Claire Danes in Angeleno photoshoot, December 2009 issue, she's wearing a crepe “Brooke” dress by Zac Posen and “Claudia” peep-toe heels by Christian Louboutin.
Claire Danes kisses Leonardo DiCaprio in "Romeo and Juliet" (1996) underwater.Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, their romance metaphorically drowning in "New Moon".
Robert Pattinson shooting the underwater scene in "New Moon"
-Did you add any scenes? -There's a moment of threat when Bella is drowning that I think isn't in the book. It's really funny — I've heard the response from fans and they saw that scene differently when they read it. I love it when something I've extrapolated or added in — and I always try to do things in the vein I'm adapting — but I love when something I've written or come up with or the screenwriter has written or come up with comes across as having been in the book in the first place. Then you know you've really hit your sweet spot.-I also read that you had instructed Kristen to do that scene one way and then got a wet suit on and got into the water yourself and realized it was an impossible way to tackle it. And Kristen had a cold that day, so that was the last thing I was going to do — put someone with a cold at the bottom of a 12-foot pool with weights in their pockets. That didn't seem like a wise move". Source: www.rollingstone.com
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson - Empire magazine outtakes.
"Edward's constantly saying, "I'm a monster, I'm a monster, I'm a monster," and doesn't end up being one. We shot the final scene first, and I wanted the fight to not just be a fight, but to literally have him turn into that monster. In the book he very much comes in to save the day as the hero, but I noticed when we were doing the blocking it's the first time he's seen a lot of her blood — and I thought it would be interesting [for him to start] wanting to kill her and then fighting himself for that.I think a lot of people who like the book and like the love story at the end will be sort of baffled by it. But I also thought that's the best type of love story, where the whole time he knows his thoughts and he knows he has so many doubts and he has so many things about weakness. Like, he couldn't kill himself because he's afraid he doesn't have a soul. -Stephenie Meyer talked about the influence of a lot of Victorian literature, which definitely seems obvious in Twilight, even the fact that his name is Edward. Do you see that there's a Victorian quality to Edward? -Yeah, I definitely think it's a lot of Heathcliff. -What's attractive about that kind of character that made him popular then and still popular now?-It's being unreadable. It's attractive in women as well, just that kind of mystique. It's so obvious, but so few people do have it, especially in characters now and especially in modern society where there's so many celebrities. -You're in this position where you're playing this character who's attractive because of that mystique and then don't have that luxury.-I just disappear. It doesn't really make any difference. But I didn't play it so old-fashioned; I tried to get in little elements. I think there are so few young characters in modern films who even have any form of restraint unless they're a geek. I guess Edward would be the jock in a normal type of story, and just playing it sane you can't really touch — everything is very understated". Source: www.rollingstone.com
10. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (June 30) As if Summit Entertainment’s “Twilight” franchise needed new injections of blood into its already impressive fanbase, the third part in the series, “Eclipse” got it anyway when the producers hired David Slade (”30 Days of Night”) to take a stab at darkening up the teen angst vampire series. Of course, it remains to be seen how dark the studio will allow Slade to go, but you have to figure that even if he’s restrained, Slade will probably end up making the most non-Twilighter friendly movie of the bunch. 9. Jonah Hex (June 18) Serious actor guy Josh Brolin slips on the comic book movie boots for an old fashioned Wild West showdown — complete with a trampy Megan Fox and a villainous John Malkovich in the sidecar. Tell me you ain’t tempted and I’m calling you a liar. The film hit a bump or two on its road to being realized, but one thing’s for sure — it’s going to prove Josh Brolin’s bankability as a movie star. He’s either a very good actor, period, or he’s a good actor who also happens to be a movie star. “Jonah Hex” will tell the tale. And besides, how long has it been since we’ve been treated to a good ol fashion Western shoot’em up with a Hollywood budget? Throw in some supernatural curve balls and the film’s comic book roots, and like the leading man’s face, there won’t be a whole lot of “typical” in this one, folks. 8. Robin Hood (May 14)When Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe get together as director and star, and without the confines of a “romantic plot” to get in the way, things usually turn out pretty good. The latest collaboration for the “Gladiator” duo is a re-imagining of the Robin Hood legend, which in this case seems to be translated into a grittier, more badass Sherwood avenger. Add in Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, Vanessa Redgrave, and William Hurt, and the filmmakers are clearly stacking the deck with unquestioned talent. Even if Crowe completely whiffs on the Robin Hood part, this is Ridley Scott we’re talking about. 7. A Nightmare On Elm Street (April 30)
Give them credit: Michael Bay’s Platinum Dunes boys know how to remake a horror franchise. Or at least, cater to the new breed of horror movie fans. Their latest is “A Nightmare on Elm Street”, and they’ve recruited a fanboy favorite in Jackie Earle Haley to play the lead and music video veteran Samuel Bayer to present the film’s sure-to-be fantastic visuals. The rest of the cast is unimportant, as they’ll either end up dead in the movie or in subsequent sequels. The trick to remaking a franchise like “Nightmare” is to keep as much of the original as possible, like the killer’s iconic image, while still offering up something new in terms of various tweaks. 6. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (May 28) Jake Gyllenhaal as the leading man of a Disney action-adventure franchise? Are you kidding me? What have you been smoking? Of course, that’s probably what they were saying about Johnny Depp when he slapped on the mascara for the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie. As Jack Sparrow proves, a good actor is a good actor, and Jake Gyllenhaal is most definitely a good actor.Jake Gyllenhaal with Jerry Bruckheimer (producer of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010).
Plus, have you seen the shape he’s in? Holy cow. The videogame background will be lost on 99% of the people who pony up to see this movie, and that’s just how Disney wants it. The film, the first of a potentially lucrative franchise from uber producer Jerry Bruckheimer, promises sweeping romance, epic and sprawling action, comedy, and plenty of fantastical elements.5. The A-Team (June 11) Maybe it’s just my childhood talking, but the idea of seeing a contemporary take on “The A-Team” makes me giddy all over. The fact that Joe Carnahan, a master of wanton cinematic mayhem is directing, gives me great confidence that even if this thing turns out to be a total abortion, at least the action will be first-rate. Then you add in the casting of Liam Neeson as Hannibal, Bradley Cooper as Faceman, Sharlto Copley as Murdock, and Quinton Rampage Jackson as — okay, three out of four ain’t bad. From everything I’ve seen of the movie so far, it looks like Carnahan knows where his bread is buttered — it’s all about the action, stupid. And come on, they even brought back the van! The van! 3. The Expendables (August 22) Jet Li. Sylvester Stallone. Jason Statham. Dolph Lundgren. Mickey Rourke. And cameos from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis. What the hell else do you need to be convinced that “The Expendables” has the potential to be the best time you’ll have at the movies in 2010? A sure-fire slam-bang, shoot’em-up, blow’em-up action movie from beginning to end, with just enough “story” to convince you it’s not just a bunch of action movie guys getting together to blow shit up. Which, essentially, that’s what this movie is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The only bump in the road I can see is if Stallone acquiesce to studio pressure (should there be any) and tones down the violence for a PG-13. 2. "Inception" How could you not be on pins and needles to see what Christopher Nolan has cooked up as his follow-up to “The Dark Knight”? The film will, in all likelihood, arrive in theaters with a healthy dose of cloak and dagger concerning its plot, and for good reason. “Inception” boasts a who’s who of great actors, including star Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy, and Michael Caine. The plot has been under wraps since the film was announced, and remains so today. Of course, this being the Internet age, if you really wanted to know what “Inception” was about you could have Googled it and found out in a matter of minutes. But don’t do that. Remember when you saw Nolan’s “Memento” for the first time, not having known anything about it going in? “Inception” promises to have a similarly rewarding experience for the viewer who goes into it with a blank slate. 1. "Iron Man 2" The first “Iron Man” movie was one of the most critically acclaimed and fanboy-loved comic book movie adaptation of all time, and the filmmakers didn’t know what they were doing back then! This time around, they actually do. Jon Favreau struck gold with the first, from the left field casting of Robert Downey Jr. to the film’s surprisingly brilliant blend of comedy, action, and Origins Story of Tony Stark and his eventual awakening as Ol Shellhead. In “Iron Man 2″ (no gratuitous subtitles, apparently), Iron Man has been outed, a new villain arises, and the Black Widow makes trouble in the background. And oh yeah, War Machine makes his appearance, probably towards the end of the movie. Plus, all the major creative elements return in front and behind the camera". Source: www.beyondhollywood.com
Sometimes I think of Michael Angarano as a sort of sandbox crush,other times he looks so good I forget his tender age, in my book he's a royal atypical hottie! Happy 22nd Birthday, Michael Angarano!
I wish you have tons of luck in your next roles of your career, keep your good work up, baby! Patricia Arquette, Christian Slater, Ace Norton, Michael Angarano and Dominique Swain.Michael Angarano between Heath Ledger and Emile Hirsch, they worked together in "Lords of Dogtown" (2005).Michael Angarano plays Arthur Parkinson in "Snow Angels" (2007), one of his best roles.Michael Angarano plays Benjamin in "Gentlemen Broncos" (2009).
Kristen Stewart attended a party in Beverly Hills in company of Michael Angarano and her co-star Melissa Leo in "Welcome to the Rileys", on February 6th, 2009.
"SPIDER-MAN star Tobey Maguire has addressed claims that he was unwilling to return for the upcoming fourth film and says he hopes to evolve his character in a new direction.
In May last year, there were reports that other actors were being considered to replace Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, including Michael Angarano and Patrick Fugit". Source: blogs.coventrytelegraph.net
Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal are easily mistaken by the common public, Jake was mistaken for Tobey by a cab driver who believed he had played "Spiderman" and somebody thought Tobey has appeared in "Brokeback Mountain", these aren't news here in Weirdland because I've compared often both (I admire Tobey's career too). Now we have to add another point in common: having played war veterans with post-traumatic disorders:Jake Gyllenhaal as the Marine Swofford in "Jardhead" (2005) - "Jarhead Diaries".Tobey Maguire plays presumed dead Captain Sam Cahill in "Brothers" (2009)."Natalie Portman plays the wife and mother in Sheridan and Benioff's version, Tobey Maguire the deployed Marine, Jake Gyllenhaal his ex-con sibling.And all three - Portman, Maguire, Gyllenhaal - turn in the best work of their careers.Maguire is Sam Cahill, a Marine captain, called up for a return trip to Afghanistan with his men. He leaves behind two young daughters and Grace (Portman), his high school sweetheart. (She has "Sam" tattooed on her shoulder.) The Cahill girls are accustomed to his absences, but no less anxious each new time he decamps. While the audience discovers that Sam has survived and is being held prisoner, for the Cahills the process of mourning - the ache, the grief - begins to bore a hole into the family's collective soul. Sam's father, a Vietnam vet who long ago turned to booze, is broken by the loss of his "good" son. Sam Shepard is this bitter, taciturn man, and it's a fine portrayal. And young Bailee Madison, as Sam and Grace's firstborn, Isabelle, gives one of those frighteningly empathetic performances that little kids in the company of practiced actors sometimes, somehow, come up with. Her hurt is palpable.As for Tommy Cahill (Gyllenhaal), a hard-drinking screw-up straight out of a Raymond Carver story, he finds a new sense of responsibility and purpose in his brother's absence. "Uncle Tommy" becomes a sort of surrogate father figure. He gets close with Grace - in ways neither of them is entirely comfortable with. And he brings in a crew to renovate Grace's ramshackle kitchen. Driven by grief, guilt, and his own needs - not by calculation - Tommy insinuates himself into Grace's and Isabelle's and little Maggie's life.Which creates a problem when Sam, finally, is rescued and returns home. Brothers is a movie about post-traumatic stress disorder, about how war forces people to do unspeakable things, irrevocably changing them. Maguire, gaunt and hollow-eyed, is chilling as the soldier come home, bearing an ugly secret and the scars of months in captivity.Irish director Sheridan (In the Name of the Father, In America) is a master of concise storytelling, able to describe family dynamics in keen detail (look at the way Gyllenhaal's Tommy eats his peas at a family dinner - his gestures speak volumes), getting to bigger issues through the small. Brothers is a heartbreaking film that speaks to the lifelong aftershocks of war, and to the powerful bonds of family and of love". Source: www.philly.com
"What they learned is that the remake could largely stand on its own. The structure is virtually the same. Some shots are identical, including a scene of the young wife in a bathtub or a sequence on an ice rink.But there are significant adjustments. Principally, the characters are younger: Mr. Sheridan’s stars are in their late 20s or early 30s, while the actors in Ms. Bier’s movie are about a decade older. “Go to Pendleton, any place where they prepare Marines, and they’re 22,” Mr. Sheridan said. “The wife who gets left behind is 21 and has three kids.”Other differences are cultural: When the ex-con brother in Ms. Bier’s film calls the wife at 4 a.m. to pick him up at a bar, she leaves the kids and comes to get him; in Mr. Sheridan’s almost identical scene, the wife brings the kids with her, despite the hour.“Once we had Sam on board, you wanted to give him as much as possible,” Mr. Benioff said. “But from the beginning it was thought that if Tommy comes from a military family, it makes him much more the black sheep. Actually that character was the one I loved best in the original.”“Her ‘Brothers’ is a kind of inappropriate love story,” he added. “Mine is kind of about putting the family back together. So I think they’re different stories. Even though they’re close.” Source: www.nytimes.com
Natalie Portman in USA Today, photo by Todd Plitt.
"Right now, that life is based in Los Angeles, where Portman relocated this year and bought a house in May. She made the move to have more privacy and live where she works. And though Portman is still renting a place in downtown Manhattan, for now, her heart belongs to California."It's great. The sun. Nature. And more privacy. Here (in New York), there's no private outdoor space. Here, you walk into a coffee shop and someone tweets that you're there. There, at least you can be in your backyard or your friends' backyard."Source: www.usatoday.com
"In Afghanistan, meanwhile, Sam is forced to make a horrible, torturous choice. And then, miraculously, he's freed. Grace and the girls are elated, of course. So is Tommy. So is everyone.But something's wrong. Sam isn't the same. We know he's haunted by guilt. It eats at him constantly. And he is wracked by jealousy, convinced that Tommy and Grace had an affair.To see Sam disintegrate is unnerving. To see his girls watch it happen is heartbreaking. They don't understand what's happened, of course - no one does. Sam won't say, and it's killing him. They only know it's a lot happier when Uncle Tommy is around.Portman is excellent as a woman quietly navigating a wrenching set of circumstances. Grace loves Sam, but she doesn't know how to help him. Gyllenhaal also is outstanding as a man adrift finally finding mooring, only to have the situation change in the time it takes for Grace to answer the phone.Maguire, too, is good in a tricky role. At times, he flirts with going too far with Sam's falling apart, too over the top. That's what I thought at first, anyway". Source: www.azcentral.com
"The reason Brothers works as well as it does is because it takes the time to introduce the characters and never loses sight that the story is about their changes and how those alterations impact their relationships with others. The movie's message emerges naturally through the narrative - it is not represented by a tacked-on homily or awkward speech. Sheridan does not say war is evil, but he makes it clear that the dead aren't the only casualties of conflicts. Just because a soldier is back on the ground in the United States does not mean he or she is "safe." When Sam pleads with his commanding officer to return to Afghanistan following his "resurrection," his reasons are clear - the only connection he retains is to the ugliness half-a-world away. He seeks expiation, perhaps through death, and it's something he cannot find in the pleasantly domestic setting represented by his wife, children, and brother. This is a rich, thoughtful, challenging motion picture, and one of 2009's best." Source: www.reelviews.net
Claire Danes in Angeleno photoshoot, December 2009 issue, she's wearing a crepe “Brooke” dress by Zac Posen and “Claudia” peep-toe heels by Christian Louboutin.
cinemiusic.com.avi_002475199.jpg)
Claire Danes kisses Leonardo DiCaprio in "Romeo and Juliet" (1996) underwater.
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, their romance metaphorically drowning in "New Moon".
Robert Pattinson shooting the underwater scene in "New Moon"
-I also read that you had instructed Kristen to do that scene one way and then got a wet suit on and got into the water yourself and realized it was an impossible way to tackle it.17-24-22%5D.JPG)
And Kristen had a cold that day, so that was the last thing I was going to do — put someone with a cold at the bottom of a 12-foot pool with weights in their pockets. That didn't seem like a wise move". Source: www.rollingstone.com
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson - Empire magazine outtakes.
"Edward's constantly saying, "I'm a monster, I'm a monster, I'm a monster," and doesn't end up being one. We shot the final scene first, and I wanted the fight to not just be a fight, but to literally have him turn into that monster. In the book he very much comes in to save the day as the hero, but I noticed when we were doing the blocking it's the first time he's seen a lot of her blood — and I thought it would be interesting [for him to start] wanting to kill her and then fighting himself for that.
I think a lot of people who like the book and like the love story at the end will be sort of baffled by it. But I also thought that's the best type of love story, where the whole time he knows his thoughts and he knows he has so many doubts and he has so many things about weakness. Like, he couldn't kill himself because he's afraid he doesn't have a soul. 
-Stephenie Meyer talked about the influence of a lot of Victorian literature, which definitely seems obvious in Twilight, even the fact that his name is Edward. Do you see that there's a Victorian quality to Edward?
-What's attractive about that kind of character that made him popular then and still popular now?
-It's being unreadable. It's attractive in women as well, just that kind of mystique. It's so obvious, but so few people do have it, especially in characters now and especially in modern society where there's so many celebrities..jpg)
-You're in this position where you're playing this character who's attractive because of that mystique and then don't have that luxury.
-I just disappear. It doesn't really make any difference. But I didn't play it so old-fashioned; I tried to get in little elements. I think there are so few young characters in modern films who even have any form of restraint unless they're a geek. I guess Edward would be the jock in a normal type of story, and just playing it sane you can't really touch — everything is very understated". Source: www.rollingstone.com
