elizabeth banks Tagged Articles at Cinematical

I'm beginning to think that Liam Neeson owns Hermione Granger's Time Turner, or that he has a lifelong supply of Red Bull because he's signed on for another role -- and this one would appear to be filming simultaneously with The A-Team. According to The Hollywood Reporter reports that Neeson has just joined Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks in Paul Haggis' The Next Three Days.

Days is a remake of the 2008 French thriller Pour Elle, and accuses an ordinary woman (Banks) of a gruesome crime she insists she didn't commit. She's sent to prison and becomes suicidal, and her desperate husband (Crowe) plots to break her out. (Ah, love!) But she'll have a little help from Neeson, who plays an ex-con who has broken out of prison multiple times, wrote a how-to guide about it, and offers his assistance to Crowe. The role is being described as "cameo in nature" which suggests Neeson might be narrating his own Dummy's Guide to Escaping From Prison, or is at least available to Crowe by cell phone to work out the tougher bits.

Filming just started on Days in Pittsburgh last Friday, and wraps on December 12. The A-Team just started filming too, so I'm honestly surprised that their schedules can coincide so neatly. Maybe Neeson is ducking down to Pittsburgh and filming this one on the weekends. I think they're missing a prime opportunity here to tie The Next Three Days into The A-Team universe. If there's one thing Hannibal Smith knows anything about, it's being accused of crimes you didn't commit, and evading the law until you're free of them.

One day he's getting tortured by the Taliban and then heads home to discover that his bad-boy brother is getting saucy with his wife. The next, he's taking part in a modern War of the Roses. Variety reports that Tobey Maguire is taking on more marital dysfunction by starring in Jacob Estes' new indie black comedy called The Details alongside Elizabeth Banks.

The pair (which was once set to be Banks and James McAvoy) will play a troubled married couple struggling with infidelity and other marital issues. But here's where things get strange: "their lives [are] further complicated by ravenous raccoons burrowing under the sod in their back yard. A disagreement over how to dispatch the pests creates a chain reaction of mishaps that include a murder by bow and arrow." There's nothing like a few coonies to ruin a marriage! Just in case that insane plot isn't enough to whet your appetite, the cast also contains Ray Liotta, Dennis Haysbert, Anna Friel, and Laura Linney, the latter playing an eccentric neighbor. (You can also check out many details of the plot here.)

Maguire reportedly decided to hop onto this project before heading back to Spider-Man land, and I say: "Huzzah!" As much as the webbed wonder is great, it's nice to see us one more reminder that Maguire has talents outside of comic superheroes.

Slightly reminiscent of Tropic Thunder, Judd Apatow has revealed to MTV that his upcoming film Funny People will feature scenes and marketing materials for a whole bunch of fake films starring Adam Sandler. Only in the film he's not Adam Sandler -- he's George Simmons; a stand-up comedian-turned-mega-successful actor who stars in a whole ton of crappy high concept movies. Not exactly too much of a stretch for Sandler (ahem, Click, Zohan), which is why it sounds pretty funny. Here are some of the mini-movies within the movie:

• My Best Friend is a Robot -- This one co-stars Owen Wilson, and shows up as a poster in Simmons' (Sandler) house.
• Redux -- Apatow describes this one -- which they actually shot a few scenes of -- as a cross between Little Man and 17 Again ... "except he [meaning Sandler] becomes a six month old baby."
  
• Mistake -- This one, featuring Elizabeth Banks, is a romantic comedy.
  
• Mer-man -- Picture Splash ... but it's Adam Sandler. Says Apatow, "I've heard they already sold [Mer-man] to be a real movie after we made it as a joke."

According to Apatow, they've created "all sorts of posters" for these films, and shot actual scenes for some of them. Knowing Apatow and Universal, they're going to have a good time marketing Funny People alongside all these weird fake Sandler films ... and Cinematical will definitely attempt to premiere one of these posters so stay tuned. Funny People hits theaters on July 31.

(Note: Possible spoilers ahead for 17 Again.)

Before all the spring movies get pushed completely out of the way by the summer blockbusters, here's a question for you: Did the star of High School Musical make a movie in favor of teen pregnancy? Conceding that she may be taking Zac Efron and 17 Again way too seriously, actress Elizabeth Banks (The Uninvited, Zack and Miri Make a Porno) writes in The Huffington Post: "The message of the movie seemed to be ... knocking up your high school sweetheart is A-OK! Especially if you give up that Syracuse scholarship to marry her! F College!"

Banks is careful to note that she really enjoyed the movie and everyone in it before expressing her concerns: "This movie pretty much glamorizes teenage parenting. ... The problem with this message is that, according to unreliable online sources and my own anecdotal evidence collected over my 3?-something years: this is crap. ... Seriously, this film is a fun ride. I just wish the flick had explicitly mentioned, just mentioned, that it might not be cool to have a kid when you're 18 so for G-D's sake, use birth control!"

Unlike Banks, I am not "inappropriately lustful" for Efron and have no great desire to see the movie. (Jette Kernion reviewed it for Cinematical.) But 17 Again has made a good deal of money, which obviously means a lot of you have seen it. So is Elizabeth Banks really taking the movie too seriously? Are comedies exempt from serious consideration? Do movies aimed specifically at teens have a greater responsibility to include information that reflects real-life consequences of the actions depicted?

It looks like the blonde funnywomen are breaking out of the mold and leaving the men behind. No more married life with Paul Rudd or amateur porn with Seth Rogen -- Variety reports that Leslie Mann and Elizabeth Banks have signed on to star in New Line's What Was I Thinking?

Unfortunately, it'll still be man-obsessed. The project is adapting Barbara Davilman and Liz Dubelman's What Was I Thinking?: 58 Bad Boyfriend Stories. The book is a collection of essays coming from a whole slew of people, including our favorite Leia Carrie Fisher and writer Francesca Lia Block, that covers the moments when women realize that their relationship is not going to work, like overhearing the wrong thing, wine snobbery, and men thinking of other women during sex. It's almost as reductive as He's Just Not That Into You! In film form, the project will follow four friends who go on a hedonistic ski trip after one gets dumped, and I assume they then reminisce, or run into, more men that fit these bad boyfriend scenarios.

On the bright side, it's a female-centric crew -- Lynda Obst is producing, and Susanna Fogel and Joni Lefkowitz sold the pitch. (I'm even forgiving them for being the ladies behind JJ Abrams' upcoming remake of Little Darlings.) It'll also probably get a few more awesome funny ladies attached, maybe even Tina Fey. But do we really need more romance-centric man bashing? I can't decide if it's simply good to see the ladies get more work behind the scenes and starring comedy on the screen, or just another excuse for women to be relegated to fluff.

It's awesome, somehow, that Liam Neeson (along with some nifty marketing, it's true) can open an action movie to the tune of $24.6 million. Maybe it's the fact that Taken's debut at #1 comes after two depressing weeks when Paul Blart: Mall Cop inexplicably dominated the charts (and indeed, Paul Blart continues to rake in big bucks, falling off only 35% to second place). Taken opened in just about every other part of the world in 2008 and has already grossed nearly $70 million worldwide; put this one into the win column for Luc Besson and his production team.

The Uninvited's third-place, $10.5 million bow is a disappointment -- to Dreamworks, but also to me, since I think it's superior to most of the PG-13 horror that's been doing so well lately. (Certainly it kicks The Unborn's ass six ways from Sunday.) I think the advertising was a bit too stately, emphasizing Elizabeth Banks in creepy mode rather than the shock effects that tend to draw the crowds. Not a tragedy for the relatively inexpensive film, but perhaps a missed opportunity.

New in Town was defeated by a beatdown of scathing reviews, a wimpy, girly-man 1900-screen release, and a marketing effort that wasn't up to the task of capitalizing on Renee Zellweger's star power. Zellweger eats $6.75 million for breakfast.

For the first time since January 9th, Slumdog Millionare made less than it did the previous weekend, but it's up to a not-too-shabby $67 million cume. I wouldn't rule out $100 million before it leaves theaters.

The full top 10 after the jump.

It appears that The Uninvited is being marketed as a horror movie, but it doesn't seem to be quite sure what it is. Sure, there's some gore, and some "jump" moments where a hand shoots out to grab someone or a shadowy figure lunges at a character. But there are also stabs (no pun intended) at an old-fashioned family melodrama and at a supernatural thriller. Unfortunately, the film doesn't live up to the potential of any of these genres.

The movie opens with a dream sequence from Anna (Emily Browning), about the night her mother died. When Anna related the dream to a doctor in the mental hospital where she's confined, he pronounces her well on the road to recovery and sends her home to her family. While she's happy to see her father (David Strathairn) and sister Alex (Arielle Kebbel), Anna immediately locks horns with Rachael (Elizabeth Banks), her father's fiancee. It seems that only about a year ago, Anna's mother was dying of some lingering disease and Rachael was her nurse ... and a mysterious fire killed Anna's mother. Anna can't remember what exactly happened on the night of the fire, and no one else seems to know. The suspense is focused on just how wicked Rachael might be, and what the two sisters can do to find out the truth. In addition, Anna has supernatural and gruesome dreams ... but maybe they're not dreams at all.

I'm not exactly sure where IMP Awards dug up this alternate poster for Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno, but for my money, it's an equally creative and eye-catching way to sell the stars compared to the current stick-figures-and-'Porno'-free campaign ... a campaign which, it should be said, hasn't stopped the flick from grossing $20 million by this past weekend, which is about on par with most of Smith's recent work and (again) not bad for an advertising angle that didn't push either his name or the faces of leads Elizabeth Banks and Seth Rogen.

Besides, I really don't think the bright colors and cute animals would have led anyone to believe that the (admittedly sweet) Zack and Miri falls in line with, say, Happy-Go-Lucky, but we'll honestly never know if swapping colors for controversy would've had the same effect. (Hey, I still think that the Canadian poster would've done just fine.)

Check out this new (cutesy?) poster after the jump ...

Saw some movies last weekend. Some trailers, too. One was for a kidnapping thriller called Taken. A young woman is kidnapped, presumably for ransom, but little do the criminals know that their captive's father is some sort of secret agent badass who will stop at nothing to get his daughter back. Distressingly standard-issue stuff. Even worse, arguably, was The Uninvited -- just the title is so trite it practically begs you to forget it. I mean, this is at least the twelfth movie called The Uninvited. (For the record, there have only been seven Takens.) The plot concerns a teenager who returns home following the death of her mother to find that dad has shacked up with a new girlfriend who, it would appear, is a serial murderess. Also, there are ghosts, J-horror style.

This is not promising. Ordinarily I'd drag myself to these movies out of a sense of obligation, or skip them altogether. (Well, Luc Besson's involvement in Taken would probably ensure a viewing.) But wait -- who are those actors? What is Liam Neeson doing lending his gravitas to a Jason Bourne-style figure with a personal vendetta? And is that Elizabeth Banks, taking time out from being charming and hilarious to play an evil step mother/serial killer who threatens to choke Emily Browning with a pearl necklace?

After seeing Oliver Stone's W., I found myself wishing I had a little more time to think it over before writing a review; then again, I'm sure there are some involved with the film who found themselves wishing they had a little more time to think over the Bush administration before making it. Distance grants perspective, or so we're told; what could a film about the life and presidency of George W. Bush released while he's still in office really have to say about his life and times? If distance grants perspective, though, you could also argue that proximity grants immediacy, and argue that Stone's W. is not meant as a somber, serious look back but rather a cautious, nervy attempt to peer into the recent past, a film with, in the words another Presidential candidate recently borrowed, "the fierce urgency of now."

But W. has plenty of urgency; you could argue that what it lacks is a point of view, or rather a point of view other than Freudian family psychodrama, with George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) fighting for the presidency and fighting in Iraq as a way to earn the respect and love of his distant, driven father George H. W. Bush (James Cromwell). But to many, examining the inner life of George W. Bush is like asking yourself about the source of the lumber when you're being hit in the head with a baseball bat. We get a lot of dialogue in W. about the difference between the external and the internal, between ideology and identity; Laura Bush (Elizabeth Banks) offers that "I don't think politics should define a human being ..." while George H.W. notes that "I've always believed in leaving personal feelings out of politics." But in W., it feels like Stone doesn't even want to let politics define politics, and leaving the politics out of the personal feelings he's exploring.