Baz Luhrmann recently announced that Jay Z will be producing and collaborating on the Soundtrack to Luhrmann’s mysteriously delayed interpretation of “The Great Gatsby.”

Grammy Award-winning musical artist Shawn “JAY Z” Carter has collaborated with writer/producer/director Baz Luhrmann on “The Great Gatsby”—in the capacity of Executive Producer—to bring the modern “Jazz Age” energy of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original text to the big screen, procuring, performing, producing and arranging for a soundtrack featuring some of the world’s top musical artists

JAY Z’s contributions, woven amongst a score by long-time Luhrmann collaborator, composer Craig Armstrong, drive Gatsby’s champagne-infused dance floors, rumble in New York’s illegal speakeasies, and foreshadow the tragedy behind Gatsby’s “extraordinary gift for hope.”  To articulate the film’s “1920s-Meets-Now” sound, JAY Z also comes to “The Great Gatsby” soundtrack as a performer and contributor of original music.

“The Great Gatsby” is an American classic that tells the tale of Nick Carraway and his introduction to high society via his relocation to the East Coast in 1922. Through venues of naivete, old money vs. new, prohibitionism and valor it also speaks of the decline of morality, and the rise of opulence, greed, and empty pleasure.

Luhrmann’s “then meets now” epics have done well both critically and financially (although sometimes not simultaneously), and in previous instances the modernizations were fresh-eyed and innovative. But does Gatsby really need a modernization? Are the themes of division hidden under societies’ parties not still wildly applicable today? I appreciate the visual style that’s evidenced in the trailer but wonder if any further modernization will hinder or enhance the film’s tone, or the novel’s intent.

At the same time, what better genre to represent the film’s themes than hip-hop? Often telling stories of money from nothing, dissent from within, and class warfare, these musicians and their visions are speaking the American Dream as it really was in the Jazz Age at the same time they show us how that Dream has been achieved by only a few almost 100 years later. The cynicism that Fitzgerald employed is still wholly relevant to the generations who are still reading his book, so why not encompass their music as well?

Luhrmann’s interpretations have always been hit or miss for me, but taking contemporary artists to cover period music would have been way too easy, and I appreciate that that is simply not his style. We are meant to see Gatsby’s parties as Nick would have – foreign, overwhelming, and debaucherous. Macy Gray covering “Carolina in the Morning” would not achieve the same effect as a disorienting, era-free piece of new music.

Luhrmann calls the collaboration with JAY Z “a credible and natural fit.  Fitzgerald was a pioneer, famed and controversial for using the then-new and explosive sound called jazz in his novels and short stories—not just as decoration, but to actively tell story using the immediacy of pop culture.  He coined the phrase ‘the Jazz Age.’  So, the question for me in approaching Gatsby was how to elicit from our audience the same level of excitement and pop-cultural immediacy toward the world that Fitzgerald did for his audience?  And in our age, the energy of jazz is caught in the energy of hip-hop.  Not only is JAY Z a great artist, full stop, but I had heard that he was a great collaborator.  Leonardo and I were lucky enough to be present in a recording session over two years ago as JAY Z was recording ‘No Church in the Wild,’ and the collaboration grew from there.”

I suppose, that like Gatsby, I have an extraordinary gift for hope, and can see how this collaboration has the possibility to stun audiences. As long as my hope isn’t as ill fated as the titular character’s, Luhrmann’s newest epic might very well turn out to be his best.

When I perused the internet this morning, it was abuzz with theories that Spielberg himself would be back in the director’s chair for the fourth installment of everyone’s favorite dinosaur franchise (don’t troll, “Land Before Time” is a close second). By the time I looked again, the job had been awarded to a director that has only one feature film under his belt.

Colin Trevorrow directed the wonderful but quiet “Safety Not Guaranteed,” which you should watch immediately. The film is about a man who places an add for a partner in time travel, his questionable sanity, and the relationships he makes while preparing for the journey. I don’t want to say anything more about the movie, as it is full of more surprises than you would expect. But – it doesn’t exactly scream “hmmm, this director should make a gigantic budget 3D pic next.” Which is exactly why I think it’s a great idea.

I’m really enjoying the trend of employing fresh directors for giant pictures. I feel like these folks grew up on the same movies I did, they respect them, but making a shiny, expensive movie is second to making a film that will spark little kids’ imaginations and capture the feeling we grownups remember but rarely experience anymore. Trevorrow is supported by a great team that includes the writers of “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and the original production team that made all those Spielberg blockbusters so special, so Jurassic Park 4 is shaping up to be a project to look forward to. More than I ever thought I would.

As long as they don’t hire that Tippett guy. You had one job, Phil. One job!

A few days ago, the internet was all fired up over the rumor that Alan Cumming would be reprising the role of Nightcrawler in the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Unfortunately, it turns out it was just that, a rumor. One that has since been debunked by Cumming himself in a radio interview:

“No, they haven’t [asked me to return]. Someone asked me that the other day and I said no. I know the one that’s coming up shoots this spring, but I wouldn’t be available anyway,”

[JoBlo]

Well, damnit.

As the roster of characters returning from the original X-Men series grows, this is the one I was most hoping for. For my money, the opening scene in X2 is the best of any superhero movie out there. I really would have loved to see more Nightcrawler on the big screen, but from the sound of it Cumming isn’t terrible interested. That said, I don’t think it would be too hard to recast the character considering the amount of make-up one needs to play him anyhow.

Bryan Singer has a tall order to fill with this go-around in the X-Men franchise, and I am incredibly curious to see how this all turns out. The mere fact that he stated that he is going to “fix shit” continuity wise has me cautiously optimistic, but he has a very large cast to work with now and an infamous story arc that I’m sure will be put under the magnifying glass of geek-critique – but if anyone can do this “right”, it’s Bryan Singer.

We will get to find out if this turns out to be a homerun for the franchise or another X3 on July 18, 2014.

MTV has just debuted the first, red-band, trailer for Kick-Ass 2!

Picking up shortly after the events of the first film, the Red Mist is back with a new name, and a new team of super villains to avenge the death of his father. Luckily for Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl though, they aren’t the only “superheroes” running around fighting crime now.

For me, the first film was pretty awesome. I probably didn’t enjoy it quite as much as some of the other bots around here, but I definitely liked it enough to look forward to this sequel.

Kick-Ass 2 hits theaters on August 16, 2013 and stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Jim Carrey.

The Star Wars rumour mill continues to churn daily, especially when you have former stars of the original cinematic trilogy talking unfettered to various outlets (see Billy Dee Williams saying through his son that he’d be up for reprising his role as Lando in Episode VII).

And is usually the case in the Star Wars universe, the people who are actually in charge are keeping their lips firmly pursed … well, almost.

Disney chairman and CEO Bob Iger appeared on CNBC to issue a classic non-denial denial on Tuesday in regards to the various reports about Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford and Williams prepping for a return to the galaxy far, far away.

“George Lucas was quoted as saying they would, but we haven’t made an official announcement yet,” Iger said.

Hmmm. Not denying that they’re going to be involved. Just saying nothing is official yet. In fact, he went on to confirm that discussions have already taken place with former cast members.

It’s an interesting tactic. Cynical folks could look at this as Iger outing Lucas for flapping his gums and giving him a roundabout chastising through the mainstream press.

Or it just could be that Iger is stating a fact.

Disney has, over the years, garnered a reputation as being a bit of a monster to work for. And as we’ve seen with the cancellation of The Clone Wars animated series and the rumoured but yet-to-be-denied cancellation of the 1313 video game (it seems Lucasfilm is anxious to kill anything that relates to the pre-Disney sale, focusing entirely on clearing the decks to build a brand around Episode VII), the House of Mouse likes to play things close to the chest.

While fans are still hurting over the demise of the Clone Wars, I’d be more than shocked if 24 hours later

Iger took to the airwaves and dashed the hopes of many OT fans by closing the door on the return of Luke, Leia and Han. That would be a kick to the geek groin that many would ever have a hard time forgetting, let alone forgiving.

All of this seems to point to the fact that Lucas spoke out of turn and that an official announcement will be made once Lawrence Kasdan, Michael Arndt, George Lucas and J.J. Abrams have broken the story and settled on an approved first draft.

* Wayne Chamberlain is the co-host of the Star Wars Book Report podcast, available on iTunes, as well as a contributing columnist and editor with Postmedia News in Canada.

A French teaser for the second installment of “The Hunger Games” trilogy has appeared from out of nowhere. There’s not a lot going on, no sneak peeks of actors or sets, but I gotta tell you I got some chills nonetheless. It’s very beautiful, and those familiar with the Quarter Quell games get a nice nod while those who haven’t read the books remain spoiler free.

“Catching Fire” hits US theaters this November.

For many a young kid’s life, after being picked on for being different, we discover something that speaks to us, something magical. For many of us it was comic books, or fantasy like Tolkien, or video games. For some very special kids, this magic is actual magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell) and his best friend since they were 8, Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi) were these kids.

And thus began Burt and Anton’s Magical Friendship, which propelled them to a successful 20 year run on the Las Vegas strip playing to sold out audiences. With a stale act and a decaying friendship, they are pushed to their limits when street magician Steve Gray (Jim Carrey) and his tv show “Brain Rapist” make them look like the outdated ponces they have become.

While Carrell and Buscemi both put in great performances, this film is Carrey’s. His over-the-top, manic, “more is more” approach to comedy is actually somewhat reigned in here, but emphasis on the “somewhat.” He’s like the wild stallion who has been somewhat tamed and racing like a thoroughbred. The character is so ridiculous that it fits his sensibilities well.

The other best piece of this is the supporting cast, headed by Olivia Wilde as Burt and Anton’s assistant and Alan Arkin as Rance Holloway, an aging magician who was young Burt’s inspiration for getting into magic. Jame Gandolfini plays fictional Vegas casino mogul Doug Munny, a nice change of pace for him. Jay Mohr also shows up as another magician named Rick the Implausible and is (gasp!) actually likeable for the first time on film in, I believe, more than a decade. Gillian Jacobs and Brad Garrett also show up for extended scenes as fun side characters.

But the most important question is, “But is it funny?”

Does a great magician never reveal his secrets?

This is easily the funniest movie of the year so far, really showing off the talent of each of these cast members. In the case of every single one, they deliver their best performance in years, except perhaps in the case of Arkin, who is both always spectacular and just coming off Argo.

Also good is some of the humor that comes directly from magic itself. A slight of hand trick involving a condom was a favorite gag of mine.

I do have a few complaints, however. Burt Wonderstone’s character arc seems a little unrealistic. He goes from jaded and sheltered idiot douche to normal guy with a heart of gold a little too quickly. When Ron Burgundy went through a similar fall from grace in Anchorman, his character barely changed. So… this isn’t Anchorman. (we should be so lucky!) But it’s still fun and worth checking out.

So if you’re looking for a solid comedy that makes you feel good, here you go. I you’re a fan of any of the cast, you’ll enjoy this mightily.

3 stars.

Joss Whedon is becoming a fixture at SXSW. Last year he brought us “The Cabin in the Woods” and a panel where he previewed some magic from “Avengers.” This year, he brought us the film he shot in 12 days at his house, “Much Ado About Nothing,” a black and white, modern day adaptation of Shakespeare’s play. Then, he and his cast of misfits stuck around for an hour to answer questions and receive adulation from several starstruck fans.

It is awesome. With the black and white, the acting and the script are really the star players here. And they shine through in this romantic tour de force. The shining stars here are Whedon vets Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof as the original will-they-or-won’t-they couple Beatrice and Benedick. Squabbling throughout the whole film, they bring life and energy to words that can often be intimidating to those not accustomed to reading/hearing/seeing Shakespeare.  Those familiar with the play will enjoy them alongside any number of excellent performances, most notably Kenneth Branaugh’s version from the 90’s.

For Shakespeare purists, Whedon throws a major cureveball and immense texture into their relationship by revealing in the very first scene that Beatrice and  Benedick had engaged in some sort of one night stand or riotous fling… and it had ended badly or abruptly.

Other standout performances include Clark Gregg, playing the patriarch Leonato, whose daughter Hero is the object of wooing by young Claudio, played by a cast-against-type Fran Kranz. Gregg’s crisp and emotional delivery helps make Leonato a standout character. I thought this impossible as every other version I’ve ever seen has Leonato played almost as a doddering old fool.  Claudio is also outstanding here, as Whedon instructed him to play as mostly a dumb jock and kind of a dick.

And then there are Nathan Fillion and Sean Maher, who squeeze every second of screen time for all they’re worth, turning small roles into highlights of the film. Fillion’s constable Dogberry is the polar opposite of Michael Keaton’s manic and deluded version from the Branaugh film. A strange mix of Barney Fife and David Caruso on CSI: Miami, he hits all the right notes and mostly gets out of the way of the script.

Maher plays the villain with reckless abandon, twisted by Whedon’s casting of one of his henchman Conrade as a henchwoman. This leads to an interesting and either sexy or incredibly uncomfortable scene (depending on your sensibilities) early in the film. But the bottom line is, you get that Don John is a bastard. And I have one word for you: cupcake. When you see the film, you’ll get it. It was brilliant, and, according to Whedon, completely improvised by Maher.

With an amazing script, how could we go wrong, and what could Whedon conceivably add? Well, aside from the twists mentioned above, he adds a lot of physical humor to the mix. And he seems to think of this as Shakespeare by way of “Mad Men” as much alcohol as is consumed in the course of the film.

Indeed, the entirety of this Much Ado is filled with sexuality, drinking and debauchery—a change from a play around which the main concern is putting the virginity of young Hero in question. Whedon answered the charge that while that may have been a major issue in the Victorian Era, for his modern take, this was all about a naïve young man having the woman he’s supposed to marry cheat on him the night before their wedding.

So how does Nathan Fillion feel about tackling The Bard? “I peed a little,” he answered in the Q&A. Clark Gregg agreed, who was intimidated with the work, having never done Shakespeare at all. “I peed a lot.” And, of course, the questions about SHIELD came up. As to how Agent Coulson is back, Whedon gave a brusque, “I’m not going to talk about that.” Clark Gregg then jumped in to add “I just have to say….” and them mimed his mic going out. Classic.

I’m a fan of both Whedon, his screenwriter Billy Shakespeare, and this cast. Given the passion behind this passion project, it would’ve been hard to really miss the mark.

3 1/2 stars

Here is what we can presume will be one of the last trailers to be released before the movie comes out proper, and it has lots of cool stuff in it!  Keep an eye out for Abrams’ obvious homage to a classic scene from Return of the Jedi.

Perhaps the most anticipated and most dreaded film coming out this year is Evil Dead. The cult classic by Sam Raimi is ripe for remake, in my mind, because of the limitations of the budget and admitted inexperience by cast and crew.

Despite its numerous flaws, Evil Dead remains iconic. And so why not put a decent budget behind it and the collective experience of the original cast and director as producers to help reinvent the series?

Fede Alvarez’s Evil Dead remake does just that and in spades. Fans of the original, of whom there were legion thronging the Paramount Theater in last night’s screening, will cheer the homages to the original as it captures its spirit (no pun intended) perfectly.

The story is much the same: a group of teens head to a cabin in the woods and unleash an unspeakable evil that begins infecting and killing them one by one. In this, the group is there not there to party, but quite the opposite: they’re trying to help one of the protagonists quit drugs cold turkey and help her through withdrawal. They find a creepy book, read an incantation and… poof! Evil begins stalking them.

This begins one of the problems with the film. With the exception of a pre-title scene which sets things up, the first part of the film is more of a family drama that then transitions into a movie about evil dead. Bruce Campbell, in a post film Q&A, referred to it as “The Big Chill with deadites.”

Despite this slow build, when the film begins firing on all cylinders, it becomes an orgy of blood, vomit, profanity, stabbings, and, yes, tree rape. How this got rated R while the original was originally NC-17 I will never understand.

Its climax is so satisfying and ridiculous beyond all belief. It was as though, having really tread over all of the ground of the original Evil Dead in its first 75 minutes, it tries to pack all of the ridiculousness and campy-awesome ultraviolence of Evil Dead 2 into the final 15.

However, don’t be fooled. This is not a comedy. This is a balls-to-the-wall horror film. While it spends a lot of time on loving homages and outright stealing from the first Evil Dead, it’s done with such a straight face that it’s not as though the filmmakers are taking any time to wink at the audience.  In this sense, this film has more in common with the 2009 Star Trek remake than anything else: loving care and honor to the source material, but ultimately blazing its own path, even on on familiar ground.

So fans of the original and fans of horror are certainly going to be pleased. Everyone else? I have a hard time believing this film is going to find a huge mainstream audience. I just hope that every braindead idiot who went to go see the most recent Paranormal Activity or somesuch crap will go see this. Not just to make it a hit, but to remind them that THIS is what a good horror movie is like. However, considering that last year’s Cabin in the Woods (one of my favorites of the year, and also a SXSW premiere you might remember) failed to much a huge splash, I’m skeptical.

What we know is that regardless, Alvarez announced that they have begun working on a sequel. I sincerely hope that just as Evil Dead 2 was played almost purely for laughs that we can get the crazyness of this Evil Dead teamed with some humor, as that was always my favorite part of the franchise to begin with.

So, I’m not going to go full spoiler on here, but I do want to give away some elements that do show up in the film that you might want to know, including if Bruce Campbell makes a cameo. Invisotext away!

Weapons used:
Yes, there is a shotgun. (nee boomstick)
A nail gun is used to great effect.
Broken shards of glass
Hypodermic needles (anyone who has a fear of needles is going to get MAJORLY freaked out by one scene here)
There is a chainshaw
There are also multiple teases of the chainsaw, including using an electric knife (same basic idea, right?) 
Ash’s old Plymouth shows up, as Bruce Campbell made a point of mentioning it has been in all of Raimi’s movies, including the western The Quick and the Dead
The upside camera shots? Yup
The crazy tracking shots as if deadites are chasing people through the woods? You know it.
The words “satan’s bitch”? Yup
And what the director estimated as 50,000 gallons of fake blood. At least..

Oh, and does Bruce Campbell make a cameo?

Barely, but yes. But it doesn’t distract and lets this cast really keep this film as theirs.

Stay through the credits, sportsfans– not only is the credit sequence well done, there are some great bits of exposition and nods to the original that are worth sticking around for.

For fans of horror and Evil Dead, here is your movie. For you I’d give this movie 3 1/2 stars. For general audiences, I’d say closer to 2 1/2 or 3. A good film, but definitely made lovingly and carefully for its target niche audience.