Moviefone Editorial

Tag: cillian-murphy

  • Cillian Murphy Is In Talks for ‘A Quiet Place’ Sequel

    Cillian Murphy Is In Talks for ‘A Quiet Place’ Sequel

    Roadside Attractions

    “Peaky Blinders” star Cillian Murphy is in talks to join Emily Blunt in the sequel to “A Quiet Place.”

    Details on the plot are scarce, but Murphy will reportedly play “a man with mysterious intentions,” who joins Blunt’s character and her children.

    That could mean anything from a new villain (which Murphy excels at playing), a survivor with PTSD like his soldier in “Dunkirk,” or a love interest or father figure.

    Returning with Blunt from the first film are child stars Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe.

    John Krasinski is writing and the sequel, but of course his character won’t be returning. (RIP)

    The film is expected to start shooting this summer, with a planned release date of May 15, 2020.

    Murphy currently stars as crime boss Thomas Shelby in the BBC historic drama “Peaky Blinders.” (It’s also on Netflix.)

    He’s best known for playing Batman villain Jonathan Crane, (aka The Scarecrow) in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy and one of the last humans alive in Danny Boyle’s zombie thriller “28 Days Later.”

    Not to mention his scary turn as a psychopath in “Red Eye,” a film that made us think twice before chatting up that handsome stranger next to us on flights.

    [Via Variety]

  • 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.”

  • ‘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.

  • 5 British TV Shows That Successfully Crossed the Pond

    Downton AbbeyBritish shows have never been more popular in the U.S. than they are now. Thanks to the explosion of online streaming sites, Americans can get their fix of British TV in a way that would have been difficult even 10 years ago.

    Here are a few British TV shows that really struck a chord with American audiences.

    1. ‘The Office (UK)’ (2001 – 2003)

    Before Michael Scott, there was David Brent. Hilarious, cringe-worthy, and frankly brilliant, “The Office” was just two seasons and a Christmas special of some of the best comedy ever made. You can’t compare the original to the American remake, simply because both are hilarious — yet very different — shows. No one who ever saw Brent’s insane Comic Relief day dance will ever forget it. The 2003 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series — Musical or Comedy was well-deserved, and Brent’s portrayal kicked off a stellar career for Ricky Gervais.

    2. ‘Downton Abbey’ (2010 – 2015)

    “Downton Abbey,” among the most successful British imports to the U.S., follows the adventures of the upper-class Crawley family in early 1900s England, and had American audiences glued to their seats every Sunday night for five years. Viewers couldn’t get enough of this glimpse into a culture so specifically English — and one that all but disappeared as the age of sprawling estates filled with servants ended. Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham (Hugh Bonneville), and his family and servants “below stairs” went through war, social upheaval, and drastically changing times, yet always had the most fabulous costumes throughout. What set the show apart from other period pieces was the incredible cast, sharp writing, and unforgettable characters such as Maggie Smith‘s wonderfully snarky Violet Crawley (also known as “Granny”). With beautiful interior shots of the gorgeous Abbey, and lush exteriors around the English countryside, this soap opera was as comforting as hot chocolate on a cold, wintry night in Yorkshire.

    3. ‘Luther’ (2010 – 2015)

    Who doesn’t love a good cop drama with a gorgeous, yet deeply troubled, lead character? The Affair,” playing Luther’s wonderfully evil nemesis, Alice Morgan. In “Luther,” the city of London becomes one of the main characters — few TV shows or films have captured its dark, grimy, yet beautiful landscape so well.

    4. ‘The Fall’ (2013 – )

    There are many reasons to watch this exceptional crime drama but the main one is, of course, Gillian Anderson. Strong, sexy, vulnerable, fiercely intelligent — Anderson’s Stella Gibson is flawless as the detective hunting down serial killer Paul Spector (Jamie Dornan). Gibson is complex and nuanced, portraying the challenges a woman faces in a very male-dominated field. The Belfast, Northern Ireland, setting is gray and ominous, a perfect background for the chilling yet compelling plot.

    5. ‘Peaky Blinders’ (2013 – )

    Americans love a good British gangster tale (“Peaky Blinders” doesn’t disappoint. Downton Abbey” but couldn’t be more different in tone. “Peaky Blinders” doesn’t shy away from violence and nudity, and creates a unique glimpse into the lives of a certain class of people in 1919-era England.

    Sources

    %Slideshow-370918%

  • The Best British Shows on Netflix You’ve Never Heard Of

    %Slideshow-358642%
    American fans of British TV have long had to make do with what BBC America and PBS choose to import. Of course, there are a lot of shows from across the pond, beyond “Downton Abbey,” “Sherlock,” “Doctor Who,” and the Ricky Gervais original version of “The Office,” that we haven’t gotten to see. But Netflix has stepped into the breach and brought to these shores a lot of acclaimed British television that has gone unseen here or barely made a dent. Brew yourself a pot of Earl Grey and start binging on these series.

  • Watch Chris Hemsworth Starve With Co-Stars on Set of ‘In the Heart of the Sea’

    Chris Hemsworth, aka the Sexiest Man Alive, is following his Thor fame with a couple of comedy roles — “Vacation” and the new “Ghostbusters” reboot — but he’s also making waves in the thriller “In the Heart of the Sea.” The movie is based on the real-life story of the sinking of the whaleship Essex, which inspired the novel “Moby-Dick,” and it’s headed to theaters December 11. Ron Howard directed the movie, which stars Chris, Cillian Murphy, and Tom Holland, aka the new Spider-Man.

    Entertainment Tonight got a first look behind the scenes and, in the on-set video, Chris talks about the cast’s 500-calorie-a-day diet to be convincingly starved on screen. Ron Howard mentions that he talked to Tom Hanks about how to lose weight for a film, since the “Cast Away” star has done that a couple of times now.

    Here are a few set photos from the director and Tom Holland:

    Legends! Hemsworth and Murphey.

    A photo posted by ✌️ (@tomholland2013) on

    Can’t wait for this to come out. @wbpictures It’s gonna be sick!!!

    A photo posted by ✌️ (@tomholland2013) on


    Here’s the official movie synopsis from Warner Bros.:

    Oscar winner Ron Howard (“A Beautiful Mind”) directs the action adventure “In the Heart of the Sea,” starring Chris Hemsworth, Benjamin Walker and Cillian Murphy, based on Nathaniel Philbrick’s best-selling book about the dramatic true journey of the Essex.

    In the winter of 1820, the New England whaling ship Essex was assaulted by something no one could believe: a whale of mammoth size and will, and an almost human sense of vengeance. The real-life maritime disaster would inspire Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick. But that told only half the story. “In the Heart of the Sea” reveals the encounter’s harrowing aftermath, as the ship’s surviving crew is pushed to their limits and forced to do the unthinkable to stay alive. Braving storms, starvation, panic and despair, the men will call into question their deepest beliefs, from the value of their lives to the morality of their trade, as their captain searches for direction on the open sea and his first mate still seeks to bring the great whale down.

    “In the Heart of the Sea” stars Chris Hemsworth (“The Avengers,” “Rush”) as the vessel’s veteran first mate Owen Chase; Benjamin Walker (“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”) as its inexperienced Captain, George Pollard; Cillian Murphy (“The Dark Knight Rises”) as second mate Matthew Joy; and Ben Whishaw (“Skyfall”) as novelist Herman Melville, whose inquiries into the event 30 years later helped bring the story to light.

    And here’s the trailer:

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.
    %Slideshow-306174%

  • ’28 Months Later’ Is (Finally) Happening, Following Alex Garland’s Story

    A third movie in the “28 [Timeframe of Choice] Later” zombie infected franchise has been discussed for so long, Moviefone had a story back in 2008 called “Danny Boyle Considers Directing ’28 Months Later.’” It’s sure as heck been more than 28 months since that plan, but maybe the issue was that no one had a good idea for another sequel. Until now.

    We still don’t know the idea, but Alex Garland — who wrote “28 Days Later” (2002) and had a distant connection to “28 Weeks Later” (2007) — told Indiewire a third movie is moving forward with producer Andrew McDonald, based on an idea Garland came up with himself. “About two years ago, Danny started collaborating on the potential to make ‘Trainspotting 2,’ another sequel,” Garland said. “In that conversation, an idea for ’28 Months’ arrived. I had a sort of weird idea that popped into my head. Partly because of a trip I’d taken. I had this thought, and I suggested it to Andrew and Danny, but I also said I don’t want to work on it. I don’t really want to play a role, and Andrew said, ‘Leave it to me.’ So he’s gone off and is working on it.”

    Awesome. No further details were shared, but it’s good to hear that 1) they waited for a worthy idea and 2) a key producer is on board to deliver. Hopefully The Walking Dead,” which launched in 2010 — so hopefully this movie moves as fast as the “28 Days” infected and does not shuffle slowly like most zombies.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

    %Slideshow-281594%