Usually, when you hear that the studio slashed a movie’s budget and forced major changes, it’s a bad sign. That’s not the case with Back to the Future, which turned 40 last year. The studio cut the movie's budget, forcing director Robert Zemeckis to change the ending. Even he agrees it made for a far better moment than the original idea. The movie, one of the best of the ‘80s, has proven incredibly enduring, and I think we can all agree that the ending, with Doc (Christopher Lloyd) up on the clock and Marty (Michael J. Fox) timing his run at 88 mph, is a classic. It was almost very different.

The Original Ending Involved Nukes

As the script was written, the ending involved Doc and Marty breaking into a nuclear test site before a test (remember, this was the 1950s). That was how they were originally planning to harness the 1.21 gigawatts they needed to send Marty and the Delorean back to 1985. According to Zemeckis in an interview on El Rey Network with fellow director Robert Rodriguez, they were planning to build a whole fake town, like the ones you see in the old footage of the tests. Or like you see in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Sorry to bring that up.

Zemeckis explained that just weeks before filming was to commence, Universal cut the budget for the set piece, and the director and the crew were forced to figure out a way to use the courthouse, as that set was already constructed. Of course, what came out of that is movie magic, with Doc connecting the wires just in time for the lightning to strike and Marty to hit the correct speed.

It’s a rare case when cutting the budget forced a creative decision that is in every way superior to the original idea. Zemeckis told Rodriguez:

That wasn’t the only change during the production, either.

The Most Famous Change Was With The Star

Anyone who's familiar with the production of Back to the Future, knows that five weeks into production, Zemeckis came to the conclusion that he had to fire the actor playing Marty, Eric Stoltz. Stoltz was playing Marty, of course, and it just wasn’t working, as both sides have acknowledged. Michael J. Fox was brought in, and much of the movie had to be reshot. Once again, a potentially fatal decision turned into a brilliant one, as I can’t imagine anyone but Fox in the role.

Looking back, it's incredible that Back to the Future, which you can watch with the MGM+ add-on to a Prime subscription, was even finished, much less became the massive box office hit and enduring favorite for so many people. It survived not one, but two massive complications that could have doomed any normal movie. Instead, the corrections make it a classic.

I can practically hear my parents’ voices in my head telling me, “Michael, it’s Christmas. You shouldn’t be fighting.” Normally, I’d agree with them, as it’d give me more time to wrap up my personal tour of the 2024 movie schedule, and start writing my own version of the Nice List.

However, as two of my favorite Robert Zemeckis-directed Christmas movies continue to draw fire from the masses, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ignore that family wisdom. It’s time to get into a hypothetical brawl, as I’m about to defend both 2004’s The Polar Express and 2009’s A Christmas Carol - and I’ll hear no arguments against two of the best Christmas films to ever exist.

The Polar Express Is One Of The Best Examples Of Expanding A Kid’s Book

Author Chris Van Allsburg’s The Polar Express was a holiday tradition in my house, long before it was even a gleam in the eye of the man who brought us Back to the Future. Through the years, I had not only read this book in the original text, I’d heard it narrated by the late William Hurt, Garrison Keillor and Liam Neeson himself.

By the time I saw the first teaser trailer for The Polar Express in my college dorm room, I was amped for an adaptation starring Tom Hanks. And as an amateur expert in how this story works, seeing those results on the big screen did not disappoint. Robert Zemeckis and William Broyles Jr. 's expansion of the original book covered themes of personal belief, good will towards others and learning life lessons as they present themselves.

Honestly, the only points I’d take away from The Polar Express is that odd Steven Tyler cameo, in which he appears as an elf singing my least favorite song from the soundtrack. Putting that aside, I absolutely love this movie, and consider myself as someone for whom the bell rings clearly.

I’ve even seen some of my fellow CinemaBlend staffers like Danielle Bruncati change their mind on The Polar Express as an adult. That gives hope, as I move on to the other Robert Zemeckis Christmas movie I’m here to defend.

Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol Offers A Fresh Take On A Beloved Classic

If you want to travel further back into Young Mike’s early days of Christmas spirit, you’d discover that another absolutely vital text to my holly jollyness is Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Three versions in particular were important to fostering my love of Ebenezer Scrooge’s face turn from rampant Victorian capitalism: 1983’s Mickey’s Christmas Carol, 1988’s Scrooged and 1992’s The Muppet Christmas Carol.

Having my heart won over by The Polar Express five years prior, I’d convinced my family to actually make the trek out to see Jim Carrey’s portrayal of Scrooge in IMAX 3D. I was once again pleased with what I had seen from Robert Zemeckis’ pen and camera, as a childhood hero of mine brought another deeply held favorite of mine to life.

I’m open to being corrected here, but last time I checked, A Christmas Carol is one of the few adaptations that actually includes the entire section where the Ghost of Christmas Present teaches Scrooge about Ignorance and Want. Not to mention, the mere idea of Jim Carrey playing Scrooge and each of the spirits that visit him unlocked all sorts of joyful interpretations of this text. If you’re in love with Mr. Carrey’s “epic performance” in Sonic 3, you should really consider revisiting this one.

The Most Common Criticism Between The Polar Express And A Christmas Carol

I feel like the moment any of you readers saw the titles I was here to defend, you practically chimed in with the same thoughts. In the case of both The Polar Express and A Christmas Carol, it was Robert Zemeckis’ supposed obsession with technology that landed him into hot water with some viewers. Looking at the reasons for each individual case, this is a prime case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” if I’ve ever seen one.

For The Polar Express, the criticisms stated in Rotten Tomatoes’ official consensus said that "the animation for the human characters isn't lifelike enough." Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph’s review of A Christmas Carol slammed the movie by saying “how much is gained by the half-real visual style for this story is open to question.”

So which is it, folks? Is the Zemeckis Christmas Spirit too fake for you, or too real? In both cases, I think the visual style presented was just right - especially when considering not only the respective needs for each project, but also the fact that A Christmas Carol made our own list of best animated Christmas movies.

However, I will concede one point on the front of Polar Express nightmare fuel: that Steven Tyler elf should have never been allowed to see the light of day. Seriously, there's no way to get a "good" picture of that moment, and even in full motion it's horrific.

Why You’re Wrong About The Polar Express And A Christmas Carol

I’ve heard The Polar Express compared to a living, moving oil painting, with some of the harsher criticisms calling the characters lifeless and creepy. Not to mention my own wife, despite her surprise that such criticisms exist surrounding this beautiful story of hope, has constantly told me that it looks like a movie made of melted chocolate. Which is a good time to remind ourselves that this was 2004, and as such the technologies for motion capture and CGI were still developing.

By the time 2009 came around for A Christmas Carol, the medium had advanced to the point where in the space of a month, Robert Zemeckis and James Cameron had shown us the future had arrived. But even ignoring technological history, there’s the matter of what each project calls for in its individual story.

To me, The Polar Express is a child’s dream-like journey into the world of Santa and the North Pole, while A Christmas Carol is a man being forced to look inward and question his life’s deeds. Of course a kid is going to imagine a Christmas voyage informed by all of the store decorations, train sets and media he’s consumed. And naturally it would take an exaggerated nightmare of sorrow, loss, and regret to turn a cold-hearted moneylender into someone with a thankful heart.

In both their individual stories and the aesthetic approaches that are applied, we’re seeing someone wrestle with doubt in a spectacle laden manner. Both fill my eyes with tears, and my heart with joy, whenever I think of them in this festive period.

Ok, so maybe this wasn’t the fight I wasn’t intending to have in the intro. But considering how that’s the core lesson at the heart of Charles Dickens’ text, and The Polar Express is an Iron Man 3-style riff on A Christmas Carol’s very lessons, this feels rather appropriate.

I invite you all to reconsider your notions on both of these Robert Zemeckis gems that happen to celebrate an anniversary this year. Especially since you can watch both The Polar Express and A Christmas Carol with access to a Disney+ subscription! Though you’ll need access to Hulu to see the former, so keep that in mind before you watch. With that, I wish you all a happy holiday, and may Bob bless us everyone!

It’s been 30 years since one of Robert Zemeckis’ best films, the Oscar-winning Forrest Gump, was released, and its beyond-talented stars have respectively had fulfilling careers since its premiere. Imagine, though, if they had an additional cast member who was short, fuzzy and...Curious George-y. Zemeckis shared a fun tidbit recently that revealed he's the one who cut the beloved character loose before production began on the Tom Hanks classic.

The Back to the Future director reunited with Hanks and Robin Wright, who respectively played Forrest and Jenny, for the multi-generational movie Here as part of the 2024 movie schedule. The trio sat down with EW to look back on Gump, and it was most intriguing to hear about elements that went unseen.

Why Curious George Was Nearly Featured In Forrest Gump

Maybe the most surprising BTS details was shared by Zemeckis, and it involved an animated Curious George and other oddities being part of the adaptation when it was still in the initial script stages. He shared:

Just thinking about all of what could have been for the big-hearted war vet makes my head spin a bit. I’m glad the 72-year-old had the foresight and sense to cut the lovable monkey from the script, I think it would’ve been too much for the film. But if he was specifically curious about shrimp, we all know who would have sated that wonderment.

Did Curious George Influence The Studio Hiring Robert Zemeckis?

Although Curious George didn’t get cast, as it were, the idea of the curious little guy in the movie may have been the element that bagged Zemeckis the film in the first place. He had won a handful of awards for his comedy caper less than a decade earlier that incorporated an animated rabbit alongside the very real Bob Hoskins. He recalled the initial call for Gump:

I’m sure there’s a mixed reaction to learning what could have been but I think The Death Becomes Her director is right. The stylings and tones of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Forrest Gump intertwine, especially not at the animated animal point. It would’ve been interesting to George tagging along after Forrest though, that’s for sure! On the flip side, just think about the uncanney valley that the monkey might have fallen into....

It is good to see the human actors all working together again, especially since there is no promise of a sequel to the 1994 classic. And rightfully so, there’s no need to add on to iconic film. Their new film Here is a much better solution to working together again. Zemeckis recently joined us, on an episode of ReelBlend to talk about the new movie as well as his impressive filmography.

I wonder what other stories the veteran director has up his sleeves about some of our favorite films of his? Who knows, but I’m sure none of them are as unique as letting Curious George go from a cast list.

If you’d like to watch and celebrate Forrest Gump’s 30th anniversary you can with a Paramount+ subscription.

Robert Zemeckis’ best films were box office hits that helped put the American filmmaker’s name on the map like Forrest Gump, the Back to the Future films, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. With his top box office flick being 1994’s best picture winner Forrest Gump, it would naturally make sense for the team behind the comedy-drama to have brought in the same numbers with their new drama Here. As the Tom Hanks/Robin Wright-led film flopped at the box office, Zemeckis gets candid about his frustration with the film industry as a whole.

Forrest Gump is an example of a movie that won a ton of weekends at the box office. For five weekends, to be exact, it was actually Paramount’s highest-grossing movie with a total gross of $678.2 million until Titanic beat out that record three years later. An interesting BTS fact about Forrest Gump was that lead Tom Hanks sacrificed his salary to receive a portion of the film’s box office, leading him to reportedly take home over $60 million and reach the status of high-grossing actor.

Based on the Richard McGuire graphic novel, Here brought together the cast of Forrest Gump and its director to tell the story of generations of families in a single spot of a home in the course of a century. Unfortunately, a box office hit was not “here” for Here as the Miramax film was only able to rake up $5 million on a budget of reportedly $50 million. After Here flopped, Robert Zemeckis got candid with Deadline about his takeaway from the disappointment:

The Oscar-winning director is known for the technological innovations he’s brought to his movies. Robert Zemeckis combined live-action with animation in Who Framed Robert Rabbit, used digital effects to place Forrest Gump in historical footage, and pioneered motion-capture technology for The Polar Express. All of these movies worked very well at the box office, but you could say that it wasn’t just for the technological elements. There was a lot of heart in these stories.

Unfortunately, critics reviewing Here were all in agreement that the technological advancements of applying a fix-angled method to capture a single room across generations lost the film's story and character development. Plus, seeing a movie about middle-class problems and a dead-end marriage wouldn’t be the type of movie audiences would seek out to escape real-world problems. On Rotten Tomatoes, critics gave Here a low score of 36% and audiences 58%. It looks like seeing Forrest and Jenny actors back together in a new story wasn’t enough to win critics and audiences over as well as draw viewers in to see the graphic novel adaptation.

Another challenge that came from making Here a success was its failure to land a U.S. distributor from the start. Sources told Deadline that major studios backed out of producing the movie feeling it was too “risky.” Here was financed mainly through foreign sales. Eventually, Sony stepped in to be Here’s U.S. distributor most likely through their link with Tom Hanks’ movies like A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and A Man Called Otto. However, marketing for the single-room film was difficult. As much as the film’s trailer screamed Forrest Gump memes, it was hard for film marketers to cut clips that would be appealing to show on talk shows.

Robert Zemeckis makes a good point that the film industry is very “stressful” right now in estimating audience expectations and the rise in distribution and marketing challenges. It appears that Forrest Gump star power wasn’t enough to bring audiences to see Here. As a standalone drama like Zemeckis’ film flopped at $5 million, it proves that big studios would rather back up blockbuster films that would guarantee appeal compared to experimental projects. If you’re still willing to give the 2024 movie release a chance, Here is playing in theaters now.

Robert Zemeckis’ legacy in the film industry is one that is accentuated by his ambition to advance the medium and attempt things that others aren’t even thinking about let alone trying. From the blend of live-action and animation in Who Framed Roger Rabbit to the split production of Cast Away to his run ensconced in the world of performance capture (The Polar Express, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol), his work traditionally doesn’t settle for simple storytelling; he has demonstrated a passion for showing audiences something on the big screen that they’ve never seen before.

That will never go underappreciated, as that kind of creativity will forever be necessary in the art form, and his latest, Here, is very much part of that tradition. It’s a non-linear narrative that takes place across eons and makes heavy use of de-aging/aging effects, but most significantly, the film unfolds from a fixed perspective, with one angle capturing events that take place in a single spot across thousands of years. Adapting the visual style of the graphic novel of the same name by writer/artist Richard McGuire, the film is undeniably a standout filmmaking effort and a work made with great skill – but the hook proves to not have the staying power necessary for a 104 minute runtime. The commitment to the aesthetic is by itself awesome, but what’s actually unfolding in front of the static camera lacks the same kind of impressiveness, and it takes a major toll on the overall experience.

Written by Robert Zemeckis and Eric Roth, who memorably last collaborated on 1994’s Forrest Gump, Here’s narrative is constantly jumping through time, with mini arcs set before the founding of America, during the Revolutionary War and both the early 20^th and 21^st centuries, but the principal focus is on the Young family, which moves into the house located on the movie’s single spot in the aftermath of World War II.

Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose Young (Kelly Reilly) raise their family in the home, including their oldest son Richard (Tom Hanks), and after a teenage Richard meets Margaret (Robin Wright), the girl who proves to be the love of his life, they inherent the property and raise a family of their own.

On a technical level, Here is an impressive achievement.

First and foremost, Here is a notable filmmaking experiment, and there is an argument to be made for its success simply it’s the movie’s coherency: in addition to it regularly flipping back and forth through time, there are also on-screen boxes that give windows into the past or future, and while less masterful hands could render this aesthetic a confusing mess, Zemeckis has earned his reputation as one of the best modern directors. You mentally adjust to what it’s doing through the early scenes, and once you understand its rhythm, you can easily understand when everything is taking place and the larger context of the period.

The age changing of the characters proves to be a mixed bag. There are some scenes when it’s wowing how Tom Hanks and Robin Wright look like their younger selves, but there are other points where it’s a distraction (not unlike Robert Zemeckis’ battle with the uncanny valley in his performance capture films). On the whole, however, it is more convincing than the aging of Al and Rose, as strong performances from Paul Bettany and Kelly Reilly can’t make up for unconvincing physicality.

Here operates as though its aesthetics make up for its generic story... but they don't.

As I’ve hopefully expressed here, it’s easy to be grateful for Zemeckis’ ambition with Here, but there proves to be a fatal flaw in the design. While it’s appreciated that the filmmaker would try something so challenging, it doesn’t compensate for a generic story about an ordinary American family. There’s conflict introduced – like Richard being forced to abandon his dreams of being an artist so that he can support his family, and Margaret’s desire for their family to move and get their own home – but there isn’t anything that is unique or particularly compelling, and their impact is undercut by the film’s breezy pacing. Beyond the fact that they are there to follow, there’s nothing about the Young family that demands true emotional investment from the audience.

The irony is that the film has much more interesting material in the subplots to which it pays less attention – as Here bounces to different time periods before returning to the Youngs. This includes Lee (David Lynn) and Stella Beekman (Ophelia Lovibond), who live in the house before Al and Rose and are a freewheeling couple with a big ambition: to sell Lee’s design for a new kind of reclining living room chair. Before them there is John (Gwilym Lee) and Pauline Marter (Michelle Dockery), who fight constantly because the latter doesn’t feel the former’s hobby flying planes is safe, and after them are the Devon (Nicholas Pinnock) and Helen Harris (Nikki Amuka-Bird) and their son Justin (Cache Vanderpuye), who live in the house during the whole mess that was 2020.

All of these stories and others are better than what the movie mostly focuses on, and that means having the weird cinematic experience of being disappointed when Tom Hanks and Robin Wright are back on screen.

Without much emotional weight to speak of beyond its very broad and generic swings, Here is a style over substance exercise for Robert Zemeckis. This isn’t to say that it doesn’t have value, as the style is impressive – but it doesn’t leave much of an impact. It’s a movie worth seeing once just to witness the way it is able to operate and respect the craft that went into it, but in the immediate aftermath of my screening, the idea of ever revisiting it feels unnecessary.

While nowadays it can be counted among the children’s movies that in retrospect weren’t so appropriate for children, there’s no question that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a classic. From being packed with lines that still hit fresh to boasting many interesting behind-the-scenes facts, the movie about private investigator Eddie Valiant working to prove the innocence of popular toon Roger Rabbit has retained critical acclaimed status ever since it was released in 1988. Unfortunately, a sequel never followed, and as much as I hate to admit it, the reasons director Robert Zemeckis shared for why Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 can never happen make sense.

Disney’s Current Leadership Allegedly Isn’t Interested In Roger Rabbit

Zemeckis stopped by Happy Sad Confused to talk with host Josh Horowitz about his 2024 movie release Here, and during the latter portion of their conversation, Who Framed Roger Rabbit came up. Horowitz brought up how he’d learned from Zemeckis years earlier that Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman, who wrote the 1988 movie, had also penned a sequel that the filmmaker was “really excited about,” prompting Zemeckis to say:

I have no doubt that another major hurdle towards making Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 is how it would be a lot harder for Disney to comes to arrangements with other companies to utilize their cartoon characters, like Warner Bros. with the Looney Tunes, compared to in the late 1980s. But with the way Robert Zemeckis is talking, it sounds like that’s a moot point. The powers-that-be at the Mouse House apparently just aren’t interested in revisiting this property, which Zemeckis says is due to the scantily-clad Jessica Rabbit. In that last sentence, Zemeckis is referring to how Jessica has been seen wearing a trench coat and fedora in the artwork for the Roger Rabbit’s Car Toon Spin rides at Disneyland and Tokyo Disneyland since 2021.

The Who Framed Roger Rabbit Sequel Needed To Include Bob Hoskins

Given Disney’s frequent avoidance with sexually suggestive material with its more kid-friendly movies, I can’t say I’m surprised by this explanation Robert Zemeckis gave, though I don’t like it. But even ignoring that corporate preference, without Bob Hoskins, who played Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and died in 2014, there’s no way for the Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 script to be properly realized on the big screen. As the director laid out:

It’d have been one thing to have Bob Hoskins play Eddie Valiant as a ghost while he was still around, but even on the off chance Disney was willing to look the other way on Jessica Rabbit, work out deals with those other companies and move forward with Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2, it wouldn’t feel right have Eddie simply be recast. If a different version of the sequel were put together that starred all-new human characters, then it’d be another thing. Still, what we can take away is that there are just too many obstacles to getting another one of these movies off the ground.

So you’ll just have to make do with streaming Who Framed Roger Rabbit with your Disney+ subscription and enjoy Roger Rabbit’s Car Toon Spin if you find yourself at Disneyland. Otherwise, you can look over the lineup of upcoming Disney movies to see what catches your eye.

Tom Hanks and Robin Wright cemented themselves within the history of cinema when they starred in Robert Zemeckis’ acclaimed dramedy Forrest Gump, which is one of the best ‘90s movies. While many were captivated by their performances, viewers also just relished the sheer chemistry between the two actors. Now, over 30 years later, Hanks and Wright have reunited with Zemeckis for the 2025 movie release Here. Critics just screened the film and, so far, they don’t seem to be too high on it. In fact, many are making the same complaints.

Robert Zemeckis’ latest film was screened at AFI Fest this past week, after which the reviews from critics started pouring in. As teased in Here’s trailer, the filmmaker took a unique approach to the movie in that the camera remains in a single position the entire time. With this, audiences see how the space changes throughout the passage of time, from the prehistoric age to the present. It’s during that stretch that a house is built and multiple families inhabit the space, with their biggest moments being chronicled as time goes on.

Many of the reviews that have surfaced so far have criticized the Back to the Future star’s story as well as his creative decision for the film’s visual approach. Richard McGuire's 2014 graphic novel of the same name (from which the film is adapted) also limited the action to a single perspective per panel. However, THR’s David Rooney argues that this method does not work for the feature film:

Another technical aspect of the movie is that it employs de-aging technology used in The Irishman, Gemini Man and other movies. It’s most prominently used on Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, who play couple Richard and Margaret Young, respectively. Peter Debruge of Variety chided the use of the tech while also sharing less-than-positive thoughts on the strength of the film’s characters:

Based on what IGN’s Siddhant Adlakha had to say, he also believes this is far from one of Robert Zemeckis’ best movies. While discussing the movie (which also stars the likes of Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly and Michelle Dockery), Adlakha also expressed dissatisfaction with the de-aging tech and the unconventional placement of the camera:

There are some critics who had positive thoughts to share on the drama film, though. Pete Hammond of Deadline acknowledged that the Cast Away helmer’s latest has its flaws. However, he ultimately appreciated the efforts from the Oscar-winning director and his cast and crew:

Nevertheless, it feels as though the unusual camera positioning and jarring de-aging techniques were too much for a number of pundits. Mashable’s Kristy Puchko commended Robert Zemeckis for taking some big swings but also echoed some of the sentiments of her peers in regard to the not-so-smooth technical aspects of the film:

Those who’ve been waiting to see a reunion between the lead actors and director of Forrest Gump – which is streamable with a Paramount+ subscription may be disappointed to hear the majority of these reactions. Still, you’ll ultimately want to check this flick out for yourself to form your own opinion. And, who knows, if you’re a fan of Robin Wright’s and Tom Hanks’ movies, you may get something out of the film. With that, you can see Here when it opens in theaters on November 1.

Almost 30 years ago, Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, and Robert Zemeckis made movie history with Forrest Gump; one of the best '90s movies that still holds up for its fans. So it only feels fitting that the trio reunite on the 2024 movie schedule to try and win our hearts over again with the experimental film Here. While the first trailer is as brilliantly bonkers as you’d think, I’m actually kind of ready for people to start meme-ing Gump all over again as a result.

I only say this because of the concept we have at hand here, which is based off of author Richard McGuire’s graphic novel of the same title. Thanks to the first footage released by Tri Star Pictures, we can now see Here’s bold concept at work. And even the studio knew to acknowledge the strong collaboration of its contributors, as seen in this synopsis: 

That is a quintessential Robert Zemeckis story, right down to Tom Hanks and Robin Wright playing their characters through several phases of life. And from the looks of it, the living room area is going to be the sole focus of Here’s uplifting and heartbreaking story. There's a very strong potential here that this movie could become known as one of the best Tom Hanks movies, as well as one of Robin Wright's finest films.

Which leads to why I’m ready for Forrest Gump to continue upholding its tradition as having one of the best '90s movie characters still discussed to this day, in the lead up to this picture’s release. No, I’m not talking about the fact that screenwriter Eric Roth is also reuniting with the Gump gang to tell the story of Here. Instead, I’m here to represent those who are still crushed by the bittersweet ending of Forrest and Jenny’s love story, as it was first realized 30 years ago.

Casting Tom Hanks and Robin Wright in these roles was a fantastic calculation, and not only because of their acting talents. While there’s definitely going to be sorrow and pain in Here, the movie looks to be overall uplifting. And the meme in particular I’m waiting to see is people celebrating that somehow, in a cosmically roundabout way, Forrest and Jenny got their happy ending. 

Though I will admit, it’s hard to look at Here not to feel that sort of nostalgia even without that fictional story at play. I found that to be especially true when looking at this photo of Robert Zemeckis, Tom Hanks, and Robin Wright on the movie’s set: 

If I can get geeky with you all for a moment, I’d like to close on one factor that Here seems to be underselling. You see, for as much as Robert Zemeckis has embraced motion capture and digital trickery in the later era of his career, Here looks to be going mostly practical.

Sure, as you can see in the photo above, the gigantic LED screen known as “The Volume” is being used to portray the outside world. But the living room is an actual set, and it looks as if Wright and Hanks are in actual prosthetic makeup in their aged form. I’m sure there’ll be some light CGI enhancements for the younger years, similar to how Kurt Russell’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 transformation was achieved.

But for someone who’s been picked on for falling into the trap of playing with their toys, it’s nice to see Here potentially marking a return to old school techniques for Robert Zemeckis. I mean, lest we forget how that reputation led to questions about the live-action Pinnochio leading up to its release. 

Although I will admit, no matter what tech was used on that last scene in the trailer, I think I’d still tear up just the same when hearing Tom Hanks deliver the final line of the trailer, and quite possibly the movie. We’ll have to wait and see if that’s true, as we’ve still got a bit of time before then becomes now. And if you’re as intrigued as I am, Here is where you’ll be, only in theaters, on November 15th. 

The 1997 science fiction movie Contact could be remembered for many things. Crafted by the esteemed American astronomer Carl Sagan, the film is celebrated as one of the best space movies ever made and as a highlight in Matthew McConaughey's filmography. Also, Contact's controversial ending continues to spark discussions among fans and critics alike. Amidst these notable attributes, one aspect of the film particularly captivates audiences and filmmakers: the enigmatic mirror scene. This complicated sequence has even puzzled industry veterans, like James Wan, who expressed his fascination with it in a new social media post. But I know how it was executed, so let’s dissect the iconic sequence.

Few scenes have sparked as much intrigue and head-scratching as the iconic mirror scene, directed by Robert Zemeckis. James Wan, the mastermind behind blockbuster horror movies like The Conjuring and Saw, recently took to his Instagram stories, posting a clip of the mirror scene and expressing his bewilderment in a caption that read:

It's a solid question from the Aquaman director. How did they do it? Lets jump into it. 

The Contact Scene In Question

The sequence, which you can see embedded below, features young Ellie (Jena Malone) running up the stairs and into the bathroom to retrieve her father's medication. It culminates in a mirror reflection shot that defies conventional logic and camera placement. 

The scene's genius lies in its seamless blend of practical effects and early digital wizardry. The DVD release of Contact sheds light on the making of this iconic scene through three commentary tracks, including insights from the film's visual effects supervisors, Ken Ralston and Stephen Rosenbaum. Their explanations reveal a meticulously planned sequence designed to convey Ellie's emotional turmoil without the visual presence of her father.

Initially, the concept for this scene was vastly different, Ralston told VFXblog: 

However, as the scene's focus shifted solely towards Ellie, the execution transformed into a masterful blend of practical effects and digital ingenuity.

How Robert Zemeckis Pulled Off the Mirror Scene

The final product combines two shots and one still image, cleverly blended to give the impression of a single, uninterrupted shot. Shot A captures Ellie's sprint up the stairs and down the hallway, ending with her reaching out to a nonexistent cabinet handle. The camera operator used a Vista Vision camera to track this movement in reverse.

In Shot B, the camera faces a blue screen placed where the mirror should be on the cabinet. It pulls back to match the pace and movement of Shot A, ensuring that the transition between the two shots appears seamless and continuous.

The pivotal moment occurs when Ellie reaches for the cabinet handle, which ingeniously emerges from the lower-left corner of the frame as the camera pulls back from the blue screen. This clever manipulation tricks the viewer's perception, making the handle's appearance feel unexpected and natural.

The popular YouTube channel The Corridor Crew did a brilliant breakdown and reaction of the scene, if you want to go into more detail. 

It's hardly surprising that James Wan remains amazed by the ingenuity of the mirror scene in Contact. This sequence was the result of careful planning by the director, cinematographer, and visual effects team to maximize its emotional impact through visual storytelling. Given the lasting impression it continues to make nearly thirty years later, it seems all involved achieved their goal because we are still talking about it as one of the best movies of the 1990s.

Check out our 2024 movie schedule to see what other exciting movies are coming to a theater near you. 

The directors on this list are among the greatest in the history of cinema, with films that are considered the best of all time; films that will never be forgotten. What about those movies they brought all their tremendous talents to, but which aren’t remembered as well? Here is our list of great movies, by great directors, that don’t get talked about enough these days. 

The Frighteners - Peter Jackson

The Frighteners is such a great movie, and it’s criminally underrated. No, it's not as sprawling or overwhelming as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, but it has all the heart and more. Michael J. Fox leads as a con man/exorcist who can see and interact with ghosts. The Frightners is really funny, well-paced, and delightful. 

The King Of Comedy - Martin Scorsese 

When you think of Martin Scorsese, “comedy” is not usually the first word that pops into your head, but The King Of Comedy is really a pretty great movie, and while it’s technically a comedy, it’s really dark. Goodfellas has some comedy in it, like Joe Pesci acting like a clown… but a true (dark) comedy? This Robert De Niro and Jerry Lewis-led film stands alone in Scorsese’s canon. 

Peggy Sue Got Married - Francis Ford Coppola

Peggy Sue Got Married is a deceptively simple film. Unlike Francis Ford Coppola’s more-talked-about epics like The Godfather films and Apocalypse Now, this film, starring Nicolas Cage and Kathleen Turner, is smaller, but that doesn’t mean it’s lesser. It’s a weird time-travel tale, but at its heart, it’s really a love story, and while it's not Coppola’s best work, it’s well worth a watch and should be talked about more often. 

Jackie Brown - Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Taratino has famously said that his next movie, his 10th, could be his last. Whether that holds true or not remains to be seen, but it’s a safe bet Jackie Brown will still be his least talked about.

Strange Days - Kathryn Bigelow

Kathryn Bigelow’s won Oscars (for The Hurt Locker) and she’s directed cult classics (Point Break). Strange Days is certainly closer to the latter. In it, Bigelow dabbles in science fiction, a rarity for her, but it’s unsurprising, as Strange Days was written by her then-husband James Cameron. It doesn’t have the iconic quotes that Point Break has, nor is it as white-knuckle as The Hurt Locker, but it is a great time capsule to filmmaking in the mid-90s and well worth remembering. 

Amistad - Steven Spielberg

Wedged between The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan in Steven Spielberg’s filmography, is Amistad. It’s easy to understand why this powerful historical drama revolving around a landmark court case regarding the slave trade is overlooked, but it shouldn’t be. It’s a moving story, told expertly as only Spielberg can, with a monster cast including Matthew McConaughey, Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, and Djimon Hounsou, among many others. 

Clockers - Spike Lee

Let’s be clear here, Clockers is not Spike Lee’s finest work. It doesn’t reach the heights of movies like Do The Right Thing or Malcolm X, but it's still a really good movie. It gets lost in Lee’s stellar filmography, which is understandable. It’s also a testament to just how good Lee’s career has been. 

Talk Radio - Oliver Stone

Talk Radio has everything you expect from an Oliver Stone movie. Its pacing and storytelling are perfect, it’s a fascinating and terrifying story that pulls from the real-world events of a murdered radio show host. It also has a healthy dose of conspiracy, as any great Stone film does. 

The Bling Ring - Sofia Coppola

Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring is a meta-tastic heist film that is not only a ton of fun to watch with celebrity cameos and great acting performances, but it also touches on some of the emerging trends that exploded in the years after the movie came out, notably influencer culture. It’s too often overlooked in Coppola’s stellar filmography. 

The Game - David Fincher

David Fincher is a master, and his filmography is full of great movies, like Se7en and Fight Club. The movie he made between those two classic is The Game with Sean Penn and Michael Douglas. Understandably, it’s overshadowed, but it’s an amazing film that is every bit as good as those two more talked-about movies. Even when people watch Fincher’s whole body of work, The Game gets overlooked and it shouldn’t. 

Casualties Of War - Brian De Palma

Casualties of War was released in 1989, which was the tail end of a slew of excellent Vietnam War movies released in the late ‘80s, like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Hamburger Hill. Despite earning well-deserved praise from critics, the Brian De Palma film bombed, and as such, it's unfortunately one of the director’s least talked about movies when it should be one of the most. 

Matchstick Men - Ridley Scott

Usually, when movie fans talk about Ridley Scott, it’s his sprawling historical epics like Gladiator or Napoleon that dominate the conversation, along with sci-fi classics like Alien and Blade Runner. Matchstick Men is a smaller movie, a dark comedy about a con man with a myriad of personal problems played by Nicolas Cage. It’s a wonderful performance by Cage, and despite not performing well at the box office, it’s been well-reviewed over the years.

Inherent Vice - Paul Thomas Anderson

Inherent Vice from Paul Thomas Anderson is a complicated movie, based on a complicated book by Thomas Pinchon. It’s easy to understand why it’s not as talked about as some of Anderson’s other movies, like There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights, but it’s every bit as good as those, featuring great acting performances and wonderful cinematography. 

Out Of Sight - Steven Soderbergh

Steven Soderberg is known for stylish filming techniques with snappy dialog and interesting plot twists. It’s all right there in Out Of Sight, but the movie still gets overlooked. It was Soderbergh’s first big-budget film, and maybe that’s why it doesn’t get talked about enough. It was also his first collaboration with George Clooney, which makes it even more confounding that it’s not more popular. 

Barry Lyndon - Stanley Kubrick

It’s hard to really argue that any of Stanley Kubrick’s films are not talked about enough, but Barry Lyndon comes the closest here. It’s most revered for its cinematography, but it’s also a wonderful story. While it doesn’t have the panache of A Clockwork Orange or the scope of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it’s still a Kubrick film and it’s one of the best ever made. 

Stardust - Matthew Vaughn

Matthew Vaughn has quietly put together one of the finest resumes in Hollywood. The Kingsman movies are a hot franchise, he’s dabbled in Marvel, and may have inspired the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond after directing him in Layer Cake. Stardust seems to get lost in the shuffle, but it’s maybe, low key, his best film. 

Ryan's Daughter - David Lean

David Lean is rightfully most remembered for three films, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago. Lost in the discussion of those films is Ryan’s Daughter, a retelling of Madame Bovary set at the end of World War I. It was the last film Lean directed for 14 years and we can only wonder what he might have done had he not semi-retired. 

Fantastic Mr. Fox - Wes Anderson

Wes Anderson has developed one of the most distinct styles in film history, which translates brilliantly to animation, as well. Anderson’s first foray into the genre was Fantastic Mr. Fox, starring George Clooney, Meryl Streep, and Bill Murray, among others. While it may never outshine his live-action classics, it should be discussed more as one of his best works. 

Bound - The Wachowskis

The DNA of the Wachowskis is very evident in Bound, their first movie. It was made on a shoestring budget, so it doesn’t have the over-the-top effects of The Matrix series, but you can see where they were headed in their filmmaking. 

Intolerable Cruelty - Coen Brothers

When you have a filmography like the Coen Brothers, inevitably, some of the movies won’t get talked about as much as others. Intolerable Cruelty is one of those that gets lost in the mix, behind movies like The Big Lebowski and others that are among the best movies of the ‘90s and beyond. 

Insomnia - Christopher Nolan

Christopher Nolan is among the most beloved directors of the 21st century, creating what feels like independent films, but with monster budgets. That DNA was on display early in his career with Insomnia, which has everything you’d expect from a Nolan movie, but with less than half the budget of Oppenheimer. 

The Fan - Tony Scott

There are few better action directors in Hollywood history than Tony Scott. Most remembered today for classics like Top Gun, and Days of Thunder, The Fan should be talked about more. It’s not a perfect movie, but De Niro’s performance is terrifying (in a great way) as a baseball fan obsessed with Wesley Snipes' character. It’s action horror, and it’s great. 

Vincent And Theo - Robert Altman

Robert Altman had one of the most up-and-down careers in Hollywood history. After a string of successes in the ‘80s, his career was almost sunk by Popeye. It took years for him to rebound, but he did with Vincent & Theo. That led to a career revival, but it’s hardly remembered anymore, overshadowed by his early and later films. 

She's Having A Baby - John Hughes

One of the biggest reasons John Hughes is so loved by people who came of age in the ‘80s and ‘90s was his ability to write and direct genuine teenage characters. That extended to a young married couple starting their lives together in She’s Having A Baby. It’s not as quotable as some of Hughes’ other movies, but it’s still sharply written and a fun watch. 

Only The Lonely - Chris Columbus

Chris Columbus has some directed some huge films in his career, most notably Home Alone and Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone. He's also got movies like Mrs. Doubtfire and Adventures in Babysitting on his resume. One film that is not talked about enough is Only The Lonely starring John Candy as a man looking for a wife, but dealing with a controlling mother. 

Beowulf - Robert Zemeckis

Generations of high schoolers have been confounded and frustrated by Beowulf. Some love the old English classic, but many hate it. It takes a bold director to take it on as a movie. Robert Zemeckis makes it work, and work well. Still, given the material, it’s not a surprise it’s not talked about as much as Zemeckis’ more popular movies like Back to the Future. 

Great Expectations - Alfonso Cuaron

Director Alfonso Cuaron has made some of the best movies of the last 20 years, including Roma, Gravity, and Y tu mamá también. One of his films that doesn’t get talked about much anymore is 1998’s Great Expectations starring Gwenyth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke. It’s a bold modernization of the classic Dickens novel that can be polarizing, but still worth talking about more.

Ed Wood - Tim Burton

Of all the movies Tim Burton has made, it’s unsurprising that Ed Wood is one of his least discussed. It’s a love letter to legendary B-Movie director Ed Wood, and despite being filled to the brim with great performances, it's not as popular as many of Burton’s other works. 

Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil - Clint Eastwood

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is not exactly the kind of film you might expect from Clint Eastwood, but you should. Some of his best work is when he strays away from the tough guy movies he’s so well known for and this is a great one, starring John Cusack and Kevin Spacey. 

Away We Go - Sam Mendes

Sam Mendes is best known for movies that cover heavy topics, movies like American Beauty, 1917, and Road to Perdition. That's probably the reason 2009's Away We Go with John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph isn't talked about as much, but it's a sweet movie about a couple dealing with major changes in their life and how to handle them. 

Sleepers - Barry Levinson

Sleepers is a dark, dark film. It's also really, really good. With an all-star cast that includes Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Kevin Bacon, and many more, it's surprising it doesn't get talked about as much as some of director Barry Levinson's other work, but given the subject matter, it can be a very hard watch.  

High Anxiety - Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks is a living legend and his filmography is filled with some of the most quotable movies of all time. One that doesn't get quoted much, or even talked about much, is High Anxiety. It was, believe it or not, the first time Mel Brooks also played the lead in one of his movies, so that alone should garner more attention. 

Great directors usually have long filmographies, so it's only natural that some of their finest work would be talked about less than their most groundbreaking or biggest films. That said, many movies should be talked about as much as those classics, but aren't. Here's to that changing now! 

With Yellowstone’s fifth season set to take over television in November, having just unveiled its first big trailer, viewers are ready to watch Kelly Reilly bring Beth Dutton’s delectably ruthless energy back to the small screen. It looks like we don’t even have to wait until it debuts to learn where Reilly will next bring her talents. She’ll be trading off one Hollywood legend co-star in Kevin Costner for another in Tom Hanks, as she’s been tapped to join the latter in the upcoming Miramax and Sony drama Here. 

Reilly will be jumping from one wildly talented ensemble to another, as Here not only stars Tom Hanks, but also WandaVision’s Paul Bettany (who was cast two days prior) and Wonder Woman 1984’s Robin Wright. And considering the film is being helmed by the award-winning Robert Zemeckis, one can only expect there are even more A+ cast members yet to be announced. 

The casting news from Deadline unfortunately doesn’t dig into any details behind who the actress might play, although the unique formatting of the film and its graphic novel source material play more importance on setting than specific characters. So she may play one person, or she may take on a variety of roles throughout the film, depending on how thing are handled in the script, which was penned by Zemeckis and Eric Roth, based on the acclaimed comic work from Richard McGuire, which was published in full in 2014. 

Here will follow the original work’s concept of centering on a single location across a wide stretch of time, though it may expand out from a single room to something more house-sized. It’s not clear if it will jump around in time as the book did, but the location’s story technically starts before recorded history as just a patch of wilderness in New England, and only much later did people come around to build a house on the land. The story will be one of loving and losing, of uplift and heartbreak, with legacies locked and fates intertwined along the way.

Here will be something of a reunion movie across the board. It will be Kelly Reilly’s first time working with Zemeckis since 2012’s Flight, which was arguably her breakout theatrical role here in the U.S. And she also had a pretty talented lead in that flick as well in the form of Denzel Washington.

The project also marks a reconnection between the rest of its current team, minus Bettany. Zemecki and Roth co-penned the screenplay for Forrest Gump, which starred Hanks and Wright, and was the Best Picture winner at the Oscars that year, where it won a slew of other trophies. So it stands to reason that this new project will automatically have awards voters paying attention when it arrives. 

For those who can’t wait to see Reilly back in boozy and bitchy Beth mode alongside Kevin Costner as her hard-living father, Yellowstone Season 5 will make its debut on Paramount Network on Sunday, November 13, with a double-episode premiere. Of course, being married to Rip now may make her a little happier in the early days. I’d say to hypothetically imagine if Here centered on one of those houses within the main ranch house, but then Taylor Sheridan is already letting that idea play out in large-scale form with the various prequel spinoffs, such as the impending 1923 with Harrison Ford, filling in the family history.

Here doesn’t yet appear to have a release window tentatively set, so we’ll just have to stay tuned for updates as the months go by. Head to our 2022 movie premiere schedule to see what’s heading to theaters and streaming in the meantime.

The original animated Pinocchio was only the second animated feature to come from the Walt Disney Studio, making it by far the oldest movie yet to get a live-action remake. Similar to others before it – like The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast – Pinocchio largely follows the formula set forth by the original, but it adds enough that’s new and different to make for an entertaining watch for those who are already fans.

Even if you’ve never seen the original Disney's Pinocchio, you likely know the story. A lonely woodcarver (Tom Hanks) creates the wooden boy and wishes for him to be real. The Blue Fairy (Cynthia Erivo) hears the wish and grants it. Pinocchio (voiced by Benjamin Evan Ainsworth) is given life, though to become a real boy, he must prove himself to be brave, honest, and selfless. To aid in that goal, he’s teamed with conscience advocate Jiminy Cricket (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).

With a main character that is entirely CGI, Pinocchio's digital effects were always going to be important, and for the most part, the film succeeds. The fact that most of you main characters who are CGI– from Pinocchio himself to a couple of anthropomorphic animals – don’t need to look “real” in the strict sense, certainly helps. Jiminy Cricket himself was clearly the toughest character to create, and he still works overall. 

As far as the plot beats go, the live-action remake doesn’t stray too far away from the animated original. All the major characters and elements are there, and things progress from start to finish as you expect they will. That’s not to say there aren’t some changes to that plot in the broader strokes.

The live-action Pinocchio is more of a musical than its predecessor. 

While we tend to think of most of Disney’s animated films as musicals, most of the early films are not. They are simply films with music. The live-action Pinocchio still isn’t quite a musical, but it’s closer to it, as the team of Alan Silvestri and Glen Ballard have created five original songs to go along with classics like “I’ve Got No Strings” and “When You Wish Upon a Star.” 

The new pieces probably aren’t going to become overnight classics, but they’re good songs that don’t feel out of place alongside songs that are over 80-years-old, and they give us an excuse to hear Tom Hanks sing. 

The biggest change is that Pinocchio is actually a much more sympathetic protagonist this time around than he was in 1940. In the animated film, the living puppet gets into trouble because he specifically chooses to reject what his conscience tells him. Here Pinocchio does try a bit harder to listen, but circumstances are set against him in a way that results in the same ultimate fate.

Tom Hanks is great, as usual, but Pinocchio could use more of him.

The change is significant as it largely impacts the themes in the story. While Pinocchio still learns the value of honesty and bravery, that doesn’t feel like it’s supposed to be the point here, and what the point is feels like it gets lost. 

Without going into spoiler territory, the finale of this new Pinocchio seems to present the ending of characters arcs that never got properly started, and that’s a shame because the ideas inside them, primarily as they pertain to the relationship between the wooden boy and his father, could have been special if they’d been given more time. One wonders if there are scenes on the cutting room floor.

Tom Hanks is fantastic as Geppetto; he’s endearing and always watchable, and it would have been nice to be able to watch more of him. Pinocchio sets up more of a history for the character than the animated film does, giving us an idea of who this man is and why we’ve found him in this place, but then it does nothing with this information.

Disney+’s Pinocchio has some surprisingly dark moments that may make the movie a little much for the youngest viewers. 

Another standout performance comes from the nearly unrecognizable Luke Evans as The Coachman. The role is significantly expanded from the animated film, and includes one of the previously mentioned original songs. Evans’ Coachman is quite a disturbing character, he brings a palpable evil that’s an excellent counterpoint to all of Geppetto’s goodness.

Pleasure Island, meanwhile, is arguably the darkest place that a Disney live-action remake has ever gone. Where the animated movie embraced the freedom of Pleasure Island, this version of Pinocchio finds himself there by chance, and he doesn’t really want to be. His unease is palpable, and ultimately justified. There are both figurative and literal monsters in the dark trying to get him. 

In the end, the live-action Pinocchio is neither the best nor the worst of this particular corner of Disney's universe. It's mostly fine. As a piece of technical filmmaking it brings the Disney story of Pinocchio to life impressively, but it could have given the story new life, and there it comes up short. 

Christmas is here, which means it's time to take another ride on The Polar Express. Now part of the annual Christmas movie rotation, looking behind the scenes at the adaptation of Chris Van Allsburg's classic children’s book shows the film’s impact goes beyond providing some holiday cheer.

The Polar Express tells the story of a young boy who is questioning whether or not he believes in Santa Claus. Then, on Christmas Eve, a magical train - the Polar Express - appears outside his home and whisks him away to the North Pole to restore his belief in Santa and all that he embodies.

The 2004 film was made by Robert Zemeckis and starred Tom Hanks - the pair’s third collaboration after Forrest Gump and Cast Away. Hanks, as has been well documented, played six different roles through the magic technology of performance capture, including the young boy, the conductor and Santa himself. (If you didn’t know that, well hey, bonus fact for you.)

So what went into making The Polar Express? Let’s take a look at these fun behind-the-scenes facts.

Tom Hanks Was The First To Hop On The Polar Express

Chris Van Allsburg published The Polar Express in 1985. The book was praised for its simple but heart-warming story and its gorgeous illustrations. It quickly became a staple for any household with young children at Christmas time. That included the Hanks household.

Hanks, in an interview with IGN in the lead-up to The Polar Express’ initial release, said that he had been reading the story to his kids since it came out. So, in 1999 he acquired the rights to make a film adaptation. In describing what drew him to bringing the story to the big screen, Hanks said:

There was one condition that Allsburg stipulated when giving Hanks the rights - he did not want the film to be animated. This would ultimately lead to the decision on using performance capture, but we’ll talk more about that in a bit.

Rob Reiner, Not Zemeckis, Was Originally Attached To Direct

Despite Hanks’ history with Robert Zemeckis, he was not the first director attached to The Polar Express. Instead, the first man expected to be behind the camera was This Is Spinal Tap and The Princess Bride director Rob Reiner. Reiner, while never directing Hanks before, starred opposite him in Sleepless in Seattle.

Hanks’ Playtone production company partnered with Reiner’s Castle Rock when the movie was in development as a directing vehicle for Reiner, with Hanks at that point only planning to play the conductor.

However, as often happens as movies develop, things changed. Reiner bowed out of the director’s chair. While he has no official credit with the film, Castle Rock still served as one of its production companies.

Performance Capture Wasn’t Always The Plan

As mentioned above, Van Allsburg did not want The Polar Express to be an animated film. Robert Zemeckis, after he came onboard as director, agreed, thinking that the book’s classic look would not work with traditional animation techniques. However, he also didn’t believe it was possible to film The Polar Express the way it needed to be done as a live-action movie.

However, the decision to go with performance capture technology, which was still in its infancy at this point, was no certainty. In fact, Zemeckis was toying with a few ideas to shoot the film, including using green-screens to place live-action actors in digital environments like George Lucas did with the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Ken Ralston, who had worked with Zemeckis on Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Forrest Gump, was actually the one that pushed for performance capture.

But it still had to be tested out. David Schaub, The Polar Express animation supervisor, journaled his work on the film for Animation World Network, where he detailed that it took his team three months to experiment and produce the eight shots of performance capture that would be presented to Warner Bros. as a proof of concept.

Even though they were learning on the job on how to make all the body movements right, performance capture won out.

The Polar Express Was Shot Entirely In A 10x10-Foot Area

Once the decision was made to use performance capture, the whole production changed. One of the most notable ways was that a traditional set was no longer needed. Instead, filming Hanks and the rest of the cast would take place entirely in a 10x10-foot area on a soundstage, which Hanks actually found freeing.

Once again in his interview with IGN, Hanks said:

Zemeckis would use that footage from the day, and thanks to having multiple cameras on set capturing the action in 360-degrees, the technology of performance capture could then create almost any type of shot Zemeckis wanted.

The Infamous "Dead Eye" Problem

Of course, performance technology didn’t have all of its kinks out yet. One of the major concerns from the early days of the technology, including for The Polar Express, is that the character’s were often described as dead-eyed.

A piece in Wired explaining the performance capture technology in 2004 detailed that Hanks had about 152 markers on his face that would take about 50 minutes to apply to capture his performance (still better than the make-up Jim Carrey had to go through for his Christmas movie How the Grinch Stole Christmas). However, even with all of those markers, there was still a problem capturing the movements of the eyes.

David Schaub, again in his AWN journal, said that the problem was that the markers would become occluded under the fat pad between the lids and the brow, essentially rendering them unusable. So, instead of performance capture, they went with animated eyes and eyebrows.

Josh Hutcherson Served As Tom Hanks’ Stand-In

With Tom Hanks taking on so many roles in The Polar Express, including some that appeared on screen together, they had to find a young actor to serve as his stand-in for Hero Boy in certain scenes. That job would go to Josh Hutcherson, of The Hunger Games franchise.

Hutcherson is one of three people who are credited with bringing Hero Boy to life. The other two are Hanks and Daryl Sabara, who provided the voice for the character.

Thankfully for us, Hutcherson’s time working on The Polar Express wasn’t uneventful. In an interview with James Corden, Hutcherson revealed that he had a slightly embarrassing moment when acting opposite Hanks.

The Polar Express Has A Great Back To The Future Easter Egg

The Polar Express is a magical train, picking up kids from all over the world on Christmas Eve, whisking them away to the North Pole and returning them safely to their beds before Christmas morning. How does it do all this? A previous Robert Zemeckis film may have the answer.

Zemeckis directed the Back to the Future trilogy, and some eagle-eyed viewers of The Polar Express noticed that the flux capacitor is present in the engineer’s booth. Another fun tidbit connecting the two films, though it is never specifically mentioned, the film is set in 1955, the same year that Marty McFly traveled to in Back to the Future.

Maybe Doc Brown donated his time traveling train to Santa when he was all done with it.

Guinness World Records Recognizes The Polar Express As First Film to Entirely Use Performance Capture

Performance capture technology was not invented for The Polar Express. Films like The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings had used it in some form or capacity previously. However, as certified by Guinness World Records, The Polar Express is the first film to be made entirely with performance capture technology.

Also, it is still recognized as the longest performance capture film at 1 hour and 33 minutes. Zemeckis’ would return to the technology for Beowulf and The Christmas Carol - as well as portions of Welcome to Marwen - however Guinness says that its records are up to date, so it is likely that some other technology was used to help bring those films to life and keeps The Polar Express in the record books.

There’s no better time of year to rewatch The Polar Express, and when you do you can now share some of these details to impress your family and friends. Happy holidays all!

CinemaBlend participates in affiliate programs with various companies. We may earn a commission when you click on or make purchases via links.

A recent controversy has been forming around director Robert Zemeckis’ remake of Roald Dahl’s The Witches, as the depiction of Anne Hathaway’s Grand High Witch has touched off backlash surrounding her physical appearance. The specific attribute in question is the fact that the new imagining of this classic villain has apparently linked her villainy to her deformities, which has sparked a reaction similar to that against the stereotype of using facial scaring as shorthand for villains. Which has led to Hathaway herself issuing a sincere apology on social media, in the wake of this reaction.

Through her official Instagram presence, Anne Hathaway posted an extensive apology detailing her regret for the feelings that The Witches has inspired with people who possess limb differences. In addition to her own personal reaction, Hathaway also shared a video from the Lucky Fin Project, an organization that “exists to raise awareness and celebrate children, individuals, and families affected by limb differences.” Her apology begins as follows:

For reference, moviegoers can re-watch Anne Hathaway's performance in The Witches on HBO Max. You can use this link to sign up for the streaming service.

Anne Hathaway has always been a mindful person when it comes to selecting her roles, as well as in her own everyday life. That distinction throws her response to The Witches controversy in even sharper relief, as while Hathaway had nothing but respect for the role and the effects wizardry that went into it, she hasn’t shied away from the fact that it’s caused pain to a particular faction of her audience. Continuing to apologize for this unintentional crisis, Anne Hathaway made this further statement abundantly clear:

With this apology on the books, a very important lesson in inclusion has been raised for the public to take note of. Anne Hathaway’s words go a long way to addressing the matter, but of course, it’s now up to content creators and actors to be more mindful of such depictions in the coming future. We’ll see what sort of effect this issue has on future productions, and as for those of you who are still interested in checking out the new remake of The Witches, it’s currently available for streaming on HBO Max.

The Back To The Future trilogy is one of the most beloved and untouchable movie series of all time. It’s one of those timeless stories cinephiles will never forget or sing higher praise for even 35 years later. As Back To The Future’s director and co-writer Robert Zemeckis returns to the fold for HBO Max’s The Witches, Anne Hathaway is hopping aboard the DeLorean at 88 miles per hour to share her love for the film.

When CinemaBlend’s Sean O’Connell spoke to Anne Hathaway in a recent exclusive interview, the actress couldn’t help but gush about her recent collaborator’s most famous work. Great Scott, it’s heavy. In her words:

It’s true. Once you start talking about Back To The Future, there’s just too much to talk about. It really is a perfect film. The comments come after CinemaBlend asked Hathaway what her favorite of the three movies is. Hathaway instantly jumped to the original 1985 movie that takes Marty McFly back to the ‘50s to meet his parents while they are in high school. After being in the wrong place in the wrong time, he has to help set them up before he can return to the ‘80s.

Anne Hathaway geeked a bit out more by discussing Christopher Lloyd’s unforgettable Doc Brown. She related the character to her own experience on The Witches saying,

Robert Zemeckis does have a knack for giving actors some unforgettable roles. Doc Brown is absolutely irreplaceable, even if that deep fake with Robert Downey Jr and Tom Holland has us itching for some sort of tribute to the film by the MCU actors. In The Witches, Anne Hathaway plays an evil demon who goes through a seriously terrifying physical transformation. Hathaway goes absolutely batshit and it's glorious.

The Witches has received a mixed response overall, with CinemaBlend’s Eric Eisenberg giving the film a three out of five in his review. The movie follows the 1990 version starring Angelica Huston, which had a much different and happier conclusion than this new version of the movie. The movie based on the Roald Dahl book also stars Octavia Spencer, Chris Rock and Stanley Tucci.

Anne Hathaway has a solid answer to the Back To The Future question. Oftentimes the second film gets all the love because of it going to the future and the past and the underrated conclusion doesn’t get enough. Y’all, it’s good! Watch it again. The first movie is perfect because it stands alone and isn’t on the shoulders of any other film. What do you think? Vote in our poll below.

This poll is no longer available.

Going back to the 1970s, books by Roald Dahl have been adapted into many films that can be called modern classics with zero hesitation. Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory is perhaps the best regarded, but Danny DeVito’s Matilda, Nicolas Roeg’s The Witches, and Henry Selick’s James And The Giant Peach were childhood staples for many who grew up in the 1990s, and in the 21st century we’ve seen more wonderful work including Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Steven Spielberg’s The BFG. Simply put, the potential for a Dahl adaptation done well can be extreme.

That being said, the terrain traveled by Robert Zemeckis’ new take on The Witches isn’t the standard, specifically because its source material has, as mentioned, already been turned into what is an excellent film. Like Tim Burton’s Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, the movie has not only the pressure to live up to the quality of the book, but also, in a sense, has to justify its existence as a remake.

That being said, there’s good news and there’s bad news. As an adaptation of Roald Dahl’s 1983 book of the same name, the new version of The Witches is fun and well made, with Anne Hathaway having a particularly delightful time as a bombastic villain; but it’s also a lesser version compared to the 1990 movie, primarily because of the use of CGI and not enough practical effects magic.

Written by the impressive trio of Robert Zemeckis, Kenya Barris, and Guillermo del Toro, the film begins introducing its young, unnamed central protagonist (Jahzir Bruno) shortly after the death of his parents in a car accident. Filled with despair, he moves to Alabama to live with his grandma (Octavia Spencer), and while it takes some time, he eventually finds a way to be happy again. That is, until one fateful day when he wanders off in a supermarket and nearly falls under the spell of a nefarious, mysterious-looking woman with a snake slithering around her arm. When he tells his grandma about it later, she knows exactly what is going on: he was nearly killed by a witch.

As it turns out, witches are very real, and they both despise kids, and enjoy turning them into animals so that they can be killed more easily. Not wanting to take any risks, the boy’s grandma takes him to a local fancy local hotel where she believes they will be safe, and he feels particularly secure when he learns that the location is being used for a meeting of a group known as the International Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Children. Of course, what he doesn’t know is that the I.S.F.T.P.O.C.T.C. is nothing more than a cover for the coven of witches led by the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway), and they are developing a plan to rid the world of children once and for all.

The Witches is still the familiar freaky story you remember, complete with darkness-embracing twists.

The particular allure of Roald Dahl’s children’s books is that they tend to delve into darker corners of the world than most stories in the genre, and Robert Zemeckis is in no way shy about implementing that side of The Witches. This is most definitely a movie appropriate for the Halloween season. The stakes are high as the titular villains represent a serious threat to the safety of the characters, and serious consequences are faced and dealt with, sometimes in grim fashion. It’s certainly not terrifying, as there is a comical undertone present throughout, but there might be some nightmares ahead for more sensitive younger viewers.

Those with everlasting memories of Anjelica Huston’s Grand High Witch revealing her true face are guaranteed to be disappointed.

Simultaneously, in a side-by-side comparison of this version of The Witches and Nicolas Roeg’s version, this is child’s play – and it really comes down to the application of effects. The scene in the 1990 film where Angelica Huston’s Grand High Witch and her coven remove their human costumes to reveal their true forms is a nightmarish horror show, particularly because the lead villain is shown to be a monstrous figure with dripping, elongated features provided by prosthetics designer Stephen Norrington. And the remake can’t touch it. Advances in digital effects over the last 30 years allow it so that Anne Hathaway’s version looks like she has a gaping maw of fangs that stretches ear-to-ear, and she is also made to be bald with a horrible wig rash, but it’s just not even close to the same thing.

This particularly hurts the film because it’s those same advances in digital effects that are typically touted when it comes to filmmakers providing reasons for pursuing a remake; the go-to line is that modern techniques can be used to bring the source material to life like never before. To Robert Zemeckis’ credit, this is very much true in the case of The Witches when it comes to the story’s animal characters (trying my best not to be too spoiler-y here), but it’s disappointing that the steps that are taken forward to improve that area don’t work the same way when it comes to portraying the horror of the movie’s monsters – and that extends not only to the early reveal of what they really look like, but also to the big transformation sequence in the third act.

Anne Hathaway steals the show in The Witches.

The silver lining is that while Anne Hathaway might not scar an entire generation with her turn in The Witches, it’s still a performance deserving accolade. Having spent most of her career playing innocents and princesses, she seems to relish the opportunity to play an ostentatiously evil character – with everything from flashy fashion to a ridiculous accent – and the fun she is having resonates. Her turn is sinister and scary in the moment, and exceptionally entertaining in the big picture.

At the heart of it, The Witches is a faithful adaptation of the book on which it’s based, and those who appreciate the material will also appreciate Robert Zemeckis’ approach to it. If it were the first ever take on the Roald Dahl book it might get higher marks – but there is contextual circumstances to consider, and that’s where the film gets dinged. It’s a fine movie, and one that also sits in the shadow of another.

Tom Hanks has given us plenty of memorable performances, whether it be in classic comedies like Splash or Big or in more dramatic films like Philadelphia or The Post. Of course, the actor also has a couple of major Disney roles under his belt through the Toy Story franchise and Saving Mr. Banks, in which he played Walt Disney himself. Now, it would appear the veteran actor is preparing for another Disney project, and it’s a reimagining of a classic.

Tom Hanks is set to play Geppetto in Disney’s live-action remake of Pinocchio, which will be directed by one of the actor’s biggest collaborators, Robert Zemeckis. According to Deadline, negotiations are still in the early stages, but Hanks has reportedly reached out to Zemeckis to let him know that he’s interested in the role.

Hanks was originally attached to the role of Geppetto back in 2018, when Paul King was attached to the project as director. But per THR’s Borys Kit, when King departed the project, Hanks reportedly lost interest but, upon hearing of Zemeckis’ involvement, Hanks’ interest was reignited.

Should Tom Hanks officially sign on for the project, this would mark his fourth collaboration with Robert Zemeckis. The two previously worked together on Forrest Gump, Cast Away and The Polar Express. Hanks would receive Best Actor nominations at the Oscars for his work in the first two films and would win for his performance in Forrest Gump.

Zemeckis will direct the film from a screenplay by Chris Weitz, who will also produce the film alongside Andrew Miano under their production company, Depth of Field. As of right now, Disney has not announced a release date for Pinocchio.

Disney’s original Pinocchio film was released in 1940 and told the story of a lonely woodcarver who crafts a wooden puppet and is surprised when a fairy grants his wish for the puppet to brought to life. From there, the cheeky wooden boy finds himself on a wild adventure.

Tom Hanks is currently coming off war thriller Greyhound, which was released on Apple TV+ after its theatrical release date was delayed. And last year, he gave an Oscar-nominated performance as Mr. Rogers in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and also reprised his fan-favorite role as Woody in Toy Story 4.

Given Hanks’ ability to blend into almost any kind of role, he should be a great fit for Geppetto. Not only can he bring the necessary enthusiasm that comes with such a magical film, but he can also exude the warmth that the man feels for the wooden boy. And with Hanks reuniting with Robert Zemeckis, the two should be able to continue their positive streak and bring something unique to Disney’s growing stable of live-action adaptations.

Keep it here at CinemaBlend for more news from the world of movies and TV.

CinemaBlend participates in affiliate programs with various companies. We may earn a commission when you click on or make purchases via links.

Warning: spoilers for Cast Away are in play. If you’re not familiar with the film, you might want to turn away from this article. If your name happens to be Wilson, we’re doubly sorry for this fact.

Almost 20 years ago, director Robert Zemeckis and actor Tom Hanks took a pretty big gamble. With the creation of Cast Away, the team that made Forest Gump an award winning blockbuster wanted to tell a specific story, and they wanted to do it in a rather unconventional way. At the time, it sounded crazy, but when you look over some key behind the scenes facts, the attention paid to the film’s details are part of what made it a huge success.

We’ve chosen fifteen key facts behind Cast Away’s unique production to highlight just that, as the path that Zemeckis’ 2000 film took was one that only it could follow. It’s a tale of test screenings, numerous rewrites, and of course, Wilson the Volleyball. Even the inspiration behind the film shows how wild this entire story is, as it all started with Tom Hanks doing some light reading.

The Idea For Cast Away All Started With An Article About Fed-Ex

As it turns out, Tom Hanks was the first party behind the creation of Cast Away. According to a THR roundtable he was a part of, Hanks credits the genesis of the story to the following experience:

Tom Hanks then took the story to writer William Broyles Jr. and director Robert Zemeckis, and through the course of six years, the plot for Cast Away was banged out. And while Fed-Ex inspired the story, it also played a pretty big part of the action. The film had usage of the logo, some key advisors, and even the CEO of Fed Ex itself all for the taking, and for no money down.

Cast Away Was Almost A Comedy

To think that in the story breaking process for Cast Away, the movie had almost became a comedy, is actually pretty funny. When Tom Hanks was working on the script with William Broyles Jr, he had originally envisioned Chuck’s island adventure as a laugh riot, with plenty of shenanigans to be had on his own piece of supposed paradise. Over time though, the script took a reverse Dr. Strangelove approach and became a more serious story of survival and resilience.

There's A Draft Of The Script Where Wilson Came To Life

If you haven’t listened to the director and crew commentary of Cast Away, you’re seriously missing out on some interesting facts. One in particular mentioned that that there was a draft of the film where Wilson was going to come to life and talk. Other interesting concepts that were revealed to be dumped, through director Robert Zemeckis and other speakers, were a vision of Kelly (Helen Hunt) in Chuck’s cave fire, and some other odds and ends.

You’re probably wondering how many drafts one would have to go through in order to get to that sort of point. Well, according to Zemeckis, that number was pretty big:

To crib some dialogue from another Robert Zemeckis classic, that’s pretty heavy.

Cast Away’s Writer Lived Some Of The Character’s Experience As Inspiration

Tom Hanks wanted to work with Cast Away writer William Broyles Jr. after the two had collaborated on director Ron Howard’s historical epic Apollo 13. Bringing the script to Broyles was a key decision, because without forming the team he put together for Cast Away, the script would have never gotten off the ground. When setting out to write the story for the film, Broyles actually went to a survival camp to learn all of the various skills that Chuck Nolan would need to survive on an island. Killing and eating fish, harvesting coconuts, all the basics were learned by Broyles during his time in the wild.

Wilson’s Character Came Out Of A Real Life Experience

Wilson the Volleyball is one of the most popular inanimate objects of film history, all thanks to the believable relationship that Tom Hanks had with his Cast Away co-star. Part of that believability was due to the Academy Award winning chops Hanks displays on screen, but the other key ingredient came from the fact that William Broyles Jr. actually met a volleyball during his survival camp adventure. A random Wilson volleyball that Broyles found on the beach became a random conversation partner, and eventually found its way into the final script.

Cast Away Actually Cast A Copy Machine

Another fun point from the Cast Away commentary came from sound designer Randy Thom, who revealed the fact that the copy machine in Tom Hanks & Helen Hunt’s first scene together was handpicked by Robert Zemeckis:

One has to wonder if the copy machine and Wilson the Volleyball have the same agent, as that’s two inanimate objects that landed crucial Hollywood roles.

Cast Away Went Without A Musical Score For A Very Important Reason

If you haven’t noticed it before, most of Cast Away is devoid of a typical Hollywood soundtrack. That wasn’t for a lack of trying, as Robert Zemeckis’ commentary provided the following explanation:

Instead, Zemeckis and sound designer Randy Thom decided to “score the movie with sound effects”, with various motifs present in the sound effects at any given moment. Alan Silvestri’s limited musical score eventually does come into play during crucial moments of Chuck’s journey off the island, and his return to the mainland.

Cast Away’s Sound Department Almost Caused An Incident With Skywalker Ranch Security

Sound was a really crucial component to how Cast Away worked as a film, especially with the absence of a musical score. Randy Thom’s commentary on working with the film’s soundscape eventually highlighted this fact by mention how the sound department wanted to simulate outdoor acoustics with studio recorded dialogue.

The way that Thom and his crew cracked this challenge was that they’d record pristine audio in the studio, play it outside through a speaker, and re-record it to give it the right sound. This process was done at Skywalker Ranch, in an area that they thought wouldn’t arouse suspicion, and yet when it came to recording the scene where Tom Hanks yells “Help!” at the top of its lungs, it drew attention pretty quickly:

Imagine what would have happened if that incident took place during the production of a Star Wars film.

Wilson Became An Award Winning Actor As A Result

Wilson, Wilson, Wilson. The volleyball of the hour has been a consistent punchline, and one of cinema’s best friends for life. But Cast Away actually landed this inflated actor a once-in-a-lifetime honor, thanks to the 6th Critic’s Choice Awards. He took home the trophy for Best Inanimate Object in the film’s awards season blitz, and Wilson still remains its sole recipient. Should you want to ask him about his various exploits in the industry, you can consult him yourself in your very own home. Be warned though, in true Robert Zemeckis movie fashion, he only speaks to those who truly believe.

Tom Hanks Took A Year Between Shooting To Lose The Weight

Cast Away had one pretty specific catch when it came to being made: it needed to shut down production for a year, so that Tom Hanks could lose the 50 pounds he put on for Chuck Nolan’s pre-island life, and turn into a tanned, svelte Fed-Ex stalwart. So what’s a director to do in order to maintain the studio’s faith in such a project? Make another movie, with the same crew, in the off-season. Robert Zemeckis admitted as much on Cast Away’s commentary:

For those of you keeping score at home, this gamble paid off two fold, as Cast Away was the 3rd highest grossing movie of 2000’s international film market, and What Lies Beneath was the 10th. Both films were released in the same year, with the latter project beating Cast Away to theaters by about five months. And all it took was Tom Hanks’ intense personal training requirements, and some pretty creative moviemaking.

Tom Hanks Almost Died During The Filming Of Cast Away

A random staph infection almost robbed the world of Tom Hanks, as he cut his leg during a scene in Cast Away and refused to have it treated for an extended period of time. Cutting it down to the wire, the actor was supposedly an hour away from dying due to his staph infection. In light of his recent successful battle against the Coronavirus, we can now count two times that Tom Hanks’ DNA beat the devil.

We Wouldn’t Have Lost If It Wasn’t For Cast Away

It’s a pretty long and complicated story, but if it wasn’t for Cast Away inspiring an ABC executive to want to adapt the film into a TV series, we’d have never gotten the hit supernatural mystery series Lost. While Cast Away: The Series never left the tarmac, the idea was given to a writer who would spin it into another idea, which was then given to J.J. Abrams for further work. The rest, as they say, is fan fueled history.

What Was In The Box Tom Hanks' Character Wouldn't Open?

The greatest question of Cast Away history, much like the ending of Seven, centers around the contents of one mysterious box. The “Angel Box” that accompanied Chuck Nolan on his journey to the deserted island was shown to be a huge inspiration to him, as it inspired him to survive and get home to his supposedly waiting fiancée. But according to Cracked, a scene from the widely circulated third draft of the script had a deleted scene that told us exactly what was in there. Stage direction from that draft saw Tom Hanks doing the following:

The letter was from ranch owner Bettina (Lari White), as she was begging her husband, Dick to come back. As we saw in the beginning of the film, and in the final scene between Hanks and White’s characters, Dick stayed in Russia with his mistress, and Chuck Nolan might have been heading over to ask Bettina on a date after their previous encounter. Though maybe he should have opened that box, so as not to waste some good salsa.

Test Audiences Were Brutal To Cast Away

Closing out the film’s commentary track was a pretty interesting fact: Cast Away was Robert Zemeckis' lowest tested movie he'd ever made at the time of recording his commentary. The director opined that the numbers indicated this movie should have flopped, instead of becoming the third highest grossing film of its year.

While those test screenings revealed the fact that Chuck and Kelly don't end up together stymied teen girls, it also highlighted that women 21 and over totally got it. Because of the film’s success in bringing moviegoers who hadn’t been to the movies in a long time back to the table, Zemeckis now rejects the notion of test audiences.

The directing career of Robert Zemeckis and the acting career of Tom Hanks have both been diverse experiences that have yielded some pretty wild stories. But the ones we’ve told you from the production of Cast Away are unquestionable highlights in that particular field, and you can see why as you watch the film.

As luck would have it, you could do just that on HBO Max, should you be a subscriber. If you aren’t, then you can always take advantage of the 7-day free trial that’s being offered, and strand yourself in this soon to be minted classic.

Back to the Future is a timeless (no pun intended) film trilogy that many moviegoers have a soft spot for. As such, some fans probably weren’t too happy when Netflix released a version of Back to the Future Part II that censored a scene in the film.

The Back to the Future Part II scene, in question, is the sequence in which Marty McFly attempts to snatch the sports almanac from Principal Strickland’s office. And as you might remember, when he does grab the book, he finds that it’s only Biff’s dirty magazine. In the Netflix version, the magazine cover is poorly edited out. Fans were quick to notice the change and point it out on social media. Now, it would appear that franchise scribe Bob Gale also had a problem with this altered version and has even gone as far as to tell Universal Pictures to dispose of it.

Bob Gale explained that both he and director Robert Zemeckis had no idea this version of the film existed. According to the writer, it was made because a country took issue with the magazine cover. Because Gale couldn’t (and doesn’t) blame Netflix for this cut of the movie, he went to Universal to make his feelings known:

During his conversation with The Hollywood Reporter, Gale stressed that Netflix was not to blame for this version being released. He also sounds relieved that the original cut of the film is now running on the streaming service:

Censoring films has been a common practice in the entertainment industry, but one could argue that it’s only increased with the rise of streaming services. Disney+ has been particularly active when it comes to this practice. The streamer has already made changes to several films in its library, ranging from Lilo & Stitch to Splash.

While some edits can be helpful, others can sometimes hinder the experience for the viewer, and that seems to have been how Bob Gale felt about the change to Back to the Future Part II. It may be disappointing that it happened in the first place but, on the bright side, Universal seems to have been swift in rectifying its decision.

The Back to the Future trilogy is now available to stream on Netflix.

Back To The Future will forever go down as one of the most exciting, enjoyable, and downright successful movies to hit theaters, but considering everything that happened during the writing, pre-production, and actual filming of Robert Zemeckis' 1985 classic, it's amazing that the DeLorean was able to reach 88 miles per hour in the first place. And some of these behind-the-scenes facts are just as mind-blowing as the thought of time travel in the first place.

There are things like multiple studios passing on the film, the lead role being recast weeks into production, and an explosive ending that was scrapped in pre-production. And while some of the more obsessive Back To The Future fans might know these already, there are some of you out there who are hearing of some of these incidents for the first time.

Sit back, buckle in, because you're gonna see some serious shit…

Bob Gale Came Up With The Movie's Basic Premise After Finding His Dad's High School Yearbook

Prior to settling on the idea that would later become Back To The Future, co-writers Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis had wanted to make a time travel movie for a long time, but the pair struggled on finding a unique way to turn the premise of traveling through time into a fulfilling and well thought out story. Then Gale found a copy of his dad's high school year book and asked himself one simple question — what if he went to high school with his father?

This concept opened the doors for Back To The Future to go from a far-off idea to the most successful movie of 1985 and also helped the writing team easily turn the project into a family friendly story. During an interview with Amblin Road, Bob Gale stated:

The Script Was Rejected 40 Times Before The Production Received The Green Light

But even with a stellar idea and a well-written script Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale still had a hard time finding a studio willing to produce Back To The Future. Several of the studios they pitched the idea to said it was too family friendly and that they would be better off taking it to Disney. Executives at Disney, however, weren't too fond of the idea of Marty McFly constantly having to fight off the advances of his mother, calling it "incest" before rejecting the pitch.

Bob Gale touched on this during a 2015 interview with the Los Angeles Times where he went into great detail about the dozens of unfruitful meetings before he and Zemeckis eventually pitched the idea to their old friend Steven Spielberg, stating:

Michael J. Fox Was The Original Choice For Marty McFly, But Family Ties Initially Got In The Way

If it weren't for Gary David Goldberg, producer of the hit sitcom Family Ties, the whole Eric Stoltz chapter of Back To The Future wouldn't have ever happened. The producers of the 1985 summer blockbuster originally approached Goldberg to see if Michael J. Fox — one of the main stars on the popular show — would be available for the role. Goldberg said it wasn't a possibility, so they moved on.

With Michael J. Fox out of the picture, Eric Stoltz was cast in his place. That experiment would be short-lived as Stoltz was canned a few weeks into shooting for a number of different reasons. With the writing on the wall, Gary David Goldberg was approached once more, this time agreeing to allowing Fox to pull double-duty. Fox touched on this at the 2016 Silicon Valley Comic-Con, where the actor stated (via Business Insider):

With The Dismissal Of Eric Stoltz Inevitable, The Crew Began Shooting Around The Actor

While Steven Spielberg, Bob Gale, and Robert Zemeckis were fighting tooth and nail to hire Michael J. Fox to take over the role of Marty McFly, the film crew went to some great lengths to continue shooting the movie while also finding ways to shoot around Eric Stoltz to limit the number of reshoots that would be required once a new actor was brought on.

This was detailed in Caseen Gaines behind-the-scenes book We Don't Need Roads: The Making Of The Back To The Future Trilogy (via Digital Spy), where members of the cast and crew revealed the lengths they would go to limit the soon-to-be-canned actor's appearance, including the Twin Pines Mall scene, with director of photography Dean Cundey stating:

Footage Of Stoltz As Marty McFly Appears In The Final Cut

Though it has long been thought that none of the footage from Eric Stoltz's four weeks on the set would ever see the light of day (besides grainy behind-the-scenes footage that has appeared online over the years), there appears to be at least one shot in the final release of Back To The Future that features the original Marty McFly.

In 2015, the Too Old To Grow Up YouTube account posted a video that catches a brief glimpse of Eric Stoltz's face when Marty McFly goes to punch Biff Tannen in the diner scene. In addition to seeing a blurry image of Stoltz, the video also features a snippet of an interview with Thomas F. Wilson, where the actor behind Biff stated:

Unlike His Character, Biff, Thomas Wilson Was The One Getting Roughed Up On Set

The producers of Back To The Future weren't the only ones upset with Eric Stoltz during his four weeks on set as at least one of the actors — Thomas F. Wilson — got tired of the former Marty McFly's method approaching to acting.

In another excerpt from Caseen Gaines' book We Don't Need Roads (via Vulture), it is revealed the relationship between Stoltz and Wilson became especially strained while filming the school cafeteria scene in which Marty pushes Biff. During the filming, Wilson became upset after Stolz continued to push into Wilson's collarbone with a great deal of strength several times after he asked Stoltz to cool it.

In the book, Wilson said that he planned on getting even with Stoltz later in filming, but the actor was canned before Wilson could get his revenge.

The Production Crew Had To Find A Workaround When Crispin Glover Lost His Voice

Crispin Glover is eccentric to say the very least. Over the course of his career, Glover has made a name for himself based on strange things he has done in both his professional and personal life, like the time he made himself so nervous on the set of Back To The Future that he actually lost his voice.

During a 1987 appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, Crispin Glover went into detail about the incident, stating that he became so nervous that he couldn't speak and had to say the lines without his voice and then go back and add his voice in during post-production.

Huey Lewis Wrote Two Songs For The Movie

You can't have the biggest movie of the summer without having a song just as popular on the soundtrack, and that's exactly what happened with the release of Back To The Future and the soundtrack featuring not one, but two songs from Huey Lewis And The News. But the coupling almost didn't happen, as Lewis explained in an interview with CBS News, stating:

After some convincing, Lewis told Zemeckis that he would send over the next song that he wrote, which just so happened to be "Power Of Love," the main song from the movie and the track that anchored the soundtrack. But that wasn't all, as Lewis would write "Back In Time" for the soundtrack as well.

And fans of Huey Lewis And The News will notice the legendary frontman's brief cameo as the school administrator who tells Marty McFly and The Pineheads that they're "just too darn loud" when performing "Power Of Love."

Jeff Goldblum Was Considered For The Role Of Doc Brown

Filling the role of Marty McFly wasn't the only tough casting decision the producers had to make when preparing to shoot Back To The Future as they had to find the perfect fit for Doc Brown, which ultimately went to the Christopher Lloyd.

Before Lloyd was hired there were rumors that everyone from John Lithgow to Jeff Goldblum were eyed for the role, but as Bob Gale revealed in an interview with Premium Hollywood, there was only one other guy besides Lloyd that was up for the role:

Now I'm just trying to imagine Dr. Ian Malcolm as Doc Brown.

Marty Was Originally Going To Use A Nuclear Blast To Get Back To 1985

This last little tidbit of Back To The Future behind-the-scenes goodness comes from a 2016 article in The Sun newspaper that showcased a few of the storyboards from the original ending that was eventually scrapped.

The original ending called for Marty to get back to the future not by a lightening strike but by driving through a nuclear test at 88 miles per hour. According to the article, the producers believed that the idea would be far too expensive to shoot and decided on the ending we eventually saw in the final release.

Those are just 10 fascinating facts from the making of Back To The Future. Did you learn anything today or is this all old news to you by now? Let us know in the comments below. And make sure to check back to see where you can watch Back To The Future for yourself here at CinemaBlend.

There are few movies more culturally recognizable and instantly quotable as 1994's Best Picture winning Forrest Gump. Director Robert Zemeckis' adored adaptation of Winston Gloom's 1986 novel proved the Back to the Future director was one of the most prestigious filmmakers of the late 20th century, and it cemented Tom Hanks' status as an A-list actor when he won his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar after the actor's well-acclaimed performance in 1993's Philadelphia. But much like a box of chocolates, the filmmakers didn't know what they were going to get with this hit film, and the behind-the-scenes details surrounding the world-beloved movie prove it took lots of luck and hard-work to turn Forrest Gump into such a classic.

Here are 10 behind-the-scenes details about the making of Forrest Gump, as well as a few tidbits surrounding the aftermath of the movie's release.

Tom Hanks Didn't Earn A Salary For Forrest Gump... Which Got Him A Big Payday

When it comes to an actor's salary, there are different methods in which they can get paid. They can receive thousands or sometimes millions of dollars upfront, or they can sacrifice their salary to receive a portion of the movie's earnings. It's a gamble, but if you do it right, it's a move that can pay off fabulously. Ultimately, Tom Hanks decided to go with the latter option for Forrest Gump, and it worked out handsomely in the long run. To be specific, Forrest Gump earned $678.2 million worldwide, which meant Hanks reportedly received over $60 million (!) for the Best Picture-winning film.

John Travolta, Bill Murray And Chevy Chase Were Sought To Play Forrest Gump Before Tom Hanks

Casting is key to any great movie. To paraphrase Robert Altman, 90 percent of directing is casting. Therefore, if you have the right people in the right roles, you tend to be alright in the long run. Ultimately, director Robert Zemeckis made the right call casting Tom Hanks in the title role, but there was a point in pre-production where three different actors were considered to play the Oscar-winning part: John Travolta, Bill Murray, and Chevy Chase.

To be specific, John Travolta was the first actor the producers had in mind for the role of Forrest Gump, but the actor would go on to do Pulp Fiction instead. Likewise, Bill Murray and Chevy Chase were also sought for the part but they both turned it down. There are also claims that Sean Penn was circling the part at one point. In the end, the film certainly worked out with Tom Hanks in the Oscar-winning role. It should be noted that in a 1994 interview with Robert Zemeckis and Hanks, the director said he couldn't imagine anyone else playing Forrest. Many audiences will say the same.

Jim Hanks, The Brother Of Tom Hanks, Did A Lot Of Forrest Gump's Running In The Movie

Jim Hanks, the younger brother of Tom Hanks, looks an awful lot like his famous sibling. So much so that the fellow actor has filled in for his two-time Oscar-winning brother on several occasions, notably doing some additional voiceover work for Toy Story's Woody for various toys and merchandise. And Jim Hanks also played a big hand in helping Forrest Gump come to life on the screen. Notably, the lead actor's brother was on hand to do quite a few of the running scenes for the main character. Because what are brothers for? Additionally, Elizabeth Hanks, Tom Hanks' real-life daughter, is in the movie as well. She plays one of the girls on the school bus who denies Forrest Gump a seat. Indeed, filming Forrest Gump became a family affair.

Billy Crystal And Robin Williams Were Consulted To Write A Funny Speech For The Movie

As you likely remember, during the famous Washington Monument scene, Forrest Gump goes up to the mic to say something, only to be promptly cut off. It's an amusing moment, though that wasn't how the scene was originally staged. As it turns out, there were plans to give Forrest something to say during this scene, but director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Eric Roth never agreed on what Gump should state in this particular moment.

As Eric Roth explained to Yahoo! News, Robert Zemeckis wanted something "way funnier and more important" than what Roth initially had in the script, and the screenwriter tried to put together something that would fit the director's specifications. He even consulted two very funny comedians, Billy Crystal and the late Robin Williams, to come up with a speech that would be fitting of this moment. Ultimately, however, their material and anything Roth wrote for this scene was scrapped, and Zemeckis opted to have the mic cut out during this scene. It worked out, but one wonders ...

Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis Paid For The Running Montage From Their Own Wallet

Forrest Gump is an epic story, one that requires a whole lot of sets, cast of characters, different time periods, and various expensive special effects. It's an expensive undertaking, to say the least, and there was a point where the studio didn't have a lot of faith in the project. When the movie was going over budget and threatening to become too big of an undertaking for their liking, Paramount reportedly threatened to pull the plug on the whole thing. Alas, in a last-ditch effort to save the film, Zemeckis paid for the running scenes out of his own pocket and asked Tom Hanks to do the same.

Indeed, as Tom Hanks explained in recent years, the actor and Robert Zemeckis decided to split the cost of shooting this scene in a dash effort to save the movie, and they banded together to keep Forrest Gump alive a mere 48 hours after the studio threatened to shut it all down. Ultimately, to do so, Tom Hanks also sacrificed his $7 million paycheck to keep the famous film afloat. But as we explained earlier, that decision certainly worked out.

The Vietnam Scenes In Forrest Gump Were Filmed In A Golf Course In South Carolina

There is a lot of movie magic that unfolds in Forrest Gump. The character doesn't actually meet President John F. Kennedy, obviously. Nor does he go to Vietnam. In the movie, Forrest Gump is seen fighting the war in Vietnam, but the filmmakers weren't actually in the war-torn country when they filmed their classic movie. Rather, the cast and crew were on Fripp Island, a golf and beach resort in South Carolina, when they filmed these scenes, and the post-production crew used special effects wizardry to make the audience believe that the characters were actually in the thrust of war. It's pretty convincing special effects; there's a good chance that if you polled an audience about this scene, they wouldn't believe it was at a golf resort.

One Of Forrest Gump's Most Memorable Lines Was Improvised

An actor contributes a great deal to the creative process. A healthy set will feature a lot of feedback from the performers, allowing them to toy and expand on their characters as they work on-set. Indeed, this is how some of the most memorable lines in movie history came to be, including the famous line "My name is Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump." This line was nowhere to be found in the screenplay. Indeed, it was a line that Tom Hanks threw out on set while on the bus, and Robert Zemeckis thought it was so funny, he kept it in the movie. The rest, as they say, is history.

Kurt Russell Made An Uncredited Cameo As The Voice Of Elvis Presley

Throughout the course of Forrest Gump, our title character makes connections with some of the most famous people of the '50s, '60s, and '70s, including, but certainly not limited to, President Richard Nixon, President John F. Kennedy, John Lennon, and, during his childhood years, a young up-and-coming singer by the name of Elvis Presley. The record-breaking musician, of course, wasn't the world-famous superstar we know him to be today when our young main character meets him. As seen in an early scene in the film, the Gump bed-and-breakfast features a number of travelers, and one such visitor is none other than Elvis, who watches Forrest dance with his leg braces. He later inspires a few of Elvis' signature dance moves.

In the scene, Elvis Presley is mostly heard instead of seen, but the voice of Elvis is left uncredited. But if it sounded awfully familiar, there's a good reason why. That's because the voice of The King was provided by none other than Kurt Russell, who once played Presley in 1979's TV movie Elvis.

Author Winston Groom Didn't Make Any Money Off Forrest Gump's Massive Success

There's no denying that Forrest Gump made a ton of money at the box office. To be more specific, the Academy Award-winning movie made $678.2 million worldwide, which is certainly a lot of cheddar. Nevertheless, some of the key people involved in the major motion picture didn't reap the film's benefits. Namely, author Winston Groom, who wrote the 1986 novel of the same name that Forrest Gump is based upon, barely made anything from the hit film's enormous success, if you can believe it.

As it was detailed in a New York Times article from 1995, Winston Groom was paid $350,000 for the film rights and received three percent share of the net profits. However, since there were reportedly no net profits by Hollywood metrics, he walked away empty handed, which certainly did not sit well with him. He sued Paramount and it came to a settlement, which included buying the rights to another one of his books. Ultimately, Groom was not at all pleased about the whole experience. In Gump & Co., the sequel to his since-famous novel, the author wrote, "Don't never let nobody make a movie of your life's story."

There Were Plans To Make A Forrest Gump Sequel, But They Were Cancelled After 9/11

When you have a movie as critically, culturally, and commercially successful as Forrest Gump, there are inevitably going to be talks of a sequel. Indeed, at one point in the late '90s/early '00s, there were serious conversations had about making a proper sequel to the Best Picture-wining 1994 movie, based on Winston Groom's 1995 follow-up novel, Gump & Co. And the ideas involved in the proposed sequel were, admittedly, pretty nutty.

If Forrest Gump 2 (or whatever it would be called) came to be, there would have been scenes where our title character was in the back of O.J. Simpson's bronco and later dancing with Princess Diana during a charity event, to name a mere few ideas spun for the proposed blockbuster. Alas, screenwriter Eric Roth turned in the sequel's screenplay on September 11th, 2001, which was a day that changed the course of American history forever. As Roth admitted to Yahoo! Movies, he, Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks ultimately felt that the movie was "meaningless" after the tragedy.

These are only a few of the riveting details behind the making of 1994's adored hit, Forrest Gump. What are some of your favorite behind-the-scenes tidbits related to the making of this beloved film? What are your favorite lines from the film? Let us know all these details and more in the comments.

It’s been a while since an update on Disney’s Pinocchio has been had, and in the absence of that information, most have wondered just what’s going on with the live-action adaptation of one of the studio's most beloved classics. Well, it looks like we’re closer to seeing the project happen in the near future, as a candidate for the film’s director post is being courted, and it’s none other than legendary director Robert Zemeckis.

Best known for Back To The Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Forrest Gump, Zemeckis is the latest name to enter the fray for the potential to helm Pinocchio’s cinematic ship into the port of production. This comes after Paddington franchise director Paul King previously held that role, only to eventually leave when the production was presumably cancelled over last year’s holiday break.

It's a position also held previously by 1917 director Sam Mendes. The troubled history of Pinocchio keeping a director in place has continually prevented the project from moving forward with any substantial progression. Now, with Robert Zemeckis in talks to reopen the workshop, as reported by Variety, we might finally see this young puppet’s journey into becoming a real boy realized once again.

There are some interesting things to note when thinking about Disney’s Pinocchio, and one of them is undoubtedly the fact that Zemeckis’ previous film, the infamously panned Welcome To Marwen, might have actually gotten him the job. The dramedy based on the true story of a man who uses a World War II model village to cope with the fallout of a vicious physical attack was a technical marvel above all else, with Robert Zemeckis using the motion capture skills he earned through making films like The Polar Express to create a fantasy world with life-like dolls.

Obviously those skills counted for quite a bit when bringing the director to the Pinocchio table, but what’s also fascinating to note is that should Zemeckis take the gig, it’d be the first time he’s worked with Disney since 2011, as a producer on another film with a checkered history: Mars Needs Moms. The film that eventually put Robert Zemeckis out of the mo-cap arena for a while, it was not only a disastrous flop, it also cancelled his planned remake of The Beatles’ Yellow Submarine.

Should Disney’s Pinocchio finally land a director to shift things into gear, it’ll mark another chapter in this film’s voluminous history of trying to realize its vision on the screen. It’ll also put the studio in competition with its former streaming partner Netflix, as they too are in the market of reimagining author Carlo Collodi’s enchanted fairy tale.

Albeit, the streaming giant’s version will be a stop motion version that sees director Guillermo del Toro use the fabled puppet to tell a “brutalist fable” in Mussolini era Italy, so we can kind of see where there’d be room for both projects to exist at the market.

It’s still too early to tell if Robert Zemeckis will officially take on the duties of directing Disney’s Pinocchio, but as soon as any updates break, you’ll hear them from us the moment they do. In the meantime, if you’re curious, you can catch Welcome To Marwen on HBOGo and HBONow, as the film is currently airing/streaming as part of the network’s library.

Most of the holiday box office stories have focused on Aquaman, Mary Poppins Returns or Bumblebee. That makes sense given all three films are part of popular franchises and had interesting openings for different reasons, but all that analysis has largely obscured Welcome To Marwen and its less than ideal first weekend. In short: its future prospects are not promising, and it looks like it could lose upwards of $50M.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film cost somewhere between $40M and $50M to make. If you've watched television recently, you're also probably aware it had a very healthy marketing budget. Unfortunately, the film was hit with mostly bad reviews, and the word of mouth wasn't a whole lot better. That underwhelming buzz was only able to generate $2.4M for the film during its opening three days, which puts it near the bottom for 2018 in terms of lowest grossing opening weekends for a big budget movie, which sucks for a lot of reasons.

It's no secret that Hollywood has largely abandoned making pretty expensive movies. A high percentage of films are now either relatively cheap to produce or very expensive. The middle ground doesn't get nearly as much love as it used to, and part of the reason is because of exactly what happened here. Now, I'm not implying audiences failed Welcome To Marwen. By most accounts, the film has some serious problems, and with a ton of competition, it makes sense that people didn't see it. It's another entry, however, into a larger pattern, which is if you make a quirky movie that goes for something different, you really need good reviews to help out. Event films, niche horror movies and children's entertainment might be able to still find some success with negative buzz, but films that could be awards contenders usually do not. As such, they feel like a major gamble. For every Bohemain Rhapsody, there are several Welcome To Marwen's and because of that, those of us who like moderately budgeted movies designed for adults don't get as many films as we'd like.

It's likely Welcome To Marwin will do a bit more business moving forward. It's not expected to be a huge draw overseas, but maybe there's a little money there, plus potentially some money from home video, streaming services, etc. In the end, however, the final result almost certainly won't be pretty, and it'll be one of the low moments, at least financially, for Steve Carell and Robert Zemeckis' career.

In this list paragraph, I guess I should note one more thing too. Right after the box office initially broke, one of my coworkers asked me if I thought this made it more likely Steve Carell would join a reboot of The Office. I have no idea. Steve Carell is a great actor, and it'll take many more poor openings to take away any of his buzz. I can say, with certainty, however, that if an Office reboot were to ever happen, it would generate more buzz and attract more eyeballs than Welcome To Marwen.

The following article contains some spoilers for Welcome To Marwen. If you have not yet seen the film, read on at your own risk!

Robert Zemeckis is responsible for a number of iconic films, from Who Framed Roger Rabbit to Forrest Gump, but it would be fair to argue that the most beloved are his Back To The Future movies. The sci-fi trilogy is one of the best of all time, and there is no measuring the stamp it's made on pop culture. This even extends to Zemeckis' own work, as a very special reference to Back To The Future is included in the third act of the writer/director's new feature, Welcome To Marwen. He recently discussed it, saying,

Robert Zemeckis, along with all of the other amazing filmmakers behind the Back To The Future series, did his part to make time machines and flying cars synonymous -- forever changing the way history looks at the DeLorean DMC-12 -- and so the director cribbed from himself for a particular sequence in Welcome To Marwen. I had the chance to speak with Zemeckis about it during the Los Angeles press day for the film, and he wore a big smile through his explanation.

The scene in discussion here happens towards the end of the movie as Mark Hogancamp is finding his world spinning out of control. Deja Thoris (Diane Kruger), a doll/witch with a dangerous thrall over Mark, demands that he create a time machine for her -- and before long he has created one using a model kit and a lava lamp. And not only that, it goes into flight mode by turning its wheels from vertical to horizontal.

And it doesn't end there. Later in Welcome To Marwen we actually get to see the time machine in action, and what completes the special reference is the fact that it's accompanied by Alan Silvestri's legendary Back To The Future theme.

Back To The Future isn't specifically referenced by name in the film, but interestingly that adds a new layer to the whole thing. It's established in the movie that Mark Hogancamp is a man who lost all of his memories following a savage beating at the hands of a group of Neo-Nazis, which possibly included memory of ever seeing Back To The Future. The artistic creations he makes with dolls, however, are in many ways representative of his surroundings and subconscious, so it made me wonder if perhaps the creation of the time machine was Mark thinking about the Zemeckis film without realizing it.

It pitched this to Robert Zemeckis and he was definitely on board, recognizing just how iconic the Back To The Future time machine has become:

You can watch Robert Zemeckis talk about his inclusion of the special Back To The Future reference in Welcome To Marwen by clicking play on the video below!

Starring Steve Carell, Leslie Mann, Merritt Wever, Leslie Zemeckis, Gwendoline Christie, Diane Kruger, Eiza González, and Janelle Monáe, Welcome To Marwen is based on a true story that chronicles an artist's attempt to put his life back together following a vicious attack, expressing himself through photography and the doll inhabitants of an imaginary World War II-era Belgian village built in his backyard. The film is now playing in theaters everywhere.

Technology has long had a key role in the filmmaking process for director Robert Zemeckis, and that includes having been an early adopter of motion capture. He was notably the first one to make entire films using the then-nascent visual effects -- including titles like The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol -- and he played a vital role in the growth of the technique. His run of motion capture movies ended in 2009, leading to features like Flight, The Walk, and Allied, but it was in taking on his latest project, Welcome To Marwen, that he saw an opportunity to experiment once again:

I had the great pleasure of sitting down with Robert Zemeckis earlier this month during the Los Angeles press day for Welcome To Marwen for an on-camera interview, and the use and development of motion capture technology was central to the conversation. At the start I was curious if the visual effects work was the only methodology considered when figuring out how to properly bring the story to life, and the writer/director explained how its usage was entirely tied to his earliest vision for what the film would be when he first watched the documentary Marwencol and became inspired.

The use of motion capture -- also known as performance capture -- is used in the movie to bring life to Marwen: a World War II-era Belgian city that entirely exists in the mind of artist Mark Hogancamp, and is brought to life with scale models and dolls that he keeps set up in his backyard. The characters that inhabit Marwen are all badass representations of the people in Mark's life, but the larger narrative is also strongly influenced by a traumatic and violent attack that Mark experienced and resulted in an extended coma and permanent memory loss. While he can't draw like he used to, he can express his vision through the drama and action that unfolds in Marwen, and winds up gaining great popularity and notoriety for his work. Unfortunately, he also remains stunted and crippled from recurring memories of the horrific event that changed his life forever.

One thing that differentiates the technological character representation in Welcome To Marwen compared to Beowulf or A Christmas Carol is that the performers aren't technically playing humans; they're playing dolls. I was curious if this had an impact on the way that Robert Zemeckis had his cast act when they were doing the work, but the filmmaker explained why the opposite was true:

While it didn't affect the performances too much, there was still some unique work that had to be done with how the characters looked on screen. A benefit of dolls looking like dolls is that they don't really have to look life-like from the neck down, but what is definitely important are the details in the faces. This was achieved with great thanks to the power of modern cameras and computers, which were able to capture the likenesses of the stars and basically wrap the faces around the CGI models. Zemeckis explained,

As the writer described, this was the greatest challenge of the performance capture work for Welcome To Marwen. While technology has certainly come a long way, artists have still not entirely perfected creating hyper-realistic CGI that works as well when figures are moving as staying still. Robert Zemeckis believes we are getting closer and closer to that landmark, though, and it's noteworthy that the work on his latest feature is certainly impressive.

With the goals seemingly in sight, the natural follow-up is asking about what's going to help the technology get to that place. It's already getting simpler for filmmakers to use, with people like Andy Serkis also pushing boundaries, and what's really needed to advance further is just machines that can process more and process faster than the computers that are currently in use. Said Zemeckis,

You can watch Robert Zemeckis discuss his use of motion capture in the making of Welcome To Marwen, as well as his thoughts on the technologies future by clicking play on the video below.

Welcome To Marwen centers on Steve Carell as Mark Hogancamp, but the ensemble cast features some truly fantastic talent, including Leslie Mann (a 40 Year Old Virgin reunion), Gwendolyn Christie, Janelle Monae, Diane Kruger, Merritt Wever, Leslie Zemeckis, Eiza González, and Neil Jackson. The film is arriving in theaters as part of one of the biggest weekends of 2018, set to hit the big screen this Friday, December 21st. After you see it, be sure to return for some of our special spoiler coverage here on CinemaBlend, and also be sure to be on the lookout for more from my interview with Robert Zemeckis.

Most actors come aboard a film in one of two ways: either they audition, or they are specifically chosen for the part. This was not the case for Steve Carell in the making of Welcome To Marwen, however. Rather than going out for the part or reading a script, Carell's path to the film was motivated by the fact that he was inspired by the source material, and through that inspiration just happened to discover Robert Zemeckis was already making the movie. The actor recently told me,

I sat down with Steve Carell earlier this month during Welcome To Marwen Los Angeles press day, and learned about his serendipitous path to the project at the start of the interview. Acknowledging that he has three movies out this fall (Marwen, Beautiful Boy, and Vice), I asked about his project selection and he explained that the way he teamed up with Robert Zemeckis wasn't the typical Hollywood way.

Funny enough, Steve Carell's reaction to the Marwencol documentary was very similar to his director's. I first spoke with Robert Zemeckis about the project -- then called The Women Of Marwen -- during the press tour for his last film, Allied, and he explained how he had seen the film while channel surfing and found himself filled with immediate desire to adapt the story as a narrative feature.

In particular, Steve Carell was struck by the story of Mark Hogancamp, a man who survived a brutal beating and suffered debilitating memory loss, but rediscovered artistic expression via the creation and photography of a sixth-scale World War II-era Belgian village. Carell felt a special need to expose the world to Hogancamp's story, and felt the best way to do that was through Welcome To Marwen. He explained,

After learning about Steve Carell's particular path to the film, I had the chance to follow up with Robert Zemeckis -- though the writer/director actually downplayed the influence of the fact that Carell came to him with his own interest in making the movie. Instead what he was far more interested in was the actor's incredible talent and ability to connect with an audience.

You can watch Steve Carell discuss the origins of his involvement with Welcome To Marwen -- as well as his apology for being in so many movies this year -- by clicking play on the video below.

Co-starring Leslie Mann, Gwendoline Christie, Janelle Monae, Merritt Wever, Leslie Zemeckis, Eiza González, and Diane Kruger, Welcome To Marwen arrives in theaters everywhere this Friday, December 21st.

If it were to be reported that Dwayne Johnson spends only an hour per night sleeping, we'd believe it. The man is unquestionably one of the busiest in the industry, and it's amazing to watch him pick up projects left and right. Right now he has more than a few projects waiting in the hopper, but the star has now added one more title to the list: Robert Zemeckis' The King.

Dwayne Johnson himself confirmed morning trade reports about his involvement with his project, using his personal Instagram account to express what the project means to him. Based on a script by Randall Wallace (Braveheart), the film will feature the movie star as Hawaiian king Kamehameha I, and will tell the story of his work to unite the Hawaiian islands. It's a project that Johnson has spent nearly 20 years trying to make, and now it looks like it's moving forward with the director of Back To The Future, Contact, and Forest Gump at the helm.

You can read Dwayne Johnson's confirmation news about The King - which comes packed with tons of genuine sincerity and love for his country - in the Instagram post below:

Exciting as this news is, the big question is when Dwayne Johnson is actually going to be able to shoot the thing. He's currently filming his first live-action Disney movie, Jungle Cruise, and after that he is expected to jump to the Fast & Furious spin-off Hobbs and Shaw. The guy also has the anticipated and untitled Jumanji sequel in the works, his Big Trouble In Little China follow-up, his Doc Savage feature with Shane Black, plans to play Black Adam in the DC Extended Universe, and hopes of making San Andreas 2. Oh, and let's not forget that he also stars in his own HBO series, Ballers, which starts is currently in the midst of its fourth season. Given Johnson's passion for The King, it will be interesting to see if it winds up leapfrogging some of those other projects in his priorities.

Robert Zemeckis also happens to be a fairly busy individual, and is currently in the process of completing his latest directorial effort, Welcome To Marwen (which will arrive just in time to qualify for Oscar season - hitting theaters on December 21st). When that's done, though, with the exception of a few projects he's producing his slate is clear - so perhaps Dwayne Johnson will find some way to get The King made sometime during 2019... if they can discover a window of opportunity.

According to Deadline, The King is being developed at Warner Bros. and New Line, but obviously the film doesn't have any kind of release date yet. We're going to keep a close eye on it, as we do with all Dwayne Johnson movies, so be on the lookout for more updates here on CinemaBlend.

Is this the end of Star Wars as we know it? Right before this week's episode of ReelBlend kicked off, news leaked that Lucasfilm might be holding off on solo, standalone movies in the Star Wars universe, with Disney and Lucasfilm focusing solely on Star Wars: Episode IX, and figuring out which trilogy might come next. Jake Hamilton, Kevin McCarthy and Sean O'Connell kick off this week with a conversation on the future of Star Wars, and its impact on the past.

Speaking of the past, the boys recorded this week's episode on the anniversary of the release of Steven Spielberg's Jaws, so the co-hosts talk about why this movie's legacy has remained so strong.

But enough about older movies. What's new in theaters? The ReelBlend guys can finally dive into a spoiler-filled conversation on Incredibles 2, which broke records at the box office over the weekend and gave Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, Ratatouille) another smashing success. Why was it such a hit? Should they hurry up and make an Incredibles 3? The guys break it all down.

This week, the guys react to Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. They will get into spoiler-heavy reviews next week, after more people have seen it. But for now, one of the guys says he can't recommend it. Yikes.

Finally, this week's #Blend game was the films of Robert Zemeckis, which fit in beautifully, as the full trailer for Zemeckis' Welcome to Marwen dropped. It looks weird. But the guys discuss that trailer, as well as the trailer for Creed II. Here's that one, which you might want to watch before you listen to the episode:

ReelBlend is a LIVE podcast that we do on CinemaBlend's Facebook page. As soon as we are done on Facebook, you can download the latest episode (and all of our past episodes) for FREE on our iTunes page! Visit. Subscribe. Like and comment. Review! Apple loves when you have star ratings and reviews, so if you listened, and you liked it (or even if you didn't), let us know. We also are on Spotify. And Google Play. And basically everywhere that you download podcasts. So download us!

Meanwhile, follow the guys on Social Media! We have an official Twitter feed for the show, so follow @ReelBlend. In addition, follow the guys at @Sean_OConnell, @JakesTakesand @KevinMcCarthyTV. We will be back at it next week, LIVE on CinemaBlend's Facebook page. See you then!

After six seasons as Prince Charming on Once Upon a Time, Josh Dallas has just signed on for a role in a new show that sounds pretty crazy. Dallas will be starring in Manifest, a missing plane mystery that might remind people a bit of Lost.

The pilot for Manifest, which has been ordered by NBC, will see Josh Dallas as the male lead, Ben Stone. Ben is your typical type-A father who also works in intelligence as an analyst and has been known to struggle when confronted with things he can't control, like his young son's rare cancer and the mystifying voice he now hears in his head. Manifest, from Jeff Rake (The Mysteries of Laura) and Robert Zemeckis, will focus on a plane full of passengers which disappears from all radar readings and then pops back up a whopping five years later, after it was completely untraceable and presumed lost at sea. To those on the newly returned flight, no time has passed at all, and the drama will look into the personal lives of the passengers as well as the larger mystery of their disappearance and their ultimate destiny.

Whenever we start talking about missing airplanes and passengers, mysteries and destiny, it's hard not to think about Lost, which is the greatest (and messiest) missing airplane TV drama of all time. One thing Manifest has going for it that will help the show set itself apart from Lost, is the fact that these people actually get home and then have to deal with the five years that have gone by in their absence, how it affected their loved ones and how to move on while, presumably, trying to figure out what the hell happened to them and why. It should make for an interesting dynamic we never really got to see on Lost, since the destiny of those passengers was basically to end up together.

Of course, after playing Prince Charming for so long on Once Upon a Time, Josh Dallas is used to working through mysteries and crazy twists. Once you've been cursed a few dozen times by various wicked witches and spent 28 years in a coma, it would seem that a little missing time like five years wouldn't feel insurmountable at all.

According to Deadline, Manifest will be written by Rake and directed by David Frankel, who will both executive produce the project alongside Zemeckis, and will also star Melissa Roxburgh (Valor). Since a pilot is the only thing that's been ordered right now, we don't know yet if the drama will end up on the small screen anytime soon, but stay tuned to CinemaBlend and we'll keep you up to date as details on the show become available. In the meantime, be sure to check out our midseason premiere guide to see what you can watch in the coming weeks.

Despite being announced as part of the original DC Extended Universe slate, The Flash has had a tough time (ironically) moving forward. The Scarlet Speedster's movie lost two directors within a year, and as of January was going through a page one rewrite. Pushing through these setbacks, it appears that Warner Bros is starting to make some progress with getting it back up and running (pun intended), as Back to the Future's Robert Zemeckis, Kingsman: The Secret Service's Matthew Vaughn and Evil Dead's Sam Raimi are reportedly the new frontrunners to direct.

According to THR, Robert Zemeckis, Matthew Vaughn and Sam Raimi are on the shortlist to get The Flash directing gig, although official offers haven't been delivered to any of them yet. Zemeckis appears to be leading the charge for the job among the trio, and while his Steve Carell-led movie The Women of Marwen could cause scheduling conflicts, it's also possible that Warner Bros may set aside their goal of shooting The Flash before the year is finished to wait for him. Then there's Vaughn, who is keen on making a third Kingsman movie, so if 20th Century Fox decides to move forward with that project, it may prevent him from working on The Flash. Sam Raimi doesn't have any movies coming up, but he is an executive producer on the Ash vs. Evil Dead TV series.

Matthew Vaughn and Sam Raimi both have previous superhero movie experience; Vaughn through X-Men: First Class and the Kick-Ass movies, and Raimi through the Spider-Man trilogy. If Robert Zemeckis became The Flash's director, this would be his first foray into the genre, although he's more than cemented his filmmaking legacy through projects like the Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and more. Zemeckis was rumored to be up for The Flash directing job last month, and while that was later debunked, now it appears that his name is indeed being tossed around. It's also worth noting that Warner Bros was reportedly looking at Vaughn to direct Man of Steel 2 back in March.

Flash, a.k.a. Barry Allen, cameoed last year in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, and he'll make his full debut this November in Justice League. While The Flash sorts itself out behind the scenes, Ezra Miller is preparing to reprise Credence Barebone in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 2, and presumably he'd don the speedy superhero's costume once that Wizarding World tale is finished filming. The Flash will also include Kiersey Clemons as Iris West and Billy Crudup as Henry Allen.

The Flash was originally supposed to race into theaters in March 2018, but now it remains unscheduled. While we wait for more updates on the Scarlet Speedster's cinematic future, check out what other DC movies are currently in development.

This poll is no longer available.

SPOILER WARNING: The following article contains massive spoilers for Allied. If you have not yet seen the film, and don't wish to know details about the ending before doing so, please save this page and click away to another one of our wonderful articles!

While Robert Zemeckis' Allied opens as a fun, romantic, action-packed World War II spy movie, it's ending is quite tragic. It not only turns out that Brad Pitt's Max Vatan has unknowingly spent years married to a German spy (Marion Cotillard's Marianne Beauséjour), but she winds up killing herself to protect him. It's one of the darkest directions that Steven Knight's script could have gone, but Zemeckis believes it was integral to the story being told -- as it is an ultimate sacrifice in the name of love.

Prior to Allied's release, I had the immense pleasure of sitting down with Robert Zemeckis during the film's Los Angeles press day, and after our conversation had drifted into spoiler territory, I asked him specifically about the ending. I asked both about whether it was always the way the story was going to end, and why he felt it the finale was important, and he laid out his perspective:

What's interesting to note -- and I did -- is that this doesn't immediately come across in the ending of the film. In the movie, we watch Max try to escape with Marianne in a plane, but get stopped by his military colleagues. Acknowledging that there is no way out of the situation, Marianne takes Max's loaded pistol out of the glove compartment, and shoots herself in the head. At this point in the story, it's entirely possible that she committed suicide because she saw no other way out for herself... but then Max finds the letter that she left that confirms that she was sacrificing herself for her husband and child.

I noted this while talking with Robert Zemeckis, and he agreed that it was a crucial element to drive home what "Marianne" had done and how she felt. Said the director,

Allied is now in theaters everywhere, and you can check out Robert Zemeckis' comments about his next film HERE!

Released back in 1988, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of the most influential films of the last 30 years, as it ushered in a new interest and a renaissance in the animated genre, which still flourishes to this day. Since sequels have been just as popular as animated films in Hollywood for many years, you might have thought that Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 would currently be high on the list of priorities over at Disney. But director Robert Zemeckis has quashed these hopes, instead admitting that there's little to no chance of Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2, even though he insists he has the perfect script for it.

Robert Zemeckis made this revelation to the Telegraph (via Comicbook.com) while out promoting his latest directorial effort Allied, the World War II spy thriller starring Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard. After teasing what Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 would entail, Robert Zemeckis then candidly confessed that Disney owned the rights to the project, and they have no interest in it. Robert Zemeckis explained:

It's easy to see why Disney might have an issue with Jessica Rabbit, who straddled the line between anthropomorphic bunny and sex icon a little too closely for the famously family friendly studio's comfort. In fact, over the years, the latter trait of Jessica Rabbit has easily come to eclipse the former, which is understandable when you take just one glance at the picture below.

But what would Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 have included? Well, according to Robert Zemeckis, the "magnificent" script for the follow-up moves on from the world of film noir in 1947 to the "next few years of period films," specifically the 1950s. "More a continuation than a sequel," Robert Zemeckis also insisted that Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 would include a digital version of Bob Hoskins, rather than recasting the legendary actor, who died in 2014, while all of the other toons would return, too.

There have been various incarnations of a follow-up to Who Framed Roger Rabbit ever since the original was released to a stream of critical plaudits back in 1988, as well as grossing $329.8 million at the box office. J.J Abrams worked on a version, while a prequel written by Nat Maudlin would have seen Roger Rabbit traveling to Nazi Germany to both fight in the war and to try and save his kidnapped future wife Jessica, which he eventually does with the help of his fellow Toon platoon.

But executive producer Steven Spielberg left the project to focus on his own animated company Dreamworks, while Sherri Stoner and Deanne Oliver's rewrite focused on the sub-plot from the original draft of Roger Rabbit searching for his mother, but this time the film would have revolved around Roger Rabbit's inadvertent rise on Broadway and in Hollywood. The script was entitled Who Discovered Roger Rabbit.

However, a spiraling all-CGI budget and the insistence that audiences' tastes had changed soon led to the film being cancelled by Disney CEO Michael Eisner around 2000. Over the last 16 years, there have been numerous utterances from cast and crew about their hopes for a prequel or sequel for Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but Robert Zemeckis' comments suggest it's just never going to happen.

Robert Zemeckis has always been an impressively productive filmmaker, and that has continued in recent years -- with The Walk and Allied being released in consecutive years. He isn't slowing down any time soon either, as he already knows exactly what he is making as his next feature film: the action-packed The Women of Marwen starring Steve Carell.

I learned about this news when I sat down for a one-on-one interview with Robert Zemeckis this past weekend during the Los Angeles press day for Allied. After a long discussion about his new movie and his approaches as a filmmaker, I asked if he knew what he was doing next, and without hesitation he named his next project. Said Zemeckis,

If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because Robert Zemeckis actually first started developing this film three full years ago in October 2013. While not much was known about the project back then, Zemeckis told me that his film will not be a direct adaptation/remake, and instead will take the core of what made the Marwencol documentary interesting and expand on it. He explained,

In 2010, filmmaker Jeff Malmberg released the aforementioned Marwencol documentary, which tells the story of a man named Mark Hogancamp. In 2010, Hogancamp had been violently assaulted outside of a local bar, and was left with permanent brain damage and almost complete memory loss following a nine-day coma. HIs family was unable to afford the proper rehab, but this opened Hogancamp up to a different kind of therapy: exploration of his imagination. This included the creation of Marwencol, a 1/6 scale World War II-era Belgian town. While this doesn't seem extraordinary by itself, it was soon found that Hogancamp was including people from his own life as characters within the town.

Robert Zemeckis didn't discover Marwencol in theaters, but instead actually kind of stumbled upon it. One day he found himself watching television and flipping through channels, and much to his surprise wound up finding himself inspired to direct a new film. Said Zemeckis,

Even though the exact story portrayed in the documentary won't wind up being the exact plot that is featured in Robert Zemeckis' The Women Of Marwen, watch the trailer for Marwencol below and you'll understand why the brilliant filmmaker would be eager to adapt the story himself:

The Women of Marwen was set up at Universal Pictures when the project was first announced, but we don't know right now when production will start or when the film is aiming for release. Robert Zemeckis was making Allied just a few months after finishing The Walk, so it's possible the gears could start seriously turning very soon -- though the scale Zemeckis suggested in my interview means that it might not quite be ready in time to come out until 2017.

The good news is that those needing a Robert Zemeckis fix will soon be satiated, as his next one is right around the corner. Allied, a spy thriller set in World War II starring Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard, will be in theaters on November 23rd.

Author Ernest Cline's novel Ready Player One is filled to the brim with references to the works of director Steven Spielberg -- but we already know that's something that's going to be changed in a big way for Spielberg's upcoming big screen adaptation. The filmmaker has gone on record saying that when he came aboard the project, one of the things that was done to the story was the removal of references to his own movies. As we learned today, however, not all of these nods have been expunged, as the feature will feature one key element from a Spielberg-produced blockbuster: the Delorean from Back To The Future.

The domestic press day for The BFG was held this afternoon in Los Angeles, and it was during a roundtable with a group of film journalists that Steven Spielberg discussed the approach to his own work within Ready Player One. The filmmaker was asked how he would prevent the reference-filled movie from being a personal "victory lap" of the 1980s, and while he reiterated that most mentions of his own work has been removed, there are certain elements from his career that still will be in the finished piece. Said Spielberg,

Fans will be quick to note that the time traveling Delorean is only sort of a reference to a Steven Spielberg movie, as Back To The Future was produced by the filmmaker -- who left the directing duties to his friend Robert Zemeckis. While Spielberg didn't say it specifically, it's entirely possible that it's because of his greater distance from the feature that he felt comfortable including the reference in the movie -- though we'll have to wait and see what the "couple other things" he mentions are to be sure.

There are a couple of references to the Delorean in Ready Player One, and it will be interesting to see how it winds up playing into the movie. First off, it's mentioned that reclusive, mysterious, billionaire James Donovan Halliday (who will be played by Mark Rylance in the movie) actually restored one of the vehicles from the Back To The Future production to drive around in his spare time. What's much more likely, however, is that the awesome car will come into play when Wade Watts (played by Tye Sheridan) wins a virtual version of the car and drives it to a party hosted by Ogden Morrow (Simon Pegg), Halliday's former partner and fellow creator of the gaming system Oasis.

Are you excited to see the Delorean show up in Ready Player One? What other Steven Spielberg-related references would you like to see squeeze their way into the movie? Hit the comments section below with your thoughts, and stay tuned for more in the coming weeks about The BFG!

While George Lucas was the man behind Star Wars from the beginning, he only directed the first film in the original trilogy. The task of directing the next two went to others. When it came time for the prequel trilogy however, Lucas famously, or infamously depending on your perspective, directed all three of the films. The results... varied. It turns out that he did try to find others to take the director’s chair for those films, though, but everybody turned him down.

The news comes from one of the directors who said no. According to Ron Howard, Lucas tried to get him to direct the film, after both Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis turned him down.

Howard’s revelation came on MTV’s Happy Sad Confused podcast. It’s understandable that other directors would be apprehensive about taking on such a major property. While the original Star Wars films were certainly big blockbuster movies in their day, they hadn’t yet become the generation-defining epics that they eventually became. By the late 90’s the idea of getting involved in the franchise had to be a simultaneously thrilling and terrifying concept.

At the same time, one has to wonder what might have been? Lucas became very focused on the technical side of movie making in the 1990’s with the Special Edition of the original trilogy followed by the prequels. This has led many, including some who were in the films, to say that they ended up losing much of the emotional weight that the first films had. Perhaps if one of these great directors, or somebody else at least, had said yes, we would have ended up with much better films.

Let’s be honest, part of the reason so many people are excited again for new Star Wars movies isn’t simply that the films are coming, but also because Lucas is not directly involved. If he had written the screenplay and directed The Force Awakens we’d all be preparing ourselves for another round of prequels. One of the most exciting things about the plans for all these new movies are the number of new screenwriters and directors who will be able to put their own stamp on the Star Wars universe.

On the one hand, I guess we can’t all blame Lucas. He did try to get some other people involved. How much a different director would have truly changed things is impossible to know for sure anyway. What do you think? Would a Spielberg, Zemeckis, or Howard-led prequel have been a radically different film?

It’s impossible to know how films of yesteryear would fare in the harsh climate of modern moviemaking. Would audiences find The Godfather too long, 2001 too vague, or Singin’ In The Rain too optimistic? Thankfully, we’ll never know. Well, that’s unless you’re Robert Zemeckis, who is adamant that if he tried to make Back To The Future today, it wouldn’t even be greenlit.

Robert Zemeckis, who co-wrote Back To The Future with Bob Gale and directed the time-traveling, sci-fi classic, made this admission to Yahoo Movies after being asked how he thought it would fare. Zemeckis insisted:

Robert Zemeckis, who is currently doing the publicity rounds to promote The Walk, believes that Back To The Future would ultimately struggle because studios simply wouldn’t know how to market it today. Rather than being an outright comedy, sci-fi, or period film, Back To The Future actually flirts with a number of genres, which is what helped to make it so utterly timeless and appealing.

Unfortunately though, for these exact reasons, Zemeckis is adamant that Back to the Future would simply flounder in today’s cinematic battleground. He continued:

Unfortunately, Robert Zemeckis believes that the studios faith in making these sort of movies has all but evaporated, mostly because audiences are so indecisive about watching a film that "they don’t already know exactly what it’s going to be ahead of time."

Zemeckis is currently feeling the brunt of this with The Walk, which tells the amazing, true story of Philippe Petit’s wire walk across the Twin Towers in New York City back in 1974. Not only did it take the iconic director, who as well as directing the Back To The Future trilogy won an Oscar for overseeing Forrest Gump, ten years to get The Walk funded and into production, but it’s only grossed $13.5 million at the box office, despite having an 86% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Which could mean that Robert Zemeckis might have to turn to a sequel of one of his old films for his next project. And since either Cast Away 2 or Flight 2 would be absurd, it would probably have to be Back To The Future 4. Of course, I’m only joking, but simply just writing that title made me both immeasurably happy and wary at the same time.

SPOILER WARNING: As you may have gleaned from the headline, the following article is about the final scene of Robert Zemeckis’ The Walk, and goes into detail about how the movie plays out. If you haven’t had the opportunity to see this wonderful film just yet, we recommend clicking away to another one of our wonderful articles.

In the making of his latest film, The Walk, director Robert Zemeckis did much more than just create a 3D spectacle centering on one of the greatest public stunts of all time. In telling the story of legendary acrobat Philippe Petit and his famous wire-walk between the Twin Towers, the filmmaker also found a beautiful way to honor the tremendous history of an incredible monument, which we sadly lost back on September 11, 2001. Nowhere in the movie is this more poignant than in the final scene, where Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s vision of Petit discusses his “forever” pass to the top of the New York buildings, before somberly looking back at them in the distance. It’s a beautiful moment, but what you may not know is that it’s as reflective of Zemeckis’ memories of 9/11 as well as Petit’s personal relationship with the Twin Towers.

A few weeks ago, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to talk on the phone with Robert Zemeckis about The Walk, and it was at the very end of our conversation that I asked him to discuss his approach to the emotional finale of the film as well as his views on how it connects to the events that occurred on September 11th. Opening up about the legacy of the Twin Towers and what they ultimately meant to Philippe Petit and himself, the director said,

Of course, Robert Zemeckis and Philippe Petit were far from the only two people emotionally hit by the destruction of the Twin Towers, and that was a strong influence on the filmmaker’s approach to the scene as well. Recognizing that there are many people with many different thoughts and memories from September 11th, Zemeckis made the conscious decision not to make some sort of big comment about the attack, but instead let audiences bring their own feelings to it with the help of Petit’s perspective. He explained,

After experiencing The Walk’s magical and dizzying third act, the emotional punch that comes from the movie’s September 11th tribute at the end hits shockingly hard, and is truly a beautiful and honest moment with which to leave. The film does an amazing job celebrating the amazing monument that we once had, while also making us deeply miss it and recognize what it now represents. Amazing as the Petit’s wire-walking is, the very last scene is on par with being just as memorable.

The Walk is now in theaters nationwide.

Forrest Gump is one of those movies that has become part of pop culture history. It won all the awards, has all the quotable lines, and it’s one of the films that turned Tom Hanks from the guy from Bosom Buddies into a bonafide movie star. It’s nearly unbelievable that there was a point at which the movie almost didn’t get made, but in order to make sure it was done, Hanks personally paid for half of one iconic sequence.

Yahoo Movies sat down with Hanks and Steven Spielberg to discuss their current film, Bridge of Spies, but over the course of the interview Hanks, delved into his history and reveals how closely Forrest Gump came to falling apart due to budget issued. He said:

We’re going to set aside the fact that at the beginning of the statement the movie was "one day away" from falling apart, and at the end it was "48 hours away." It was close, the exact timing is less important. We’re forced to agree with Zemeckis that the sequence was integral to the film. Forrest finds himself alone at home. His mother has died and the woman he loves just left him. Not having any idea what to do with himself he focuses on the one thing he knows how to do, run. He runs across the country multiple times passing many noticeable landmarks. This was likely the source of the studio’s apprehension as far as cost. If you want to show Forrest on the Santa Monica Pier or running across a wheat field, you need to actually film there. The movie does a lot with CGI, but in 1994 it likely would not have been able to do that convincingly. Check out the run here:

Actually considering the CGI that the film used, and what it must have cost in the mid-1990’s, it seems a little out of sorts that the studio would be bent out of shape over the running scene. Filming on location, while it can be expensive, has always been part of movie making, while computer generated effects of the kind seen in Gump were a much newer thing. Usually it’s those expenses of things that the accountants try to kill.

On behalf of movie lovers everywhere, we’d like to thank Tom Hanks for his selfless service to his craft at helping to finance Forrest Gump from his own pocket. We really can’t image the movie without those scenes. 

Robert Zemeckis has been directing feature films since 1978, with films in pretty much any genre imaginable and an undeniably huge degree of success. While others might spoil with such riches, Zemeckis has taken to it well, teaching new and valuable lessons with each film he makes. Check out what the cast of The Walk had to say about what they learned from the legendary director, in the video below:

During the recent press rounds for The Walk, I had the honor to talk to several members of the cast. Through those conversations, I had to wonder what it was like working with the man who also directed such hits as the Back To The Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Flight. Every answer to that particular question was delivered with warmth and enthusiasm for two big reasons: Robert Zemeckis knows what he’s doing, and he knows how to treat his actors. Speaking to his abilities as a director, Joseph Gordon-Levitt had this to say about Zemeckis’ approach:

It an amazing thought when you really take the time to absorb it. The notion that Robert Zemeckis can be in the film industry for so long, and yet not only still have those moments of doubt – but also share them with the cast – is something to behold. To a similar effect, Charlotte Le Bon had comments about the Zemeckis style, which she credits as helping her out with her performance, stating the following:

While some would tell you that a director’s doubts and questions about the success of a project should be dealt with internally, especially on a film like The Walk, you can’t help but marvel at the results of the Zemeckis filmography. In the case of Robert Zemeckis, that doubt leads to inquisition, and those queries lead to collaboration and results. No one knew that better during their time on The Walk than James Badge Dale, who was able to previously work with the director on his last film, Flight. His summation of the atmosphere on a Zemeckis set is basically the following:

Age old wisdom tells you to never meet your heroes, but the cast of The Walk certainly broke that rule, and they’re all the wiser for it. Bound together by their admiration of the man they were working for, the cast would have movie nights watching Robert Zemeckis films, and admitted as much at the New York Film Festival Q&A the morning of the film’s festival opening. Their admiration of Zemeckis, and his mutual trust in his actors, are all on the screen as a result of this symbiotic relationship between artists.

The Walk opens in its wide release debut today, and it’s well worth the price of admission.

While The Walk hasn’t made quite the box-office splash that was intended, having failed to match the efforts of The Martian, there’s still no denying just how impressive Robert Zemeckis’ return to the big-screen is. It really is how an IMAX and 3D film should be made, and is further proof of Robert Zemeckis’ prowess as a filmmaker, something that he’s been showcasing for close to 40 years now.

But where does Joseph Gordon-Levitt tight roping between The Twin Towers while deploying a French accent sit alongside the legendary filmmaker’s other efforts? Does it match up to Forrest Gump, Cast Away, or Back To The Future? Well, take a look below to see.

10. Back To The Future 2

Not a match to the original, but nevertheless a worthy expansion of the universe that still captures the fun and wonderment of Back To The Future. In the end, it gets bogged down by its overly complex plot. However, within the walls of this craziness are iconic scenes that include Doc and Marty landing in 2015 and being confronted with a bevy of changes to Hill Valley and the revelation at the end that Doc Brown has been transported to the Wild West. Plus, it introduced the hoverboard into mainstream consciousness – an invention we’re still waiting to see hit the shops.

9. Flight

With all his technical wizardry it’s easy to forget that Robert Zemeckis is a great actor’s director. He is able to get the very best out of his stars, and, because of his glossy and fluid direction, they often look amazing up on screen in his films. This is evident in Flight, where Denzel Washington eats up the screen with a towering performance for which he received a well-deserved Academy Award nomination. Flight is also a tender but rugged character study, while it also possesses a truly pulsating air crash sequence. Something of a Zemeckis speciality.

8. Used Cars

Until Flight in 2012, Used Cars was Robert Zemeckis’ only R-rated film, and it is a twisted satire of American culture. Full of laughs, the fact that it was released in the same summer as Airplane! meant that it was immediately overshadowed. It’s also buoyed by a great leading performance by Kurt Russell as the devious car salesman working for an unsuccessful but affable dealer, who goes to great lengths to make their dealership more profitable. Executive produced by Steven Spielberg and John Milius, this marked Robert Zemeckis’ third screenwriting collaboration with Bob Gale, who he’d later achieve much greater success with.

7. Contact

Robert Zemeckis’ foray into space and the search for extra-terrestrials possesses some truly magical moments of cinema, which are on par with some of the best galactic scenes the genre has ever produced. Sure, Zemeckis gets bogged down by the visual effects, and its plot lacks the cohesion to build to a truly satisfying conclusion. But with Jodie Foster leading the way and Zemeckis at the peak of his powers as a visual filmmaker, you’re constantly intrigued by Contact. At the time, it was a perfect antidote to alien disaster films, and it still holds up to this day.

6. The Walk

OK, The Walk might have made a slow start to its box-office campaign (it's about to open wider, so we'll see how it performs), but there’s no denying just how gut-wrenching and compelling it is to watch on the big screen. The Walk is Robert Zemeckis at his best, and thriving with a medium that many people are still indifferent about -- 3D. This is how to make a 3D film. Zemeckis also manages to eke out a funny and heartfelt drama, as well as a heist film, all while you eagerly and impatiently wait for Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Philippe Petit to actually walk on the wire. It’s impossible not to fall just a little bit in love with this film, while it is also a perfect reminder of the majesty of silver-screen cinema.

5. Cast Away

Throughout most of Robert Zemeckis’ oeuvre, you can see that he often builds a film around a single idea, which he believes is interesting and cinematic. With Cast Away, he looks to meticulously and intimately find out how you could survive on a deserted island for five years. And while there are flaws, with Cast Away, Zemeckis actually delivers his most heartfelt film as well as his most composed direction. Plus, it also features the most terrifying plane crash in celluloid history. It all truly flourishes, though, because of Tom Hanks. He keeps you captivated and enthralled, while you just pine with every fiber of your being for him to find a way home. Despite the fact that he left Wilson to die.

4. Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Arguably the first animated film to genuinely pander to an adult audience, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is terrifying, hilarious, but most importantly it’s innovative, and it helped to inspire and rejuvenate a new interest in the animation genre. There’s also a smoothness to the film that belies the hardship that went into having the animated characters and actors share the screen, while its plot is both riveting and a nostalgic nod back to the Golden Age of cinema -- something that ebbs throughout. It’s a wink to the past, and a wave to the future. Plus, the introduction of Jessica Rabbit meant that you never looked at Minnie Mouse the same way again.

3. Romancing The Stone

Robert Zemeckis’ first box-office success, with I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars having flopped at the box office. If Romancing The Stone had failed, there is a good chance that Zemeckis might never have been heard from again. The action-adventure is also a rollickingly enjoyable romp, which was a critical as well as financial triumph. Zemeckis’ script is consistently funny, and his direction is flawless. Benefitting from the scintillating camaraderie from Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, both of whom are given the dual lead roles, Romancing The Stone is lean, funny, and thoroughly entertaining.

2. Forrest Gump

For some, Forrest Gump is Hollywood schmaltz at its worst. I have to admit that I used to be in that camp. But, then, one rainy afternoon, I found that it was on, and I resisted the urge to switch channels. Within an instant, I was caught up in its sickly sweet plot, which just flowed from one scene to the next, helped by its wonderfully woven soundtrack, all while incorporating both seamless visual effects and a genuinely unique but always captivating leading character, perfectly played by Tom Hanks. It’s the kind of film that you just can’t help but be charmed by. Unless you hate it. And even then, I can kind of understand why.

1. Back To The Future

It’s hard to sum up just how important Back To The Future was, and still is, to so many people. It was rebellious but hopeful, intelligent and funny, and just the most fun that you’ve ever had in a theater. It’s also relentless and breathless, zipping from one scene to the next, and definitely one of the finest scripts ever written. It’s also populated with characters that you either adored or despised. You wanted to be Marty McFly. You wanted your dad to be Doc Brown. You suddenly realized that your mom and dad used to be real people. And everyone wanted to make Biff eat manure. Back To The Future is pure cinema magic, which is summed up by the fact that even to this day, the riff for The Power Of Love and riding a skateboard are still cool.

This poll is no longer available.

Robert Zemeckis’ The Walk seems perfect for IMAX screenings. The film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as high-wire daredevil Philippe Petit who walked across the Twin Towers in NYC. After premiering at the NYFF, The Walk opened in various locations, including exclusive runs in IMAX formats — which were said to be making people vomit over the anxiety-inducing scope. Unfortunately for Sony, the studio releasing the film, a relatively small number of people are going to see The Walk in IMAX.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, The Walk opened in 448 IMAX and premium large-format theaters over the October 2 weekend, but these screenings only yielded $1.6 million. To put that in perspective, the live transmission of the Metropolitan Opera’s performance of Il Travatore on October 3 surpassed this number. With The Walk opening wide this weekend beginning October 9, the trade notes that this means the studio has to now pay for the promotion of two major openings over the course of back-to-back weekends.

Petit’s story has been told in book form, with Colum McCann’s Let the Great World Spin and Petit’s own memoir Man on Wire, the latter of which was adapted into the documentary of the same name. Zemeckis and Levitt give this story new life with The Walk, which takes advantage of the available large-screen formats. Many critics point to the duller first half, though the second half is well worth your time and money — some have even suggested seeing the film in IMAX or not at all. In addition to Levitt, the film also features Charlotte Le Bon, Ben Kingsley, James Badge Dale, and Ben Schwatze.

Watch the IMAX trailer below.

But why aren’t people buying this story — at least, in IMAX? MKM analyst Eric Handler told THR that The Walk is a niche film and it does not fit into IMAX’s typical offerings. However, it might not be entirely about The Walk and it reception, but rather an issue with the strategy over the early IMAX release. Everest, which features a star-studded cast including Jake Gyllenhaal and Josh Brolin, did far better than The Walk in this format (with $7.2 million), but it didn’t prompt more audiences to go see it when the film released wide. As Handler notes, the whole point of the early IMAX offering is to drum up word of mouth, which worked for something like Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, but even that could have been attributed to its franchise momentum.

We’ll have to see how The Walk fairs as it enters more theaters this weekend, but so far, these early numbers predict Robert Zemeckis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt might be in for a wobbly ride.

Know your limits, people. If you can’t stomach violence, steer clear of a Quentin Tarantino film. If horror’s not your thing, skip Eli Roth’s cannibal feature, The Green Inferno. And if towering heights induce vertigo, think long and hard before plunking down cash for a 3D IMAX ticket to Robert Zemeckis’ newest endeavor, The Walk.

If you weren’t aware, The Walk retells the remarkable (and true) story of wirewalker Philippe Petit, who strung a line between the existing towers of the World Trade Center in 1974 and walked across it… multiple times. Robert Zemeckis uses modern technology – 3D cameras and every square inch of the IMAX screen – to place viewers ON the wire with Petit. And as you might expect, audience members are having a hard time with it.

That Tweet was shared by Mark Harris following press screenings of The Walk prior to its debut at the New York Film Festival. His sentiments were shared by Denise Widman, board director of the Boston Jewish Film Festival, who told the NY Post:

The entire point of Robert Zemeckis’ The Walk, if we’re being honest, is to experience the vertigo-inducing thrills of stepping out onto that wire with Philippe Petit, so that we can hope to understand how he felt while pulling off the impossible. And there were moments in my own screening when I felt like I was going to have to step out of the theater and regain my internal balance. For me, the one scene that affected me the most happens BEFORE the actual walk. Petit (Joseph Gordon Levitt) takes the steps to the top of one of the towers and analyzes the vista for the first time. He steps out onto a metallic beam, and we get our first look down.

Honestly, I feared my palms would never stop sweating.

Robert Zemeckis’ The Walk has opened exclusively in 3D IMAX. It will expand to more theaters in the coming weeks. Bring a vomit bag. You won’t regret it.

The Walk is a cinematic rarity: It’s the right director making the right film in the perfect format, and producing scintillating results. If you’re still on the fence regarding 3D technology, then The Walk will convince you otherwise. In fact, it might even convince you to try and precariously balance on top of said fence while deploying a French accent at the same time.

For those of you who don’t know, The Walk revolves around Philippe Petit (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who travelled from France to New York and then miraculously walked on a tight rope between The Twin Towers on August 6, 1974. He didn't just do that once though. In fact, Petit stayed on the wire for 45 minutes and travelled between the two towers eight times. EIGHT TIMES!

In a Q&A after The Walk was screened as part of the New York Film Festival, director Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump, Contact, Flight) admitted that his only appeal to overseeing the film was depicting the tightrope-walking sequence. And while he might take his time getting to the titular event, once it arrives you truly get to see a director at the height of powers working wonders with 3D. Which is especially refreshing since so many directors appear to just use this technology as an after-thought nowadays.

It really is palm-sweatingly glorious stuff, and Robert Zemeckis is able to use all of the equipment that he has at his disposal to evoke a nauseating feeling of vertigo. And while that might sound like a deterrent, The Walk produces the most exhilarating movie sequence of the year that will grab hold of your gaze and then swing it through the sky as Petit does his walk.

From Petit’s first step out onto the tightrope, Robert Zemeckis uses the distant sound of sirens and the whirling wind to heighten the sense of peril, before then almost gleefully going above and beyond with his camerawork, lurching it through the clouds, to make his audience sweat.

But it’s with his use of 3D that Robert Zemeckis really excels. Not only does he enhance the entire film through his use of this technology, but he also makes you feel as if you stood alongside Philippe Petit as he marauds through the sky on a single, frail wire.

It’s not just in this sequence, though. Because Zemeckis has juggling balls, bowling pins, and basically anything that Petit has in his hands fling out of the camera, and his use of the depth of field, especially when he’s on the wire, is enough to even make a pigeon get vertigo.

The Walk truly is Hollywood spectacle at its very, very best. And while it might be flawed in places, it’s also the sort of film that you’ll just find yourself smiling at for no particular reason. Robert Zemeckis deserves kudos for using 3D to create such a thrilling experience. Let’s just hope that future 3D filmmakers can now follow his lead.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt being cast by director Robert Zemeckis to star in the new true story thriller The Walk may be seen as somewhat controversial. After all, there are a number of immensely talented French actors who could have been hired to play legendary French acrobat Philippe Petit in the film, but the director ultimately saw it fit to cast an American in the role. Because it’s a somewhat unusual choice on Zemeckis’ behalf, you might think that the filmmaker would have possibly perused other options other than Gordon-Levitt – but it turns out that’s not actually true, as the Looper star was really the only actor he found to have all the necessary tools for the performance.

Earlier this month, I had the absolutely wonderful opportunity to hop on the phone and talk with Robert Zemeckis about his brand new cinematic adventure, and it was towards the middle of our conversation that I turned the questioning towards the subject of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s casting. I asked the director if there was any point when he considered hiring an actor from France to play the part of Philippe Petit, but he dismissed the notion, telling me that the star he picked was the only one he wanted for the lead. He explained,

Obviously that kind of confidence in choosing a lead actor is impressive, and it turned out that choice worked tremendously well in Zemeckis’ favor. While the filmmaker obviously knew who he was getting involved with when he cast Gordon-Levitt as the star of The Walk, he wound up being immensely enthralled by the performers work ethic and desire to make his performance as authentic as possible. Said Zemeckis,

You’ll be able to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s turned as the great wire walker Philippe Petit later this week, as The Walk arrives in IMAX theaters nationwide. If there isn’t an IMAX theater near you, however, you’ll be able to catch the film in wide release starting October 9th.

In 1974, French acrobat Philippe Petit did something truly astonishing, and practically superhuman. He strung a high wire between the North and South towers of the World Trade Center, and had the courage to actually walk across it from end to end. It’s a feat that few people who have ever lived would have had the bravery to do, and I know for a fact that I’m not one of those people. I can say this will complete certainty, because I recently got a taste of the real deal in virtual reality form!

In promotion of director Robert Zemeckis’The Walk - which brings the story of the famed 1974 high wire act to theaters around the world – Sony and IMAX recently teamed up to create a "Can You Walk The Walk" virtual reality experience. While it was recently making a stop in Los Angeles, I got the chance to personally give it a shot. Utilizing Sony’s Project Morpheus system, the tech transported me to the top of the Twin Towers, where I was given the chance to walk out on Philippe Petit’s wire. In reality I only walked about five feet along what looked like a strip of cord cover, but that wasn’t the experience I was going through inside my head.

After putting on the virtual reality headset, I was rocketed up the side of the South tower to the corner where Philippe Petit hitched his long metal cable. As a monologue from the film played in my ears – Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s version of Petit discussing the beauty that surrounded me – I looked around the environment and immediately felt my legs start to quake. What I was looking out at most certainly looked like 1974 New York from my perspective, and my senses were telling my body that I might as well have been on the top of the actual building. My feet were planted on solid ground, and yet a part of me still felt that sending waves of acrophobia through my nervous system was totally justified.

Then came the actual walking part… which means that I’ve come to the point where I tell you that I tell you that I’m not overly ashamed by my unbalanced performance. The plastic strip I was stepping on was only about an inch thick at best, but the reality is that I probably would have had equal the trouble with something three times the width. After taking about two steps out on "the wire," I found myself dipping to the right – probably would have fallen flat on my face had it not been for the spotter by my side (though I must admit that I was curious what would have happened if I did fall entirely off my balance beam). After numerous readjustments getting back to balance, and even more dips off, I felt like I had walked a good 20 feet out – when in reality it was more like a quarter of that distance. I turned around, walked the wire as best I could back to the building, and managed to do it without making a public spectacle/ass out of myself. Mission accomplished.

It doesn’t really take a virtual reality program to help someone appreciate what Philippe Petit was able to accomplish - as any of us can really do a solid job imagining how they would act trying to replicate the feat – but the first-hand experience of The Walk was truly dizzying and a wonderful way to pull me even deeper into the experience.

For a chance to give it a whirl for yourself, check the worldwide schedule below to see if it will be coming to an area near you:

The Walk opens in IMAX theaters nationwide this weekend, and will expand nationwide October 9th.

With his new film, director Robert Zemeckis has worked to recreate one of the greatest stunts ever performed. In 1974, French acrobat Philippe Petit strung a wire between the Twin Towers and, with jaw-dropping skill and balance, actually managed to walk across it. This story was previously told in the James Marsh-directed documentary Man on Wire, but now Zemeckis has crafted it into a feature and is bringing it to the big screen with The Walk. But is it worth the extra few bucks to see it in 3D?

As we do with every newly released 3D film, we’ve broken down the experience watching The Walk into multiple categories to determine exactly the best way to see the movie on the big screen. To 3D or not to 3D, that is the question! So read on for the answer…

Fit Score

5/5

I wouldn’t normally put a movie that essentially follows a heist structure into the category of "must see in 3D," but The Walk is unique. The entire concept of high wire walking is perfect for the format, as filmmakers should do everything that can to create a sense of distance between the performer and the ground below. Zemeckis’ movie captures perhaps the most extraordinary bit of high wire walking that the world has ever seen, so calling it a fit for 3D is kind of an understatement.

Planning & Effort Score

5/5

While there were a few years where Robert Zemeckis specifically earned a reputation for making movies entirely with performance capture, the filmmaker was also one of the director’s leading the charge for 3D. As a result of this, he has had a habit of considering the extra-dimensional approach when taking on new projects, and The Walk is no exception. He had both 3D and IMAX in mind when he conceived of making the film, and while he made the decision to post-convert instead of using dual-cameras, there was every effort made along the way to enhance the theatrical experience.

Before the Window Score

5/5

Robert Zemeckis is a filmmaker who, through years of experience, has learned the importance of utilizing all aspects of 3D. This means not only creating a sense of depth, but also having objects flying out of the screen at the audience. The director makes a regular habit of adding exclamation points to sequences using the "Before The Window" aspect of the added dimension, whether it’s by having characters juggle items close to a movie-goer’s face, or dropping an extended length of cable on their heads. It’s exciting and fun, and really what the 3D experience was made for.

Beyond the Window Score

5/5

Are you afraid of heights? Do you get dizzy when standing on tall buildings? Well, one might ask why you took an interest in The Walk in the first place, but let me take this opportunity to tell you that you may want to avoid seeing the movie in 3D. And I mean that as a compliment. The use of depth is absolutely spectacular throughout the film, the lead character’s craft regularly lending opportunity for depth and distance to be important, and the third act is invigoratingly vertigo-inducing for reasons I’m sure you can guess. These moments honestly help define exactly why the film should have been made.

Brightness Score

5/5

The Walk certainly has its moments of drama, doubt, and darkness, but what Zemeckis has made is very much a happy film about dreamers that is, for the most part, very bright. This is very much reflected in the movie, and it stands out even through the grey filter added by 3D glasses. Even the scenes set at night and in dark corners don’t get muddied by the unfortunate side of 3D technology. Admittedly this category is somewhat subjective, as different theaters are going to have their projectors set to different brightness settings, but my experience watching The Walk was extraordinary.

Glasses Off Score

5/5

When watching a movie, a quick and easy way to see how much bang you’re getting for your 3D buck is simply to lift up your glasses and take a look at the screen. Doing this actually reveals the artificially created layers that create the 3D experience, and really great 3D movies are actually rather unwatchable in this way. While watching The Walk, I took regular opportunity to take a peek over the rim of my glasses – both for showier and slower scenes – and I was impressed every single time. This film was purposefully crafted for the extra dimensional experience, and it shows.

Audience Health Score

5/5

Poorly made 3D can sometimes leave audiences feeling nauseous, motion sick, or headachy, as filmmakers fail to create strong focal points that prevent the eyes from wandering around the screen. Given all that you’ve read here, surely nobody will be surprised when I say that The Walk doesn’t have this problem. Sure, the aforementioned vertigo did leave my head spinning a bit, but that was ultimately something to applaud the film for, not scold.

3D SCORES RECAP

3D Fit

5

P & E

5

Before The Window

5

Beyond The Window

5

Brightness

5

Glasses Off Test

5

Audience Health

5

Total Score

35/35

Final Verdict: We don’t give them out all that often, but yes, what you’re looking at above is a perfect score. The Walk is a film that was very much developed with the full 3D IMAX experience in mind, and the results are nothing short of spectacular. Every aspect of the presentation is wonderful, and it really presents the movie with an impact that you really just won’t get with 2D. When you buy a ticket for this one, definitely shell out a few extra bucks and grab some glasses.

This poll is no longer available.

Click to visit our full To 3D Or Not To 3D Archive.

In a world where the Jurassic Park franchise churned out another installment, Arnold Schwarzenegger is playing the Terminator again, and the Star Wars saga is coming back with both the old and a new cast, might there be hope for more Back to the Future? The classic film featured time travel, a nutty professor and Michael J. Fox. It has a massive fan base and seems ripe for the same treatment, if not now then a decade from now. But even if you’re secretly holding out hope for a sequel of some sort, Fox doesn’t want you to hold your breath.

According to Radio Times, Fox joined fellow cast mates, such as Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, Claudia Wells, Marc McClure, Frances Lee McCain, James Tolkan, Donald Fullilove and Harry Waters Jr., for a Back to the Future retrospective at London Film & Comic-Con this past weekend. While reflecting on his time making the film, he said piloting that hunk o’ junk, the DeLorean -- which would be essential to a sequel -- was a pain.

Fox said earlier in the panel that it was the worst vehicle to drive. It had only two gears and slamming the door would smash him into the flux capacitor. As he described, his head and hand would be bleeding, but he had to clean it all off to head over to the set of the sitcom Family Ties. Plus, his entrance proved to be a constant issue, as he’d be hit by the "freakin’ door" time after time. So, if Fox has anything to say about it, he won’t be getting back into that thing — ever!

Fox’s words echo a similar, though more blunt response from Robert Zemeckis earlier this month. The Back to the Future director was asked by The Telegraph about the possibility of a reboot, and Zemekis had an incredible response,

Robert Zemeckis referred to his writing partner on the film, Bob Gale, who commented last year how none of these kinds of reboots are any good. Zemeckis continued to muse over whether their estates could get involved after their deaths to prevent a Back to the Future reboot from ever seeing the light of day. He called such an act "outrageous" and compared rebooting his work to rebooting something like Citizen Kane. "What folly, what insanity is that?"

Whether this comes as the biggest disappointment or the biggest relief, the main players of Back to the Future are more than content to let this exist as it already is. The film, which came out on July 3, 1985, is currently celebrating its 30th anniversary, and will even be getting a Back to the Future 30th Anniversary Triology Blu-ray and DVD release on October 20. What better gift could Zemeckis and company give than allowing it to live out its days in peace.

As a beloved and successful film franchise from the 1980’s, there is little doubt that Back to the Future has been sized up on more than one occasion for the reboot treatment. However, when it comes to a potential adaptation of his signature work, director Robert Zemeckis is essentially telling Hollywood, "Get your damn hands off her!"

Speaking with The Telegraph, Zemeckis, the directorial and co-writing visionary of the time-twisting misadventures of the Back to the Future films, is adamant in his stance against a potential remake/reboot attempt from an idea-starved industry. Fortunately for Zemeckis, he and co-writer, Bob Gale, are legally in control of the property. According to Zemeckis:

Clearly, Zemeckis’ purist approach to his franchise is a sentiment that is shared with a growing element of the movie-going populace that are jaded towards the remake/reboot culture of Hollywood that gleans ideas from old playbooks, often adding very little in the process. However, for some franchises, the idea, when properly executed, can yield tremendous results, as exemplified by the current $1.2 billion global box-office supremacy of long-in-the-making franchise follow-up, Jurassic World. While that film was a sequel of sorts, rather than a reboot, it nevertheless remains true for Hollywood executives that concepts known as "pre-sold titles" are statistically a safe financial bet.

Zemeckis is clearly worried that Back to the Future will always be circled by the carrion birds of opportunistic executives after he and Gale have exited this mortal coil. While a reboot is clearly out of the question while Zemeckis or Gale still draw breath, the idea of a belated sequel, similar to the aforementioned Jurassic World, is also a no go, seeing as Zemeckis has been vocally opposed to revisiting the franchise without star Michael J. Fox, whose battle with Parkinson’s Disease would render a demanding feature film return rather unfeasible. At a 2008 Florida convention, he colorfully described such a venture without Fox as cooking a steak dinner only to "hold the beef."

While the Back to the Future trilogy is currently safe from Hollywood’s reboot patrol, there is an especially poignant bit of nostalgia surrounding the property with the impending 30th anniversary of the July 3, 1985 release of the original film, which went on to 11 (non-successive) weeks on top of the box office charts, essentially dominating the summer of 1985. At least, for now anyway, the integrity of those films will remain intact and even the power of 1.21 gigawatts surging into the DeLorean will not be enough for Hollywood to hearken back to the fictional, shallow-gene-pool town of Hill Valley, California anytime soon.

In the meantime, Robert Zemeckis’ upcoming directorial effort, The Walk, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as French daredevil Philippe Petit, walks the tightrope in theaters on September 30.

Brad Pitt clearly loves his World War II dramas. Fresh off the success of Inglorious Basterds and Fury, the actor has decided to once again return to the period for his next film, and he’s bringing along Oscar-winng actress Marian Cotillard for the ride too.

According to The Wrap, the French actress has now signed on the dotted line for the untitled project, which will be a combined released from Paramount and New Regency. However, unlike Brad Pitt’s two previously World War II-based excursions, this film, written by Steven Knight, is destined to be a more romantic, mysterious, and dramatic piece, without the colossal bloodshed of Fury and Inglorious Basterds. But as it’s set during the Second World War I’m sure there will be some deaths for people to devour.

Pitt and Cottillard are set to play two assassin in the flick, and the stupendously attractive duo will fall in love during a mission to kill a German official. Told you there would be blood. In fact, the pair fall so much in love that they soon marry. However, their marriage is quickly ruined when he’s told that his wife is a double agent working for the German government. It’s made even worse when he’s told that he then must kill her. Is it just me or does this material seem ripe for comedy too?

The film is actually shaping up very nicely indeed. Not only does it have two absolutely stellar stars on-board, both of whom ooze sex appeal and charisma, but it’s also being directed by Robert Zemeckis. The Back To The Future and Forrest Gump director, who picked up an Academy Award for Best Director for his work on the latter, is currently putting the finishing touches to the intriguing The Walk.

It’s certainly a change of pace for Zemeckis, who has spent most of the last decade working on special effects movies like The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol, which have tried to fully utilise technological advancements in the medium. Even The Walk, which is a retelling of Philippe Petit’s walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on August 7, 1974, is set to fully take advantage of 3D Imax in a way that hasn’t been done before. This untitled romance should be a much more straight-forward film for Zemeckis though, and if he can eke out stunning performances from his two leads like he did with Denzel Washington in Flight then we should be on for a real winner.

Alongside Pitt, Cotillard, and Knight’s involvement, Zemckis, Steve Starkey, and Graham King are producing the romantic spy drama, while Knight is also an executive producer with Jack Rapke, Patrick McCormick, and Denis O’Sullivan. Production was due to begin this fall, however, Zemckis will be too busy promoting The Walk and Cotillard is still shooting Assassin’s Creed, so filming has been pushed back to start in early 2016.

The first trailer for the The Walk may have given you vertigo even if you don’t have a problem with heights. The film is the story of French tightrope walker Philippe Petit who walked between the towers of the World Trade Center on a wire in 1974. While the first trailer was over two minutes long, it was barely more than a teaser, showing us very little of the actual film. Today we got a look at a new trailer, which gives us much more to see from very high up.

So apparently what we're looking at here is equal parts IMAX 3D spectacle and Oceans 11 style heist movie. It makes sense. They essentially were planning a crime. It’s not like it was entirely legal to just throw a cable between the towers and go on a walkabout. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s French accent sounds solid, and probably won’t have you stabbing your ears with a pencil an hour in. The only question remaining is, will the payoff of the walk at the end be worth dropping the extra cash to see it in 3D or IMAX?

In addition to the new trailer it was also announced today that The Walk World Premier will open the New York Film Festival this fall. It’s only the second time a 3D feature has opened the festival (Ang Lee’s Life of Pi being the first). This is Robert Zemeckis’ second consecutive film selected for the NY Film Festival, as 2012’s Flight closed the festival that year. Zemeckis said that The Walk is "a New York story," which is why he was thrilled with the selection of his film for NYFF.

Petit’s story has been a popular one in recent years, as it was also the subject of the 2008 Academy Award winning documentary Man on Wire. This film will certainly dramatize events somewhat as films based on true stories are wont to do. Still, there’s enough real life drama here to make for an exciting movie.

The fact that nobody will ever be able to recreate this famous feat has made the events that The Walk depicts just as poignant as they are amazing. Robert Zemeckis, who loves to see how hard he can push technology in his films, appears to have faithfully, and realistically, re-created the Twin Towers themselves, as well as the walk between them. We’ll all get a chance to stand 1,300 feet above New York City when the film is released October 2.