"She really found me at a point when I needed to be found." -- Jim Sturgess on Julie Taymor:

In 21, which hits theaters tomorrow, Jim Sturgess plays Ben Campbell, an M.I.T. student who's recruited into a group of Vegas card counters by a fellow student. In fact, the entire group is made up of students and its leader, Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey), also happens to be a professor at the University. The fact-based film was inspired by the book Bringing Down the House by Ben Mezrich, and most of what you will see in 21 really happened -- with certain faces, places, names and events changed to fit a more Hollywood-ized mold. Directed by Robert Luketic, 21 also stars Kate Bosworth, Laurence Fishburne, Aaron Yoo and Liza Lapira.

Sturgess is a relatively new face to Hollywood. His first major film role only came last year, when director Julie Taymor cast the soft-spoken Brit opposite Evan Rachel Wood in Across the Universe. From there, this musician-turned-actor appeared in the recent The Other Boleyn Girl before taking on his first lead role in a major Hollywood film, 21. Upon meeting him, one can immediately tell this boy has the looks and charm to carry him real far. He's already scheduled to appear in the star-studded Crossing Over and the flick Fifty Dead Men Walking. Cinematical sat down with Sturgess in New York recently to talk about 21, as well as his blossoming career.

Just got back from the Sony offices here in New York, where Cinematical managed to sit down with Jim Sturgess (star of 21), as well as Ben Mezrich (author of Bringing Down the House, the book 21 is based on) and Jeff Ma (who Sturgess' character is based on). I have to say we all had a pretty damn cool conversation, which we'll post on the site at some point before the weekend, but in the meantime check out what Sturgess had to say about Spidey.

Now, remember back when we told you how Across the Universe director Julie Taymor was directing a Spider-Man: The Musical, with music and lyrics from U2's Bono and the Edge? Well, at the time, Taymor said she was interested in Sturgess playing Spider-Man, with Evan Rachel Wood playing Mary Jane. Not only is that true, but apparently Sturgess and Wood have already performed the roles. He says, "We actually have done a workshop for it, which is how this all kind of started. [Taymor] asked me and Evan to come down and do this workshop that she was doing, so it was a chance to work with Julie again and Evan again and, yeah, at that point I didn't know much more about it. We just did two weeks, and we kind of hung out with Bono and the Edge and sung songs about Spider-Man. As a young actor and musician, it was an incredible experience to be involved in that."

He continued, "We then sort of did a rough performance of the play -- like a read through where we sang through the songs and stuff. As ridiculous as it sounds, it's going to be an incredible piece of work." Cinematical asked Sturgess whether that meant he would be starring in the musical, to which he replied: "Um, I don't know. I haven't spoken to Julie since, and I don't know when she plans to do it. It's a timing thing, I guess. I don't know how long it's going to be before it comes to the surface."

More Spidey after the jump ...

It's only been three months since I began this column on theater exhibition and movie going, but already I've covered all kinds of experiences, both good and bad. And now I'd like to recap the year, concentrating on that quarter year in which The Exhibitionist existed, in order to present you with the best and the worst theatrical experiences I had in 2007. However, while this may seem like a cheap way to link back to previous writings and make an easy article out of that, I assure you that it's only a coincidence that some of my favorite and least favorite moments in exhibition happened since October. Anyway, there are plenty of moments I cite that were never mentioned in The Exhibitionist, so regular or new reader, read on:


Theatrical Experiences of 2007 Part I: The Worst


Pan's Labyrinth at Cobble Hill Cinemas, Brooklyn, NY, 01/16/07

I came away from watching Guillermo del Toro's "masterpiece" underwhelmed, thanks primarily to my inability to appreciate the Oscar-winning cinematography of Guillermo Navarro. How so? Well, the projection of the film where and when I saw it was terribly underlit. At least, I'm guessing it was. I've only seen the film partially since then, on DVD, and at that time it looked much brighter than I remembered.

At the time I saw the film theatrically, though, I just assumed the film was really that dark. Well, actually I thought it could be faulty projection, but I didn't want to get into the issue with the management. Most theaters are quite defensive when it comes to the subject of whether or not they dim the projector bulbs, and whether or not it matters. Even before I became a projectionist I knew thanks to Roger Ebert's Answer Man columns about the stupidity and annoyance of turning down the power on projector bulbs, but unfortunately not everyone else seems to know.

While my favorite part of For Your Consideration is Marilyn Hack's plastic surgery, I also love that dreaded morning when the Oscar nominations get announced. Some actors wait anxiously to hear their name announced, while others, thinking they're totally off the Academy's radar, get nods while they're snoozing. Then, to add insult to injury, the losers get tracked down for embarrassing meltdowns and awkwardness on television. It's not quite that bad in real life, but as I read the reactions of those who received Golden Globe nominations, that movie keeps popping up in my head. So, check out these reactions, courtesy of Variety:

Dudes Chewing on Their Nails Hoping to Get Nominations: Jeremy Piven & Focus Features
"I got a call around 5:30, but I was up, believe it or not." -- Piven

"I was sitting here at Focus with about 35 very happy colleagues." -- FF head James Schamus on leading the studio nominations.

Those Who Prepared Speeches: Joe Wright, Atonement & Brad Bird, Ratatouille

"I think we were, as a team, very passionate about the film and story. I don't think we looked up from the little world we created around ourselves." "You need to make all actors feel loved, respected, and supported. That applies to the 12-year-old Saoirse Ronan or a slightly-older Vanessa Redgrave. Acting is an exposing and vulnerable job. You need to make them feel safe." -- Wright -- Extra props given for use of "slightly older."

"One of the messages of the film that most critics understood was that it wasn't anti-critic, but was saying if you're a critic or artist, don't get far away from what you love, and if, as a director, if you're focused on box office or awards and not the film itself, you'll take your eye off the ball." "And most importantly, this nomination shouldn't be taken as an endorsement for rats cooking our meals for us." -- Bird

Lads and Ladies with a Little Bit of Cockiness: Craig Zadan, Hairspray & Julie Taymor, Across the Universe

"It's so interesting that a couple of years ago we were accused of bringing the musical back with Chicago, and now you have this year with Sweeney Todd, Hairspray, and Across the Universe. There was no musical for so many years, and we're so proud of what Chicago has done for the musical." -- Zadan

"It's tremendous as we weren't on the pundits lists and didn't have big ads. I feel, in a way, that we were the engine that could. People vote from their heart, and I feel very gratified." -- Taymor

More About that Damned Strike: Piven, again! & Russ Smith, Juno

"I don't know about whether or not I'll be attending because to be honest with you, I don't know a lot about the rules and limitations of what is happening. I need to look into it. Writers are kind of these unsung heroes... I hope they get what they deserve, and I'll do anything I can to help that." -- Piven

"Our hope is that there's gonna be some sort of dispensation. Every day we're hoping they work something out, but we'll have to see." -- Smith -- In other words: please end the strike, I want my big moment!!

Whether you're a fan of comics, or just happen to watch superheroes on the big screen now and then, you've probably heard of Marvel. They've got almost all the biggies: Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Daredevil and Iron Man. And if you regularly read Cinematical, you know that at least a few movies are in production with these characters. Marvel Entertainment has now released their second quarter earnings for 2007, and have included the company's list of projects, which you can find over at SuperHeroHype.

We know all about some of them. Of course, under their character feature line-up, they've got my much-anticipated Wolverine, which we last blogged about a few days ago, and Punisher 2, which is going to be a do-over. Under the flicks in development, we've got Iron Man (which was very present in our ComicCon coverage) and The Incredible Hulk. But there's also a whole bunch of writers gearing up other super projects like Ant-Man by Edward Wright and Joe Cornish, Captain America by David Self, Nick Fury by Andrew Marlowe, Thor by Mark Protosevich and The Avengers by Zak Penn. There are also a few animated TV projects in the works -- Spider-Man, Wolverine and the X-Men and Iron Man, some direct-to-DVD projects -- Doctor Strange, Teen Avengers and Hulk Smash and video game projects for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk.

And here's the kicker: Spider-Man the Musical. Yes, our webbed friend is going to hit the stage, and somehow I've missed the buzz that has been lurking around. Woops. It's not a terrible surprise that Spidey is jumping out of the screen, especially after all the success of Sam Raimi's last flick to get theatrical: Evil Dead: The Musical. Julie Taymor (Titus and Across the Universe) is going to direct the production, and the music will come from U2's Bono and The Edge -- that pretty much guarantees us some funky music and stunning sights. Unfortunately, there's no word on when we can expect to see the web stick to the stage.

Two of the movies I'm most looking forward to this fall are Woody Allen's Cassandra's Dream and Julie Taymor's Across the Universe. My interest in them has nothing to do with their being reportedly problematic (Cassandra's apparently wasn't suitable for Cannes; Universe has had some editing issues), but the rumors have made me more curious. Fortunately, I now have an opportunity to get an advance heads up on both movies, as they're set to screen at next month's Toronto International Film Festival (Sept. 6-15). This is what I love most about the fall festivals (since I don't attend them): the chance to hear the buzz about a possibly troubled or possibly redeemed film long before I have to make up my mind about buying a ticket. For Cassandra's Dream, we'll actually get an earlier report when the film officially premieres at the Venice Film Festival a week prior -- Cinematical's Ryan Stewart will be on the scene with that scoop. As far as I know, Toronto will have the first public viewing of Across the Universe.

Cassandra's Dream was shown to an audience last month in Avilés, Spain, and I'm guessing attendees of that screening include the 154 people who've given the film a 9.4 rating on IMDB.com. That's a pretty awesome score for any Woody Allen film, let alone a recent Woody Allen film (Annie Hall only has an 8.2), so obviously the Cannes rumor must be false. Sure, the rating will go down and some critics will even hate the film, but unless The Weinstein Co. screws with the thing, I anticipate enjoying the thing when it's released November 30. As for Across the Universe, I expect to love the music and the cinematography anyway, but I still want to hear from my colleagues -- Ryan, Monika and James will be covering Toronto -- about the overall quality of the film. Columbia Pictures releases that one September 28.

I have been seriously looking forward to Across the Universe since it was announced a few years ago. I think Julie Taymor's previous two films (Titus; Frida) were visually brilliant (and not too bad in the non-visual departments), I think Evan Rachel Wood is a terrific young actress (I hope Marilyn Manson doesn't ruin her career), I love the Beatles' music and I love "the '60s" as a subject and a setting (even in the form of cheesy amalgams like Forrest Gump and The '60s). More specific to this film, though, I think the trailer captures all these things I love together in a beautiful little montage. I don't see how I could possibly not love the whole package when it arrives in theaters this September.

But recently I've been growing more and more worried about the film. In March, we learned that Taymor and Revolution Studios were fighting over the final cut of the film. The director even threatened to remove her name from the film because she isn't happy with Revolution's editing the pic without her involvement. Some of us sided with Taymor, while others explained in detail why Taymor shouldn't be allowed complete control. Now we get this bland poster, which provides no hint of how stunning the pic will look. The strawberry frame makes sense, as it is part of the film's original logo (where did it go?), but otherwise the poster seems to be advertising a simple love story. Maybe that is the best way to sell this romantic musical, but following the posters for Titus and Frida, both of which I would be happy to put in my dorm room -- if I lived in one -- the poster for Across the Universe is just not that aesthetically interesting.

I know, it's just a poster. But the marketing decisions for the film continue to make me wonder if Revolution's cut is really going to pander too much to a wide audience. With the trailer, this was fine, in keeping all the artsy images short and at the end, it left me wanting more. I just hope that the actual film doesn't also leave me wishing for more of Taymor's imaginative imagery and less of the studio's need to cater to a less art-minded crowd. Feel free to argue for the business and the storytelling; sometimes I just want the mind-blowing eye candy -- on film, and on the poster.

When it was revealed Tuesday that Across the Universe was having some creative control issues, a lot of people (myself included) sided with the film's director, Julie Taymor. While I didn't go so far as to compare Taymor to Orson Welles (that would be the NY Times), I had to put in my usual two cents about how a visionary director should at least be in the loop regarding the final cut if he or she isn't actually given authority over the final cut. Apparently Taymor is too stubborn for such a privilege, though, as she has a reputation for not being willing to compromise. L.A. Weekly's Nikki Finke wrote up a story on how difficult Taymor is and why it is in fact her fault that Universe is having troubles.

Finke goes into great detail regarding Taymor's career and cites examples of problems she's had since becoming a big hit on Broadway with the stage adaptation of The Lion King. Both of the director's previous films had their share of difficulties and Finke finds it surprising that anybody would even hire Taymor for anything anymore. So, in a way, Joe Roth is at fault for not knowing any better. This story is illustrative of what I and others despise about Hollywood, how the business side of the movies is always more important than the art side. And I understand this is the way it is and I understand this is best for the industry. But as much as whining doesn't help, it is often our job as writers to complain about the system, and Finke sure isn't going to change my mind about supporting Taymor on this one.

I guess it makes sense for a studio to not give final cut privileges to someone like Julie Taymor. Sure, she's got a brilliant mind for visuals, but sometimes the artsy directors are the ones most in need of help in areas like editing. Plus, Taymor is not yet a bankable director, with only two feature films in the bag so far. Still, it is easy to see why she would be upset about the studio cutting her new film, Across the Universe, without telling her. Now Taymor is threatening to remove her name from the film -- as if Alan Smithee could make such a beautiful-looking movie.

The Beatles-inspired musical is being distributed by Revolution Studios, and since the film was originally supposed to be released last fall, studio head Joe Roth was probably getting antsy about completing it already. But anybody who has seen one of Roth's own movies (Freedomland, for instance) would hate to have to give up something for him to finish. I don't really understand why Taymor couldn't at least be involved in the editing process, but I also have no idea how stubborn or difficult she might be about her work. Whether or not she is credited, though, I will still know that she was responsible and I will still be excited to see the film, even if I do think the premise seems a little cheesy. Some of the sequences do look mind-blowing, as you can see from the trailer.

Wow, now that was a nice surprise. Check out this rather lovely new trailer for Julie Taymor's Across the Universe and then come back and let me know what you think. To me it looks like 1969 meets Moulin Rouge ... or maybe Forrest Gump meets Sgt. Pepper. Either way I now have another movie title to add to my "oooh, gimme!" list for 2007. Written by veteran British wordsmiths Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, Across the Universe sure looks (despite my earlier comparisons) pretty darn unique!

It's a story of love, lust and innocence lost in the 1960's, it's a musical, and it's all Beatles music! Neat! (The stars are Jim Sturgess, Joe Anderson and the luminous Evan Rachel Wood.) Sony hasn't nailed down a firm release date just yet, but "September" seems to be the general consensus right now. Frankly I'm pretty darn psyched to check this flick out -- and this is coming from a guy who spends most of his days knee-deep in monster movies and stoner comedies. (And if you've never seen Taymor's Titus, I just now thought of a flick you need to toss into your Netflix queue.)