tom hanks Tagged Articles at Cinematical

How is it that someone as fascinated with space exploration as Tom Hanks has managed to go his entire career without appearing in a single science fiction film? Hanks has been an outspoken advocate for the space program since starring in Apollo 13 way back in 1995. He produced the award-winning HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon, wrote Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D, and sits on the Board of Governors for the National Space Society. Hanks was recognized for this passion by the Space Foundation who awarded him the Douglas S. Murrow Outreach Award in 2006. Is he more interested in the science than the science fiction?

I don't think the two can be totally separated, at least not when it comes to space exploration. Someone needs to imagine the unknown first, they need to theorize and speculate about it before they can creating a solution that will answer their questions. The very nature of space exploration requires a mind willing to consider the fantastic, open to the possibilities that might exist in an unknown galaxy.

Read the rest on SciFi Squad

I think it's safe to say that Toy Story holds a special place in the heart of most, if not all, modern film geeks. First and foremost it was a great film that, regardless of the technology behind it, tapped into everyone's inner child by wondering what the secret life of toys would be like. But not only did it usher in a new age of computer generated imagery that would prove, for the most part, the downfall in popularity of hand-drawn animation, it also introduced the world at large to a little studio called Pixar, a word that didn't make much sense back when Toy Story was released in 1995, but is now synonymous with the being the gold standard in animated filmmaking.

Now that Toy Story 1 and 2 are currently enjoying a reborn run at the American box-office (this time re-tooled for 3D exhibition), Pixar and Walt Disney have unveiled the trailer for Toy Story 3 (watch it after the jump), their long awaited trip back to the toy box. The newest in the franchise will be the first made specifically for 3D, and judging by the trailer embedded below, it looks like the film's sensibilities have matured along with the technology powering the animation. Andy, the owner of all the toys, is all grown up now and ready to head off to college. His box of toys, a box so many of us have grown to love, has gone neglected for too long and now his mother is ready to put the dust-collecting bits of nostalgia out to pasture.

Now that we've all had enough time to get used to the idea that Spielberg is about to remake one of the most respected films in history, maybe it will help a little to know that it might star Robert Downey Jr. According to the LA Times' Hero Complex blog, the announcement is imminent that Downey will be starring in Spielberg's update of the classic film, which marks a change from some of the other names that had been attached, including the obvious heir apparent to Jimmy Stewart (and long time Spielberg cohort) Tom Hanks and Will Smith.

Harvey was the story of a gentle soul by the name of Elwood P. Dowd, and his best friend, who happens to be an invisible six-foot rabbit named Harvey. The original play won the Pulitzer Prize, but most of us probably remember the 1950 film starring Jimmy Stewart as Dowd. News of the remake hit back in August, and according to Complex, during a set visit to Iron Man 2, "the actor spoke with affection and awe about the late Stewart's nuanced timing and camera sense."

I like to pride myself on having a pretty good memory for classic films, but man, my powers of recollection are nothing up against a dedicated film fan by the name of whoiseyevan. A couple of weeks ago I brought you his reworked Ghostbusters trailer as a 1954 classic starring Bob Hope and Dean Martin, and now he's back at work making trailers for Raiders of the Lost Ark and Forrest Gump as if they had been made in the Golden Age of Hollywood.

First up is Raiders, which was an ode to adventure serials of the '30's, but for the remake we've jumped ahead about thirty years. Now, it stars Charlton Heston as Dr. Jones, Anthony Quinn as Sallah, and the great Peter Lorre as everyone's favorite melty-face Nazi, Toht. Once again, you have to marvel at whoiseyevan's ability to find the perfect clips, and if you're as familiar with Raiders as I am, you will spot plenty of scenes that are almost identical -- right down to the monkey.

Now, transplanting Forrest Gump back to 1949 might have been a little bit easier, and it should come as no shock that Jimmy Stewart is standing in for Tom Hanks (especially since Hanks as been called our generation's Stewart on more than one occasion). Which would also explain how whoiseyevan might have selected some of these clips, because Stewart played a lovable man-child more than once during his career. For Gump, most of the clips look like they were taken from It's a Wonderful Life, but there are a few surprises to be had, including who gets to take over the role of Lt. Dan -- which I won't spoil for you because, frankly, it's genius.

After the jump: a trip back in time with Dr. Jones and Forrest Gump...

Looks like he's finally made it! Barry Manilow will soon write the songs that make the cinematic world sing.* Oh, yes. Variety reports that Michael Stipe and Sandy Stern of Single Cell are joining Playtone's Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman to create a romantic comedy focusing on Manilow's extensive song catalog.

But we're not talking about some Mamma Mia! sort of flick where famous folks get together and try to belt out songs like they're Abba. Why get some stand-ins when you can get the real thing? The film will be a character-driven smorgasbord of Manilow fans heading to Las Vegas to see the icon headline Mandalay Bay. His music will drive the piece, and there will even be a performance or two by the man himself.

Could it be magic? Darn tootin'. They say this will be in the vein of Love Actually, and I hope they make a distinct effort to keep this quirky and slightly off-the-wall fun. No sugar-washed romcom with a goofy, sexy woman, or some cocky chauvinists. If you're going to make a movie saturated with Barry Manilow, do it right. (But not with stripper angels.. Can't Hardly Wait already covered that.) Otherwise, you'll have some angry fans raining down as cold as ice.

*Although, of course, that was one of the songs that Barry didn't write.

Despite the fact that my family members should have owned stock in Dan Brown's bibliography given how much of it they read, and of course the rest of the world devoted years to discussing the historical possibilities of his fiction, I never read The Da Vinci Code. Quite frankly, I'm not much of a reader, owing primarily to the amount of time I spend writing, but the last book I curled up with was one about the diminishing intelligence of the American people, although for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

In any case, I had no particular feelings about the fact that Ron Howard was adapting Brown's best seller into a feature film, with the possible exception of my superficial determination that Tom Hanks' hair was simply terrible. But when I didn't have to review or cover it professionally, I decided not only that I would save my money for something more worthwhile (I mean, Poseidon came out two weeks prior), but that The Da Vinci Code was going to be a movie that I would never, ever see.

I was just looking over the current release list and came upon two movies that seem to have been pretty much forgotten already, Ron Howard's Angels & Demons (247 screens) and Tony Scott's The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (383 screens). The first one is a sequel and the second one is a remake. The first one is absolutely terrible, earning a 37% on Rotten Tomatoes, while the second one is merely mediocre, earning a 52% rating. But what's truly astonishing is that Angels & Demons is a box office smash, with $133 million to its name, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 has earned less than half that, with $64 million.

Let's look at little closer at this. These are two of the summer's only movies that may have been aimed a little above the heads of young boys. All three of the name-above-the-title stars, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington and John Travolta, are in their 50s. This ostensibly means that the studios wanted to entice older audiences out of their comfortable homes and into theaters. But unfortunately, if you're a fifty-something and you go out to see The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, what's the first thing you get? You get one of Tony Scott's quick-cut, jumpy, razzle-dazzle openings with Jay-Z boasting "I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one." Not to mention the rest of the breakneck movie, which practically reaches out from the screen and slaps you in the face.

A new adaptation (I refuse to use the word remake here) of Fahrenheit 451 has been in the works for ten years now. I was very excited by the news that Mel Gibson was planning it as a Braveheart follow-up, as it seemed like that would mark a new and serious phase of his directing career. I wish that was something I could have been right about.

Frank Darabont was the next one to take it on, and he's been attached to it since 2001, rewriting Terry Hayes' script and being delayed by everything from Indiana Jones IV, Mission Impossible III, The Mist, and Law Abiding Citizen. SciFi Wire caught up with Darabont at the Saturn Awards, and the director / writer declared that it was really time to get on with it already ... and that it might actually get underway this time, depending on whether or not the Big Name Actor he wants signs on.

"Fahrenheit is the thing I'm trying to get up next, which is casting-dependent, so it's one of those. I'm out to somebody at the moment, fingers crossed, because, boy, do I want to make that movie. I'm not giving up. I'll die in the traces before I don't make that movie ... It's not one of those movies that are vastly expensive by any contemporary standard, but money is still money, and it's of a price that requires somebody that will justify that investment. This is definitely going to be more than The Mist, so those other considerations do come into play."

You can go crazy wondering just who that Big Actor who can pull in the money and box office might be. Could it be someone that rumors have long attached, like Tom Hanks (Darabont's pick for years), Brad Pitt, or Tom Cruise? Or could we be looking at someone newly bankable, like Johnny Depp?

Let me make this clear: when I say that I'm compiling a list of the most contrived rom-com scenarios, I'm not saying that they're automatically the worst -- although a glance at the titles doesn't exactly stray far from that correlation. Tomorrow's The Proposal finds Sandra Bullock forcing Ryan Reynolds into marriage for the sake of holding off immigration authorities and keeping her/their jobs (I guess it's not too soon to remake Green Card and Picture Perfect after all), so we're talking about seven plot points along those lines of high-concept, close-quarters thinking, with some (dis)honorable mentions along the way...

With never-ending zeal, Hollywood looks back to the good ol' days with remakes and re-imaginings. But it's always the plots; always the stories. What about the actors? If there was any way that looking to the past would be beneficial, it would be grabbing those actors of today and getting them to dip back into the roles of yesterday -- the gigs that made us love them, but were so soon forgotten or cast aside.

Between casting ruts and earnest attempts to foster specific career paths, actors all too often leave their well-loved roots in the past, becoming an entirely different sort of performer. Very rarely do we get glimpses of those early years, and as nice as it is to see glimpses of former glory in a skit that pops up on SNL or Funny or Die, it's not the same as a feature-length, starring gig.

What follows are seven actors and actresses who are ripe for a return to the past. Naturally, this is only the start of a very long list, so be sure to add your picks in the comments.