain Kidd is a character who has seen combat, the greatest weapon he possesses is his charisma, wit, and gravitas, and nobody delivers that like Hanks. His geniality beautifully translates across eras, and it’s wonderful to recognize that he captivates audiences in the movie in the same way the actor captivates in reality.

Paul Greengrass delivers his best film since The Bourne Ultimatum.

Deserving equal-level praise is Paul Greengrass, whose style meshes impressively and surprisingly well with the material. Given his background as a journalist and documentarian, it makes sense that the primary focus of his work as a director has been telling stories set in modernity, but his work on News of the World demonstrates a strong grasp on the strengths of the genre, and he adapts well. There is still a lot of skilled handheld camera work, but the cinematography is much more controlled than, for example, what’s in the Bourne movies, which lets it have both a more traditional feel, and still possess Greengrass’ aesthetic stamp.

After the insane year that we’ve had in 2020, with Tom Hanks being an oddly prominent figure in the unique chaos,News of the World is one of the more optimistic ways to close it all out – with the star serving as a powerful paternal figure proselytizing the importance of real news. It’s many things all at once, as it is as fun as it is emotional, and as thrilling as it is charming, but it makes a fantastic blend, and an excellent cinematic experience.

This has been a wild year for Tom Hanks. 2020 kicked off with him earning his sixth Academy Award nomination for his performance in A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood, which was a pretty great high that was brought down to a scary low in March when he and his wife Rita Wilson became the first celebrities to be diagnosed with COVID-19. That was followed by his big summer movie, the World War II naval thriller Greyhound, launching as an Apple TV+ exclusive, and now it looks as though he's prepared to finish the year in epic fashion. Paul Greengrass' News Of The World is scheduled to arrive in theaters this December, and based on the awesome trailer above, it looks like it is going to be one hell of an adventure.

The film marks a reunion between Tom Hanks and Paul Greengrass, who previously worked together on 2013's Captain Phillips, and this time around he's playing yet another captain – specifically confederate veteran Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd. It's an adaptation of the book of the same name by author Paulette Jiles, and it looks like it should make for an immensely thrilling cinematic adventure.

Set in the late 19th century, the story follows Captain Kidd as he discovers a young girl (Helena Zengel) on the border between Texas and Indian Territory and becomes her guardian through the old west. He learns that she is the only surviving member of her immediate family following an attack by Kiowa raiders, and his goal is to deliver her to Castroville, Texas where he learns his ward has an aunt and uncle. Of course, the environment is not exactly safe for most travelers, let alone an innocent girl, as so Kidd finds his mettle tested along the way.

News Of The World is Paul Greengrass' first theatrical feature since 2016's Jason Bourne, and is his directorial follow-up to 2018's 22 July, and it's remarkably exciting to see a director of his caliber do a headfirst dive into the western genre. In an official statement about the work, the filmmaker seemingly acknowledged that modern audiences may find themselves relating to the chaos of the era being depicted, but added we should prepare for an experience driven by the relationship between the characters played by Tom Hanks and his young co-star:

Co-starring Elizabeth Marvel, Mare Winningham, and Ray McKinnon, News Of The World will be in theaters on Christmas Day, and we'll be sure to have more about the film for you here on CinemaBlend as we get closer to the release date.

Paul Greengrass made the definitive Sept. 11 movie with United 93, a harrowing and unflinching look at organic heroism in the face of unexpected terror. That film was a powerful and visceral glimpse into the chaos of the fateful morning, one that avoided melodrama to capture authentic emotion in its portrayal of true-life events. Greengrass continues his own explorations of the human response to terrorism with the equally raw and compelling new 22 July, and while the location shifts from America to Norway, Greengrass -- as both a director and a storyteller -- finds similar truths and contemporary fears in both narratives.

The deadliest attack in Norway's history since World War II occurred on July 22, 2011, when lone-wolf terrorist Anders Behring Breivik conducted a two-pronged attack against the country's government. Breivik (portrayed with an icy charisma by Anders Danielsen Lie) first distracted law-enforcement officials with a car bomb placed in the executive government quarters of Oslo.

While the community reacted with the expected fear and confusion, Breivik made his way to the island of Utoya, where a popular summer camp was being conducted. Posing as an officer, Breivik opened fire on the unsuspecting campers and counselors. When all was said and done, Breivik's murderous rampage claimed the lives of 77 total Norwegian citizens, many of them in their teens and early 20s.

Those already anticipating some stomach-churning shaky cam generated by Paul Greengrass' usual, preferred handheld approach to filmmaking will appreciate that the director abandons most of his visuals tricks, understanding that his subject matter was urgent and visceral enough to perform the heavy lifting needed in 22 July. Also, unlike United 93, Greengrass here chooses to lead with the terrorist attack at the heart of the story, plunging the audience into the tension and shock of an unexpected attack, then settling into the aftermath.

You see, 22 July isn't so much a movie ABOUT the attack (though it is depicted with gut-wrenching tension and genuine horror, making the island sequence one of the year's most terrifying experiences). Paul Greengrass has evolved beyond the perspective formed in United 93, and now focuses more on the reality of surviving a traumatic event. That painful and difficult journey is personified by the fantastic Jonas Strand Gravli, playing Viljar, a survivor of the Utoya attack. Concerned with protecting his younger brother, Viljar took multiple gunshots to his head and extremities. Breivik left him for dead on the shores of that island, but Viljar survived, and 22 July becomes as much the story of his recuperation as it does about the legal ramifications of Breivik's crimes.

22 July assumes a grim but realistic position. It basically assumes that we, as an audience, now accept that public shootings are a reality that we must contend with on a daily basis (a fact probably more relevant in the United States than in Norway, where gun violence is still a tragic shock, and not the norm). One weighty takeaway from Greengrass' recount of the horrific attack in Oslo is that, at any given moment, your life can be permanently altered by the whim of an insane stranger. One minute, your attending camp with close friends. The next, you're injured beyond repair, forced to contend with crippling injuries that may fade but never heal, with no real reason given for the pain you now have to endure.

Though the attack that prompts the conversation in Paul Greengrass' 22 July might have bene senseless, the movie is anything but. Greengrass takes a measured approach to a horrific event, pulling no punches as he presents the tragedy, but carries viewers through the next stages where 22 July analyzes HOW these attacks -- more prevalent now than they even were in 2011 -- continue to affect us. The story might be specific to Oslo. But in Paul Greengrass' hands, the excellent 22 July becomes universal in its painful and powerful lessons of preparedness, of frustration, and of human resilience and perseverance in the wake of tragedy.

It's surprising how quickly the standard can change. Earlier this year, programmers at the Cannes Film Festival found themselves in a mild kerfuffle because they opposed the invitation of Netflix movies to their esteemed festival. The argument, according to Cannes organizers, is that they preferred to support films that had aspirations of screening in a movie theater, and not at an audience member's home, on a television set hooked up to a streaming service (albeit a revolutionary streaming service that's quickly changing the rules of the game).

A few months later, as we begin the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival, the rules in Canada are quite different. Netflix has a massive presence on the programming slate at TIFF, going so far as to have one of its own movies -- David Mackenzie's Outlaw King, starring Chris Pine and Aaron Taylor Johnson -- in the vaunted Opening Night slot. What a change from where the conversation was mere months ago, and a tangible reflection of how the power of Netflix continues to morph and shape the playing field when it comes to film festival programming, distribution and, most important, the quest for Oscar gold.

We started our 2018 TIFF marathon this year with yet another Netflix movie that packs a sizable amount of buzz, The Kindergarten Teacher, starring Maggie Gyllenhaal. Teacher played Sundance -- and when a movie premieres at an earlier fest, it tends to teceive a less-than-favorable Thursday morning screening slot, allowing TIFF to say, on paper, that it programmed the film. But it's a worthy TIFF entry, a tense and disturbing thriller about a failed poet who sees potential in one of her kindergarten students, but pushes a little too hard in pursuit of this little boy's possible greatness. Gyllenhaal is her usual riveting self in the title role, and the slow-burn drama gets impressively disturbing as she pushes the envelope on what's acceptable for a strange lady encouraging a gifted child. Netflix will bring The Kindergarten Teacher to its subscribers on October 12.

But Teacher also joins a litany of buzzy titles screening in Toronto that Netflix subscribers will be able to see before year's end, simply by waiting patiently for these features to show up on the streaming service. Most of these TIFF entries come from recognizable directors, including Paul Greengrass (the Bourne series, United 93) and Nicole Holofcener (Enough Said, Walking and Talking). The former returns to the docu-drama intensity of global terrorism for 22 July, a movie about Norwegian attacks that occurred on the date of the title in 2011. Meanwhile, The Land of Steady Habits takes a different avenue, following Ben Mendelsohn on a mid-life crisis as a Connecticut Yuppie who ditches his comfortable life (and wife, played by Edie Falco) in search of different meanings in his existence.

The crown jewel in Netflix's fall film festival programming, however, as to be Alfonso Cuaron's Roma, an intimate black-and-white drama that already has played to raves at the Venice and Telluride Film Festivals. Roma won't play Toronto until Monday evening, but the pre-screening buzz overwhelmingly backs Netflix's intelligent decision to invest in trusted filmmakers (like Greengrass, Mackenzie, or Holofcener) who usually bring a strong voice and clear vision to their latest features. Cuaron's an Oscar-winning master craftsman, and Roma -- a tribute to his childhood that's supposed to be painted with exquisitely vivid detail -- would likely draw a crowd no matter where it was distributed. (There already are reports that Netflix will consider giving Roma a limited theatrical run, like the company did with Mudbound, so it can properly contend for the Academy Awards.) The fact that Roma carries the Netflix banner, though, is significant.

That's how quickly the standard for film festival programming changed. In the Spring, Cannes blocked the streaming giants from playing along. By Autumn, the "Big Three" of Venice, Telluride and Toronto had opened their collective arms to exciting features that happened to have Netflix backing. The rules are different now. They'll be different next year, as well, and the year after that. It's wise for fests like TIFF to evolve with the changing landscape, so that audiences continue to flock to Canada to see the best of what's to come, no matter where it's coming from.

With Marvel Studios having everyone in Hollywood thinking about large cinematic universes and crossover movies, we have heard years of rumors about Universal Pictures plans for the Bourne franchise. Specifically, many have wondered if it would be possible for us to one day see Matt Damon's Jason Bourne cross paths with Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross -- the lead in Tony Gilroy's The Bourne Legacy. This idea is certainly still on the table for the future of the series, but there is a very clear reason why Renner doesn't show up in the upcoming Jason Bourne: Greengrass simply wanted to just tell a story about his titular hero.

With Paul Greengrass currently out and about doing press for the forthcoming blockbuster release, I had the pleasure of hopping on the phone with the director earlier this month. While we discussed many different aspects of the movie, one of the last topics of conversation was about the narrative opportunity in Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross getting to meet. I asked Greengrass if it was ever an idea that was on the table for the project, but he explained why it never was:

That future that Paul Greengrass mentioned is currently very unclear. Obviously the box office performance and reception of Jason Bourne will have a very important impact on how Universal plans out the franchise in the next few years, but there are some developments that are already in the works. For example, before Greengrass and Matt Damon were confirmed to return, Universal was already hard at work on an untitled sequel centering on Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross. Justin Lin was even attached as a director (though this was even before Star Trek Beyond). It's entirely possible that the studio will continue to try and make that movie happen - and it's worth mentioning that Renner is keen on the crossover film happening someday.

All eyes will be on the Bourne franchise this weekend, as Jason Bourne arrives in theaters on Friday and will be doing box office battle with the comedy Bad Moms, the thriller Nerve, and Star Trek Beyond in its second week of release. While we wait to see how it does, how do you think the series should move in the next few years? Would you like to see the return of Aaron Cross, or do you just want more Jason Bourne? Or do you think maybe it should just come to an end! Hit the comments below with your thoughts.

Paul Greengrass' The Bourne Ultimatum is not just a great movie, but a fantastic end to an amazing trilogy. After a worldwide search for the truth behind his identity and his past, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) finally took the fight directly to the CIA, exposed the assassin program, and even learned that his real name is David Webb. It was a fitting and thrilling conclusion, leaving the franchise without a need for another sequel following the Damon character. Unfortunately, that's exactly that we've received in Jason Bourne, and it's exactly as forced and unnecessary as you would expect.

Based on a screenplay by Paul Greengrass and Christopher Rouse, the film picks up years after the events of Bourne Ultimatum and finds the titular hero living in obscurity and on the fringe in Greece, passing time by participating in boxing matches -- clearly unable to entirely let go of the violence that had been drilled into him. This life is disrupted, however, when Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) comes back into his world, having hacked into the CIA and discovered something new and important about the Treadstone program: it was actually created by Jason Bourne's father (bum bum BUM!).

Much like the audience watching the story unfold, Bourne is thrown for a complete loop and is totally confused after this revelation, and once again finds himself propelled into an adventure -- and the CIA once again on his tail. This time around, the antagonists at the government organization are represented in Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander), the agency's new cyber expert; an unnamed Asset (Vincent Cassel) with a personal score to settle with Bourne, and Director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones), who wants the rogue agent captured at all costs. This urgency is particularly forced because the CIA is about to embark on a new program called Iron Hand involving the participation of Aaron Kalloor (Riz Ahmed), a tech genius about to launch a new social media platform called Deep Dream.

If plot beats such as "It was his father all along," "vengeful assassins," and "corruptible social media" read to you as low-hanging fruit utilized to unnecessarily perpetuate a franchise, then you already basically get the Jason Bourne experience. The first three movies in the series are tight, albeit mostly straightforward action thrillers, but this is the first one that just wears its tropes on its sleeve -- making it feel uninspired and artificial (two adjectives that particularly sting when you consider that this is the character's big screen return after a nine year hiatus). Above all else, it reeks of the studio really wanting a new film with "Bourne" in the title.

Of course, with a filmmaker as smart and talented as Paul Greengrass running the show, Jason Bourne does have some interesting things to offer within its mess of unfortunate choices, but they also lend the movie a bit of frustration to go with the audiences' disappointment. Specifically, it asks some compelling questions about the mindset of the eponymous former assassin, and whether or not the Treadstone program is entirely behind him. Bourne is very much lost when we catch up with him in this chapter, and there's a great dynamic explored between the hero and Heather Lee as she studies his files and begins to question if he can be "brought back in" (the question given weight thanks to strong performances from both Matt Damon and Alicia Vikander). While it's an idea well-explored by the film and honestly given a conclusion, it's so buried within the rest of the problematic script that it still never feels satisfying.

Continuing that theme is also the movie's big action moments, which are fun, but also surprisingly few and far between. Paul Greengrass certainly does set up a couple of big blockbuster beats, including a car-smashing trip through Las Vegas and some Bourne vs. Asset battle in Athens, and they are outfitted with the director's intense, albeit divisive, shaky cam style. Once again, however, the movie just doesn't live up to the standards that the previous installments established, not reaching the edge-of-your-seat level of crazy accomplished by the Russian showdown in Bourne Supremacy or the New York chase in Bourne Ultimatum. It's particularly in this category that the film falls victim to expectation, but all evidence did point us towards the idea of Jason Bourne delivering something better than we get.

Even as someone who sees the merits in Tony Gilroy's semi-spin-off The Bourne Legacy, I was excited when the news came that Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon would be returning to the franchise. Their collaboration on the second and third Bourne movies really defined the aesthetic and tone of the series -- and they're both talented enough that I will always be interested in all of the work they do. Taking into consideration the final result of Jason Bourne, however, it's hard not to wonder if we may have been better off with the return of Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross.

Through three films, vague connections to one spin-off, and a nine year hiatus, Jason Bourne has been as hard to kill as the man that gave the film its title. For a while, it seemed that we'd never get another film out of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass' incarnation of the Robert Ludlum franchise, but fortune smiled on us all and gave us a film we're still anxious to see open next Friday. However, our excitement cannot compare to that of Universal's, as the studio is emboldened to keep this train rolling for as long as humanly possible, and they're not shy about it either.

A pretty comprehensive profile piece on the genesis of Jason Bourne ran recently in The New York Times, and it covered the reticence of both Damon and Greengrass to return, as well the tenacity of their studio colleagues who wanted them back. Most notable was a remark made by Universal Studios' chairwoman, the aptly named Donna Langley, who believes that as far as the Bourne series is concerned, the game plan goes as follows:

When your studio has had a year like Universal did in 2015, and you've got enough clout to bring back Damon and Greengrass back for a film they never thought or intended to make, you tend to want to keep that golden goose in the egg laying business. So Langley's remarks about keeping the franchise in play until it's no longer a viable option aren't all that surprising. However, this doesn't mean that Universal will get its wish, as there are still a lot of variables to worry about when it comes to Jason Bourne. The most important unknown, of course, is whether the public that used to make the series one of the most bankable properties in Hollywood are as eager to see it return after such an absence.

As common logic would dictate, the longer a sequel takes to produce, the worse it tends to be. It may not be scientific, but it's enough to cause fans to worry before going to see a film like Jason Bourne. Nine years isn't exactly the same type of wait that Tron Legacy has incurred, with 28 years spanning between films, but it's still enough of a period to put the Bourne franchise's future in doubt. Though a close proximity sequel / spin-off didn't exactly work either, as The Bourne Legacy was a pretty big disappointment in its 2012 release - only a mere five years after The Bourne Ultimatum capped off the original trilogy.

When the dust has cleared, and the bottom line is exposed, both Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross's futures depend on this film's success. Here's hoping the wait has been worth it, as we only have to wait until July 29th to see Jason Bourne return to his extreme ways in theaters.

It's been a while since we last saw Matt Damon's Jason Bourne. Sure, Jeremy Renner helped perpetuate the franchise with 2012's The Bourne Legacy, but eight years have passed since we've actually seen the series' titular character. As a result, fans are curious as to exactly what he's been up to since we last saw him - but the good news is that Paul Greengrass' untitled Bourne 5 will help deliver answers to all of those questions.

Damon is still in production on the fifth installment of the Bourne franchise, but he's been taking a break from the film recently to take part in the press tour for Ridley Scott's The Martian. As such, he's had the opportunity to talk about his action franchise a bit, and it was while speaking with the New York Daily News that he explained what exactly what we can expect the new Bourne movie to be about. Teasing both the plot and the project's process through development, Damon explained,

Essentially, it sounds like the plot of the film is being strongly driven by what's been going on with Jason Bourne a.k.a. David Webb since we last saw him. You'll notice, however, that there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between the number of years Matt Damon describes and the number of years its been since the release of The Bourne Ultimatum. By the time Bourne 5 hits theaters, we will have only seen nine years pass between adventures - so does this mean that the new sequel actually takes place in the future? Also, what's the significance of increasing the amount of time that's passed from nine to 12? What happened that required the narrative to squeeze in an extra three years?

No official plot description has been released about Bourne 5 - which is based on a script by Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon - but we do know that filming has begun, and that the production has lined up an insanely talented supporting cast (nothing really new for this series). Julia Stiles will be back to reprise her role as Nicky Parsons, but signing on for their first chapter in the story are Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones, Ato Essandoh, and Vincent Cassel - who will reportedly be playing the movie's central antagonist.

We should definitely be hearing more about Bourne 5's story as we get closer to the release date, so be sure to stay tuned for more details (including a title). The film will be in theaters on July 29, 2016.

It’s very, very early in the going, and we don’t know much, if anything, about what the upcoming Bourne 5 will look like (okay, Paul Greengrass is back to direct, so it will probably feature a lot of jittery, pseudo-verite style camerawork). But now we have our first look at Matt Damon returning to the title role, and if you had any doubts about whether or not he could still pull it off, just check out this badass first look. It will go a long way towards easing your mind on that front.

Super producer Frank Marshall (Jurassic World, Indiana Jones, and tons of other notable films) tweeted out this image, and it’s a doozy. We haven’t seen Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne since 2007. He was mentioned in the Jeremy Renner-starring The Bourne Legacy, but mostly just to drive home the fact that no one knew where he was.

At the end of The Bourne Ultimatum, he’s swimming away into an uncertain future, and in Legacy, we find out he’s still being hunted, though he appears to be at least one step ahead of his pursuers at every stage. While there’s no concrete information in this image, it offers a glimpse of at least a part of what he’s been up to in his spare time and how he’s remained hidden.

Unwrapping his fists, shirtless, bruised, and covered in dirt, it appears that Jason Bourne has joined the likes of John Rambo before him (and Topper Harley in Hot Shots! Part Deux), and gone underground where he literally has to fight to survive. Enclosed in some sort of ring, surrounded by a grubby looking audience, it looks like he’s become a part of some kind of fighting ring, probably as a way to use his skills to earn money and stay off of the government radar. Last we heard in Legacy, he was spotted in Russia, so it’s easy to imagine him living a simple, quiet life, aside from the fisticuffs, somewhere in the former Eastern Bloc.

While production must just have started—just a week ago we heard new casting news, but nothing about actual filming—Bourne 5 has already put together a fantastic cast. In addition to Damon, who looks ripped and grizzled here, Tommy Lee Jones and Ex Machina’s Alicia Vikander have both joined the party. Julia Stiles will reprise her role as former CIA analyst and Bourne ally Nicky Parsons. And Vincent Cassell will reportedly play a high-level assassin on the trail of the amnesiac super agent, though we’re not sure if this is for personal or professional reasons.

Bourne 5 is apparently already filming, and it is slated to hit theaters on July 29, 2016.

Matt Damon just provided an update on the upcoming fifth instalment to the Bourne franchise, explaining the main thrust and drive that drew him back to the character. As it turns out, we have Edward Snowden and the recent austerity crisis across Europe to thank for Damon’s involvement.

During his recent discussion with Buzz Feed, Matt Damon, who previously starred in The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Legacy, which in turn helped to turn him into a legitimate action star, admitted that everyone involved had to wait for the world to change in order to bring a fresh edge to the series. He explained that after discussing the idea of a follow-up a number of times with director Paul Greengrass over the years, it wasn’t until Edward Snowden and the NSA whistleblowing tales emerged that they felt they had a story worth telling. Damon said:

Sounds intriguing enough. My main worry with this is that Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon’s last film together, 2010’s Green Zone, suffered because its political agenda was almost too brazen on screen. Hopefully Bourne 5 will manage to subtly include its themes, much in the same fashion that Matt Damon’s previous excursions as the character did, punctuating these ideas with thrilling action scenarios that were meticulous, cold, calculated, and genuinely enthralling.

Edward Snowden has previously been described by Senator John McCain as "some kind of Jason Bourne" for his antics, which saw him release a hoard of classified information that he had gathered from the U.S. National Security Agency back in 2013. Because of his actions, Snowden instigated the debate about security versus privacy, a discussion that still rages on.

There’s just one slight little problem about Bourne 5’s decision to be influenced by Edward Snowden: there’s already a Snowden biopic in the works. In fact, Snowden, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Joseph Gordon Levitt in the title role, will be released this December. However, as Snowden is a biopic, the two films shouldn’t overlap too much, especially since Bourne 5 is probably only going to use his actions as a starting off point for their adventure.

Matt Damon will be joined by Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander for Bourne 5, which is due to hit cinemas on July 15, 2016, and everyone is rather excited about it. Well, everyone except Jeremy Renner.

This past Friday saw some big forward movement for Paul Greengrass' upcoming untitled Bourne 5, with it being revealed that Julia Stiles will be back to reprise her role as Nicky Parsons in the film. Obviously that won't be the end of the casting process, however, and there's news that the project is looking to add an absolutely fantastic actor to play the film's villain: Viggo Mortensen.

A reporter from The Wrap has the scoop on this development, revealing the news on his personal Twitter account. As you can probably guess from the source of this news, there aren't a ton of details available about the character - though there's definitely a suggestion that this is hardly a done deal. Instead, the message merely says that Mortensen has been "offered" the part of the Bourne 5 antagonist, and it's unclear if he's looking to sign on, or even potentially interested in the project.

We we last saw Matt Damon's Jason Bourne at the end of The Bourne Ultimatum, he had discovered is real name - David Webb - and narrowly escaped with his life after exposing the highly unethical activities of Operation Blackbriar. As a result of this, two of the franchise's top villains, Albert Finney's Dr. Albert Hirsch and David Strathairn's Noah Vosen, were taken into custody, and a criminal investigation was launched into the actions of Scott Glenn's Ezra Kramer a.k.a. the Director of the CIA. This begs the question... who could this potentially-Viggo Mortensen-looking villain be? Will he be another government official higher up the ladder that Bourne needs to take down? Or will he be another trained assassin?

Viggo Mortensen gained notoriety largely thanks to his heroic roles - most notably in the Lord of the Rings and movies like A History Of Violence and Eastern Promises - but playing a villain in a franchise like Bourne could be a great move for him. Given his past work, hopefully it will be a film that allows him to go toe-to-toe with Matt Damon in a fight scene, though I could see him also generating a lot of tension and drama from a powerful government seat. Regardless of what kind of villain he might be playing, he would be a great addition to the series.

In addition to Matt Damon and Julia Stiles, Bourne 5 will also feature Alicia Vikander, who garnered a great deal of critical praise earlier this year for her performance in Alex Garland's Ex Machina. Universal Pictures has already carved out a release date for the project, July 29, 2016, and that means that production on the movie - which is being written by Damon and Paul Greengrass - should be entering into production soon. As such, you should be on the lookout for more news about this sequel soon!

Not only are both franchise star Matt Damon and two-time series director Paul Greengrass returning to the Bourne franchise for the upcoming fifth installment (assuming you consider The Bourne Legacy canon), they’re bringing along another key piece of the saga, Julia Stiles.

According to Deadline, the upcoming action film has been busy casting, and Stiles is now the first confirmed addition to the call sheet, beyond Damon that is. She is set to reprise her role of Nicolette "Nicky" Parsons, a desk jockey CIA analyst who, over the course of the first three movies, proves to be a valuable ally to Damon’s amnesiac super spy, Jason Bourne.

Nicky start off as a relatively small in the larger saga, though she serves as a kind of moral compass inside of the CIA—apparently she thinks it’s rather reprehensible to experiment with people and turn them into cold-blooded killing machines. In the first film, 2002’s The Bourne Identity, she’s basically there just to be held at gunpoint. Bourne also kidnaps her in The Bourne Supremacy, and in Ultimatum she thinks she’s safe because she’s gotten out of the intelligence game, but she still winds up the target of government assassins. She just can’t win.

There have been a number of rumors connecting various actors to fill out the supporting ranks in Bourne 5, but thus are Stiles is the first one to sign up. Joan Allen’s high-ranking CIA Director Pamela Land has played a key role in the last two Damon Bourne films, and seems a likely candidate to make a comeback. A few months ago it also came out that Alicia Vander, who has won a fair amount of recent acclaim for her turn in Ex Machina, among other films, was being pursued as the potential female lead, though nothing has been heard since and her schedule continues to fill up.

In addition to directing, Paul Greengrass is also writing the screenplay for Bourne 5, but there isn’t much available in the way of details at this point. With a release date still set for just over a year from now, it seems like things should start to come together before too long. There has been speculation that Jeremy Renner’s Aaron Cross could show up in some capacity. He was supposed to get a follow up to The Bourne Legacy that was going to be directed by Fast & Furious helmet Justin Lin, but that remains up in the air at this point.

The as yet untitled Bourne 5 was pushed back a few weeks from its original release date to July 29, 2016, likely to put some space between it and Star Trek 3, which opens earlier that month.

As soon as it was announced that Matt Damon will be returning to the Bourne franchise in the untitled Bourne 5, fans have been wondering what that means for Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross from The Bourne Legacy. Will that character be simply erased from the fictional world? Will he get another adventure of his own somewhere down the line? Or will he actually get to be a part of an Avengers-style team-up that sees him working with Damon's Jason Bourne? According to producer Frank Marshall, it's mostly Option B, with a chance of Option C.

Marshall - who has been an executive producer on the Bourne franchise since it launched with The Bourne Identity in 2002 - recently sat down for an interview with Collider, and when asked if Jeremy Renner was still going to be a part of the franchise going forward, the filmmaker firmly confirmed that he will be. Where things got tricky, however, was when the of a possible Matt Damon/Jeremy Renner crossover movie came up. According to Marshall, there is nothing currently in the cards, but it isn't entirely an impossibility that Bourne and Cross could one day meet. Asked if there was a chance to the two characters could come together in Bourne 5, he told the site,

Given how just about everything in Hollywood these days seems to be gearing towards the Marvel-style "shared universe" days - from DC Comics, to Robin Hood, to King Arthur - this is a rather curious answer, if not only because making a Jason Bourne/Aaron Cross team-up movie seems so obvious. Bourne's home, Universal Pictures, has already been working with this kind of strategy, creating a whole new linked series of monster movies, so it's strange that they wouldn't also try the same thing for one of their biggest action franchises. Then again, it's also entirely possible that Frank Marshall is just playing politics here, and merely doesn't want to give anything away about big plans that are being developed behind the scenes.

At this stage, we have no idea when we will be getting our next Aaron Cross-led Bourne movie, but Bourne 5 seems to be right on track. In addition to Matt Damon coming back, Paul Greengrass will once again be at the helm of the project, and filming is scheduled to start later this year. While the film was originally going to come out on July 15, 2016, it has since been pushed back to July 29, 2016. Presumably the next few months will be filled with new details about who in the franchise cast will be returning and who will be signing on for their series debut, so stay tuned.

The Bourne franchise went from a tailspin after the middling performance of The Bourne Legacy to an updraft with the return of both Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass into the franchise fold for what's now simply being called Bourne 4. While the Justin Lin helmed/Jeremy Renner starring Bourne project is in a holding pattern, the Damon/Greengrass film is on the tarmac and ready to roll. But while things appear to be going well for the project, it seems that it's going to need just a bit more time before its ready to hit theaters.

The L.A. Times is reporting that the new adventures of Jason Bourne have been pushed back two weeks, from the original July 15th, 2016 date to July 29th, 2016. This new slot takes the film out of the path of Star Trek 3's opening on July 8, 2016, and lands it in the original release date for Matt Reeves' next Planet Of The Apes film – which itself was bumped to July 2017. It's not a huge shift by any stretch, but it's enough of a move to give the new film a little more time to maneuver. In other words, it's not that Bourne 5 is losing confidence; it's re-positioning itself for a better angle of attack.

The 2016/2017 line-up of blockbusters really seems to be in a huge state of flux at this moment, with films moving left and right to try and carve out their little patch of box office gold. The fact that Bourne 5 moved back two weeks looks like it's the right strategy, because Star Trek 3 should be set up for box office success after two huge home runs with Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. But should Star Trek 3 not live up to the pedigree that J.J. Abrams had built with the first two films, word will spread fast and those two weeks could mean that the film market will be in need of a comfortable hit. Enter the newly returning team of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass, bringing back their respective talents to the Bourne series, ready to give the world a thrill that's familiar but brand new at the same time.

Seeing as the plot to Bourne 5 is under wraps at this point, there's no clue as to whether the film will feature a Aaron Cross and Jason Bourne, or if that concept will be pushed off to either before or after the Aaron Cross follow up that Justin Lin is still attached to make. All that's known at this point is the future of the Bourne franchise just got interesting again, and Matt Damon is going to kick some old school franchise ass once more. If you need any more than that, you're just going to have to wait for the first trailer to drop - perhaps at the end of this year.

Following the release of The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007, star Matt Damon told reporters that he had no plans to return to the franchise unless director Paul Greengrass was planning to do the same. Because the English director wanted to pursue other interests, Damon kept to his word and didn't star in 2012's The Bourne Legacy. The landscape has changed in the year since, however, and now the Oscar-winning actor has confirmed he will be back for the next Bourne chapter, along with his #1 choice director.

Watch the Jason Bourne Trailer here!

Word of negotiations between Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass leaked out this past September, but now the star has personally confirmed not only that he will be back, but when. With Damon and buddy Ben Affleck recently walking the red carpet celebrating the resurrection of their series Project Greenlight, E! took the opportunity to ask about the future of Bourne, and the series star revealed that a deal has been made. Saying that the plan is to shoot next year, Damon said,

The Untitled Next Bourne Chapter - or simply Bourne 5 - is currently locked in for a July 15, 2016 release date, but there remains a big question regarding what that means for the future of Jeremy Renner's Bourne character, Aaron Cross. The July 2016 date was originally set aside for a Bourne Legacy sequel that would be directed by Justin Lin (his first non-Fast & Furious film since his directorial debut, Better Luck Tomorrow). Renner certainly isn't lacking in franchises these days - as he remains heavily active as Hawkeye in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and he is returning as Brandt in Christopher McQuarrie's currently-in-production Mission: Impossible 5 - but it's also pretty hard to believe that Universal would just be dumping that half of the series.The best bet right now is that we'll either get a Renner-centric Bourne movie at another point in the near future, or Renner's character will be joining up with Matt Damon's in the next film. It all depends on the franchise timetable that Universal has planned out, which may even be a little theoretical at this point.

Given the release date, we can assume that production on Bourne 5 will likely start up around the mid-point of next year - which means that we will surely be hearing about all kinds of plot details (not just those possibly involving Jeremy Renner) and casting rumors pour out over the next few weeks and months. Naturally, we will be following all of it beat by beat, so be sure to stay tuned for the latest updates!

Jeremy Renner’s a busy dude. When he isn’t apprehending Ultron as a member of Team Avengers, he’s acting away in Oscar-pedigreed dramas like American Hustle or the upcoming Kill the Messenger. He also tried to put the Bourne franchise on his back once Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass walked away. Now that they are coming back (allegedly), where does that leave Renner and his #chems?

In a recent interview with HuffPo, Jeremy Renner made it clear that, in his mind, the return of Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne doesn’t spell the end for his secret agent, Aaron Cross. In fact, Renner said:

YES! That’s what we were hoping for ever since the plotline for Jeremy Renner’s The Bourne Legacy ran parallel to Matt Damon’s final-at-the-time Bourne adventure, The Bourne Ultimatum. It only seemed like a matter of time before the U.S. government (on screen) pulled enough strings, double-crossed enough agents, and got these two killing machines on the same case.

Aaron Cross, as you may recall, was part of the same program that trained Jason Bourne. In Legacy we learn that – due to Bourne’s actions – the program is trying to be wiped off the face of the planet. This means doing away with Cross, forcing our hero to fight back against the powers who trained him.

Recently, Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass were linked to negotiations to return to the series for Bourne 5. This past summer, the release date for the new movie was pushed back, perhaps to accommodate for Jeremy Renner’s busy schedule. The actor already has claimed that he probably doesn’t have the time to do Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters 2. He is tied up with Marvel movies for the foreseeable future. And now he wants to fit in a new Bourne movie. Hopefully with #chems.

In this post-Avengers, Batman v Superman world, team ups in major franchises are the norm. If there’s a good story bringing Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner together, we should get it done. Having Greengrass at the helm would help, for sure. We’ll track this story as it continues to develop.

When Matt Damon decided to walk away from the Jason Bourne franchise, it was for one very simple reason: he didn't want to make the movies without director Paul Greengrass involved, and Greengrass decided he was satisfied with the work that he had put into the series. Universal Pictures has moved on, making The Bourne Legacy with Tony Gilroy directing and Jeremy Renner starring, but now it looks like it won't be long until the original star returns.

Variety's sources have informed them that both Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass are now in early negotiations to come back for another installment in the Bourne franchise. The article doesn't explain why the actor and the filmmaker are thinking about changing their minds, only that it is actually happening. One important factor could simply be time, as it has been a full seven years since the release of The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007. Maybe they're just missing the experience?

What's unclear is how this new development will affect the most recent developments with Jeremy Renner's wing of the Bourne series. Justin Lin is currently attached to helm what is simply known as Bourne 5, and Universal has scheduled the project for release on July 16, 2016 with Renner's Aaron Cross returning as the lead. There is a possibility that this new Greengrass/Damon film could wind up bumping that movie, but nothing is 100% clear at this point.

It's not hard to see why Universal would be very excited at the prospect of getting Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass back together on the Bourne franchise. Not only were they responsible for the two biggest hits in the franchise - The Bourne Ultimatium ($227 million domestic gross) and The Bourne Supremacy ($176 million domestic gross) - but The Bourne Legacy didn't exacly work wonders when released in 2012. While its $113 million domestic total was nice, it wasn't so great when compared to the $125 million budget. When it comes to Bourne, many fans see Damon as the real deal, and that's going to put asses in the seats - particularly because the movie can be sold on the actor's big return.

Rather than making the situation Damon vs. Renner, however, it would be in Universal's best interest to actually unite them. It's a franchise model that Marvel Studios proved can work extremely well, and can anyone out there really say they don't want to see Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner team up to kick some shady government ass?

If these reports turn out to be true, you can be sure that the next few weeks will give us at least one update on the situation. Be sure to stay tuned for the latest updates, and hit the comments below to tell us what you make of the whole situation.

With Bloody Sunday, United 93 and Captain Phillips, Paul Greengrass has won critical praise and Oscar accolades for turning real-life traumas into compelling dramas. So it's little wonder he's being eyed for the helm of the developing docudrama involving the 1996 Olympic Games.

Deadline reports Paul Greengrass is currently considering taking the helm of the Jonah Hill/Leonardo DiCaprio vehicle The Ballad of Richard Jewell, which will unravel the disturbing tale of Richard Jewell, the American police officer who discovered a backpack filled with pipebombs at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. Having made the discovery before anyone could be injured, Jewell was first hailed as a hero. But before long the media turned on him, accusing him of planting the bomb himself.

Greengrass's experience in translating true dramas into compelling cinema makes him an excellent pick for The Ballad of Richard Jewell. Should he sign on, this docudrama will reteam him with Captain Phillips Academy Award-winning screenwriter Billy Ray, whose been brought on board to adapt the script from the 1997 Vanity Fair article by Marie Brenner. This would mark Greengrass's first time working with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill.

We first got word on The Ballad of Richard Jewell last February. The Wolf of Wall Street had just established DiCaprio and Hill as a compelling (yet repulsive) onscreen duo. And it seemed Hill's second Oscar nomination spurred Fox to buy this Richard Jewell story as a vehicle for the comedian turned celebrated dramatic actor.

As you may have guessed, Hill will front this docudrama as Jewell. For his part, DiCaprio--who also got an Oscar nomination with Wolf of Wall Street--will play a lawyer who knew the cop turned Olympic security guard only casually before he became a reluctant celebrity. It seems the screenplay will have the two become unlikely friends, as one is sacrificed on the cruel stage of public opinion for supposed crimes of which he was completely cleared.

The following month, Fox laid out serious cash to secure hotly sought screenwriter Billy Ray, and The Ballad of Richard Jewell went from an intriguing possibility to an in-development project to watch. Now, if Fox can secure Greengrass, they are almost guaranteed a clear path to Oscar consideration. I know, it's only September. And this movie doesn't even have a director. But if you think the producers of The Ballad of Richard Jewell aren't already calculating their Oscar odds, you're being naïve.

We'll give you more on tho project as it develops.

To learn more about Richard Jewell, click to page 2 for a revealing interview.

After coming off of two projects where the drama outweighed the action, Paul Greengrass may now be looking to possibly get back into blockbuster filmmaking. According to unnamed sources over at Badass Digest, with Out of the Furnace filmmaker Scott Cooper dropping out of directing the big screen adaptation of Stephen King's The Stand, Warner Bros. is now hoping that they can rope Greengrass into taking the director's chair. While it doesn't sound like things have exactly entered the negotiation stage, he is reportedly at the top of the studio's wish list.

This new adaptation of The Stand has been in the works since 2011, and in that time it has run through directors like tissue paper. Harry Potter's David Yates was the first one to sign on for the movie, attaching himself in July 2011, but then he quit a few months later citing that the source material didn't have enough big action sequences and set pieces to create the tentpole picture that Warner Bros. wants the movie to be. Ben Affleck came on in October 2011, but then this past August he was forced from the chair due to commitments to David Fincher's Gone Girl, Zack Snyder's Batman vs. Superman and his own next directorial effort Live By Night. Affleck was then replaced by Cooper, who dropped out last week due to creative differences with the studio.

It's taken a long time for the project to get to this point, and absolutely nothing has been accomplished. According to Badass Digest's report, the project hasn't even managed to answer big questions, like those about the size of the franchise and what rating they will be aiming for. They are working from square one.

That being said, the film's lack of progress could be seen as a positive aspect by Greengrass. Working from a clean slate would potentially be enticing for the filmmaker, as it would allow him to really leave his stamp on the material. That being said, the project's history thus far suggests that the studio has been doing a lot of meddling, and there probably aren't many directors out there who would be willing to jump into a pit of snakes like that.

As alluded to earlier, Greengrass does have some experience with big action movies having made both The Bourne Supremacy in 2004 and The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007. Since then he has made the Iraq War thriller Green Zone - which reunited him with Bourne star Matt Damon - and then just last month we saw the release of his latest, Captain Phillips (which is expected to be a player in this year's award season).

But I shall turn the issue over to you. Do you think that Paul Greengrass would be a good fit for Stephen King's The Stand? Answer our poll below.

This poll is no longer available.

While Tom Hanks’ turn as the titular hero in Paul Greengrass’ Captain Phillips has generated the most buzz for the film, it’s not the only terrific performance to be found in the movie. Newcomer Barkhad Abdi stars as the film’s central villain, Muse, and manages to find an impressive balance between threatening and empathetic, both adding a terrific tension to the film and depth to the character. So how did Greengrass go about casting the role of Muse and selecting Abdi for the part? At a recent press junket for the film in Los Angeles I had the chance to ask the director and the star exactly that.

Sitting down with Greengrass and Abdi for an on-camera interview last week, I not only had the chance to ask about how the Somali pirates were cast, what the director was looking for during the auditions, Abdi’s approach to the character, and what they hope that audiences will take away from watching the film. Check out the video below!

Greengrass’ first film since 2010’s Green Zone and based on a screenplay written by Billy Ray (The Hunger Games), Captain Phillips recounts the thrilling true story from April 2009 when a band of Somali pirates, led by a man named Muse (Abdi), attempted to hijack the container ship MV Maersk Alabama. Armed with nothing but quick thinking and incredible bravery, the titular Captain (Hanks) made every move he could to protect the members of his crew, even when it meant putting himself in harm’s way.

Already in select theaters, the movie will be released nationwide tomorrow, October 11th. You can watch a trailer for the film below and head over to our Blend Film Database for more.

Proving once again that true stories with foregone conclusions can be just as gripping as a conventional thriller, Paul Greengrass's tense, overwhelming Captain Phillips faithfully, fiercely recounts the siege of the American container ship Maersk Alabama by Somali pirates in April of 2009. The titular captain was the visible hero of the ordeal, and of course he's played here by Tom Hanks, with a paunch and beard that makes him only more relatable as our go-to American Everyman. The affected Boston accent indicates some effort at capturing the real Phillips, but Hanks's performance is all about natural authority and courage, with a commitment and deep emotion that reflects the film's propulsive, relentless drive.

From the brief prologues, in which we see Phillips leave his cozy Vermont home to report for duty in Oman and a group of Somali pirates in a beachside village prepare for takeover, it's clear that Greengrass wants both sides of the conflict on screen. Hanks and general moral principles obviously tilt the scales for the Americans, but as Somali lead Muse, newcomer Barkhad Abdi does remarkable work bringing the Somali side to life. The basic details of Muse's situation are fuzzy-- obvious poverty, warlords demanding all able-bodied men take to piracy-- but Greengrass is generous enough to let us see, however briefly, the David vs. Goliath story this could be from another angle. As the pirate schiffs approach the Alabama miles from the coast of Somalia, the contrast is absurd. How can these bedraggled men, one of them a shoeless teenager, overcome that mammoth tribute to American capitalist might?

They do, of course, and Greengrass doesn't need to linger too long on heady thoughts about economic worlds colliding-- he's got an amazing siege story to tell. In this first half we watch Phillips as well as his crew work to outsmart the pirates, both thinking on their feet and calling on the resources of the American commercial and military forces that (theoretically) can bail them out. Greengrass and his trademark shaky camera-- still more effective in his hands than his many copycats-- stage a series of fantastically tense near-escapes and conflicts, allowing us to get to know these pirates and marvel at the ingenuity and basic heroism of Phillips, who doesn't hesitate to offer himself as a sacrifice when one of his men is threatened.

It's that same straightforward courage that lands Phillips inside one of his ship's lifeboats along with the four pirates, on a journey back to Somalia that Phillips knows-- or at least pretends to know-- cannot end in their success. At that point Captain Phillips switches to a slow boil, cutting between the stifling lifeboat and the various military organizations who have stepped in to organize a rescue. It's remarkable how Greengrass loses none of the tension when stepping away from Phillips and introducing new heroes, like Max Martini's SEAL Commander, while reveling in the sheer expanse of the military might. No matter how much we and Phillips may come to see the pirates as real humans, it's impossible not to marvel at the SEALs jumping from a plane or the incredible precision of the negotiations. With no explosions and only a handful of bullets, Greengrass creates one of the most impressive, captivating military spectacles in recent years.

Hanks, who has proven too many times recently that he can coast and mug his way to disaster on screen, is dialed back and stern for most of the film, barking orders to his crew then attempting cold, simple reason with his captors. Near the end of the film he's allowed to turn up the emotion, but even then-- at the conclusion we've all been expecting-- he manages to surprise. Hanks has been such a familiar star for so long that it was easy to think he'd run out of tricks (Cloud Atlas face tattoos aside), but he is so commanding, so authentic here, taking what could be cheap, sentimental heroism and creating a real but extraordinary human who is just smart enough to survive. As with United 93, it's fair to ask why we need Captain Phillips, a very truthful recreation of a very famous true story. But the visceral feeling of surviving alongside the Captain, and the incredible catharsis that comes with it at the end, is its own answer. True stories this remarkable are rare, and movies about them that work this well are even rarer.

Captain Phillips opens the New York Film Festival tonight.

If DreamWorks still plans to make The Trial of the Chicago 7, it’s going to have to do it without Paul Greengrass at the helm.

Variety reports that the Bourne director and the studio “have decided to part ways after being unable to agree on a budget” for the period piece, which would focus on the riots caused by activists during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Illinois. The man accused included Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner. They were charged with conspiracy, inciting to riot, and other charges related to protests.

Part of the reason Variety says that the budget was ballooning close to $40 million – as opposed to the $30 million mark the studio sought – is because Greengrass wanted to accurately stage the riots, a costly proposition for whomever takes over the production. Someone will be plugged in soon, though, as DreamWorks remains very high on the screenplay submitted by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, The Social Network). Scott Rudin is on hand to produce. What are the chances thney would be able to lure David Fincher into their corner, seeing as how the trio collaborated on Social Network an Fincher is between projects (with several irons in the fire)?

Greengrass, meanwhile, is in an enviable spot. His latest film, Captain Phillips, is generating serious heat thanks to his direction and Tom Hanks’ portrayal of an actual commanding officer whose whip is commandeered by Somali pirates. Have you seen the latest trailer?

Variety notes that Greengrass will be quick to locate his next project. Is this the open door that he and Matt Damon want to be able to return to the Bourne franchise for Universal? Because that theory was floated, and then shot down. to me, it kind of sounds like a no-brainer. Greengrass is free now. He and Damon have talked about doing more Bourne stories, and the idea of Damon teaming with Jeremy Renner had potential. Let’s make that happen, people!

As for the Chicago 7, a narrative recreation of those tumultuous political events seems ripe for the picking. But if you want a history lesson on the material Sorkin mined, this Court TV documentary from 1999 can fill in the gaps while you wait to see whom DreamWorks plugs into the hole left vacant by the departing Greengrass.

UPDATE: According to Variety, Universal Pictures has denied that Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass are in talks for the next Bourne film. It is possible that it's just a smoke screen, but for now you might want to put your Jason Bourne/Aaron Cross dreams on hold.

The original report is below.

Back in 2007 after the release of The Bourne Ultimatum, Matt Damon let it be known that he was not interested in playing Jason Bourne again without director Paul Greengrass at the helm of the project. Because Greengrass decided that he didn't want to make a fourth Bourne movie, it appeared that the Damon era of the franchise was over, and the reigns were handed over to writer/director Tony Gilroy and new star Jeremy Renner. Now, six years later, it appears that things are returning to the way they once were. According to sources over at Twitch, Universal is now in talks with both Damon and Greengrass to come back to the series.

The big question this raises, of course, is what happens to Renner's new character, Aaron Cross, who was introduced in last year's The Bourne Legacy. The site says that this new development isn't "an either/or scenario," suggesting that the next film will see both action heroes working together to try and take down the program that turned them into government-programmed killing machines.

This news comes just a few weeks after it was reported that Universal has hired Anthony Peckham to write the script for the fifth Bourne movie, which doesn't currently have a title. At the time we wondered why Gilroy - who has been a part of the franchise from the beginning - was not mentioned as being a part of the project as a director, but that could now be explained by the possibility of Greengrass' return. It's also worth mentioning that Damon has experience working with a Peckham script, as the screenwriter previously wrote Clint Eastwood's Invictus, in which the actor starred.

Greengrass and Damon last worked together on the 2010 Iraq War film Green Zone, but the two have since gone separate ways. Greengrass will soon be releasing his new film, the based-on-a-true-story thriller Captain Phillips, while Damon was most recently featured in Neill Blomkamp's Elysium, which came out earlier this month. The actor will next be seen as part of the amazing ensemble in George Clooney's The Monuments Men (which also features John Goodman, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Jean Dujardin and Cate Blanchett), as well as Terry Gilliam's Zero Theorem (though the latter is just a small part).

Until this story is confirmed by the studio it should probably just be seen as rumor, but do you think this is exciting news? Would you be interested in seeing not only Greengrass and Damon return, but a team-up between Damon and Renner? Answer our poll below and let us know your thoughts in the comments section!

This poll is no longer available.

Paul Greengrass, who's preparing to tug at our heartstrings with this fall's Captain Phillips, will take on yet another huge true story-- but this one with much trickier politics behind it. According to The Hollywood Reporter Greengrass is in final talks to direct The Trial of the Chicago 7, based on the true story of the riots that surrounded the Democratic National Convention in 1968, adapted into a script by none other than Aaron Sorkin.

When the film first started moving way back in 2007, Sorkin was still recovering from the flop of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and was looking toward the winter release of Charlie Wilson's War to turn his fate around (that didn't work out so well-- but The Social Network would pull it off a few years later). At the time Steven Spielberg was actually eyeing the directing job on the Chicago 7 script, and started rustling up a high-profile cast that included Will Smith, Taye Diggs, Adam Arkin, Kevin Spacey and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Then development halted and later that year Greengrass's name was attached to the film, before it fell off the map entirely and Greengrass moved on to make Green Zone and eventually Captain Phillips.

Now Greengrass has looped back around and picked the film back up after all, with DreamWorks funding the film and Disney planning to distribute. There's no word on when production would begin, but after Captain Phillips opens this fall Greengrass has a few other items competing for attention on his schedule. Last month he seemed ready to start production on the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination drama Memphis, for which Forest Whitaker was eyeing the lead role. He had trouble securing financing for the project, though, so it's possible he might prefer Chicago 7 as a sure thing. At one point he was also eyeing a crime thriller with George Clooney attached to produce and star, but given how busy that guy stays, it would be no surprise if it had fallen apart.

The story of the Chicago 7 is one of the most complicated and consistently captivating of the 1960s protest movement, and has already been turned into documentary and, apparently, a Netflix streamable movie starring Mayim Bialik and Gary Cole. The group, which included Yippie founder Abbie Hoffman, was tried for helping to organize the riots that surrounded the 1968 Democratic National Convention, protesting the Vietnam War. The actual number of people changes from time to time-- seven people went on trial together, while an eighth, Black Panthers co-founder Bobby Seale, was "severed" from the case after being disruptive in court; the documentary Chicago 10 took its title from a quote from Jerry Rubin: "Anyone who calls us the Chicago Seven is a racist. Because you're discrediting Bobby Seale. You can call us the Chicago Eight, but really we're the Chicago Ten, because our two lawyers went down with us." Will Sorkin pay attention to that and change it to 8? Given how much flak he gets on a weekly basis for the politics of The Newsroom, we're guessing he's long since developed a thick enough skin to ignore pretty much any complaint.

Forest Whitaker recently got a taste of American history by playing longtime White House butler Cecil Gaines in Lee Daniels’ The Butler, which audiences will be able to see later this year. But did it give him enough of a taste to compel him to continue on in the Deep South to play a legendary U.S. figure for a prestigious biopic?

It’s possible, as The Wrap is reporting that Whitaker is discussing the possibility of playing Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, a movie directed by Paul Greengrass. The trade says that Greengrass finally secured financing for his dream project, and likely plans to make it his next directorial effort. He intends to shoot it in his trademark docu-drama style, which ramped up the action in the Bourne series but also brought a disturbing sense of realism to his harrowing and brilliant United 93.

Greengrass has shopped Memphis to assorted studios, setting up and losing deals at Universal and Sony before deciding to go the indie route. It seems crazy that a studio wouldn’t want to gamble on a proven talent like Greengrass tackling an historical story that’s sure to appeal to a broad audience. But historical biopics don’t tend to break the bank – even with Oscar’s blessing backing them, when that happens – so perhaps that explains why Greengrass has struggled to get Memphis on screen.

The Wrap says that the screenplay will focus on King’s internal struggles regarding his life’s work, and the toll it takes on his family. Whitaker won an Oscar for playing Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland. Greengrass, meanwhile, has the Somali pirate drama Captain Phillips with Tom Hanks on the horizon. If he and Whitaker end up on this year’s Oscar trail, it will be fun to see them prep Memphis right before our very eyes.

The generic title may not sound like much, but don't count out Captain Phillips, for reasons that are plainly obvious in this first trailer (which premiered at The Guardian). It's got Tom Hanks in fine heroic form. It's got Paul Greengrass back to directing an original story, and the kind of real-life historical event that might seem tough to adapt. Last time that happened, he got an Oscar nomination for United 93.

It's been a few years since it happened, but the story of the Maersk Alabama cargo ship remains remarkable. Taken over by Somali pirates in April of 2009, the Maersk became the first American cargo vessel seized by pirates in over 200 years, and was the focus of fascination over the course of the four-day ordeal. The titular Captain Phillips became famous after agreeing to be taken hostage by the pirates in exchange for the safety his men, and his attempts to escape only added to the drama. Barely a month after the ordeal ended Columbia Pictures acquired Phillips's life rights, and about two years ago Hanks signed on to star-- pretty much the only way you could make the guy seem just as heroic onscreen as he was in real life.

You'd better believe Captain Phillips is set for a release timed for the Oscars-- it's coming to theaters on October 11. It's been more than two decades since Tom Hanks won an Oscar-- could he be due for another this year?

We’ve known for quite some time that a fourth Bourne movie is happening, and that Matt Damon isn’t in it. Instead, actor Jeremy Renner (Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol) will be taking over the franchise in The Bourne Ultimatum as a new protagonist, with series screenwriter Tony Gilroy now also directing. Up until now, however, it has sounded like these changes were all cordial and mutual. Based on some comments Matt Damon made in a GQ cover story, however, that may not entirely be the case.

The trouble stems, apparently, from Damon and Gilroy’s last Bourne collaboration, The Bourne Ultimatum. Damon told GQ that Gilroy’s deal for the film only required him to write one draft of the script, no rewrites, because he was committed to making his directorial debut on Michael Clayton. Damon continued:

The script was thereafter rewritten by George Nolfi and Scott Z. Burns, but Damon said that Gilroy later petitioned the Writers Guild for sole credit on the script. He was denied, so Gilroy shares screenplay credit on the final film with Nolfi and Burns. Apparently, things behind the scenes of the Bourne franchise were a bit rockier than we knew. Damon also explained that the friction began when Paul Greengrass came on as director on the second film, The Bourne Supremacy, with Gilroy and Greengrass’ competing styles jarring against each other. “Tony does all the work before and delivers a finished script. Paul wants the script to be ever-evolving during shooting.”

Damon was quick to attempt to put his comments in perspective, however. In a new interview with THR, Damon explains that he was set on edge when the offices for The Bourne Legacy opened up in Vancouver, right next to his trailer on the set of Neil Blomkamp’s science fiction flick, Elysium. He told THR:

Hopefully this spat between Damon and Gilroy won’t come to blows. I once saw Damon kill a guy with a ballpoint pen (in a movie).

The Bourne Legacy is set to open on August 3rd, 2012. We’ll have to wait until March 1st, 2013 for Elysium.

By the time Captain Richard Phillips was rescued from Somali pirates by Navy SEALs back in 2009, several things were clear. 1) Navy SEALs are badass, 2) Captain Phillips was going to show up on every single talk show in America, and 3) they were totally going to make a movie about it. Sure enough, Columbia Pictures grabbed the movie rights the very next month. Since then, the project has signed on Tom Hanks to play the lead role of Phillips and Paul Greengrass to direct. It's taken a while, but now the project -- officially titled Captain Phillips -- has nailed down a release date. The Playlist reports that Captain Phillips will make port in theaters on March 22nd, 2013.

In case you've forgotten the details, Captain Richard Phillips and the crew of the Maersk Alabama were attacked by four Somali pirates intent on hijacking the vessel on April 8th, 2009. The crew fought back with flares and even the ship's rudder, but the pirates made it aboard anyway. The crew had smartly rerouted control of the ship away from the bridge and powered everything down, so the pirates couldn't control the ship, but they did capture Captain Phillips and several crew members. Chief Engineer Perry managed to capture the pirate leader and they attempted to exchange him for Phillips, but the pirates -- surprise, surprise -- reneged on their deal and fled on one of the Alabama's lifeboats, with Phillips still in captivity. The American destroyer USS Bainbridge was dispatched to deal with the hostage situation, and the standoff continued for days, despite Phillips attempting to escape his captors. Phillips was finally rescued on April 12th, 2009, when three Navy SEAL snipers killed the remaining three pirates with three simultaneous shots, thus proving their badassery in a way that would not be surmounted until their appointment with Osama Bin Laden earlier this year.

In other words, it's got all the makings of an awesome movie. There's no question Hanks will excel in the role, and United 93 should remove any doubts as to whether Greengrass is the right person to tell a story like this one. If you want the patriotic puff piece, you call Michael Bay. If you want the story honestly and effectively told, you call Paul Greengrass.

The Bourne torch may have been passing to Jeremy Renner with next year's The Bourne Legacy, but that doesn't mean that Matt Damon is abandoning the possibility of eventually returning to the role that made him an action star. In an interview with Shortlist.com, Damon tossed more fuel on the fire for fans who would like to see him back in the role of amnesiac badass Jason Bourne:

Hardly stamping a release date on any future Damon/Greengrass Bourne flicks, but at least the door isn't totally closed. Of course, the question is: should Damon return to that well? It remains to be seen how The Bourne Legacy will shape up, but the existing Bourne films comprise one of the best action trilogies in decades, and culminate in a pretty damn perfect ending, as well. If Damon and/or Greengrass do eventually return to the franchise, here's hoping they do so because somebody has a really good idea about what to do with Jason Bourne, rather than just as a cash grab. If Legacy isn't a solid hit, I can totally see Universal trying to coerce Damon back to reinvigorate the brand.

Hopefully that won't be a concern, however. Tony Gilroy is both co-writing and directing Legacy, after having co-written the first three Bourne flicks, and Jeremy Renner is poised to blow up as the next big thing, with roles in the upcoming Avengers and Mission: Impossible movies on top of Legacy. If we have to get another Bourne flick without Damon, these are capable hands to leave the franchise in. Either way, we'll see if Renner can fill Damon's shoes next summer, when The Bourne Legacy opens in theaters.

What do you think? Are you excited about The Bourne Legacy? Would you like to see Damon eventually return to the franchise? Sound off over on Cinema Blend's Facebook fan page.

If you've ever watched an old action film and a recent one back to back-- say, Terminator 2 and The Dark Knight-- you can clearly tell that action filmmaking has changed a lot in the last decade. In sharp contrast to the last century of moviemaking, today individual shots can last milliseconds while the camera swoops by in a blur, making it a whole lot harder to get a sense of space in many action scenes scene. Paul Greengrass has turned his kind of filmmaking into his signature style in the Bourne films, using handheld camera and quick pans to throw you into a scene with Jason Bourne and make you feel as disoriented as he probably does. But far more often the style can backfire, giving you movies like Clash of the Titans or even, at moments< The Dark Knight., where entire action scenes go by without you understanding exactly what's happened.

In the two long, very smart video essays below, Indiewire blogger Matthias Stork has dissected this kind of action filmmaking, which he calls "chaos cinema." He starts with clips from movies like The Wild Bunch and Die Hard that show very clearly how things used to be-- you see a gun fire and in the next shot see where the bullet lands, or cut from the inside of the car in a chase scene to the outside of it with no doubt as to where you are at any point. Moving into scenes from movies like Transformers, Bad Boys 2, Shoot 'Em Up and many more, the change in style is obvious, from the use of handheld camera to the content of each shot-- all action, all the time!-- to the quick shots that go by so quickly you can't even tell what they're of. Watch the two videos below to find out much more, and stick around after as I explain why I'm not totally on board with everything here.

I get as frustrated as anyone else when I can't get my bearings in an action scene-- for me it's the one major flaw in The Dark Knight, a movie that gives you spectacular chases with the Batmobile but often makes them impossible to see. But I'm also rankled by the condescending tone of Stork's narration, in which he throws out knee-jerk value judgments like "The only art here is the art of confusion." Though Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass have plenty of detractors, and Sam Peckinpah may well have had a heart attack trying to follow the action in The Bourne Ultimatum, their work also has a style and a substance all to itself-- they have broken the rules of classical cinema and given us something chaotic and tricky, yes, but also new. What they do doesn't always work, and you could argue that the Bourne movie chase scenes would be much better if you always knew what was going on in every shot-- but to write off the Bourne action scenes as incoherent and shallow because of the use of handheld camera seems overly dismissive to me.

Yes, the "chaos cinema" style is used badly more often than not, as the clips from Battle: Los Angeles handily prove. But this is how filmmaking moves forward. Think of the way the likes of Bosley Crowther reacted to the now-classic Bonnie and Clyde and the slow motion "dance of death" that ends the movie. Think of how many people thought the intense cutting in the opening scene of The Wild Bunch, between the action and a group of kids torturing scorpions, was too intense. I'm not saying that "chaos cinema" is the natural evolution of moviemaking, that it's style we should stick with or that it's being used well. But it does seem deliberately stodgy to write off the entire style, to allow only that Kathryn Bigelow uses it well in The Hurt Locker and otherwise call it crass and confusing. These videos do an excellent job of identifying chaos cinema and explaining how it works, but I wish they weren't so anxious to condemn the style entirely.

Thanks to his two massively successful Bourne films, Paul Greengrass constantly shows up on lists of directors who might tackle a given project, everything from the Angelina Jolie Cleopatra movie to the Fantastic Voyage remake at Fox. In all the time since last year's Green Zone, though, Greengrass has only committed himself to a Martin Luther King Jr. biopic that Universal went to pull the plug on, wary like all the other studios of movies aimed at actual adults. And while the most recent rumor suggested he could direct Leonardo DiCaprio in the detective movie The Deep Blue Good-By before tackling the MLK project again, Vulture reports he's got two other projects he's weighing as well, and one of them could involve an American hero that rivals even Jason Bourne.

They say that Greengrass is in talks to direct Maersk Alabama, the true story of the American container ship taken hostage by Somali pirates that will star Tom Hanks as the heroic skipper Richard Phillips; the studio is talking about putting the film into production as soon as the fall, once Hanks is done working with the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer on Cloud Atlas. His other option is Rush, a drama about a Formula One racecar driver with a script written by The Queen's Peter Morgan. That project would inevitably be much smaller than the giant Sony one with Tom Hanks in the lead, so presumably Greengrass is weighing just how huge a project he wants to take on for his next effort.

I don't mind Greengrass keeping his eye on a mix of smaller and larger projects-- after all, United 93 was a tiny production that's some of Greengrass's best work. But the Maersk Alabama movie sounds like the kind of gripping, tense, true-life story that would work really well in Greengrass's hands, avoiding sentimentality and pontification on the Greatness Of America and instead opting for something more realistic and intense. Plenty of directors can probably do well by the material, but Greengrass seems like the best fit of all. I'm crossing my fingers he makes it happen.

One of the most depressing signs of how unambitious and cautious movie studios are these days came when Universal backed away from Paul Greengrass's next film, a biopic about the final days and assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The guy had directed two hugely successful Bourne films for them, and seemed to have at least learned a few lessons from the disappointment of Green Zone, but the studio balked at paying for an expensive movie about a historical figure and aimed toward an adult audience.

Greengrass, God love him, doesn't seem to have given up on making the King film, titled Memphis. But he may be putting it on hold for a little while. According to Deadline while he's lining up Memphis financiers he is also considering a job directing The Deep Blue Good-by, an adaptation of John D. MacDonald's private eye series that's set up at 20th Century Fox with Leonardo DiCaprio's production company Appian Way.

Fox optioned Deep Blue Good-By, with DiCaprio on board to star, way back in September of 2009; apparently i in the meantime Oliver Stone had considered making the movie before moving on to his upcoming drug drama Savages. Greengrass is just one of several directors being considered to direct the film, and anyone who gets the job will have to work around DiCaprio's schedule as he wraps up Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar and prepares to play The Great Gatsby for Baz Luhrmann.

Even if Greengrass doesn't wind up getting the job-- and maybe that could be for the better, allowing him more time and energy to put into Memphis-- I'm excited to see DiCaprio to play a beach bum kind of private eye, a guy who lives in a houseboat called The Busted Flush and who takes job recovering property for various clients. A Californian by birth, DiCaprio's always had that laconic surfer kid vibe that he only really indulged in Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet; much as he's been trying to run away from this kind of role, it might be better suited to him than any of the other chameleonic stuff. I'm dying to find out which other directors are being considered for this job so we can really start speculating about who might be best for it.

It’s been a little over a month since we heard any news on Memphis, and with director Paul Greengrass’ track record of habitual project hopping, many speculated that the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. picture could be dead. Not so. It’s back with a renewed vengeance thanks to involvement from Universal. The studio has decided to fund the project, and mega-producer Scott Rudin, the man behind The Social Network and True Grit, has confirmed the speculation and officially boarded.

According to Deadline, the project will get rolling in June, speeding ahead of two similar themed projects from both the independent Selma and Dreamworks’ offering that was the favored choice of the family. It’s not surprising the King’s would have preferred one of the other pictures. Greengrass’ take, researched from his own time working as a reporter, supposedly includes intimate details on the Reverend’s faltering marriage and balls to the wall boozing. That’s not the memory most of us want to take away from Dr. King’s life, but the facts are the facts. Expect a scandal.

With Greengrass out of the Bourne series, he has the perfect opportunity with this project to build on United 93’s Oscar nomination. The subject matter is there, but it remains to be seen whether he can put together an honest biopic worthy of the Civil Rights’ leader.

For whatever reason, Cleopatra seems to be the only thing people remember from the Ancient Egypt unit in High School. It’s possible it really is because of what a fascinating woman she was, but more than likely, it’s because her story intersects that of the Romans, she figures heavily in a Shakespeare play and/ or there was already an epic Elizabeth Taylor movie made about her that almost bankrupted a studio and ruined multiple marriages. Whatever the reason, she dominates all talk of the B.C. Nile like Ricky Bobby dominates Nascar, and as such, she’s apparently entitled to another movie.

It’s no surprise Cleopatra is coming. Rumors surrounding Angelina Jolie as the doomed Pharaoh have been swirling for awhile. At one point, James Cameron was even looking like a possible director candidate, but now it seems things are moving in a different direction. According to Deadline, the movers and shakers behind the film are excited about Paul Greengrass. It’s far from a done deal with the Bourne/ Green Zone helmer, but he does seem like a solid fit for the material. Most of us think of Cleopatra as a very feminine seductress, but the source material here, Stacy Shiff’s biography, paints the Queen as much more of a dominating political strategist. That’s right inside the Greengrass wheelhouse.

If Cleopatra moves forward, as it seems likely to, sources are saying it will definitely be in 3D, and it will definitely get a PG-13 rating. That’s not a surprise but still a shame, especially about the PG-13 part. Whatever way you shake it, Cleopatra’s life was very R-Rated. From scandalous affairs to bloody wars, she presided over an Egypt in turmoil, an Egypt that definitely dropped its share of f-bombs and exposed its share of breasts, but Hollywood is Hollywood, and if hundreds of millions are going to be invested, it’s probably logical that you would position yourself with the best possible return.

Here’s to hoping this all comes together enough to inspire a biopic about less famous, more interesting Egyptian rulers.

Matt Damon's not-a-Bourne-movie-we-swear action thriller Green Zone is being reassigned to your home theater June 27th, arriving on the usual array of Blu-ray, DVD, VOD, and digital download. Fill that shaky-cam void in your life as Damon reteams with two-time Bourne director Paul Greengrass to tell the story of a U.S. Army officer hunting for WMDs in war-torn 2003 Iraq.

Based on Rajiv Chandrasekaran's non-fiction book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone, Green Zone earned mixed reviews this past March. Our Eric Eisenberg praised Greengrass' direction and gave it four stars. Both the Blu-ray and DVD will boast a decent selection of special features, and the Blu-ray even more so if you want to dive into all the BD-Live gobbeldygook. Check the specs, folks:

Bonus Features

• Matt Damon: Ready for Action -- Matt Damon demonstrates the grueling training regimen he used to prepare for his role in Green Zone.
• Inside the Green Zone -- An exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the making of some of Green Zone’s most powerful scenes.
• Feature Commentary with Matt Damon and Director Paul Greengrass
• Deleted Scenes
• Digital Copy -- Transfer Green Zone to your iPod®, Mac® or PC and experience it anywhere, anytime!
• BD-Live Access and Features (Blu-Ray only)

I'm skeptical about this story because of its proximity to the holiday that shall not be named, but the trades don't usually play in trickery, so I'm going with it for now. THR is reporting that Paul Greengrass is interested in directing a Fantastic Voyage remake for Fox.

The project has been in development with all kinds of directors attached, most recently Roland Emmerich, and last December James Cameron announced he had signed on to produce the film along with his company Lightstorm Entertainment. Greengrass's take, according to THR, would stick closely to the original story of scientists shrunk to microscopic size in order to enter a person's body, though naturally they'll remove the fact that the patient is a Soviet scientist ready to give his secrets to the good old US of A.

Given Cameron's involvement, it is obvious that the movie will mark Greengrass's foray into 3D. Obviously it's a project guaranteed to make more money than Green Zone, but is this the direction we want to see a fascinating guy like Greengrass go? And more importantly, those of you who rode the old Body Wars ride at Epcot and got motion sick from it-- are you afraid Greengrass and his shaky cam will have the exact same effect? I might need an employee from the World Shoscase to help me off this one.

Now that Captain America has been cast it's time for Marvel to take the next big step forward on their multiple-movie, superhero universe project. Everything they've done and will do in Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and The First Avenger: Captain America culminates in a still far off summer tent pole team-up movie called Avengers. For Marvel it's a monumentally important film, but perhaps even more critically a desperately difficult one. Whoever ends up directing it will be tasked with handling a massive ensemble cast of established stars, a huge budget, a massively effects heavy movie, decades worth of established comics mythology, and the unreachable expectations of a billion fanboys. Directing The Avengers will require a special sort of talent.

Thanks to Incredible Hulk director Louis Leterrier we know that Marvel already has a mysterious short list of directors they want in charge of this monumentally important project, and we know that Leterrier is on it. No offense Louis, but we're hoping you're pretty far down on it. Avengers is too important a project and Marvel, you can do better. The obvious choice for the job is Jon Favreau, but he's already made it clear that he's taken himself out of the running. That means it's up to us to steer Marvel in the right direction. Hey Kevin Feige, before you make that horrifying call to Brett Ratner, consider hiring one of these directors instead:

Timur Bekmambetov

Timur Bekmambetov is a Russian director best known in America as the guy at the helm of Wanted, on which he worked closely with comic creator Mark Millar. In Russia, he's also known as the director of their Night Watch series, the most popular movies in Russian history. They're kind of like The Matrix with vampires. He's no stranger to event movies and he's a pro when it comes to adapting comics. Who knows how he'd handle such a massive, ensemble cast but Bekmambetov's take no prisoners, blockbuster style could be a fascinating way to approach Marvel's Avengers team-up movie.

Alfonso Cuaron

Curaon directed what is without a doubt the best of the Harry Potter movies in Azkaban, which means not only does he have a knack for gorgeous visual effects he's had a lot of experience dealing with a large, ensemble cast. More importantly, he's ridiculously talented at pretty much anything and everything. He's made his name handling all manners of different subject matters and styles with unmatched ability. His last movie, Children of Men was easily one of the best science fiction movies of the past decade, and used gritty realism in contrast to the fantasy reality of Azkaban. He's done everything from sex movies, to kids movies, to futuristic war. He's never done superheroes and though he has a few projects in early stages of development, he hasn't done a movie since 2006. Cuaron is due for a big return and it doesn't get any bigger than Avengers.

J.J. Abrams

Looking for a great ensemble film with great action sequences? Try and remember all the way back to the beginning of summer in 2009 and you'll find director J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. Yes, it was the movie that got Chris Hemsworth the lead in Thor, but that isn't the point. Overuse of lens flare aside, in just two hours the film was able to give complete back stories to its two main characters while paying dedicated attention to its source material. What more can you really ask from the director of The Avengers? Throw on the fact that he has no problem taking on an existing series and you have a formula for a perfect Avengers director.

Kenneth Branagh

When Kenneth Branagh was announced as the director of Thor, geeks worldwide did a spit-take and exclaimed, "The Shakespeare guy?" This reaction was somewhat warranted: Branagh has never been seen as a big budget director, and, yes, five of the directors 13 credits are based on Shakespeare plays. But giving Branagh the reigns of both Thor and the Avengers would give the series continuity, and if you imagine the presentation that Branagh must have delivered to producers and look at the film's incredible cast, it seems certain that everyone involved knows exactly what they're doing. Unlike Iron Man or Captain America, Thor takes place in a much larger universe, incorporating not only his character on Earth, as disabled medical student Donald Blake, but in the Norse world of Asgard where he is the God of Thunder. Branagh is the man Marvel brought on to direct the most epic aspect of the Avengers team and that level of filmmaking will be needed for their team-up.

Paul Greengrass

Paul Greengrass's gritty, realistic, shaky-cam style might seem like a strange fit for a superhero movie but, before Snyder's version took off, he was actually pretty far along on his own Watchmen take. Greengrass is obviously interested in superhero movies of a sort, and he's already attempted to make the most unfilmable superhero movie . His close-in style could be a way to handle the project's otherwise overly bloated budget Allow Greengrass to give some of the film's super-powered fights a more intimate tone and you'll keep Avengers awesome while saving money on expansive CGI. It's unlikely that Marvel could get him interested, it's hard to imagine Greengrass taking the reigns on something so many other directors have already had a hand in defining, but The Bourne Ultimatum is easily one of the best action movies of the decade and if you can get the guy who made that on board with the Avengers then you take him.

Zack Snyder

With two comic adaptations already under his belt, there is little chance that Zack Snyder would balk at the chance to direct such an epic comic book movie event flick. He has proven three times now that he's capable of creating fantastic action sequences, and, as seen in Watchmen, he has no trouble balancing a group of superheroes, and giving each one plenty of screen time to appease fans (though credit for that should be shared with writer Alan Moore). Since Marvel announced a plan to amalgamate all of its characters in to one film, critics and fanboys alike have wondered if the task is even doable. So why not give it to the man who tackled the "unfilmable" graphic novel?

Brad Bird

You can have your Dark Knight or your Spider-Man 2, even though it's computer animated, Brad Bird's The Incredibles is the best superhero story ever put to film. He's never done live-action before, but recently he's flirted with making the jump from animation, and his talent is too impressive to be limited by format. In a way, The Incredibles is exactly the kind of team-up movie you'd want Avengers to be, minus the familial element. For Bird, super-team-ups are old hat. Better still, he's already shown the ability to jump in and build on material started by others. Ratatouille was originally someone else's film before Bird was brought in at the eleventh hour to take the reigns and bring it back on track. He may not have experience with big-budget, live-action effects but with movies like The Iron Giant and The Incredibles already under his belt he's proven a mastery over brilliant storytelling on an epic scale.

Mark Millar

Millar may not yet be a well known name amongst movie fans, but he holds the rank of royalty in the comic book world. While he has yet to direct a feature, he has served as a producer on both of hi movie adaptations, Wanted and Kick-Ass. More recently Millar announced that he'll be begin making his directing debut with a superhero flick of his own creation this summer in his native Scotland. In the comic book world, most know of him through his work on Civil War, which is as big an ensemble work as there is in comics. Sure there's little chance that Marvel would take a project so monumental and place it in the hands of someone so inexperienced, but few out there that have dipped their toes into both the film and comic worlds like Millar has.

Bryan Singer

People look at the task of making a multi-superhero film as though it has never been done before. Not only has Bryan Singer done it, but he did it twice. In both X-Men and X2, Singer utilized his large cast perfectly, spending enough time with each of the main characters to create depth without sacrificing structure. To truly see how deft the director was in doing this, all you have to do is watch Brett Ratner's jumbled mess in the third installment. Hell, going from Wolverine, Jean Grey, Professor X, Rogue, Cyclops Storm and Magneto to just Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and Hulk might be a walk in the park for Singer.

Jonathan Mostow

Jonathan Mostow is the most "gettable" director on this list and maybe for Marvel, the one that might end up making the most sense. He first got attention back in 2000 for directing the capable submarine movie U-571 and he followed that up with the extremely divisive Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. While fans may debate the merits of making a third Terminator movie there'd no denying that in it Mostow showed a serious talent for pulling off massively eye-popping, big-budget battle sequences. More recently he directed the capable sci-fi thriller Surrogates, based on a graphic novel. There again, Mostow showed a real talent for visually stunning effects sequences, even when saddled with what was rather mediocre script. He's experienced with the comic book genre, he knows big-budget action, he's done a movie in which he joined an existing franchise midstream, and while in the past he's been rumored for mostly dead in the water projects like Sub-Mariner right now he doesn't seem all that busy. Marvel, give him a call.

Though he hasn’t made a great number of films, making only seven features in 21 years, Paul Greengrass has quickly established a unique filmmaking style that allows the audience to recognize his films from the very first shaky, hand-held shot. Known best for directing the last two films in the Jason Bourne franchise, the director has always been about capturing the essence of the real world and implementing it into his films, be it the true to life events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 in United 93, the Irish civil rights protests in Bloody Sunday or the ongoing Iraq War in Green Zone.

Read our interview with the director who has his own views on the action genre, in which he discusses how a film comes together in post-production, what extra footage we may see on the home release and why he chose to use real soldiers.

You’re known for improvising, for changing, having the script to go off of. How much of the film did you discover or find in the editing process? Could you talk about the post production and what went in?

Well, you sort of can’t talk about the post-production unless you talk about what comes first. All directors make films in individual ways. But the classical kind of view of filmmaking is that you have a script and it’s very linear. There’s a script, then you’re going to shoot the script and then you cut that and then that’s the end of the film. And that’s never really been how I’ve seen it. I always try and bring screenplay, shooting and editing as close into alignment as you possibly can get them, consistent, obviously, with the resources that you’ve got and the time you’ve got available. Because it seems to me that that way that you can get to what I think is the heart of the filmmaking process, which is the relationship between structure, rigidity, form, whatever you want to call it, and freedom, improvisation, the moment, whatever. And those two qualities, you have to have both. You can’t have one without the other, or at least I don’t think you can.

I think when people talk about my style, I think what they’re talking about, and I could be wrong, is two very different and quite extreme ends of that process married together. So I think when you think of my films, I think hopefully you think of an extreme sort of real unfolding, real-time, performed, feeling semi-improvised, you know what I mean, all that. Very real feeling, mixed with very driving and direct, clear and concise and detailed storytelling sort of things and moving with great clarity but feeling that they’re unfolding as if just captured. Well, the reason that I get that, if I do, and I’m just saying, you know what I mean, when it works, which not always it does of course, is because I challenge that linear model and try and bring them into close alignment.

So what does that mean in practice? And this is a way of explaining, answering your question – it means you’ve got to have a screenplay going in. And most of the films that I’ve written, made in my life, I’ve written. Not all, but most I would say. But this one Brian [Helgeland] wrote, but in any case we were a team, in effect. You’re trying to create a screenplay and your screenplay is there to give you a structure, rigidity, situational awareness, who the characters are, what do they want, what’s the shape of the thing, how is it going to go? Those are always the first questions asked, rather than: what’s the dialogue going be? That’s a different issue, right? Now obviously there is dialogue in the screenplay and very good dialogue at that. But you’re looking to get to that solid foundation of structural confidence, so that when you go shooting, you can then open that screenplay up to your actors and make it a very biddable, free process. Then I like to make it very, very free and sometimes I’ll make it freer even than the screenplay is so I can deny a piece of information to the actors so they really are forced to be in the moment. Sometimes if that doesn’t work I might reintroduce the script, but essentially you’re trying to free the thing up. So you’ve had this collision between structure and freedom. Then you get into the cutting room and Chris Rouse, who cuts all my films, will then impose an extreme degree of rigidity at that point and very, very fast, or try to, so that we can then offer that back to the filming process straight away, if resources will allow.

For the purpose of authenticity, you ended up using a lot of genuine soldiers in your film. Could you talk a little about what they brought to the table and, you know, perhaps ways in which they influenced decisions that you ultimately made?

It was impossible not to be trying to stick a Bourne film very close to a kind of real world. What we were trying to do is make it feel like it was kind of ripped out of the headlines. What’s out there is incredibly dramatic. So clearly somewhere what we were distilling in a Bourne film by way of a sort of paranoia and a mistrust and all that stuff, the kind of conspiracy thriller if you like, is what a Bourne film is, was feeling very, very fitting and exciting to that audience. Well obviously that had to have something to do, it seemed to me, it had to do something with the fact that the world seemed very turbulent, and the movies sort of reflect that and they distill it and reflect it back as a kind of paranoid conspiracy thriller and the audience goes, “Yeah, that feels like of now.” So you come to this film and you go: Well, let’s see if we can take one step further into the real world and see if we can build a conspiracy thriller there that’s got the same high energy and high octane and focused, detailed storytelling and smartness and a moral, noble hero with a moral agenda and all that stuff. Not a Bourne film, but with those same elements and instincts that we bring to the table as a partnership, and invite that audience which, after all, is the audience that’s, you know, it’s a young audience, say: “Does that work for you? Does that feel real? Does that feel ‘Bang?’ You know, that excitement of the new?” Is that a way of serving up a conspiracy action thriller, which is a classic genre if you like, but reviving it and making it feel fresh and new and interesting and original? But still maintaining its broad appeal. So that’s kind of where we started from.

So once you get into the shooting of it, you’re saying, “Well, this is a piece. It is those things and it is about Matt and Brendan and Amy and Khalid, and, you know, the story of the film’s kind of a really great story and drive on and blah blah blah blah, but within that we can support the reality of their performances by, say, getting a lot of real guys. Because in the end, rather than cast a lot of actors to play soldiers, it’s much better to get solders to act. ’Cause in the end, they know what you need and I don’t have to explain to them, “Well, it’s in the story. Miller has to hit this house and come narrowly face to face with the Jack of Clubs.” Now you could spend a lot of time finding a lot of actors who can perform that, but in a way you’re really trying to make them behave like soldiers. Well, why not just get solders? It’s easier, and just say, “You’ve been told that’s the house and let’s go.” And so you end up with Matt; some actors with military experience like Jerry Della Salla, who is his number two, who was sort of both in a sense; and then a bedrock of soldiers. And that just made it, I think, much, much, much better for Matt. I mean, you’d have to ask him, but I think it made him just sit in the part and be very real and gave the whole thing that sort of intensity and energy. That’s the thinking anyway.

Can you talk a little bit about what you saw specifically in each of the actors that you cast for their parts? What made them stand out for you?

Well, Matt, ’cause he’s pretty good. And the world’s greatest movie star. Brendan, because I wanted a guy who felt like he’d been in the Middle East a long time and seen it all, and I wanted… I was quite interested in the idea of the CIA guy being a good guy. That felt to me quite original and so we needed an actor who sort of could convey integrity, but within a sort of rough-hewn, pragmatic world view. I think he does that very well.

Khalid, because Freddy was such a very difficult character -- a guy with one leg. It’d be very easy for that character not to really feel like a real person with a real point of view that you really bought into. And he’s just one of the great young British actors.

Amy, because same reason. I wanted a journalist, but I just wanted the journalist to feel very real world and caught up in her own problem. She’s been given this information and now of course she’s coming to check it ’cause it’s not proving…you know, the stuff’s not been found and when she asks the question, she gets fobbed off and then of course then she meets Miller and she has to confess to what happening. So there’s a sort of, a kind of a simplicity and an, um… it wasn’t a big statement. She’s just very real, looked like a working reporter.

And who does that leave? Oh, Greg. Of course. ‘Cause, you know, casting against type. I thought he makes an absolutely superb bad guy. And what’s lovely about his performance, I think, is that you can sort of see that he’s uncomfortable with it all. He really gives it a sense of misplaced idealism, which I think is that the heart of all of that stuff. Very few people do bad things because they’re bad. They generally do bad things because they think they’re the right thing to do, but they’re misplaced. And I think you get a strong sense of that from him. A Jason, because he wears the best moustache in history, and he’s my old mate, so…

What can people expect from this film on the DVD?

Oh, there's nothing. I only shoot, take the boards off and that's the movie. No, I'm joking. There are actually very interesting things because there were a couple of very interesting scenes that go straight to that point you asked and you can see where we tried something initially to try and unfold the story. You can see in the deleted scenes, on particular scene that I'm thinking of where we were trying something to get to the place that we actually got to but we got to it by another scene. It's always interesting I think when you look at that because you see – that's what I'm talking about – the key thing which is that you have to have a sense of what you're aiming for. It's the difference between a map and taking the journey. The screenplay is your map. The more detailed it is the more reconnoiter what your road is actually going to be. But it's not the journey itself. Brian is fantastic. He's one of my best friends and he was with this film with the exception of the strike there from the first day until the day that we finished the cut and put this thing to bed. That's what I'm saying, writing, performing, editing is something that should start with your writing and you gather all three pieces of the process and you need to keep all three pieces of the process as firmly in alignment as you possibly can and then the shooting drops away and you're left with the writing and the cutting until literally the last moment. You're never stopping in the cutting room. I'll be saying, 'What about if we did this, this and this,' and he'll say, 'What about if we did this, this and this?' Then Chris and I will try that. That's the filmmaking process that I recognize and I think that in some ways for all directors. It's some version of that where it's a collaborative conversation and rather like a piece of music where instruments come in and instruments fall away. One almost feels that being a director is to say, 'Look, we don't need the trumpets now but I need to sit with the brass or the strings and get that bit right.' But you're moving forward to the end.

Today Universal Pictures sent out their updated list of releases for the upcoming year, and while the rundown was mostly what we expected, there are a few surprises. First of all, Paul Greengrass's post-Bourne effort The Green Zone has been pushed from what was an expected fall slot to March 12 of next year. Ridley Scott's untitled Robin Hood movie has a release date, May 14 of next year. And perhaps most significantly, The Wolfman has been pushed back once again, this time to February 12 of next year.

That sounds like exceptionally bad news for the Benicio del Toro vehicle, which has already been pushed back several times and recently underwent reshoots. Horror nerds were disappointed to find nothing about the film at Comic Con, and now I guess we know why-- Universal won't be pumping up the publicity machine for a while now.

The obvious thing to do is assume the February release date means it's a stinker, because why else would a movie starring two Oscar winners-- the other being Anthony Hopkins-- be pushed back to February? Same goes for The Green Zone, which had also been mysteriously low on buzz. But, as is always the case, who really knows? Green Zone probably got pushed to make room for the other Matt Damon vehicle of the fall, Invictus, while Wolfman's reshoots might mean more time in the edit bay. It's disappointing for horror fans who were looking forward to Wolfman as an intelligent Halloween release, but it's probably better to just hope for the best and assume they're busy making it the best movie it can be.