Aaron Eckhart Tagged Articles at Cinematical

It may be a whopping two years since Nicole Kidman signed on, but now it looks like the big-screen adaptation of Rabbit Hole is kicking back into gear -- and believe it or not, she's still involved! No backing out for Kidman, at least, not yet. Production Weekly's Twitter feed reports that Aaron Eckhart will fall into the Hole with Kidman, and that John Cameron Mitchell will direct. Yes, that's Mr. Shortbus.

As Erik explained a few years ago, this is one heck of a tear-jerker project. Think Lovely Bones without the heavenly aspect. David Lindsay-Abaire's play focuses on a couple who lose their four-year-old child in a car accident and try to cope with the loss. Along the way, family members try to help them through their pain, which gets complicated when the driver who killed their son seeks them out to get closure.

It'll be great to see Eckhart put aside his irresistible charm for a bit and deal with some heavy, heart-wrenching pain -- Two-Face without the hideous disfigurement and law breaking. But this just ... I can't imagine how this will play out -- how Eckhart and Kidman will play off each other, and just what a tear-jerking film will look like under the hands of the Hedwig/Shortbus filmmaker. Can you?

Well, if you have to be embroiled in a destructive love triangle, being in one with Aaron Eckhart and Johnny Depp would definitely soften the blow ... sorry, I lost track of my thoughts there, I think I'll just take another moment to think it through -- there, all done. The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Eckhart is in negotiations to star alongside Depp and Amber Heard in the feature film version of Hunter S. Thompson's The Rum Diary. THR also reported that Richard Jenkins has officially signed to star as Depp's boss, Lotterman.

Depp plays the hard-drinking journalist named Paul Kemp (Depp), who moves from New York to work for the small newspaper, The Daily News, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The story is set in the late 1950s, and revolves around a twisted love story, plenty of violence and treachery, and because this is a Hunter S. Thompson story after all, "violent, alcoholic, lust". Well, when I think lust, Eckhart and Depp usually come to the top of the list, so I'm sold. Eckhart (if and when he signs) is expected to play Sanderson, "a wealthy landowner who believes everything has a price and introduces Kemp to a different standard of living" -- and who better than Eckhart to play the Golden Boy gone bad?

What happens when you get a few of the stars from The Dark Knight on the red carpet at the Golden Globes? Well, you bombard them with sequel questions, of course. And even though Aaron Eckhart has previously said that the character of Harvey Dent/Two Face was (and we quote) "Dead as a door nail," the man has apparently had a change of heart (or should we say he's become a bit two-faced?). While speaking to MTV at the Globes last night, Eckhart had this to say about his character: "I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma ... and I'm not sure he's coming out. They might pull the plug on him."

Now MTV ran the video of this quote alongside the text, and Eckhart just laughs his way through the entire thing as if to say: "Ask me one more question about that freaking movie Horowitz and you're going down ... hard." On which villains he'd want in the next flick, Eckhart said he'd love to see Angelina Jolie play Catwoman and Johnny Depp play Riddler. And while it's quite obvious no one knows anything yet (there's not even a script!), remember that Nolan brought back Scarecrow for a brief scene in Dark Knight, and so Two Face may show up in the next sequel if it makes enough sense. Personally, I'd rather see different villains -- but that's me. What do you make of all this?

The Women Film Critics Circle have handed out their 2008 awards (with top honors -- Best Movie About Women -- going to Clint Eastwood's Changeling), and one of the more fascinating categories on their list is Most Offensive Male Characters. And ... who do the women film critics of 2008 find to be the most offensive male characters of the year? Aaron Eckhart (Towelhead), Sam Rockwell (Choke), Larry Bishop (Hell Ride), Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott (Role Models) and Jason Mewes (Zack and Miri Make a Porno). I'm actually surprised that Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) didn't make this list, what with his fairly obnoxious (but comedic) womanizing ways, and I'm sure there are several other offensive male characters spread across the films of 2008 that coulda shoulda been mentioned, but weren't.

This, however, brings up an interesting topic: Who were the most offensive movie characters of 2008? Could be male, female, talking animal (or robot) -- were there any characters that just rubbed you the wrong way? Any characters who deserved to be sent straight to human resources? Furthermore, were there any films in general that were so offensive, you either considered leaving halfway through or did, in fact, bolt out the door before the end credits rolled? Sound off below ...

You know, you would think that after starring in one of the biggest movies of all time, Aaron Eckhart might want to take a break from the world of big-budgeted action movies. Then again, he probably knows better than anyone that sometimes those small indie films can really get you into trouble. So, in the spirit of 'safe bets', The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Eckhart will star in the sci-fi action flick, Battle: Los Angeles.

Chris Bertolini's (The General's Daughter) script centers on an alien invasion that has landed in the streets of LA. Eckhart would play the leader of a platoon of Marines who are the last line of defense in the invasion. Jonathan Liebesman (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) has already signed to direct the film for Columbia Pictures, although a start date for the production has yet to be finalized.

Since his 'debut' in 1997's In the Company of Men, Eckhart has stuck to parts in smaller films like Thank you For Smoking, or like his latest with Jennifer Aniston, Traveling. Unfortunately, the big-budget flicks haven't worked out so well (with one whopper of an exception.) So even though some of Eckhart's other Hollywood projects have been less than impressive (cough, The Core, cough), Battle will be the first time Eckhart is playing front and center in an action flick. Lets just hope Battle doesn't fall into the same category as some of his other very expensive disasters.

Dark Knight Spoiler Warning ...

No more speculation, no more talk of ret-con and false funerals -- Harvey Dent is officially 100% dead. It comes straight from the mouth of Aaron Eckhart, who revealed his character's fate in no uncertain terms to ComingSoon.net "He is dead as a door nail. He ain't coming back baby!"

And lest you doubt that he knows the mind of Christopher Nolan, well, Eckhart asked him whether Two-Face would ever be coming back. "I asked Chris [Nolan] that question and he goes, "You're dead" before I could even get the question out of my mouth. 'Hey Chris, am I?' 'You're dead!' 'Alright, cool.'" There's no chance it will be rewritten or retconned, as he was never even contracted for a third film. "No, I'm not coming back. I think unfortunately, Heath [Ledger] was supposed to go on and that didn't work out. I'm nobody. I'm a cog. I have no say over this sort of stuff. I'm sure that there's so many other characters that they could whip together. I heard Angelina Jolie was going to be Catwoman or something like that. I thought that was a great idea. I'd like to be in that one."

Dent's death has now been confirmed via the novelization, the script, the actor, and the director. Though I would say that's as definitive as it gets, fanboys and girls across this great Internet refuse to accept it -- they just believe in Harvey Dent too much. But since we do live in a world where no comic character stays dead, where 299 Spartans can rise again, and Chev Chelios survives a fall from a helicopter, I guess you can hardly blame them.

As we all know from The Dark Knight commercials, Two Face makes his grand, grotesque entrance. But there's an interesting twist in the whole story now. Beware of spoilers ahead ...

... spoilers below ...

Did he die -- or didn't he? That's the big question. He sure looked like he did, but then again, there was that whole spiel about how falling such a short distance won't kill a man. Why put that in there if there's no point? And couldn't the lovely Commissioner Gordon have lied to save the hopes of Gotham's populace?

I like to believe he lived, for a myriad of reasons. But if a few new tie-in books are to be believed, the dream is completely dead, and the nightmare won't continue. IGN reports that in the new novelization, it says: "Dent was sprawled, neck twisted, the mutilated side of his face exposed, his left eye open and staring sightlessly. He was obviously dead." This is joined with the shooting script, which says: "Dent lies at the bottom of the hole, his neck broken. DEAD."

I am not entirely convinced. There's just something about using the word "obviously" that seems too redundant for it to be accurate. All of the emphasis of his death just makes it seem like they are trying too hard to convince us. But maybe that's just my hope to see more Aaron Eckhart.

What say you?

Right about here is where all the gushing and excitement and enthusiasm should begin, because I'll tell you right off the "bat" that Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is cause for celebration indeed. But then you'll figure out -- after only one sentence -- that I pretty much loved this movie, and then you'll head off to another, more unpredictable film critic. But it's the WHY that interests me so much. What I enjoyed about Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and Hellboy 2 could probably be covered in one lengthy -- and inevitably nerd-tastic -- conversation between the two of us. But The Dark Knight... Well, clearly we're approaching a whole new level here.

Several of the pre-release gushings are accurate. Some say "Scorsesian" and others reference Michael Mann. Many spend paragraphs on the (truly amazing) penultimate performance by Heath Ledger, while others will revel in the grown-up tone or epic scope of the film. What amazed me most about The Dark Knight, among several things, is that the flick's got more layers than an onion farm -- and yet it never loses touch with the idea of FUN. True that we're talking about a comic book fun that's decidedly more melancholy than the cinematic exploits of The Marvel Gang, but dang if TDK isn't supremely satisfying for about a dozen different reasons.

The pop-culture appetite for Batman seems inexhaustible; thousands of comic books, several movies, endless animated iterations, some of which are quite good and some of which are rather bad. Is there any real need to return to the character beyond the profit motive, though? After the financial and critical success of Batman Begins, the powers-that-be behind The Dark Knight could have made a safe bet of a sequel; a little more action, a few more actors, more of the same and a few extra explosions.

What's telling about The Dark Knight, though, is how risky it is -- how it's bold and brave and truly exciting, full of rich and strong performances and some real ideas along the way. Why return to Batman? It turns out that for Christopher Nolan, the reason to come back is that there's something to say about, and with, the character even after decades of stories and multiple reinventions. I was hoping The Dark Knight would be good; I had no idea that director and co-writer Christopher Nolan was going to make a film that not only addressed the philosophical and political conflict between the rule of force and the rule of law but also takes on the timeless clash between order and chaos ... and, along the way, evokes everything from Michael Mann's Heat to John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. ...