Moviefone Editorial

Tag: armie-hammer

  • Armie Hammer Apologizes for Stan Lee Tweet After Jeffrey Dean Morgan Calls Him Out

    Armie Hammer Apologizes for Stan Lee Tweet After Jeffrey Dean Morgan Calls Him Out

    Warner Bros.

    After the death of comics legend Stan Lee, pretty much anyone who’d ever taken a picture with Lee shared their photos in tribute on social media.

    “Call Me By Your Name” actor Armie Hammer took issue with that, saying in a now-deleted tweet: “So touched by all of the celebrities posting pictures of themselves with Stan Lee… no better way to commemorate an absolute legend than putting up a picture of yourself… If Stan impacted your life (ie. All of our lives) with his work, post his work that touched you the most. Posting a selfie makes his death about you and how cool you felt taking a picture with him.”

    Among the people objecting to that take was “The Walking Dead” star Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who called Hammer an “asshat” (in an also now-deleted tweet).

    A humbled Hammer got back on Twitter to apologize, saying, “While attempting to provide some unnecessary social commentary about the current selfie culture, I (in true asshat form — thank you Jeffrey Dean Morgan) inadvertently offended many who were genuinely grieving the loss of a true icon. I want to apologize from the bottom of my heart and will be working on my Twitter impulse control.”

    Responses to Hammer’s apology ranged from “we stan personal growth” to sharing his initial viewpoint on “our current, superfluous selfie culture.”

    As another fan pointed out, people sharing their photos of themselves with Lee was “about remembering Stan’s very close and loving relationship with his fans.”

    [Via The Playlist]

  • ‘Death on the Nile’: Armie Hammer to Star Alongside Gal Gadot

    ‘Death on the Nile’: Armie Hammer to Star Alongside Gal Gadot

    Armie Hammer in Sorry to Bother You
    Annapurna Pictures

    Another Agatha Christie adaptation is putting together an all-star cast.

    “Death on the Nile” has added Armie Hammer as a male lead, Deadline reports. He joins Gal Gadot, who was previously cast in the “Murder on the Orient Express” sequel. Their characters will be involved in another journey that goes awry, this time with the Nile River as the backdrop.

    In Christie’s 1937 book “Death on the Nile,” Detective Hercule Poirot is called upon for help by a socialite whose friend has been behaving in an alarming fashion. They end up embarking on a Nile boat tour, only for trouble to follow. As you can guess from the title, someone dies and the detective has to unravel the mystery.

    The movie adaptation comes after the success of “Murder on the Orient Express,” which was released in 2017 and boasted an impressive cast. Its stars include Kenneth Branagh, Penélope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer,  Josh Gad, and Derek Jacobi. “Death on the Nile” is similarly putting together a star-studded group of actors and comes from the same director, Branagh, and writer, Michael Green.

    Hammer was most recently seen in “Sorry to Bother You” and is in the upcoming “Hotel Mumbai.” His credits also include “Call Me by Your Name,” “J. Edgar,” “The Social Network,” and many others.

    The film is expected to head into production in mid-2019 and is scheduled to open in theaters on Dec. 20, 2019.

    [via: Deadline]

  • Armie Hammer Releases Public Apology Statement to Casey Affleck

    Santa Barbara International Film Festival Honors Judi Dench With Annual Kirk Douglas Award For Excellence In Film - ArrivalsDid someone get a call from Casey Affleck‘s team?

    You’ll recall Armie Hammer‘s reference to an Oscars season double standard favoring Casey Affleck over Nate Parker. That’s from a recent interview the “Call Me by Your Name” star did with The Hollywood Reporter. Hammer’s very candid interview — defending Parker and questioning Best Actor winner Affleck — also included the suggestion Hammer knew who leaked information about Parker’s 1999 rape case (he was acquitted) during the awards campaign for “Birth of a Nation.”

    Hammer knew he was making serious accusations — and almost caught himself, it seemed, before diving in. THR’s reporter even added information correcting Hammer’s version of the charges against Affleck.

    89th Annual Academy Awards - BackstageBut now Hammer has issued a public apology statement, with that statement being emailed around to outlets (like ours) that wrote about Hammer’s initial THR comments.

    Here’s Hammer’s full apology statement:

    “I would like to sincerely apologize to Casey and his family for my recent comments about him in my THR interview. Without knowing the facts about the civil lawsuits at issue (which I now understand were settled), I misspoke. I conflated sexual harassment cases with a criminal case involving sexual assault charges. The cases in which Casey was involved were not criminal and instead involved civil claims from his 2010 movie ‘I’m Still Here.’ While intending to make a social comment about double standards in general, I mistakenly compared reports of prior, public civil allegations that never proceeded to trial with a criminal case that was fully tried. I understand now that this was a poor comparison, which I deeply regret making. I also didn’t mean to insinuate, nor do I believe, that Casey or anyone from his camp had anything to do with leaked information that took place during the press for ‘Birth of a Nation.’ I respect Casey’s work, and I’ve learned a valuable lesson about the need to be more accurate with disseminating information, especially in this age of instantaneous, unchecked communication. While attempting to be part of the solution, I unintentionally made myself part of the problem, for which I am truly sorry.”

    How many publicists and lawyers had to go over that statement before it was released? Armie Hammer is an off-the-cuff guy, and we like that about him, but it’s true that public figures have to be careful, especially when it comes to legal issues.

    Hammer seems to be on the Oscars campaign trail himself for 2018, aiming to be the next Best Actor after Casey Affleck.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • Armie Hammer’s Privates Were Digitally Erased ‘a Few Times’ in ‘Call Me By Your Name’

    60th BFI London Film Festival - Free Fire PremiereTake THAT, Henry Cavill’s mustache.

    Armie Hammer’s new film “Call Me By Your Name” is earning a lot of awards buzz, but it almost earned itself more than an R-rating. Hammer and director Luca Guadagnino talked about Hammer’s, uh, wardrobe issues during a chat on Andy Cohen’s radio show.

    Cohen got straight to the point, asking if Hammer’s balls were coming out of some of the short-shorts he wore.

    Hammer: “There was a few times where they had to go back and digitally remove my balls from the movie.”

    Cohen asked if that was true, and director Guadagnino laughingly confirmed, “Yes.”

    Hammer: “They were short shorts — what are you gonna do?”

    Guadagnino: “It’s both things.”

    Cohen: “Short shorts and big balls is what you’re saying? Wow.”

    Hammer: “My mom’s going to love listening to this interview.”

    Cohen: “Armie Hammer has big balls is what you’re saying.

    Guadagnino: “No, no, I’m not saying it. I had to remove [them] digitally.”

    They joked that the balls were removed from the shorts, but then placed somewhere else in the movie.

    Watch the clip (unless you’re Armie Hammer’s mother):Check out the full talk on Radio Andy this Thursday at 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET.

    Armie Hammer’s movie is now in select theaters, opening wider soon. He’s everywhere himself, except Twitter, which he recently deleted.

    [Via: People]

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • Armie Hammer Blasts Oscars’ ‘Two Standards’ for Casey Affleck and Nate Parker 

    89th Annual Academy Awards - BackstageUPDATE: Armie Hammer later issued an apology to Casey Affleck for comments he made during this Hollywood Reporter interview.

    Original post:

    Armie Hammer is still upset about the 2017 Oscars, and how “The Birth of a Nation” was treated.

    Armie Hammer is always candid. Or as he put it to The Hollywood Reporter, “I always open my mouth too much, but f*ck it.” He’s currently earning 2018 Oscars buzz for “Call Me by Your Name,” but talk about the Oscars sent the conversation down a dark road. Hammer was invited to join the Academy this year, he thinks it’s “largely because of the way the ‘Birth of a Nation’ thing was handled.”

    “Birth of a Nation” had a strong showing at Sundance, but right as 2017 Oscars season kicked off, a 1999 rape allegation against director/writer/producer/star Nate Parker resurfaced. Hammer costarred in “Birth of a Nation” as Samuel Turner, and he told THR the timing of the headlines “was orchestrated for sure.”

    On that note, he added:

    “There was another person in the industry, who had a competing film for the Academy Awards, who decided to release all of the phone records and information. I’ve been told who did it — by several people.”

    Interesting… Hammer said the way Nate Parker was treated — and sent to “directors jail” — showed a double standard when compared to Casey Affleck, who was accused of sexual misconduct and still ultimately won the Oscar.

    “Nate had the stuff in his past, which is heinous and tough to get beyond. I get that. But that was when he was 18, and now he’s in directors jail. At the same time, the guy who went and won an Academy Award has three cases of sexual assault against him.”

    Premiere Of Fox Searchlight Pictures' 'The Birth Of A Nation' - ArrivalsHere’s more of the Hollywood Reporter piece, including some clarification on their end as to Affleck’s actual charges vs. Parker’s charges:

    “I ask if he is referring to Casey Affleck, who was sued in 2010 for sexual harassment by two female crewmembers on the set of I’m Still Here and who won the 2016 best actor Oscar for Manchester by the Sea. ‘Yeah,’ he says. (Affleck, in fact, had two civil suits filed against him, both of which were settled out of court and dismissed.) ‘And [Parker] had one incident — which was heinous and atrocious — but his entire life is affected in the worst possible way. And the other guy won the highest award you can get as an actor. It just doesn’t make sense.’

    I point out the details of the Parker trial — a claim of gang rape on a heavily intoxicated woman, followed by his accuser’s suicide — are much graver than what Affleck was accused of, which involved a pattern of demeaning and lewd language and, in one instance, drunkenly climbing into bed with a woman without her consent. ‘Look,” says Hammer. ‘I’m not saying Nate should not have been in trouble. I’m saying that they got in different levels of trouble. And that’s the disparity. It’s like there are two standards for how to deal with someone who has this kind of issue in their past, you know?’”

    He’s not the only one to take issue with Casey Affleck breezing through his allegations and winning an Oscar. Brie Larson said her lack of applause spoke for itself, and others spoke even louder.

    But the 2017 Oscars was a mess across the board, and Hammer admitted he “laughed so hard” and “literally stood up off my couch and applauded — in a schadenfreude way” over the “La La Land”/”Moonlight” snafu. There’s almost no way 2018 can match 2017’s level of drama … but it can try.

    The 90th Academy Awards, hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, will air live on ABC Sunday, March 4, 2018.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • Armie Hammer and Amber Tamblyn Brilliantly Respond to James Woods Dig

    After James Woods critiqued the 7-year age gap between two male characters in Armie Hammer‘s new gay indie romance, “Call Me by Your Name,” Hammer had the perfect response.

    “Didn’t you date a 19-year-old when you were 60…..?” Hammer replied to Woods’ tweet.

    Per THR, Woods started dating his current girlfriend, Kristen Bauguess, in 2013 when she was 20 years old and he was 66. (Woods turned 70 earlier this year.) And also began dating his previous girlfriend when she was 19 or 20, and he was (as Hammer points out) 60.

    Amber Tamblyn then tweeted that James Woods hit on her when she was only 16. Ewwwww.

    And Holly Marie Combs (“Charmed”) pointed out that Woods used to date a friend’s daughter… that he had watched grow up! And a woman shared her story of Woods hitting on her when she was still in high school.

    Woods blocked Tamblyn and tweeted out that her story was “a lie.” In a series of tweets, he added, “Final word on this: I don’t give a s**t what liberals think.”

    Besides the age gap, some — including conservative gay author Chad Felix Green, whose reaction Woods retweeted — take issue with the fact that the younger character in “Call Me by Your Name” is just 17. However, the film is set in Italy, where the age of consent is 14.

    If it’s not already part of the conversation (and it surely will be), Tamblyn, 34, is 19 years younger than her husband, David Cross.

    “Call Me By Your Name”,” which opens November 24, currently has 98 percent positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

  • How ‘Cars 3′ Will Reclaim the Series’ Legacy

    In terms of Pixar films, the first “Cars” ranks up there alongside “A Bug’s Life” as one of the studio’s most underrated films. And since that film was released in 2006, it’s become one of the most popular brands for Disney, generating millions of dollars in merchandise sales and inspiring a line of short films, spin-offs, and a sprawling, technologically mind-bending land at the Disney California Adventure park in Anaheim. At this point it’s hard to remember when “Cars” was a movie and not a franchise (lord knows the disconnected 2011 sequel, with a plot that remains totally baffling, didn’t help anything), which is what makes “Cars 3” such an exciting proposition.

    A few weeks ago, I went up to Pixar and watched about half of the movie, all told, and was utterly charmed with what I saw. Based on what I saw, “Cars 3” is a true return-to-form for the series and does a lot to remind you just how special the original film was.At the beginning of “Cars 3,” Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is still top dog, but his age is starting to show. He is involved in a catastrophic crash (one that is teased in the first trailer) and is constantly being bested by Jackson Storm (Armie Hammer), a high-tech racecar with all the bells and whistles. When his sponsorship is taken over by a sick businessman named Sterling (Nathan Fillion), McQueen thinks that they’re going to put him back on the track. But instead, Sterling wants to position McQueen as a legacy sponsor of a host of products. Lightning strikes a deal with his new boss: Let him race one more time, and if he loses, he’ll retire and spend his golden years shilling products. (The fact that Lightning is essentially being reduced to a logo is pretty interesting and way more meta than you’d expect.) Sterling assigns a young trainer, Cruz (Cristela Alonzo), to help Lighting get ready for the race, and, together, they travel across the country seeking inspiration and advice.

    It’s pretty cute.

    And the connection to the first film is pretty awesome. If you saw “Cars 2,” you know that it refashioned the original’s slow-down-and-enjoy-the-simplicities-of-life narrative as a high-octane spy adventure. It was audacious, for sure, and remains one of the most beautiful-looking Pixar movies ever, but it lost the sweetness of the original and traded that film’s laid back, Miyazaki-indebted charm for something frenzied and frantic and somewhat overwhelming. Also, it made goofball tow truck Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) the central focus instead of Lightning. It was … bizarre.

    And if the footage I saw up at Pixar is any indication, the third film almost completely ignores the events of the second film. There’s no mention of the European and Asian races depicted in that film, none of the characters have returned, and Mater is barely in it. Seriously, the hillbilly tow truck probably said 10 words in the almost hour’s worth of footage I saw. And this film is primarily set in Radiator Springs, the Route 66 oasis introduced in the first film. (Sadly, the sunny epilogue of the first film, which saw tourists and visitors return to the sleepy hamlet, isn’t a part of “Cars 3.”) So, if you never saw “Cars 2,” don’t worry. It’s probably better (and less confusing) if you didn’t.As Lightning McQueen ambles through the American southwest, a part of the country that historically birthed NASCAR races (it started with bootleggers racing their souped-up getaway cars), he clashes with Cruz, who just wants to help, and ends up searching for the trainers that made his mentor, Doc Hudson (Paul Newman, via the help of audio outtakes from the first film), the dynamo he was. It’s all about going back to reclaim the fundamentals. And like the film’s jab at the abundance of merchandise spun off from these films, it’s a very knowing, winking look at the franchise. Instead of going above and beyond and introducing all sorts of spy movies shenanigans, it’s about peeling all of that stuff away and focusing on what made the original film so charming and engaging.

    Technologically and visually though, this is hardly a step back. The footage we saw was amazing-looking; there was a tactile quality to the images that made everything feel lived-in and real. It’s like they took the photo-realistic breakthroughs of “The Good Dinosaur” and applied it to something more outwardly cartoony. The result is the “Cars” world we know and love but given a heightened sense of detail and depth. Instead of the glistening metropolises of the previous film, “Cars 3” is all about naturalism. There’s also a sequence where Lightning and Cruz are racing along the beach that is just breathtaking. Another sequence has Lighting entering a demolition derby incognito, his trademark logo covered up with globs of mud. You never think about the technology while watching these scenes, about the physics engines whirring away to make sure everything looks just right, but you do know that it looks beautiful and the added layers of detail, atmosphere, and texture go a long way in firmly placing you in that world.

    And maybe that’s the biggest takeaway from the footage we saw — how good it feels to be back in the “Cars” world. That’s huge. The first film, as sweet as it is, isn’t seen as a high mark in the Pixar canon — and the sequel didn’t do it any favors. But “Cars 3” seems like a fine return to form and possibly even better than the original. The story seems like the perfect blend of the old and the new — both nostalgic and forward-thinking — and the animation style is the same, with returning characters updated with a fresh coat of computer-generated paint.

    Quite frankly, I can’t wait to see the rest of the movie and watch McQueen reclaim his former glory. It’s a great metaphor for the “Cars” franchise, really. See you in Radiator Springs.

    “Cars 3” opens on June 16th.

  • ‘Free Fire’ Director Ben Wheatley on the Film’s Unexpected Inspiration

    If you’ve seen any of British filmmaker Doctor Who” at the start of Peter Capaldi‘s run.)

    His latest film (opening this week) is “Free Fire,” and acts as his take on the 1970s American crime thriller. The film is set in a single location (a ramshackle warehouse in Boston), and features a host of colorful underworld types (played by, amongst others, Armie Hammer, Sharlto Copley, Cillian Murphy, and Brie Larson) as they fight, shoot, and curse at each other. It’s great fun, in the grungiest way possible, starting out as stately and mannered before descending into hellish depravity. Like all other of Wheatley’s films, it’s got a nasty subversive streak, too. This movie doesn’t glamorize shootouts or gunplay; Wheatley makes sure you feel every bullet.

    So it was a real thrill to get to talk to Wheatley about “Free Fire,” its unlikely inspiration, and his next film — a monster mash called “Freakshift” (starring Hammer and Alicia Vikander) that I last spoke to him about way back in 2012.

    The last time I talked to you was back in 2012. You didn’t mention this project but you always have a long list of things you’re going to get to. When did you start thinking about “Free Fire”?

    I think “Free Fire” was written after “Sightseers,” if I remember. But it had been bubbling around for a long time. And there had been another script that was about close-quarter combat stuff that I’d done which was more of a psychedelic thing. And I think the psychedelic stuff ended up being “Field in England” and there are elements of “Free Fire” in “Field of England” as well, to a degree. But it originally came from reading a transcript of a shootout in Miami that the FBI had done. It was realizing that it was possible for highly trained people to have a close-quarter battle for quite some time and miss quite a lot. And that if you read this transcript it’s incredible how messy and chaotic the whole thing is, and how sharply in contrast that is to how Hollywood movies treat this kind of situation. So I thought there’d be a story in there. That was the road to it.You’ve talked about how it was inspired by movies from the ’70s and you even have Martin Scorsese on as an executive producer. Can you talk about what movies you were inspired by and how Scorsese became attached?

    “The Friends of Eddie Coyle” was a big one for me, just the coldness and the stripped structure and the harshness of it. But another film that was influential, which wasn’t a ’70s film, was “Evil Dead 2” (photo above). It became more apparent as we were making it, but that level of swinging the camera around and the slapstick elements of it. We were making it and thinking, This is more [Sam] Raimi than it is the cooler end of ’70s stuff. Because it was much more flying cameras and steadicams and techno-cranes and all of those things that weren’t likely to appear in a ’70s film because they weren’t invented. And Scorsese I met through my agent and I knew that he’d liked “Kill List” because he’d done interviews and mentioned it. I thought, Well, I’ll use that as my in to see if I can get a meeting. Being such a film fan it’s really the pinnacle of fandom to get to chat with Scorsese. So I went and met with him and we spent a couple of hours chatting and it went on from there.

    With this movie, you move away from the slicker elements of action filmmaking but still have to keep things in mind, like geography and spatial relationships. Was it hard to juggle the more technical stuff with what you were trying to do with the characters?

    Yes. There’s a lot of planning that has to go into it. It’s mainly practical effects. There’s hardly any CG in the whole film. And that’s just dangerous and difficult and time-consuming. You make a lot of decisions early on in terms of the setting of the explosives into walls and pillars and all of that stuff. It was all very deliberate in the way that it was made.

    Brie Larson told me there was still a degree of improvisation you allowed with the actors. Was that important for you?

    The thing is, when they’re talking, which is the first third of the film, that stuff is easy to handle. Because they’re all on their feet and there’s no pyrotechnics and stuff. So that could be a lot looser. It’s not improvisation; it’s more paraphrasing than it was just letting people make stuff up. It was more you do a take based on the script and you do a take that you can put back into your own words. “No” is not something I say to actors. I want to see what they’ve got, whatever they’ve got, and if we’ve got the time to shoot it, we’ll do it. Shutting people down and telling them their ideas are no good is not the recipe for happy performances. You want to have an environment where people are ready and willing to risk stuff.Did you have all of these characters’ back-stories worked out, and what all of their relationships were before they end up at the warehouse?

    Yeah, totally. But how relevant that is to the film? Not particularly. It’s interesting. When I listen to the performers tell me the back-story they’ve made up for their characters, I just say, “Yeah, OK, I have no idea what you’re talking about.” But it doesn’t matter. It’s more about interpersonal relationships of characters in the moment. In a lot of ways, it’s about reduction of character not about the expansion of it. It’s the fact that you go from being a person with a future who is thinking about their holiday and has their mortgage to pay and is thinking about the girl they want to go out with in one minute and then in the next minute they’re crawling around on the ground going, “Am I going to live through the next 30 seconds?” That is not a position where you start remembering things that happened in the past or becoming introspective. You are just reduced to surviving. That’s the thing that made me interested in the project. It’s kind of what happens in a way situation or even in the current news cycle, where in one minute there’s a fact that in the next second means something completely different, and no one can remember how we got here.

    One movie we did talk about back in 2012 is “Freakshift.” Are you excited about getting Armie involved and finally shooting?

    Yeah, man. It’s amazing. I’m kind of glad I didn’t make it back then, because I’ve got so much more experience now and I think it would be an overwhelmingly complicated movie to make straight after “Kill List.” But it’s great that it’s finally getting there.

    “Free Fire” opens Friday.

  • ‘Free Fire’s’ Brie Larson on ’70s-Set Action Movies, Playing the Lone Female, and Making Her Own Movie

    Ben Wheatley‘s ambitious all-killer, no-filler thriller “Free Fire,” is set in a Boston warehouse in 1970s where an arms deal goes disastrously wrong. Among the cast of very colorful characters are IRA operative Chris (Cillian Murphy), smooth-talking go-between Ord (Armie Hammer), and an off-the-rails South African gunrunner Vernon (Sharlto Copley). The calm in the midst of the storm of testosterone and gunfire is Brie Larson‘s Justine, an intermediary who tries desperately to keep the situation from spiraling out of control. (Spoiler alert: It still spirals out of control.)

    Larson, a recent Oscar-winner and current “Kong: Skull Island” star, channels her considerable charm into a character whose motivations remain murky and whose dialogue is minimal at best. If there’s a beating heart at the center of the bloody mayhem, it’s her.

    So it was a huge thrill to jump on the phone and talk to Larson about what it was like being in “Free Fire,” her upcoming directorial project, and whether or not she came up with a back-story for her character. At the end of the conversation, I tried to slip in a question about her role in “Captain Marvel” (which just secured its directors) and it didn’t go well. She gave me what can only be described as a Nelson-esque “ha ha” and said, “Oh, sorry, I’ve got to give the phone back.” And then we were done. Sigh.

    Moviefone: This movie has so much action that it doesn’t leave much time for us to get to know your character. Did you work out a back-story with Ben Wheatley or talk to the other actors about it?

    Brie Larson: I did talk with Ben about it a little bit. But he’s interesting in that, when he casts you, he completely trusts you to just create it and bring it and do it. It’s kind of scary because the training wheels are off but in another way it’s exciting because he gets to run with whatever idea you have. I always come up with some sort of back-story, especially because Justine doesn’t speak that much. She’s more observing and listening and trying to blend in, so you need to know where she’s coming from. A lot of the film we would do improvised takes and that would make it trickier. Because you have to know who your character is to be able to improve off what the dialogue is that is already existing.

    That’s interesting, that you were able to improve given how tight, structurally, it seems.

    The whole structure of the film — and I’m pretty sure most of the dialogue that’s in the film — was scripted. He just does a thing that’s one take scripted, one take improvised. It’s fun because it loosens up the dialogue on the page and makes you feel free and that things are a little bit messy. I think Ben’s secret agenda is to make every actor feel totally confused and uncomfortable, especially during a movie like this. Because he wanted to show the reality of fumbling and not knowing what is going to happen next. You can’t do that unless you put your actors in a little bit of a hot seat of not knowing what was going to happen.

    I know that Wheatley was inspired by the American crime movies of the ’70s. Was that appeal what got you involved or was it more working with him?

    It takes a couple different perfect elements to get me to sign onto something, because it’s such a long journey making a movie. Part of it is I have to want to explore the character, I have to be interested in who she is and discovering her. But the other part is the movie itself and in particular when the movie is over what are you left with and what are you thinking about? What is it making you question? And I think that the idea of cinema as this place that has idolized and glorified action and violence and guns and ego. There’s a really big history, we’ve made that something that’s cool. I like the fact that this is the coolest uncool movie or the most uncool cool movie that you’ll ever see. There’s something about the ’70s that’s deeply iconic and interesting but at the same time we’re not that savvy. We’re bumbling and scrambling on the floor and making mistakes constantly and the blood and the violence isn’t glorified is what interested me in the film.You’ve spent a lot of time in the ’70s between this and “Kong: Skull Island.”

    Yeah!

    How did your character change throughout the filming of “Free Fire”?

    I think what I discovered is that, in order for Justine to get her agenda across, it just requires very little on her part. I liked that I got to play such a subtle character in a film where every other character is just very aggressive, they’re super caricatures. I really liked how she was understated. The main thing with Justine was part of what she needs to do is keep everyone calm and that her main objective is to blend in and that it’s actually impossible for a women to do that when it’s eight men with huge egos. You kind of become the center in a way that she’s still trying to understand.

    Well, was that part of the appeal, being the only women in this cast of men?

    I mean, it’s certainly flattering for a director to say, “You can express all of the female complexity in one person.” But it’s definitely not an appeal.

    Really?

    Yeah, that’s not why I did it.

    Well, I think it would be not a challenge but maybe a draw to be the feminine center in a movie where it’s a bunch of guys with guns.

    [Laughs] I guess! But if you go through my IMDb I think you’ll be shocked to find that in almost every movie I’ve done I’m the only woman. I think this movie just really feels that way because it’s so put on the character, and there’s not a ton of setting. But that’s part of the history of cinema, right? A bunch of dudes trying to get the one girl. So I love Ben and I know why. It’s the same thing with “Kong” — it’s a certain period of time, there’s a certain point of view and there’s meaning behind the fact that there’s one woman. So I don’t mean to say that it’s not good. But I also don’t want to say that this conversation ends there. I would love to be in ensemble female movies and would love to work with more females. My story is not over.

    Right now, you’re in “Kong” at the same time as “Free Fire,” and looking at what you have coming up there are really big movies and really small movies. What is the appeal of oscillating between those worlds?

    It’s switching genres; it’s using different muscles. It’s kind of like doing a bigger movie and then doing a smaller movie is sometimes I want to stay in a five-star hotel and other times I want to sleep in a tent under the stars. They both feed me in a different way, and I need different things at different times. I get a lot out of constantly staying on my toes and I don’t really enjoy being too comfortable. There’s something very calming about being on a bigger movie because you’re very protected. The movie is never struggling. You’re never worried about, if we don’t make this day we’re not going to get these scenes. But there’s something that, since I’ve grown up doing independent films, that experience is very much a part of me. And I love being a part of that smaller knit group that’s working together to get that ball to the line. I don’t know. I just like all of it a lot. I don’t want to get too far in any one direction.

    Are you done with the movie you’ve directed?

    I’m editing right now.

    How was that experience?

    It was really great. I loved every second of it. I hope it’s good and people like it and I get to do it again.

    You’ve worked with so many amazing directors. Have you called on any of them when you had questions making your own film?

    I’ve wanted to direct movies since I wanted to act in movies, so I’ve always been a little sponge and observing the different directors that I’ve worked with and asked a lot of questions and I think that part of being a really good actor in its own way is being a little bit of a director. Because, sometimes, what changes the course of a scene is you and not the other actor you’re playing off of. So learning how to position yourself to move scenes in a different direction and bring different colors out of actors was the first step in recognizing how directing is very subtle and interesting and like alchemy. So I feel like I’ve been leading up to my whole life. It’s just not something I’ve been very boastful about talking about. I’ve been very much involved in wanting to do this and the editor of “Room” emailed me and said, “I always knew you’d direct I just didn’t know you’d do it now.” It just felt like it was right. It felt like if I didn’t do it now then I’d never do it, I’d get too scared. I can do it while I’m still flexible.

    And it’s been everything you wanted it to be?

    Yeah, I feel like I’m a better actor after doing it, I have a better understanding of the team aspect of making movies. I’ve always loved how everyone is a specialist in their field, and we all come together to create this piece of art. But after being on both sides of it I feel even stronger about creating a positive team effort aspect of this really is. I’m excited to purely act in something.

    “Free Fire” is in theaters this Friday.

  • Henry Cavill Training Hard to ‘Make Sure That I’m Bigger Than Green Lantern’

    CinemaCon 2015 - Warner Bros. Pictures Invites You To 'The Big Picture,' An Exclusive Presentation Highlighting The Summer Of 20Why is Superman currently training to out-muscle Green Lantern? Henry Cavill knows he has DC fans talking after his cryptic new Instagram post.

    Superman was left in a bad way at the end of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” and Cavill has not been on the promotion circuit for “Justice League.” But he is in training, rehabilitating his knee after an injury, and he got the DC Extended Universe buzzing after this post:

    “Wait whaaat?” is right.

    Maybe he’s just joking about the rumor that his “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” co-star Armie Hammer will play Green Lantern, since there’s been speculation that Hammer is up for the part in “Green Lantern Corps.” Maybe he’s semi-spoiling that the rumor is true? Ryan Reynolds played Hal Jordan in the 2011 movie “Green Lantern,” but he is now busy as Deadpool, so it seems more likely that someone new will put on the suit.

    Hammer is recovering from a recent surgery, but at SXSW Screen Rant asked him if he’s still in the running for “Green Lantern Corps.” Hammer shrugged and said, “I don’t know. Technically (I am), because they haven’t hired anyone.”

    As ScreenRant noted, Green Lantern is expected to show up in the DCEU at some point, and there are rumors that he might even appear in “Justice League” before “Green Lantern Corps.” CinemaBlend joined the speculation brigade after Cavill’s tease: “Does that mean we may actually get a Lantern appearance in ‘Justice League’ after all? Or maybe Green Lantern will be appearing in ‘Man of Steel 2’ which appears to have recently found a director? Is Cavill expecting to appear in ‘Green Lantern Corps’?” Or is Cavill just messing with us?

    For now, we just know “Justice League” is opening November 17.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.