Tag: alex-garland

  • Movie Review: ‘Civil War’

    Kirsten Dunst in 'Civil War.'
    Kirsten Dunst in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Opening in theaters Friday (April 12) is ‘Civil War,’ starring Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Cailee Spaeny, Nick Offerman, and Jesse Plemons.

    Related Article: Cailee Spaeny and Jacob Elordi Talk director Sofia Coppola’s ‘Priscilla’

    Initial Thoughts

    Kirsten Dunst in 'Civil War.'
    Kirsten Dunst in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    ‘Civil War,’ written and directed by Alex Garland (‘Ex Machina,’ ‘Annihilation’) is a deeply upsetting and frightening film – and we mean that in the best way possible. Set in an America that looks and feels very much like the one we’re in now, this brilliantly made film presents a harrowing vision of a nation tearing itself apart – as well as the story of a small group of journalists determined to witness history no matter what.

    Garland’s film is so unnerving because he almost underplays the conflict in a way – since the U.S. is so damn large, there are moments when he lulls you into thinking that vast swaths of the country are untouched by the disaster unfolding in its midst. But make no mistake, there’s a pervasive sense of dread throughout ‘Civil War,’ with terror and chaos lurking around every corner. The cumulative effect is devastating, and regardless of one’s politics, this is a movie that everyone should see – if only because we seem to be skating closer to the edge of the abyss that Garland and his cast so memorably portray.

    Story and Direction

    Director Alex Garland on the set of 'Civil War.'
    (Right) Director Alex Garland on the set of ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Sometime in the not-too-distant future, civil war has broken out in the United States. The reasons are left unsaid, as are the events that led to Texas and California forming their own union, the Western Forces, which plan a final assault on Washington D.C. to remove the President (Nick Offerman) from office. Another faction, the Florida Alliance, looms in the background. Either way, the events that got the country to this point are never explained, but it’s clear that the U.S. has turned into a geopolitical and humanitarian nightmare.

    In the midst of all this, Alex Garland’s film focuses on a band of four reporters – the hard-bitten, callous photojournalist Lee (Kirsten Dunst), the cynical Joel (Wagner Moura), the world-weary Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and the novice photographer Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) — who set out together from New York to travel to where the Western Forces are amassing for their final push into the nation’s capital.

    Lee recognizes that Jessie has talent and reluctantly takes her under her wing, warning the young woman that there are far worse horrors ahead if she pursues her calling and that she must present the truth of what she sees with an unblinking eye. In some ways, ‘Civil War’ is the parallel journey of these two women – Lee has hardened herself to what she sees through her lens but may finally be breaking down and letting herself feel what’s happening, while the untested, somewhat naïve Jessie goes through a trial by fire to make herself into the crusader for truth that she hopes to become.

    ‘Civil War’ is also about journalism itself – and the necessity of journalists to report and document what they see without bringing their own biases to the table. That means a lie is a lie, the truth is the truth (not “your truth” or “my truth”) and even the most righteous-minded can do something unspeakable. Lee, Joel, and company are there to chronicle what happens – and let historians and future leaders figure out what it means.

    'Civil War.'
    ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    But even they, of course, are only humans and flawed ones at that: at one point in the film, our four protagonists and a couple of other reporters they meet up with – who have all been a little cavalier up to this point — are given the brutal realization that all the press badges in the world will not protect them anymore, and that events are spinning out of control faster than they might have thought. This is brought home in one of the film’s most terrifying scenes, featuring an uncredited Jesse Plemons (which you’ve seen a bit of in the trailers).

    The scene involving Plemons is the most unnerving in the film, yet it’s one of many that feature imagery straight out of a U.N. war zone: Garland and DP Rob Hardy expertly blend widescreen shots of the American countryside – parts of it still pristine – with more close-up, documentary-like footage of refugee camps, burning urban areas, and hand-to-hand combat. Tanks rumble through American streets as jet fighters scream overheard, anti-aircraft weapons firing at them from below. Even a quiet town tucked away somewhere in Pennsylvania, where it doesn’t seem like the war has touched anything, posts armed sentries on its rooftops. The America of ‘Civil War’ is both eerily recognizable and yet utterly, unspeakably warped.

    In this and other ways, Garland channels another film about a violent conflict sinking into madness: ‘Apocalypse Now.’ At one point, our journalists come upon two soldiers who are pinned down by a sniper in a distant mansion. No one seems to know who’s the mansion or what side anyone is one. It’s directly reminiscent of the scene in Francis Ford Coppola’s Vietnam epic when Martin Sheen and his crew come upon a remote U.S. outpost that’s descended into chaos: “Who’s in charge here?” Sheen asks a dazed soldier. “Ain’t you?” the soldier replies.

    Garland punctuates this accumulation of disturbing images with both an ominous, pulsing score by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, as well as jarringly delicate folk songs and somber pop numbers, bringing a wistful, overwhelmingly sad emotional undercurrent to the horrors unfolding onscreen.

    The Cast

    Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura and Cailee Spaeny in 'Civil War.'
    (L to R) Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura and Cailee Spaeny in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Kirsten Dunst easily gives one of the finest performances of her career as Lee, the combat photographer who says at one point, “Every time I survived a war zone, I thought I was sending a warning home: don’t do this. But here we are.” Lee has seen it all and then some, and at the film’s outset, it almost seems as if nothing will either rattle her or get to her emotionally. But that changes once she meets Jessie, as she sees something of her younger self in the inexperienced photographer and wants to both nurture and protect that.

    It’s a subtle, complex performance by Dunst, and it’s complemented by Wagner Moura’s charismatic turn as Joel. The Brazilian ‘Narcos’ star gives Joel an easy charm, a rakish demeanor, and a compassionate undertone, all of which is gradually chipped away as the film goes on. Like Dunst’s lee, Moura’s Joel undergoes a gradual transformation, reaching his goal of getting an interview with the President but perhaps not in the way he initially envisioned.

    Stephen McKinley Henderson in 'Civil War.'
    Stephen McKinley Henderson in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Somewhere between both of them is Stephen McKinley Henderson’s Sammy, an older New York Times reporter who is at this point not physically up to the strenuous journey ahead but willing to keep going no matter what. One of our great character actors of the stage and screen (with indelible recent performances in films like ‘Fences’), Henderson effectively portrays Sammy’s world-weariness and cynicism, even as he remains alert and savvy to what’s happening around him. Compassionate as well, his sense of humanity is pushed to the brink by what he experiences on the road to D.C.

    While we admire Cailee Spaeny’s work here (and in last year’s ‘Priscilla’), we’re not as effusive about her character’s narrative. Jessie is initially cheerful, headstrong, and somewhat naïve about the job she wants to do, and as the story goes on, she becomes more shell-shocked and terrified by what she experiences. But some of her decisions, as well as her rather abrupt latter turn into a fierce photo-warrior – throwing herself into danger to get the shot – feel somewhat rushed and contrived, making a character who should be more of an avatar for young audience members into a plot device.

    Final Thoughts

    Nick Offerman in 'Civil War.'
    Nick Offerman in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Moviegoers are going to bring their own politics into ‘Civil War’ and read it the way they want, which is part of what makes Alex Garland’s film so excellent. There has been some criticism online of Garland’s decision to keep the reasons for the war offscreen, as well as his choice to unite California and Texas – two states that nowadays couldn’t seem further apart politically – into a seemingly unlikely alliance. But to make Nick Offerman’s brief turn as the President into a take on Biden or Trump, and to make the film into a blue state-red state polemic, would not only instantly date it but create a more concrete polarization that would miss the point.

    ‘Civil War’ doesn’t detail how we got to this point; the film instead asks, “Okay, we’re here now. What are you going to do about it?” The fact that the film doesn’t offer a definitive resolution or simple answer is perhaps the most unsettling thing about it. With ‘Civil War,’ Alex Garland shows us one possible future in all its terrifying plausibility – what we do about it will either keep this film in the realm of speculative fiction or make it a prophetic document of a great nation disintegrating due to its own distrust, misinformation, and fear.

    ‘Civil War’ receives 9 out of 10 stars.

    kbXGTykcRATXlv2XIwQ0J4

    What is the plot of ‘Civil War’?

    In a near-future America, the United States has collapsed into civil war as different factions prepare for a final assault on Washington D.C. to unseat the President. A small band of journalists race across a once-familiar and now-dangerous country to get to the frontline and witness what happens.

    Who is in the cast of ‘Civil War’?

    • Kirsten Dunst as Lee
    • Wagner Moura as Joel
    • Cailee Spaeny as Jessie
    • Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy
    • Nick Offerman as the President of the United States
    • Jesse Plemons as an unnamed soldier
    Kirsten Dunst in 'Civil War.'
    Kirsten Dunst in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Other Alex Garland Movies:

    Buy Tickets: ‘Civil War’ Movie Showtimes

    Buy Alex Garland Movies on Amazon

    6L0GZ7JH

     

  • Cillian Murphy to Star in Crime Thriller ‘Blood Runs Coal’

    Oscar® nominee Cillian Murphy arrives on the red carpet of the 96th Oscars® at the Dolby® Theatre at Ovation Hollywood on Sunday, March 10, 2024. Credit/Provider: Mike Baker / ©A.M.P.A.S. Copyright: ©A.M.P.A.S.
    Oscar® nominee Cillian Murphy arrives on the red carpet of the 96th Oscars® at the Dolby® Theatre at Ovation Hollywood on Sunday, March 10, 2024. Credit/Provider: Mike Baker / ©A.M.P.A.S. Copyright: ©A.M.P.A.S.

    Preview:

    • Cillian Murphy will play a lawyer on a crusade in ‘Blood Runs Coal’.
    • It’ll be based on Mark A. Bradley’s book.
    • Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth will adapt the script.

    Cillian Murphy is certainly having a giant moment by any definition of the word. After years plugging away in supporting roles, TV and indies, he’s now an Oscar winner thanks to his performance in ‘Oppenheimer’ and is being courted for all manner of roles.

    Universal, which financed and distributed the multi-award-winning Christopher Nolan bio-drama, was so eager to be back in business with its star that it set up a new project, true crime movie ‘Blood Runs Coal’ for him to lead and produce a couple of days before the Academy Awards.

    And, like ‘Oppenheimer’, it’ll see him at the core of a compelling real-life story.

    1tOJVQRXmFcGn2lZ7Th6l7

    What’s the story of ‘Blood Runs Coal’?

    Cillian Murphy accepts the Oscar® for Actor in a Leading Role during the live ABC telecast of the 96th Oscars® at the Dolby® Theatre at Ovation Hollywood on Sunday, March 10, 2024. Credit/Provider: Phil McCarten ©A.M.P.A.S. Copyright: ©A.M.P.A.S.
    Cillian Murphy accepts the Oscar® for Actor in a Leading Role during the live ABC telecast of the 96th Oscars® at the Dolby® Theatre at Ovation Hollywood on Sunday, March 10, 2024. Credit/Provider: Phil McCarten ©A.M.P.A.S. Copyright: ©A.M.P.A.S.

    The new movie will adapt Mark A. Bradley’s 2020 book ‘Blood Runs Coal: The Yablonski Murders and the Battle for the United Mine Workers of America’.

    Taking place at the coal mines of Pennsylvania in the 1960s, it chronicles one of the most infamous crimes in the history of organized labor.

    Jock Yablonski, a second-generation miner whose father died in an explosion underground, had been looking to improve conditions in the mines where he worked. He ended up running for president of his mining union against the corrupt, uncaring incumbent Tony Boyle, who regularly stole union funds for his own needs, including his re-election campaign.

    When Yablonski dared to run against him on a platform of exposing his wrongdoing, Boyle ordered him killed, and Yablonski died along with most of his family one new year’s eve.

    Yet brothers Chip and Kenneth Yablonski had not been home the night of the murders, and Chip, a labor attorney, took up a crusade to have Boyle investigated. Boyle ended up charged with hiring a hitman and was sentenced to three life sentences following his conviction in 1974. He died in prison just over a decade later.

    Murphy would play Chip in the film, which writing duo Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth are aboard to script. There’s no director aboard just yet.

    Related Article: Movie Review: ‘Oppenheimer’ 

    What other potential work does Cillian Murphy have?

    Cillian Murphy in 2002's '28 Days Later.'
    Cillian Murphy in 2002’s ’28 Days Later.’ Photo: Fox Searchlight Pictures.

    Murphy’s got quite the to-do list right now. He’s also produced and starred in historical drama ‘Small Things Like These’ and is attached to a Netflix film called ‘Steve’, directed by ‘Small Things’ filmmaker Tim Mielants.

    And according to ‘Peaky Blinders’ creator Steven Knight, Murphy will return to play gang leader Tommy Shelby in the film continuation of that crime series, which ran for six seasons between 2013 and 2022.

    Finally, Murphy has boarded ‘28 Years Later’, the next sequel to 2002 zombie thriller ‘28 Days Later’, which was one of his big breakout roles. As of right now, he’s an executive producer, but we’d be shocked if he didn’t return to his lead role of Jim in the new movie from Danny Boyle and Alex Garland.

    When will ‘Blood Runs Coal’ be in theaters?

    Universal has yet to set a date for the new movie, but given Murphy’s schedule, it may have to wait a while.

    Cillian Murphy is J. Robert Oppenheimer in 'Oppenheimer,' written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan.
    Cillian Murphy is J. Robert Oppenheimer in ‘Oppenheimer,’ written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan.

    List of Cillian Murphy Movies:

    Buy Cillian Murphy Movies on Amazon

    k4MEAHIP
  • Danny Boyle Planning ‘28 Days Later’ Sequel Movie

    Cillian Murphy in 2002's '28 Days Later.'
    Cillian Murphy in 2002’s ’28 Days Later.’ Photo: Fox Searchlight Pictures.

    Preview:

    • ‘28 Years Later’ will pick up the story of the classic horror pic.
    • Boyle will direct with Garland writing.
    • The aim is to launch a new trilogy.

    Back in 2002, director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland breathed new life into the zombie genre by creating ‘28 Days Later’, which saw Cillian Murphy starring as a man who wakes up from a coma to discover that London –– and the world –– has been overtaken by a virus that turns its victims into rage-filled monsters who savage their victims.

    While the “Z” word is never used, the Infected, for all their fast speed are certainly a take on the genre.

    ‘28 Days Later’ was followed directly by 2007’s ‘28 Weeks Later’, which was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, with Boyle and Garland only involved as executive producers.

    Now, though, after years of the filmmaking pair talking up the idea of another sequel to the original, it appears they’ve officially come up with a concept they like.

    14559

    What’s happening with the new ‘28 Days Later’ sequel?

    Cillian Murphy in 2002's '28 Days Later.'
    Cillian Murphy in 2002’s ’28 Days Later.’ Photo: Fox Searchlight Pictures.

    According to The Hollywood Reporter, Boyle and Garland are now ready to pitch a movie called ‘28 Years Later’. While the plot is being kept under wraps for now, the title points to picking up the story decades after the original and seeing what has happened to the country since then. We’re guessing nothing good, but with Boyle and Garland involved, it’ll be entertaining finding out.

    As of right now, the plan is for Boyle to direct the new movie and Garland to write it. And it’s not just an idea for one movie –– the pair has plans to make a new trilogy based on the concept with Garland writing all three and a planned $75 million budget per movie. Given that his own filmmaking career has evolved since then (his latest movie as a director, ‘Civil War’ is out this April), there’s a chance Garland might step up to direct one of the others.

    Related Article: Danny Boyle Has Revealed What He Planned For ‘No Time To Die’

    Where will the new movie be seen?

    Danny Boyle attends the Academy’s 7th Annual Governors Awards in The Ray Dolby Ballroom at Hollywood & Highland Center® in Hollywood, CA, o
    Danny Boyle attends the Academy’s 7th Annual Governors Awards in The Ray Dolby Ballroom at Hollywood & Highland Center® in Hollywood, CA, on Saturday, November 14, 2015. Credit/Provider: Matt Petit / ©A.M.P.A.S. Copyright: ©A.M.P.A.S.

    As of right now, Garland and Boyle are, via their agency WME, pitching the idea to studios and streamers, so we’d expect there to be plenty of interest given the known concept and the fact that the people behind the original movie are once more involved.

    Who knows –– if this one is a success, we could see yet another resurgence for the genre, which could use some new ideas after years of ‘The Walking Dead’.

    What’s next for Boyle and Garland?

    Boyle is working on an action-adventure short film called ‘Methuselah’, while, as mentioned, Garland’s ‘Civil War’ will be in theaters on April 26th.

    Kirsten Dunst in 'Civil War.'
    Kirsten Dunst in ‘Civil War.’ Photo: A24.

    Movies Similar to ‘28 Days Later’:

    Buy ‘28 Days Later‘ on Amazon

    Y0VHuz7P
  • Jessie Buckley’s Haunted in the New Trailer for ‘Men’

    Jessie Buckley in 'Men.'
    Jessie Buckley in A24’s ‘Men.’

    Don’t you hate it when you take yourself off to a seemingly quiet, picturesque place to stay in the countryside to recover from a personal tragedy, only to walk straight into yet more horror? Us too.

    But that’s exactly what poor Jesse Buckley (or her character Harper, at least) must deal with in the trippy, freaky new trailer for Alex Garland’s new thriller ‘Men’.

    The story sees Buckley’s Harper still in shock following the apparent – emphasis on that last bit, since the new promo makes it clear there could well be more to it – of her husband, played by ‘I May Destroy You’ and ‘Gangs of London’ actor Paapa Essiedu, who flung himself from the balcony of their London apartment.

    Trying to recuperate from that tragedy as she processes her grief, Harper retreats alone to the beautiful English countryside, hoping to have found a place to heal.

    But someone or something from the surrounding woods appears to be stalking her. What begins as simmering dread becomes a fully formed nightmare, inhabited by her darkest memories and fears.

    The biggest issue she must confront, aside from that scary stalker, is seemingly multiple versions of the same man, albeit appearing in different forms. They’re all played by recent Bond movies veteran Rory Kinnear. He pops up as the man who rents a house to Harper, the local priest (who tries to convince her she was responsible for her husband’s death), a grumpy local barman and, most disturbingly, a boy who wears an unsettling mask, but honestly looks worse when he takes that off.

    4Mcrypag

    Garland, who also wrote the script, looks to be exploring ideas of perception, guilt, grief, and unease here, pushing the atmosphere to the forefront (at least in this trailer).

    After some time spent bringing TV drama ‘Devs’ to life, it’s exciting to see Garland back working on the big screen, and hopefully digging into smart, compulsive thriller territory once more following the likes of ‘Annihilation’ and ‘Ex Machina’. As with the former, ‘Men’ appears to promise no easy answers, but bags of tone and a typically great cast.

    Buckley has been putting in excellent turns for years, in movies such as ‘The Lost Daughter’ (for which she’s nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category), ‘Judy’ and ‘Wild Rose’.

    Kinnear, meanwhile, is a reliable character sort who has been seen on screens big and small beyond his Bond work: he’s a pompous ship’s Admiral in HBO Max’s pirate comedy ‘Our Flag Means Death’ right now and was in the channel’s superb UK drama ‘Years and Years’.

    The new trailer is stylish and shocking, building on the feeling of the teaser, and it’s certainly one we’re looking forward to in what should be another good year for thoughtful horror. We can look forward to Jordan Peele’s return with ‘Nope’ and the more viscerally vengeful likes of Robert Eggers’ ‘The Northman’ this year too.

    ‘Men’ will be creeping into theaters from May 20th.

    'Men' Poster
    A24’s ‘Men’ is written directed by Alex Garland.
    jOniOCR7ZDQX43JjJpPTt
  • ‘Annihilation’ Director Alex Garland and Star Oscar Isaac On Crafting a New Sci-Fi Classic

    Alex Garland‘s “Annihilation,” based on the novel by Jeff VanderMeer, is the kind of challenging, uncompromised sci-fi classic that we only get every-so-often, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with such mind-bending behemoths as “2001” and “Blade Runner.”

    Garland, who has been the generation’s premiere voice of heady science fiction (he wrote “Sunshine,” “Dredd,” “28 Days Later,” and wrote and directed “Ex Machina“), elevates the genre further with “Annihilation.” It’s the story of a husband named Kane (Oscar Isaac) and a wife named Lena (Natalie Portman) and how they fall apart before he takes a risky mission to explore an uninhabitable patch of land called Area X. This place is infected with some kind of otherworldly, oily gunk and nicknamed The Shimmer by a shadowy government agency called the Southern Reach.

    After Kane returns, uh, different, Lena and a group of like-minded scientists (including Jennifer Jason Leigh and Tessa Thompson) venture into The Shimmer to try and figure out what, exactly, has happened and how they can stop it. And that’s when things get really weird.

    We were lucky enough to get to chat with Garland and Isaac (reuniting after a memorable collaboration on “Ex Machina”) about what they were influenced by, how they developed the characters, and what (if anything) keen-eyed viewers should look out for.

    Considering how going in blind is the best way to experience “Annihilation,” consider this a SPOILER WARNING.

    MOVIEFONE: When did you first start talking about this? Oscar, were you very eager to do whatever Alex did next?

    Oscar Isaac: Even during “Ex Machina,” I was thinking that I want to do everything that Alex does. So I was very excited when he said he had a script and there was a part in it for me. So I read it and immediately started talking about it and figuring out how I could be involved.

    Did you immediately think about him, Alex?

    Alex Garland: Well, we got to know each other in preparing for “Ex Machina,” in truth. And then we properly stayed in touch. We’re proper friends.

    So, actually, aside from enjoying working together and respecting each other, we properly know each other and I would imagine, and I think the reason I don’t remember ever having first told Oscar about it, is because it would have just come up in conversation. There were other projects that had been floating around my head — and we had been talking about them — but it was always a given for me that I would see if Oscar wanted to do it. It was a default state, really. So there wouldn’t have been a particular moment. It was part of a rolling conversation that hasn’t stopped now.

    Oscar, would you have been walking by in a HAZMAT suit in the background if he’d asked you to?

    Isaac: Yes. I would have asked for a lot of money but …

    Garland: Yeah, he would have, anyway.

    What was it like adapting the novel? And Oscar, did you have input, too? This character is pretty different than what you see in the novel.

    Garland: The adaptation thing was complex in some respects. There were two things about the book that really struck me hard. One was that it was original. It just wasn’t like other books. It wasn’t like other stories. That alone makes it unusual. Most stories we tell are versions of other stories that have already been told — on a holistic level, actually, from themes to plot to characters and everything.

    And the other thing was that it has this extremely strong hallucinogenic atmosphere. With any adaptation, and this is only the third one I’ve done, I try to figure out: What is the thing that I’m adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about.

    What about in terms of Oscar’s character?

    Isaac: Well, the character then is in service to that. If the key is the atmosphere and how you translate that, then Kane is, in a way, a tool to explore that. The different phases of how we see Kane, the physicality of that, what is happening, the subtext of all that and how it charges the scene, we spoke about all of that.

    We spoke about what point does Kane know what’s happening with Lena? At what point is the way he’s behaving with her influenced by the knowledge he has or doesn’t have? We talked about that. We talked a bit about where he’s from, and how that affects his speech. For me, we landed on a Northern Florida accent. I grew up in Florida and I had a lot of friends who had that way of speaking. All of those little bits and pieces [were important]. In each individual scene, we would try it different ways to see all of the ways it could go.Were there any touchstones that either of you were looking towards, in the science fiction genre, when crafting this?

    Garland: As much as possible, in a way, you try and shed yourself of the things you love, to rid yourself of them. At a certain point, when I’m working on a film, I stop watching any movies and I stop looking at TV and I stop reading books or anything like that to try and get away. But, of course, you do know those things. They’re tattooed into us, into our awareness. So what you do is, when you’re aware of something you can’t shed, you think about how to subvert it.

    Within the stories that we tell and retell, you tend to end with a punch-up of one sort or another. It might be in a courtroom or in a street, it might be a gunfight or a car chase, but it’s still a punch-up. And you think: How do we have this and acknowledge it but also subvert it? So we had our punch-up super ritualized, but also a literal kind of dance in some respects.

    There’s a bear that appears a few times in the narrative and there it was notionally, you’ve got a monster. In all sorts of films, but particularly science fiction films, a monster will appear. It became how can we subvert the nature of a monster? And also, I want to say, it’s not just about trying to subvert genre tropes. All of these things have to dovetail and support the themes and the story.

    So the bear becomes about the damage. It’s not just a bear, it’s a broken, fractured, tragic character in the narrative and it had to have allusions within it. Like, where did the bear come from? Why did it manifest itself in this house? Does the physical structure of the house echo the house where the marriage takes place? So much of it is organic. I’m not sure if people will ever clock it. But just to draw attention to where things are drawn in the film.

    Oscar’s character has a bear tattoo on his chest, so it’s not a coincidence that the creature that arrives in the house is a bear. And so it goes on.

    Oscar, was he talking to you about all of this stuff?

    Isaac: No. Because what was important was not stuff that was composed. It was stuff that we arrived at organically. Or it was there in the script and it was being teased out. So, what Alex does really well, is he writes a script that has so much depth to it already, but enough ambiguity and mystery that he allows for his collaborators to arrive at things and really feel ownership of them as well. Through that ownership, it’s a very truthful approach. This film has so much to it. It’s deeply horrifying in some ways, there’s a real thrill and beauty to some of these images — they’re so strange and alien, but filled with deep emotion and pain — and also intimate.

    So, for me, what I love most about it is you have these incredibly tense, beautiful, horrible scenarios — but at the same time — there’s a very deep, intimate story about a marriage at the center of it.

    You both just talked about the layers of meaning and symbolism. Is there anything else you want people to keep an eye out for maybe in the second or third viewing?

    Garland: Oh, actually, I was slightly kicking myself for having said that stuff about the bear. Honestly, I think the ideal way to see a movie is to know nothing about the film except right before you walk into the film somebody says to you, “This film is going to be crap.”

    So you have low expectations and no information. So I feel like I’m always weirdly undermining the thing by talking about it. So, no, there isn’t anything I’d say. And I’ll just look back in time and erase the thing I said. But there is some truth in that, because a real sense of discovery is a really pleasurable thing. And not being front-loaded, like, “Look out for this!” Just having a pure experience between a group of people who made a narrative for you to experience and then you get to experience it and make your own mind up. I think there’s something really nice about that.

    Annihilation” infects theaters nationwide tomorrow. Do not miss it (it’s not crap).

  • ‘Annihilation’ Earns Raves From Early Reactions: It’s ‘One Hell of a Mindf*ck’

    “Annihilation” is being called a sci-fi masterpiece you’ll still be processing long after the credits roll.

    Critics got a sneak peek before the film’s release on February 23, and they were deeply impressed.

    This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone familiar with author Jeff VanderMeer’s Southern Reach Trilogy + Alex Garland‘s history as a brilliant sci-fi writer (“28 Days Later,” “Sunshine”) and writer/director (“Ex Machina”).

    Garland both directed and wrote the screenplay for “Annihilation,” which stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Gina Rodriguez, Tessa Thompson, and Oscar Isaac.

    Without delving into the movie’s plot at all, just check out some of the first reactions:


    Well, you can’t ask for much more than that. If you’re curious about the source material, consider checking out VanderMeer’s 2014 novel series, starting with “Annihilation” and continuing with “Authority” and “Acceptance.” The film version of “Annihilation” opens in theaters Friday, February 23.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • 15 Things You Never Knew About Karl Urban’s ‘Dredd’

    When “Dredd” came out five years ago this week (on Sept. 21, 2012), it seemed that the box office dispensed Judge Dredd-style summary judgment against the film.

    An effort to rescue the futuristic comic book anti-hero from the cringeworthy reputation he’d suffered as a result of the 1995 Sylvester Stallone/Rob Schneider version, the terse new “Dredd” earned a terse new verdict: Flop.

    That could have been the end of it, but the movie’s dry satirical wit, stunning 3D effects, and fidelity to the uncompromisingly bleak and violent comic made “Dredd” a sci-fi cult favorite. That the film worked as well as it did was a triumph over its budget constraints and behind-the-scenes conflicts. Here’s how the makers of “Dredd” managed to lay down the law.
    1. Judge Dredd originated in 1977, in the pages of British sci-fi magazine 2000 A.D., the creation of writer John Wagner and artist Carlos Ezquerra. The Dirty Harry-meets-RoboCop lawman seemed a natural fit for the big screen, but the 1995 Disney version made several missteps that alienated old fans while failing to attract new ones.

    2. Among the movie’s flaws: having Dredd (Stallone) remove his helmet and show his face (something he’s never done over his 35-year history in print), and giving him a comic-relief sidekick (Schneider). When producer-screenwriter Alex Garland (“28 Days Later,” “Sunshine“) began writing a reboot script in 2006, these were mistakes he was determined not to repeat.
    3. Garland (above, on the set of “Ex Machina”) consulted with Wagner early on. The Shrewsbury, England restaurant where they met, The Peach Tree, gave its name to the 200-story slum where most of Garland’s movie would take place.

    4. Initially, Garland had a much more epic story in mind, one that would exploit the comic’s vast setting, Mega City One, a sprawling future metropolis stretching from Boston to D.C. Eventually, however, he pared it down to one location and one 24-hour period. He also cut out robots and aliens from the comic’s vision of the future.
    5. Pete Travis was a social worker who, late in his career, shifted to filmmaking. His stylish, mind-twisty thriller “Vantage Point” landed him the gig directing “Dredd.”

    6. Karl Urban was coming off his first turn as Dr. McCoy in the rebooted “Star Trek” films when he heard about the development of “Dredd.” A lifelong fan of the comic, the New Zealand-born actor lobbied for the part and won it (“He knew ‘Dredd’ and he understood it backwards,” Garland said), then settled in for the challenge of conveying emotion with just his voice and his lower jaw, the only part of his face that would be visible beneath Dredd’s visor.
    7. Urban became that rare movie star who actually wanted fewer lines of dialogue than he was given. He worked with Garland to revise the script so that he could say less, partly because Dredd is supposed to be a man of few words, and partly because the Eastwood-like rasp he adopted for the role put a strain on his vocal cords.

    8. The female pioneers of 1970s punk and new wave served as inspirations for the movie’s two female leads. The creators of the comic based Cassandra Anderson, seen in the film as Dredd’s rookie partner, on Blondie’s Debbie Harry. The filmmakers based Ma-Ma, a fearless crime lord and drug kingpin, on rocker Patti Smith.
    9. Originally, Ma-Ma was going to be a lot older and fatter, until the filmmakers cast lithe Game of Thrones.”

    10. Even before Garland’s script was finished or Travis was hired, the production team started working on the striking visuals needed to simulate the effects of “slo-mo,” the designer drug in the movie that makes users experience time at 1/100th the normal speed. (Much of the credit goes to the Phantom Flex camera, which can shoot 3,000 frames per second.) It also involved shooting in 3D, something that cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, who’d just won an Oscar for “Slumdog Millionaire,” had never done before.
    11. Even the music was slowed down, with composer Paul Leonard-Morgan simulating the sounds he’d heard on a Justin Bieber track that had been slowed down to 1/800th of normal speed. Getting the effects right was one reason post-production on the film took nearly two years.

    12. Did Garland elbow Travis out of the director’s chair? The writer-producer has said that his unusual collaboration with Travis was something they’d worked out in advance. Even so, Urban said that, on the set, he would turn to Garland for direction, rather than Travis. And during the editing process, Travis’ absence led the Los Angeles Times to report that he’d been fired, a contention that Garland denied. Nonetheless, Travis received sole credit for directing “Dredd.”
    13. To save money, the production shot in Cape Town and Johannesburg in South Africa. The production was frugal in other ways, too. The rippling-flesh effect when characters get shot was achieved without digital trickery, just by using blasts of compressed air. And for the motorcycle scenes, the filmmakers saved money on a stunt driver; that’s really Urban on the bike.

    14. “Dredd” cost a reported $45 million to make, a modest sum for a futuristic action epic with lots of digital effects. It earned back just $13 million in North America and a total of $41 million worldwide.
    15. With figures like that, a sequel seemed out of the question. Yet “Dredd” found a following on home video, where it earned at least $20 million. A petition on a Facebook fan site calling for a sequel reached 80,000 signatures. Finally, in May 2017, a “Dredd” follow-up TV series was announced, with Urban revealing in August that he was in talks to reprise his starring role. Fingers crossed, Dredd-heads.

  • Discover ‘Sunshine,’ the Perfect Summer Sci-Fi Flick You’ve Never Seen

    SUNSHINETen years ago, an ambitious science-fiction film was quietly released in American cinemas. Despite having an all-star international cast and the might of one of cinema’s greatest living filmmakers, it barely made any money and was critically ignored (it got a wishy-washy 64 on Metacritic). But Danny Boyle‘s “Sunshine” has proved an enduring cult classic, and if you’re getting tired of the overblown, overlong summer sci-fi spectacles, you’d be right in giving “Sunshine” a go. It’s available on most streaming platforms and clocks in at a svelte hour and 47 minutes.

    “Sunshine” is set just 50 years into the future. At this point, the sun is dying so Earth has been thrust into a new ice age. A group of scientists, towing a nuclear weapon the size of Manhattan, are on a quest to deliver the payload into the sun, effectively reigniting it. Along the way, though, our intrepid crew (populated with a wonderfully multi-cultural cast that includes Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans, Michelle Yeoh, Rose Byrne, Hiroyuki Sanada, Cliff Curtis and Benedict Wong) investigate what happened to the first such vessel that attempted this voyage and may be fighting with the psychological effects of being so close to the sun. Just keep in mind, especially based on that description, whatever you think “Sunshine” is going to be; it’s not.

    Most of this has to do with Alex Garland’s ingenious script. Garland had teamed with Boyle before; his novel “The Beach” was adapted by the director and Garland provided the script for their zombie refresh “28 Days Later.” But this was something new and different, it was much bigger than either of them had imagined; it took a full year to refine the script and another whole year to complete editing and visual effects.

    Eventually, the two creative principles ended up taking very difference stances on what the movie meant, to the point that it drove a wedge between them (they never worked together again). Whatever philosophical jousting went on behind the scenes, that creative friction did wonders for the movie. This is a movie that, like all of Boyle’s films, feels very vital and alive in a way that few manufactured pop confections that flood the marketplace in the summer months do.

    Part of that has to do with the streamlined nature of the film, which owes a debt to everything from “Alien” to “2001,” with Boyle and Garland chopping away extraneous romantic subplots and unnecessary dialogue. This is a movie where everything feeds into the propulsive nature of the central narrative. And as much as the movie harkens back to classic science-fiction tales of old, it is unlike anything that has come before it (or since).

    The movie is about the sun, a celestial being that gives us life but that interests few science-fiction filmmakers, and it is fearless in the way that it hops between genres. It’s clear that Garland and Boyle wanted to do an ode to the films that they loved but to really take it someplace new. This is a movie that is as comfortable getting into heady existential debates about the nature of humanity and where we come from, as it is goosing you with a suspense set piece that will truly have you biting your nails. It’s this combination of the humane and the celestial, the highfalutin and the wildly entertaining, that makes “Sunshine” such a blast.But this odd mix does have its detractors.

    Now, let us talk, in veiled terms (of course) about the controversial third act.

    Now, everybody loves to talk about a big twist. There are endless think pieces written about great twists; they inspire fierce water cooler conversations and ignite debate. (Just the other day, I was at a local fast food joint and overheard a conversation about who, exactly, Zendaya is playing in “Spider-Man: Homecoming.”) In “Sunshine,” the third act takes a wild left turn that will either leave you exhilarated or bewildered.

    While programming a block of movies on British satellite channel Sky, Quentin Tarantino chose the film before calling its climax a “creative nosedive.” “The third act tumbling goes far beyond disappointment. The feeling I experienced was betrayal,” Tarantino said. “It goes against every aspect of that film’s aesthetic that preceded it.” Beyond an incredibly lengthy (shocking!) Reddit post, there aren’t that many defenders of the last third of “Sunshine.”

    But that’s okay.

    One, it’s a movie that will get you talking. How many current sci-fi blockbusters can you even muster a sentence about? How many just leave you blubbering puddles of goo, after being beaten into submission by two plus hours of nonstop visual effects insanity? So the fact that the ending of “Sunshine” will make you talk is wonderful. Tarantino even admits that the first two acts of the film are so good that no matter how disastrous you think the third act might be, it still doesn’t lessen the film’s impact (this is also true). And something that people just aren’t owning up to: the third act is actually pretty cool. I’m hesitant to talk about just how the movie transforms, but patient and open-minded viewers will be rewarded for sure.

    My suggestion: crank up the air conditioning, pull down the blinds, and get lost in the world of “Sunshine.”

  • Here Are the 2015 DGA Awards Film Nominees

    Fresh off its impressive haul at the Golden Globes the weekend, “The Revenant” is poised to nab yet another statuette with a nomination for a Directors Guild of America Award.

    The DGA announced its annual slate of honorees for outstanding directorial achievement on Tuesday, and “Revenant” director Alejandro G. Inarritu was among the five nominees. Inarritu also won the DGA award last year, for 2014’s “Birdman,” and with the new momentum from “The Revenant”‘s Globes wins, the director looks like an early favorite to repeat.

    The rest of the nominees were rounded out by Tom McCarthy (“Spotlight”), Adam McKay (“The Big Short”), George Miller (“Mad Max: Fury Road”), and Ridley Scott (“The Martian”). In addition to those names, the DGA also included a new category this year, honoring directors who helmed their first feature films in 2015.

    “There’s a first time for every feature filmmaker, but not every first time offers fresh viewpoints in storytelling that are imperative in this industry,” said DGA president Paris Barclay in a statement. “The first-time feature directors we’re recognizing with this inaugural award we hope will develop successful and lengthy careers. We are excited and invigorated by all they have to offer.”

    The full list of nominees is below. The DGA Awards will be handed out at a ceremony on February 6.

    FEATURE FILM NOMINEES:

    ALEJANDRO G. IÑÁRRITU
    The Revenant
    (20th Century Fox)

    Mr. Iñárritu’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Managers: Drew Locke, James W. Skotchdopole, Doug Jones
    First Assistant Director: Scott Robertson
    Second Assistant Directors: Megan M. Shank, Matthew Haggerty, Jeremy Marks
    Unit Production Manager: Gabriela Vazquez (Argentina, California, and Montana Unit)
    First Assistant Director: Adam Somner (Argentina, California, and Montana Unit)
    Second Assistant Directors: Trevor R. Tavares, Jasmine Marie Alhambra (Argentina, California, and Montana Unit)
    Second Second Assistant Directors: Brett Robinson, Kasia Trojak (Argentina, California, and Montana Unit)

    This is Mr. Iñárritu’s fourth DGA Award nomination.

    TOM MCCARTHY
    Spotlight
    (Open Road Films)

    Mr. McCarthy’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Managers: D.J. Carson, Michael Bederman
    First Assistant Director: Walter Gasparovic
    Second Assistant Director: Penny Charter
    Assistant Unit Production Manager: Danielle Blumstein (Boston Unit)
    First Assistant Director: Christo Morse (Boston Unit)
    Second Assistant Directors: Conte Matal, Kristina Mariko Peterson, Annie Tan, Andrea O’Connor (Boston Unit)
    Second Second Assistant Directors: Phil Robinson, Mark Romanelli (Boston Unit)
    Additional Second Assistant Director: Scooter Perrotta (Boston Unit)

    This is Mr. McCarthy’s first DGA Feature Film Award nomination.

    ADAM MCKAY
    The Big Short
    (Paramount Pictures)

    Mr. McKay’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Louise Rosner
    First Assistant Director: Matt Rebenkoff
    Second Assistant Director: Amy Lauritsen
    Second Second Assistant Director: Cali Pomés
    Second Second Assistant Director: Josh Muzaffer (New York Unit)
    Location Manager: Michael Kriaris

    This is Mr. McKay’s first DGA Feature Film Award nomination.

    GEORGE MILLER
    Mad Max: Fury Road
    (Warner Bros.)

    Mr. Miller’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Dean Hood
    First Assistant Director: PJ Voeten
    Second Assistant Directors: Samantha Smith, Wendy Croad, Chris O’Hara
    Second Assistant Directors: Eddie Thorne (Syndey Unit), Emma Jamvold (Syndey Unit)
    Second Second Assistant Directors: Danielle Blake (Syndey Unit), Joshua Watkins (Syndey Unit)

    This is Mr. Miller’s first DGA Feature Film Award nomination.

    RIDLEY SCOTT
    The Martian
    (20th Century Fox)

    Mr. Scott’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Managers: Francesca Cingolani, Miklós Tóth
    First Assistant Director: Raymond Kirk
    Second Assistant Directors: Sarah Hood, Bogi Móricz
    Second Second Assistant Director: Nick Thomas

    This is Mr. Scott’s fourth DGA Award nomination.

    FIRST-TIME FEATURE FILM DIRECTOR NOMINEES:

    FERNANDO COIMBRA
    A Wolf at the Door
    (Outsider Pictures)

    Mr. Coimbra’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Clara Machado
    First Assistant Director: Suzy Milstein
    Second Assistant Director: Raquel Toledo

    This is Mr. Coimbra’s first DGA Award nomination.

    JOEL EDGERTON
    The Gift
    (STX Entertainment)

    Mr. Edgerton’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Luc Etienne
    First Assistant Director: Michael J. Moore
    Second Assistant Director: Matt Haggerty
    Second Second Assistant Director: Dillon Neaman

    This is Mr. Edgerton’s first DGA Award nomination.

    ALEX GARLAND
    Ex Machina
    (A24)

    Mr. Garland’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Sara Desmond
    First Assistant Director: Nick Heckstall‑Smith
    Second Assistant Director: Ray Kenny

    This is Mr. Garland’s first DGA Award nomination.

    MARIELLE HELLER
    The Diary of a Teenage Girl
    (Sony Pictures Classics)

    Ms. Heller’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Molly Salz
    First Assistant Director: Brian Benson
    Second Assistant Director: Jerremy Stewart
    Second Second Assistant Director: Alex Gilbert

    This is Ms. Heller’s first DGA Award nomination.

    LÁSZLÓ NEMES
    Son of Saul
    (Sony Pictures Classics)

    Mr. Nemes’s Directorial Team:
    Unit Production Manager: Gábor Szántó
    First Assistant Director: István Kolos
    Second Assistant Directors: Zoltán Gyovai, Edina Galgócz

    This is Mr. Nemes’s first DGA Award nomination.

    [via: Directors Guild of America]

    Photo credit: Kimberley French/Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

    %Slideshow-58947%

  • Why Oscar Isaac Channeled Stanley Kubrick for ‘Ex Machina’ (EXCLUSIVE)

    Oscar Isaac at the "Ex Machina" New York PremiereThere are good science fiction movies, and there are science fiction movies that realign your perception of the world, while thrusting you into some new or otherworldly space, full of unfamiliar technology or biology. Alex Garland is in the business of making the latter. The British novelist breathed life into the zombie movie with his script for Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later,” and took audiences to the far flung reaches of space with their second collaboration, “Sunshine” (if you haven’t seen it, please correct the error of your ways — it’s fabulous). Garland also adapted a beloved novel for the cloning saga “Never Let Me Go” and an equally beloved cult comic book for “Dredd” (again: outstanding, especially in 3D).

    This week, Garland makes his directorial debut with “Ex Machina,” a twisty-turny little science fiction film that stars Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, a coder for a Google-like monolith called Bluebook. Bluebook is run by a reclusive, genius billionaire named Nathan (Oscar Isaac), who summons Caleb to his airtight compound to engage in a series of interactions with his brand-new invention: an eerily lifelike robot named Ava (Alicia Vikander). Things, as you can imagine, don’t go smoothly.

    At the South by Southwest Film Festival in Austin, Texas, a few weeks ago, we got to sit on a sunny porch and chat with Isaac. The movie had debuted at the festival the night earlier with a rapturous response and predictably awesome after-party, and you could tell Isaac was feeling good. (Or maybe it was the fact that he stars in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” and knows tons of stuff that nobody else knows, well, besides Gleeson, who also stars in that little film. Read more about that here.)

    During our conversation, we talked about the look and development of the character, why he found famed director Stanley Kubrick to be such an influence, how he nearly landed the lead in “The Bourne Legacy,” and, oh yeah, his exceptional dance moves.

    Moviefone: I wanted to first ask about the development of the character, because he’s not at all what you expect. How much of that was on the page and how much did you come up with?

    Oscar Isaac: Most of it was on the page. Almost all of it was on the page. A lot of the concepts and exactly how the whole thing fits together is so thought out, and Alex was so rigorous with making sure it all lines up; it was really on the page. We did spend a good many days getting together and going through the script line-by-line, just to make sure it made sense to me and made sense as a whole. But that kind of wit and intelligence and ferocity was on the page.

    What about the look of the character? He’s working out all the time but not totally in shape because he’s drinking, and he’s got a shaved head but a bushy beard…

    The drinking and the working out was in there because he’s supposed to be incredibly formidable on every level. He’s a foil to Caleb — he’s stronger than he is, he’s more intelligent, he’s funnier, he’s quicker. He’s like an impossible foe. So when the tables do finally turn, it’s really rewarding. But the look was something that we played around with a lot.

    What he looked like wasn’t specified at all, so we thought, Well, he’s not seen anyone. He’s been in his research facility for however many years, with no contact with human beings. What would he look like? So the first look that I came up with and brought to Alex was a long beard and long hair, quite caveman-looking, I thought, What reason would he have to cut his hair? He’s got a lot of things on his mind. And then we did some tests with that and we liked it; we were fairly close to going with that one. But then I said, “The other option is this…” And I actually shaved my head and thought, This is a bit severe and that would be more like I can’t deal with hair.

    It’d be getting in the way so you’d have to shave it but the beard really isn’t getting in the way and he wouldn’t want to have to shave every day. It was very practical. And also, to me, it gave a little bit of that Kubrick look, although he had the long hair in his later years. He had the bald head and the glasses and those big owl eyes.

    The movie is very economic in its storytelling. Did you and Alex talk about the character’s history?

    Yes, we talked about those ideas — like it says in the script, he wrote the code for Bluebook at 13. He was a savant. For me, the idea that he came from, again with the Kubrick inspiration, I listened to some of his speech patterns, particularly when he was younger. So there’s a bit of a Bronx accent and I imagined him being from the Bronx. I followed him through; he was self-taught, the way that Steve Jobs was. And where this misanthropic, dystopian feeling started to set in.

    Where did this Kubrick thing come from?

    For me, I just liked the idea of someone who was mysterious and powerful and incredibly smart and who I think is a genius. That’s where I started — who do I think is a genius? Not necessarily who other people think is a genius but not that other people think is a genius. Obviously, there is the bro billionaire people, but that’s someone who has a fascinating mind. So I thought of him and I thought of Bobby Fischer and read about him and watched documentaries on him because he’s someone who is so brilliant at one thing but is so dark and had such messed up ideas and was definitely diseased by certain things.

    Were you ever worried that the movie wouldn’t work?

    Never. I read it and thought, This is amazing. It was just like when I read “Sunshine” and I thought it was some of the best sci-fi I’d ever read. I think Alex is one of the greats.

    I’ve heard the “Sunshine” script was even weirder than the movie.

    It was amazing. It was the first script I ever read outside of school and it was my first audition, for the Cillian Murphy part (Robert Capa). It sounds sort of like Caleb.

    And weren’t you very close to nabbing Jeremy Renner’s part in “The Bourne Legacy”?

    Oh yeah. Tony and I had talked about it, and we did a very long, long screen test. And Tony is very up front about it too — Universal didn’t want to go with an unknown. So then he asked Jeremy, after he was cast, if he was cool about bringing me on. Because everybody knew the story. And he was so cool and said, “Oh yeah, bring him.”

    What was filming with the robot like? Was she in some kind of suit? Had you seen designs beforehand?

    I had been shown designs, so I had some idea of what she would look like. But the grey mesh? That was her whole suit. And they just put it in later. I had an idea what she looked like, not exactly, but a basic understanding.

    Can we talk about your dance number?

    Sure.

    You obviously had to spend some time choreographing that.

    Yeah, we spent a few days with a choreographer choreographing that. It’s actually twice as long. We did almost the entire song. But, wisely, they used the perfect amount. It was such a disco non sequiter. It’s one of the last things you would have expected from this movie.

    Was it ever in danger of being cut?

    No, never. From the moment we started shooting, we thought, This is amazing. People are going to be like, What the f*ck is this?
    %Slideshow-191287%