I'm a huge Beatles fan. I'm also a huge fan of when filmmakers take big, crazy swings and try to do things that seem equal parts crazy and impossible. As such, when it was announced that director Sam Mendes was going to make not one, but four movies about the lives of The Beatles, I was intrigued. Now that I've seen what the cast is going to look like, I'm absolutely astounded.

A variety of Instagram images have begun to drop on various accounts that reveal that a set of four postcards has been hidden around the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts, and students have been encouraged to go hunting for them. Each one reveals a member of the cast, including Barry Keoghan, Paul Mescal, Joseph Quinn, and Harris Dickinson. Check some of the images out below.

It's a pretty interesting way to drum up interest in the films. LIPA was co-founded by Paul McCartney and has a studio named for George Harrison, so it's a fitting place for this little stunt. Still, it's a surprisingly limited way to start the buzz. Most people certainly won't be able to find these postcards themselves, but the images from those who are finding and posting them on Instagram are already gathering traction.

Sam Mendes' Beatles project will see four different movies shot simultaneously. As we understand it, each movie will tell, more or less, the same story of The Beatles, of their formation, success, and ending, but each will be shot from the perspective of a different member. One expects that events may not happen entirely identically in each film, as each person may see the events from a different point of view.

Barry Keoghan's Ringo looks amazing and like something right out of The Beatles' latter era. As a big Paul McCartney fan personally, I've been waiting to see how Paul Mescal pulled off the character. He looks like he's standing in the Cavern Club and about to break into an early Beatles performance.

A lot of fans are going to be most interested in how John Lennon is portrayed in the films. Harris Dickinson certainly appears to have nailed the look.

Finally, we have the unsung hero of The Beatles, George Harrison. Joseph Quinn is set to play Harrison, and I can just hear the opening notes of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" coming off this picture.

Beatlemania began in the 1960s and, to a certain extent, it's never really ended. We just recently saw the streaming debut of The Beatles Anthology, and Peter Jackson has spent about as much time working on Beatles documentaries for the last few years as he did on The Lord of the Rings. Needless to say, people are going to be excited when these movies all come out in quick succession, currently slated for early 2028.

Well, nobody can claim they don't look like The Beatles. They are as close to perfect as they'll need to be. Now I just need to hear the accents.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is cruising toward its big Multiverse Saga finale with Avengers: Doomsday being released next year and Avengers: Secret Wars following that. There are a lot of questions about what’s going to happen after that, but a new rumor claims that one of those projects will be Doctor Strange 3.

A report from Nexus Point News claims Doctor Strange 3 is in early development at Marvel Studios, with plans to start production sometime after Secret Wars. While this is only a rumor and should be taken with as many magically produced grains of salt as you have to muster, the rumor does have some interesting elements, especially as in regards to the director Benedict Cumberbatch is allegedly interested in.

Benedict Cumberbatch Reportedly Wants An Oscar-Winning Filmmaker For Doctor Strange 3

According to the rumor, Doctor Strange himself, Benedict Cumberbatch, is interested in bringing Sam Mendes on board to helm the third installment of the franchise. It would be an interesting choice to say the least. Mendes has never done a big blockbuster comic book movie, but who wouldn't want to see his take on it?

Mendes would be a great choice, and I'd love to see it happen if this is at all true. As he's proven, Mendes can certainly jump into an existing franchise and make magic. To that point, he directed Skyfall, one of the best James Bond movies ever. The director -- who won an Academy Award for American Beauty -- also got a real creative flair that would be fitting for a Doctor Strange movie, as he showed off in his "one take" movie, 1917.

The biggest hurdle to getting Mendes for Doctor Strange 3 would be the schedule. Mendes is currently involved in his massive four-film Beatles biopic project, which is expected to start shooting soon, and won’t be hitting theaters until 2028. So Mendes is going to be pretty busy and, if Strange 3 is planned to be an early Phase 7 (my god, are we really talking about Phase 7) project, the British director may simply not be available in the right window.

If Sam Mendes were to actually be hired, he would also be something of a break from tradition, as the two previous directors for Doctor Strange movies, Scott Derrickson and Sam Raimi, have been known for their horror movie skills. Horror is one genre Mendes has never really dealt with. This could indicate a planned change in tone for the franchise.

The Future Of Doctor Strange In The MCU Is Murky

Of course, another big question is in what state the MCU will find Doctor Strange after the Multiverse Saga ends. At this point, we don’t even know if or when we’ll see Cumberbatch’s character in the Avengers projects. Initially, the actor was implying he wouldn’t be in Doomsday. Then he was saying he would be, but his name was not among those revealed in the big Avengers: Doomsday cast announcement.

The other key elements of this rumor that are important, assuming any of it is actually true, are to indicate there will even be a Doctor Strange 3, and that Cumberbatch plans to continue with the character. There are expectations that many Marvel roles will be recast following Avengers: Secret Wars, so we'll have to wait and see what happens moving forward.

In the meantime, stream the first two films in the Doctor Strange franchise, along with other MCU films, using a Disney+ subscription.

The Beatles – A Four-Film Cinematic Event is one of the most ambitious creative projects in the history of Hollywood. While we normally are focused on the immediate, like the 2026 movie schedule, director Sam Mendes has taken on a challenge so huge that we're talking about, in length, two years out from the release of all four movies. Each movie will focus on an individual member of the band: Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.

It's kind of crazy that we're talking about a project that is still two years away from release, but we have not one, but four upcoming music biopics about The Beatles, collectively known as The Beatles – A Four-Film Cinematic Event. It’s safe to say that the band's legacy has never waned, and they remain as relevant today as they were in the 1960s. However, there has never been an officially approved film about the iconic rock band, until now. And there are four of them.

The films are being shot simultaneously and cover the same period in the band, from their early days in Liverpool until their breakup in 1970 with the same cast appearing in all four. Each film will be seen from the point of view of an individual Beatle. Over the last couple of years or so, we’ve gotten a lot of information, including who will play most of the important people in the story (including all four Beatles), as casting is pretty much fully fleshed out at this point, at least all the major players (save one - who will play Pete Best??).

Oh, and did we mention that all four movies will be released on the same day in 2028? Let's get into it, because I can't wait to see these movies.

What Is The Release Date?

Understandably, the project is going to take some time. In March of 2025, Variety reported the news that all four movies will hit theaters on April 7th, 2028. That certainly feels like a long way off, but The Beatles – A Four-Film Cinematic Event is a huge undertaking, so it’s hardly a surprise that it will take a while to complete. Production began in November of 2025.

The announcement called it “the first binge-able theatrical experience,” and if you are going to binge it, it's going to be a long day at the movie theater, as all four will be released simultaneously!

Who Are Playing The Beatles And Everyone Else In The Cast?

The cast of The Beatles – A Four-Film Cinematic Event is absolutely stacked. Columbia Pictures has announced the names of most of the important people in The Beatles' orbit, including, of course, the four actors playing John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Plus producer George Martin, manager Brian Epstein, and the women who will be playing their wives. Here's everyone we know, including photos of the actors playing the Fab Four:

Paul Mescal As Paul McCartney

Though all of the Beatles are among the most famous men of the 100 years, Paul McCartney might just be the most famous. His career has spanned an incredible 65+ years, and even in his 80s, the songwriter shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, McCartney is releasing a new album, his first in six years, at the end of May 2026. In the Mendes Beatles movies, "Macca" will be played by Normal People star Paul Mescal.

Mescal's breakout role came in 2024's Gladiator II, in which he played Lucius Verus Aurelius. That came after he was nominated for an Oscar for 2022's Aftersun. He's also got a lot of award buzz for his performance as William Shakespeare in Hamnet, which was released in December 2025. In January 2026, we even got a sneak peek of Mescal as Macca, as well as a quote from the actor saying he will be doing the singing as Paul.

Harris Dickinson As John Lennon

The role of the late John Lennon will be played by Harris Dickinson. Lennon, who was shot and killed in 1980, did more to shape the Beatles than anyone else, both for better and for worse, and there is no doubt his story will likely be the most anticipated. The King's Man star has been busy lately, working with fellow Beatles movie star Saoirse Ronan in Blitz in 2024, and writing, directing, and starring in Urchin in 2025.

Joseph Quinn As George Harrison

In 2025, Joseph Quinn joined the MCU as Johnny Storm in the well-received Marvel movie The Fantastic Four: First Steps. He'll be reprising the role in 2026's Avengers: Doomsday. Quinn has been tapped to play George Harrison in the Beatles movies. Of all the stories to be told, Harrison's might be the most interesting during his time with the band. Though he was an original member, he often felt apart from the writing team of Lennon and McCartney. It famously led to a fair amount of friction within The Beatles, and watching it play out will likely be a highlight of the four movies.

Barry Keoghan As Ringo Starr

Ringo Starr might not have been the band’s original drummer, but he joined just at the right time. That’s not to take away from his drumming, of course, or his impact on the band. His quirky personality and tasteful drumming were keys to the band’s success. He will be played by Irish actor Barry Keoghan. Keoghan spoke to Collider in March 2026 about the pressure of portraying a Beatle:

Keoghan has quickly become one of the most celebrated actors of the last decade with standout roles in shows like Chernobyl from HBO and Masters Of The Air, which can be seen with an Apple TV subscription, as well as movies like The Banshees of Inisherin, Eternals, Saltburn, and most recently, Crime 101 on the 2026 movie schedule.

Anna Sawai As Yoko Ono

Without a doubt, one of the most anticipated casting announcements would be who would play Yoko Ono. We now know that Anna Sawai will be stepping into the role of John Lennon’s second wife and widow. 2025 has been a big year for Sawai. She won an Emmy in September for her amazing performance in 2024’s Shōgun, which you can watch with a Hulu subscription.

Lennon met Ono in 1966, but they wouldn’t start dating until 1968, before marrying in 1969. She was a near-constant presence with the rock star after their marriage. This is one of the stories I'm most interested in, as I, like others, think that Ono got a bad rap for far too long as the "woman who broke up The Beatles," which isn't remotely true. It looks like Sawai agrees, telling Variety:

Ono is the most famous non-band member in The Beatles story, so this should be a major aspect of John's movie, I would think.

Saoirse Ronan As Linda McCartney

Saoirse Ronan is one of the more celebrated actors of the last two decades, earning four Oscar nominations since 2007. Most recently, she can be seen in 2025’s Bad Apples and 2024’s Blitz on Apple TV.

Ronan will be playing Linda McCartney, née Eastman, who married Paul in 1969. Linda, a professional photographer, met Paul in 1967 while she was on assignment, and they began dating shortly after. They remained married until her death from breast cancer in 1998.

Aimee Lou Wood As Pattie Boyd

One of the biggest breakouts in 2025 came from Season 3 of The White Lotus. Aimee Lou Wood is wonderful as Chelsea in the anthology series, and she is, frankly, perfect for the role of Pattie Boyd Harrison, wife of George Harrison. Most recently, Wood has co-created and is starring in the BBC show Film Club. For the role of Pattie, Wood is very aware of what she needs to do to play such a famous public figure, telling The Standard:

George and Pattie met on the set of Hard Day's Night in 1964, where Pattie played one of the two school girls on the train with The Beatles. Like in the movie, she caught the eye of one particular Beatle, and they married in early 1966. Their relationship was a rocky one, and Biyd famously divorced Harrison in 1977 and married Harrison’s best friend, Eric Clapton. Most of that story happened after the Beatles broke up, so we probably won’t see it in the movies.

Mia McKenna-Bruce As Maureen Starkey

Ringo Starr’s most famous (and current) wife is former Bond girl Barbara Bach, but they didn’t marry until 1980, so she likely won’t be part of the story in these movies. In the time period covered by the movies, Starr was married to Liverpool-native Maureen Starkey, née Cox. They married in 1965 and were together until 1975.

Maureen will be played by Mia McKenna-Bruce. McKenna-Bruce had her breakout in 2022’s How to Have Sex and is set to star in the Netflix show The Seven Dials Mystery, based on the book of the same name by Agatha Christie.

James Norton As Brian Epstein

We've also learned from Deadline that The Beatles' legendary manager Brian Epstein, who died in 1967 at the height of Beatlemania, will be portrayed by James Norton. Norton recently starred in House of Guinness, one of the best shows on Netflix in 2025.

Norton is no stranger to playing record industry legends. The actor played Island Records founder Chris Blackwell in the biopic Bob Marley: One Love in 2024. Norton will also appear in the upcoming Season 3 of House Of The Dragon as Ormond Hightower.

Harry Lloyd As George Martin

Game of Thrones veteran Harry Lloyd, who played the ill-fated Viserys Targaryen in the HBO series, will play famed Beatles producer George Martin. One of the many men sometimes referred to as "the fifth Beatle," Martin was crucial to the band's legendary albums. There's no question he'll play a prominent role in all four films.

The rest of the cast, including some of the Beatles' family members, and other important people in their career, have also been cast:

• Bobby Schofield As Neil Aspinall
• Daniel Hoffman-Gill as Mal Evans
• Adam Pally as Allen Klein
• David Morrissey as Jim McCartney, Paul's father
• Leanne Best as Mimi Smith, John's aunt, who raised him
• Arthur Darvill as Beatles PR man Derek Taylor
• Adam Pally as Allen Klein, the band's manager in their later years
• Lucy Boynton as Jane Asher
• Farhan Akhtar as Ravi Shankar
• Morfydd Clark as Cynthia Lennon, John's first wife
• Harry Lawtey as Stuart Sutcliffe, The Beatles' original bass player

Some of the musicians who worked with The Beatles will hopefully make appearances, like keyboardist Billy Preston. He worked with the band extensively in their final recording sessions and can be seen with a Disney+ subscription in the amazing docuseries The Beatles: Get Back from director Peter Jackson. Eric Clapton, who played the guitar solo on “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” and was good friends with George Harrison (and later married Pattie Boyd, after she divorced Harrison), could also pop up.

Of course, we haven't seen an actor attached to the role of the band's drummer before Ringo, Pete Best, either, but as Stu Sutcliffe has been cast, I assume Best will appear too.

There Will Be 4 Movies, One For Each Beatle

Rather than cover The Beatles across one biopic, this project is dedicating four feature films to these musical icons. As an added twist, each movie will focus on a different band member’s point of view, with all of the stories being “interconnected.” So although we’ll see Paul, John, George, and Ringo in all of these movies, each one will see one of the men taking center stage while the others occupy supporting positions.

As such, it’s reasonable to assume that, along with certain events being re-explored in each of these movies from different perspectives, there will also be opportunities to go down narrative paths that only involve the central Beatle, depending on the movie.

The Story Will End With Their 1970 Breakup

Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr continued to produce music for their solo careers well after the Beatles dissolved, but it sounds like that won’t be explored in any of these upcoming movies. Per an official press release (via Variety), the Beatles' movies will wrap up with their breakup in 1970.

It’s possible that in the midst of each Beatles’ narrative being covered, there will be post-1970 flash forwards to show where these men ended up in life, but since these movies are specifically centered around the band when they were together, it’s doubtful a lot of screen time will be dedicated to what has happened after the breakup, or a lot about their solo careers.

Sam Mendes Is Directing All Four Movies

With a resume that includes American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Skyfall, Spectre, and 1917, it’s safe to say that Sam Mendes remains one of Hollywood’s most talented directors. Still, the prospect of directing four movies like this back-to-back-to-back-to-back would surely be daunting for any filmmaker. And yet, Mendes has taken it upon himself to helm and produce all four of them, though that’s not surprising since, per the Deadline story, he “conceived this grand vision.”

There Will Be Three Screenwriters

In May 2025, we found out that the four films would be written by three screenwriters. It’s a group of heavyweights, too. Per Variety, Tony Award-winner Jez Butterworth, who worked with Mendes on the James Bond film Spectre, will work alongside Peter Straughan, who just won an Oscar for his script for Conclave, and Jack Thorne, who took home an Emmy for his amazing work on Adolescence, which you can check out with a Netflix subscription.

These Are The First Official Biopics About The Beatles Ever Made

The Beatles are no strangers to cinema. Not only did Paul, John, Ringo, and George star in the movies A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, and Magical Mystery Tour, but they also provided the music (but not their voices) to the animated Yellow Submarine. There have also been several documentaries, and their music has been prominently featured in movies like Across the Universe and Yesterday (with the latter being possible thanks to a deal between Working Title Films and Apple and Sony). They even once tried to get their own Lord of the Rings adaptation off the ground.

However, Sam Mendes’ Beatles movies are the first time that scripted cinematic stories about these men have been approved by Paul and Ringo, as well as the estates of John and George. The full life stories and music rights of all four band members have been granted by those individuals and Apple Corps Ltd., the corporation that manages The Beatles’ music and various other media ventures.

There have been plenty of unauthorized versions of The Beatles on screen, with varying success, but none of those had the full backing of the band members and their surviving families, as these do. That means we’ll get lots of The Beatles’ music in the films, which is great, but it is fair to worry if the films will be too sanitized and leave out some of the more controversial moments of the band’s career, like the death of early band member Stu Sutcliffe, for example.

Given the success of music biopics from recent years like Bohemian Rhapsody, Elvis, A Complete Unknown, and the most recent Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere, making a movie about The Beatles seems like it would be a no-brainer, but releasing four movies about them at once could lead to this becoming the cinematic event of 2028.

CinemaBlend will continue sharing the big updates on how Sam Mendes’ Beatles movies are progressing, so keep your eyes peeled!

I’ve been a fan of The Beatles since birth, or probably even before I was born on account of my dad being obsessed with the “Fab Four.” I was raised on a healthy dose of Beatles music and stories, and so like my dad, I’ve become what some would consider obsessed with the band and their impact on music and society in general.

When I found that Sam Mendes, the director of the Best Picture winner American Beauty, was developing not one but four movies about The Beatles (one dedicated to each member of the band), I was ecstatic about an ambitious project that won't be released until well after the 2024 movie schedule concludes. That being said, I got to thinking about all the key events and moments I’d love to see told in the movies, and came up with this list… 

John, Paul, George, and Ringo's Younger Days

Based on what I gathered from Deadline’s February 2024 announcement about the project, each of the four movies will focus on different members of the band with some interconnected stories. If this ends up being the case, Sam Mendes could do something unique and fresh with the origin aspect of his ambitious biographical drama. Focusing on each of the four members’ childhood experiences and early days of the band could be really cool to see in this format, especially the band’s first few years before Ringo Starr joined and finalized the lineup. We’ve seen various biopics like Knowhere Boy that tackled the formative experiences, but those mostly focus on the individual members without too much attention to the other three.

The First Ed Sullivan Performance

The Beatles’ February 1964 performance of “I Want to Hold Your Hand” on The Ed Sullivan Show was one of the biggest moments in the band’s career as well as the history of TV and is something that’s still discussed 60 years later. I would love to see not only the appearance but also the before-and-after of the whole episode and how it impacted each of the members on both a personal and professional level. Was John excited? Was Paul on edge? Was George nervous? Was Ringo down for the ride? Breaking down the psychological aspect of it from each member’s perspective could be really cool to see.

Filming A Hard Day's Night

Like other musicians of their era, The Beatles made a handful of movies during their early days, including A Hard Day’s Night. Released in July 1964, the mockumentary film followed the group over the course of a single day and felt quite similar to their initial experiences with superstardom during that time. I would love to see the four movies dive into the production of the iconic film and how the members felt about transitioning from a quartet of musicians to a pop culture phenomenon with a budding big-screen career.

The "More Popular Than Jesus" Backlash

In July 1966, The Beatles became wrapped up in a major controversy after comments made by John Lennon months earlier led to international backlash and protests by religious leaders, government officials, and former fans. Lennon’s “more popular than Jesus” remark, which was taken out of context when published by Datebook teen magazine that summer, nearly upended the band’s massive wave of success and threatened their lives, per Rolling Stone.  The whole episode, which included the burning and demolition of the band’s records and memorabilia in the United States, would make for a memorable yet somewhat tragic portion of Sam Mendes’ planned movies.

The Final Concert

On August 29, 1966, The Beatles played their final concert, a 11-song performance in front of 25,000 fans at Candlestick Park in San Francisco. The last stop of an 18-day tour that was marred by controversy (this was right after the “Bigger Than Jesus” episode blew up) and pushed the four members to their physical limits, the gig has become something of legend over the years. This was also the start of a big transition from the “Beatlemania” phenomenon to the more secluded and creative period in the band’s final years, making this a must for the movies.

Brian Epstein's Death

With the status of the Brian Epstein biopic only getting foggier as time goes on, it’s hard to say if we’ll ever see a proper movie dedicated solely to The Beatles’ longtime manager. That being said, his August 1967 death should be a major part of Sam Mendes’ four-picture project, as he was essentially the glue that kept the four members together during the tumultuous period that was the mid-1960s. Seeing how John, Paul, George, and Ringo hear about the loss of their manager and friend, as well as how they come to terms with it could make for an incredibly powerful moment.

The Beatles' 1968 Trip To India

In February 1968, the four members of The Beatles, their wives, and various other musicians traveled to Rishikesh, India, to study Transcendental Mediation with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a trip that would also lead to the band’s most productive songwriting period. There are a few factors that would be fun to explore from this trip including the varying levels of commitment to TM from the individual members to the isolated nature of the months-long excursion to the way it impacted the interpersonal and creative relationships of the four friends in the final years of their time together.

The 'Get Back' Sessions

The “Get Back” sessions, which would ultimately lead to Abbey Road and Let It Be, the final two Beatles records, were explored in great detail in Peter Jackson’s The Beatles: Get Back. And while we’ve been treated to an exhaustive experience from those sessions, what we didn’t get to see in the Disney+ original title were the events before and after those intense hours spent in the rehearsal space. There’s a great deal of bitterness and contention in that doc, and I would love to see how each member felt about that process.

Playing On The Apple Records Roof

The Beatles’ January 30, 1969 concert on top of the Apple Corps roof is one of the most iconic moments in the history of rock and roll and one that is forever attached to the band. What would ultimately be the group’s final public performance together is the stuff of legend these days and a movie about The Beatles better include this in some form.

The Break-up

The Beatles officially disbanded on December 29, 1974, almost four years after Paul McCartney filed a lawsuit to formally dissolve the partnership he shared with John Lennon. Though it’s going to be a bummer watching the band break apart, the thought of Sam Mendes potentially structuring his movies differently based on this timeline is something that has me extremely curious. So much time passed between McCartney’s December 31, 1970 filing and the finalization years later, which took place while Lennon was at Disney World, per Vulture.

Though we’re going to be waiting a very long time for the still-untitled Beatles movies, I’m excited about what Sam Mendes has in store (even if he doesn’t include all these big moments). But to pass the time, I’m going to watch these Beatles-centric documentaries.

With the release of Michael in April, it means that for the first time in a very long time, there aren't any music biopics with definite release dates for a couple of years. Given the box office success of the Michael Jackson biopic, it surely won't be long before some more productions get underway; however, as of this writing, on the 2026 movie schedule. There aren't any that are for sure coming in 2027 (though there is a possibility of a couple).

After a decade or so of seemingly endless music biopics, there are still quite a few that are in the works that we could see at some point. It's not like the genre isn't successful; with unforgettable Best Picture winners and cult classics about beloved and tormented musicians released over the years, it's not like Hollywood is going to abandon them completely. With all that said, here's what we know about some that are definitely on the way, and even more that have been announced, but we may or may not see on the big screen eventually.

Snoop Dogg Biopic - Possibly 2027

Snoop Dogg is about to get a full-fledged biographical drama about his life, career, and legacy in the rap game, Hollywood, and pop culture in general. Though the title has yet to be announced, Deadline reported in early 2025 that the drama will center on Calvin Broadus Jr. and his journey to becoming Snoop Doggy Dogg, one of the most successful performers of all time.

At CinemaCon in April 2026, Snoop was joined by Outer Banks' Jonathan Daviss at the Universal Pictures event (per Variety), and announced that he'd be back next year "with a trailer" for the biopic. Does that mean this one is set for a 2027 release? Well, we'll have to wait and see for information. This is the most promising title on the docket for 2027, however.

The Beatles – A Four-Film Cinematic Event - April 7, 2028

Sam Mendes, a director who doesn’t get talked about enough, is taking on what could be his most ambitious project yet: The Beatles – A Four-Film Cinematic Event. If all things go according to plan, the 1917 filmmaker will release a series of biopics, with each film centering on a specific member of the iconic band.

Production on all four films is underway, but that doesn't mean we'll be seeing them soon. In fact, all four are scheduled to be released on the same day, but that day isn't until April 7th, 2028. We've started learning quite a bit about The Beatles – A Four Film Cinematic Event (the official title as of April 2026), but aside from some publicity photos, we're all still in the dark about what it will look like. It's weird that even though these movies are still almost two years away, they are the only ones on this list with a definitive release date.

Winds Of Change (Scorpions Biopic) - TBD

In June 2025, Deadline reported that Winds of Change, a biographical drama based on the European rockers, is in the works and will focus on their start in post-WWII Germany and eventual rise to become a massively successful and prolific group, selling millions of records. Alex Ranarivelo, best known for American Wrestler: The Wizard, is sitting in the director's chair for the upcoming biopic, with Dominic West, Alexander Dreymon, Ludwig Trepte, and Ed Speleers starring.

Principal photography took place in 2025, and the film was reportedly set to be released the same year, but it may have been affected by the Warner Bros. merger with Paramount, and it seems that, at least for now, the movie is on hold, with no release date set. At least there is a trailer, which is honestly more than a lot of the movies on this list can say for now.

Josephine Baker Biopic (TBD)

In May 2026, Variety reported that pop star FKA Twigs had signed on to play the legendary Josephine Baker in a biopic from French director Maimouna Doucouré. Baker may not be a household name these days, but 100 years ago, she was one of the biggest stars on the planet. She was a cabaret singer, movie star, pin-up girl, and more. She led a fascinating life outside of entertainment as a member of the French Resistance during World War II, and was a prominent voice in the Civil Rights Movement, despite living most of her life in Paris.

This won't be the first film about Baker. In 1991, Lynn Whitfield starred as the singer in The Josephine Baker Story on HBO. Sonia Rolland played Baker in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris in 2011 as well.

Joni Mitchell Biopic - TBD

Director Cameron Crowe (Almost Famous) knows a thing or two about music-centric movies, and Meryl Streep is no stranger to biopics. Now, the two Hollywood legends are teaming up to tell the story of one of history’s most prolific and transformative songwriters of all time for the long-awaited Joni Mitchell biographical drama. The film will reportedly co-star Ana Taylor-Joy as the singer in her earlier years as well.

Word of this came from Rolling Stone, which reported in February 2026 that Clive Davis confirmed the news of the Oscar-winning actress being picked to play the legendary musicians during his big pre-Grammys party. Details are being limited at this time, so we’ll have to wait and see if the movie hires another actress to play Mitchell during her early days in the folk scene. I mean, I’d love to hear both versions of “Both Sides Now” when this comes out.

The Replacements Biopic - TBD

We can’t hardly wait for this one. With his time in Hawkins, Indiana, a distant memory, Finn Wolfhard is already gearing up for his next project. In October 2025, Variety reported that the actor and musician was in the process of adapting Bob Mehr’s acclaimed biography Trouble Boys: The True Story of the Replacements along with his dad, Eric Wolfhard.

While it hasn’t been revealed if the younger Wolfhard will be acting in the upcoming biopic, he certainly has the musical chops to handle the duties that’d come with playing one of the most iconic American rock bands of the late 20th century. When hosting Saturday Night Live back in January 2026, the actor and musician could be seen wearing a Replacements T-shirt when introducing A$AP Rocky.

Bon Jovi Biopic - TBD

Bon Jovi fans who have long been “living on a prayer” as they wait for information about a long-rumored biopic are in for a real treat. In March 2026, Deadline reported that Universal Pictures is currently working on a movie about the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame rock quartet and its leader, Jon Bon Jovi. To make it even better, the famous musician is working alongside producers and has allowed the production to use the band’s massive library of music.

According to the report, the movie will focus on the band’s formative years as it goes from a group of New Jersey rockers to one of the biggest music sensations of the ‘80s. Cody Brotter is set to pen the script, but there’s no word on who’ll be directing or starring in this hotly anticipated movie. Let the guessing games begin.

George Clinton Biopic - TBD

When it comes to the world of funk, few names carry as much weight (or groove) as George Clinton. The frontman and band leader of the iconic Parliament-Funkadelic is known throughout the music industry and pop culture as one of the most colorful, prolific, and influential figures of all time. That said, it shouldn’t be any surprise that some folks want to make a biopic about the legendary figure and his over-the-top outfits (and wigs).

After years of talk about some kind of project about the P-Funk leader’s history and legacy, Variety reported in 2024 that Eddie Murphy was in talks to play Clinton in a big-screen biopic directed by Bill Condon. However, like many other projects, there have been no updates in months, though Murphy has mentioned it in interviews over the last year, so it does seem that plans are still underway to produce it.

Dionne Warwick Biopic - TBD

Teyana Taylor gave a career-defining and scene-stealing performance in One Battle After Another, but came up just short at the 98th Academy Awards. We could be seeing her in the running for an Oscar in the future, however, as she is working on a biopic about the life and career of six-time Grammy winner and Rock & Roll Hall of Famer Dionne Warwick.

During a September 2025 appearance on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, the Golden Globe-winning actress said that she was very protective of Warwick and that a script was being worked on. Funnily enough, the singer behind classics like “Walk On By” and “Don’t Make Me Over” took to X (still called Twitter at the time) back in December 2020 to handpick Taylor for the part. We cannot wait to hear more about this one!

As for Taylor singing those iconic tunes? She's not so sure, telling Today:

There is still no date set on when production could begin on this.

Heart Biopic - TBD

Heart, the iconic rock outfit led by sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson, has been one of the most prolific and popular bands on the planet for well over half a century, and it sounds like they’ll soon be getting a biopic of their own. When speaking with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel back in March 2025, Nancy revealed that the ending was still being worked out and that they would soon start casting the various roles.

The movie, which is still untitled, is being written and directed by Carrie Brownstein of Olympia, Washington’s Sleater-Kinney (she also co-created and co-starred in Portlandia). The project is being produced by Lynda Obst for Amazon MGM, but it’s not yet known if it’ll get a theatrical release or end up as a streaming exclusive.

Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd) Biopic - TBD

Though you could argue that Pink Floyd’s The Wall was a biopic about Roger Waters and how the death of his father led to his artistic expression and sense of detachment from the world, there’s never been a proper biographical drama about the influential prog rock outfit. That could soon change with an untitled movie about founding member Syd Barrett, who left the band following a mental breakdown shortly before they reached superstardom in the late ‘60s.

When speaking with Matthew Belloni’s The Town podcast back in 2024, Peter Jaysen, who produced A Complete Unknown, revealed that he was in the process of turning Barrett’s story into a movie with writer/director Wash Westmoreland. He didn’t share a lot of details about the project, but considering Barrett’s story, this could be a wild, psychedelic, and ultimately tragic movie to experience.

It's been a couple of years since there have been any major announcements regarding this biopic.

Cass Elliot (The Mamas & The Papas) Biopic - TBD

Cass Elliot, the singer and songwriter best remembered for her time with The Mamas & the Papas, has gone down as one of the most influential artists as well as one of the saddest stories in rock ‘n roll history. Well, producer Peter Jaysen is also trying to tell that story to audiences around the world, as he revealed in a 2024 appearance on Matthew Belloni’s The Town (the same interview as the Syd Barrett discussion).

In the chat, Jaysen revealed that he has been in contact with the family and estate of the late singer in hopes of securing the rights to the biography My Mama Cass, which detailed the life and legacy of the late musician and actress. It was later revealed by Variety in February 2026 that the movie will go with the biography’s title and will star Baby Reindeer breakout star Jessica Gunning as the legendary singer.

Roy Orbison Biopic - TBD

It is impossible to tell the story of American rock ‘n roll without turning your attention to the impact of Roy Orbison, the man behind the powerful and operatic voice heard in classics like “Oh, Pretty Woman” and “Only the Lonely.” Well, there’s a good chance that the story gets told, as Variety reported in early 2025 that Compelling Pictures, the group behind Bohemian Rhapsody, was working on adapting the late musician’s life into a movie.

The biopic, which has a working title of You Got It, is said to be less of a traditional biographical drama and more of a romance story about Roy and his wife, Barbara Orbison, and the impact she had on his career. There have not been any updates in quite some time.

Lucille (B.B. King Biopic) - TBD

The late and great B.B. King was one of the most influential and transformative blues guitarists of the 20th century, and his impact can still be felt a decade after his 2015 passing. Well, his story will be told at some point in the future, as there’s currently a biopic in the works about his life and career called Lucille, per a December 2025 Deadline report.

Anyone who knows anything about the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Famer is fully aware of the significance of the title for the upcoming biopic. For those who don’t know, Lucille was the name of King’s legendary Gibson ES that the guitarist played for years. And like any iconic instrument, it has quite a story. How that story is told in King’s biopic is anyone’s guess at this point.

That’ll Be The Day (Buddy Holly Biopic) - TBD

Before you get going, this is not about the 1978 biopic, The Buddy Holly Story, starring Gary Busey as the trailblazing musician whose life was cut short in a 1959 plane crash. Instead, this is a new movie about the “Peggy Sue” singer that’s been in the works since 2024, with Mario Van Peebles sitting in the director’s chair.

According to Variety, That’ll Be the Day will tell the story of Holly and the early days of the Rock ‘n’ Roll movement. Nothing has been said about the cast or how much of Holly’s story will be told in the new drama, and as of April 2026, there have no updates since the initial announcement about two years ago. The status of this one is unknown.

Otis & Zelma (Otis Redding Biopic) - TBD

Otis Redding, commonly known as the “King of Soul” and “The Big O,” was one of the most powerful R&B singers of the ‘60s and someone who transformed the face of music in a short amount of time. Well, now it appears that the story of Redding’s life and career, both of which were cut tragically short in a 1967 plane crash, will get the biopic treatment with Otis & Zelma.

According to an October 2024 Variety report, John Boyega and Danielle Deadwyler are set to portray the late “These Arms of Mine” singer and his widow, Zelma Redding, respectively, in a new drama directed by Channing Godfrey Peoples. Details are still being kept to a minimum at this time, but this could be one of the more powerful biopics in recent memory when it’s all said and done. Like a lot of music biopics on this list, the status of this one seems up in the air, with little to report in over a year and a half.

Sinéad O'Connor Biopic - TBD

The world lost one of its great voices and supporters of personal expression in July 2023 when Sinéad O'Connor passed away at the age of 56. Known for her iconic 1990 megahit, “Nothing Compares 2 U,” and one of the most shocking SNL moments when she ripped up a picture of Pope John Paul II a couple of years later, O’Connor was one of the most consequential and misunderstood Irish singer-songwriters of all time.

In August 2025, Variety reported that several production companies, including See-Saw Films (the team behind Slow Horses and Power of the Dog), were working on a retelling of the late singer’s story. According to the outlet, Josephine Decker will be directing the upcoming music biopic, which is based on a screenplay by Stacey Gregg.

Gloria Estefan Biopic - TBD

Known for hit tracks like “Anything for You,” “Bad Boy,” and “Rhythm Is Gonna Get You,” Gloria Estefan has been a force in the music industry for the past 50 years. Well, now it appears the Cuban-American singer is getting her due in the form of an upcoming music biopic.

When speaking with The Sun in October 2025, Esfefan told the British publication that not only was there a movie in the works about her life and career, but that Rachel Zegler was set to portray her in the yet-to-be-titled film. Zegler, who has shown her singing chops in movies like West Side Story and Snow White, has the potential to knock this out of the park. Nothing has been announced since then.

Boyz II Men Biopic - TBD

Is Motownphilly about to be back again, or at least on the big screen? Well, it certainly looks that way now that there’s a biopic about Boyz II Men in the works. Back in November 2024, Variety reported that a biopic was in the works charting the story of the four-time Grammy-winning group known for soulful hits like “End of the Road,” “It’s So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday,” and “On Bended Knee.”

There’s no word on a cast, or director, or even a writer at this point, but this is one of those biopics that just has to happen. Considering Boyz II Men was one of the hottest groups of the ‘90s, this one just feels like a winner waiting to happen.

Ozzy And Sharon Osbourne Biopic - TBD

There’s a long list of music biopics we’d love to see, and that includes one about the “Prince of Darkness” himself, Ozzy Osbourne. Well, it sounds like that’s going to be happening at some point in the near future. In August 2025, not long after the Black Sabbath singer died at the age of 76, just weeks after playing his final gig, Variety reported that Sony Pictures was still in the process of producing a movie about his and longtime wife/manager Sharon Osbourne’s life that had been in the works since 2021.

During a January 2026 appearance on Billy Morrison’s SiriusXM show (via Vice), Jack Osbourne explained that the family was “full steam in the next phase of development,” adding that a director was attached to the project and that they had a "phenomenal actor” in mind to play his late father. However, he stopped short of identifying either.

Anthony Kiedis Biopic - TBD

Anthony Kiedis has a long history of appearing on the big screen, as he showed up in various ‘90s movies like Point Break and The Chase (an underrated Charlie Sheen movie). Now it sounds like the Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman is getting a movie of his own. Back in January 2024, Deadline reported that Brian Grazer, known for movies like Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind, was producing a biopic about Kiedis over at Universal.

The film is said to be based on the RHCP singer’s memoir titled Scar Tissue, which documents Kiedis’ upbringing in Southern California and how those experiences shaped his life, the band, and the face of American rock music in the ‘80s and ‘90s. It's been a while since there has been an update on this one, but there is an excellent new documentary available with a Netflix subscription about the early days of the band.

Britney Spears Biopic - TBD

It’s hard to talk about ‘90s and early 2000s pop culture without the conversation eventually turning to Britney Spears. One of the biggest pop stars of all time, Spears is known around the world for hits like “Baby One More Time,” “Oops! I Did It Again,” and “Toxic,” as well as a number of various controversies and unforgettable moments. Now, all of that will be explored in a new biopic.

In 2024, Variety reported that Wicked director Jon M. Chu would be helming a biographical drama about the “Princess of Pop” based on Spears’ memoir The Woman in Me. There has been a great deal of speculation about who’ll play the star, with names like Millie Bobby Brown and Sabrina Carpenter coming up quite often. There have been no updates in some time, as of April 2026.

Robert Johnson Biopic - TBD

When it comes to early American blues musicians, few have been as influential or mysterious as Robert Johnson, the King of the Delta Blues. Johnson, who would go on to inspire the likes of the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, B.B. King, and countless other musicians over the years, will soon be the subject of a new biopic, Deadline reported in February 2025.

Not a lot is known about the movie at this point, but the biopic will reportedly focus on one of the biggest myths surrounding Johnson’s life and legacy: the tale that he sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his unmatched musicianship. With the Academy Award-winning Sinners paying homage to Johnson in a variety of ways, now would be the perfect time for this to finally happen.

Ronnie Milsap Biopic - TBD

Though Ronnie Milsap doesn’t have the name recognition of other famous country singers like Willie Nelson, Hank Williams, or George Strait, the blind music legend has had a major impact on the genre over the years. That said, it’s not all that surprising that there is currently a biopic about the transformative star in the works.

In late 2024, Variety reported that Spencer Boldman, who most recently appeared in Welcome to Chippendales, would be leading the film that is based on Milsap’s autobiography, Almost Like a Song.

Forever And Ever, Amen (Randy Travis Biopic) - TBD

We’ve been treated to so many great country music movies over the years, and that includes a few biopics like the all-time great Walk the Line. Well, one of the biggest names in the country music renaissance of the late 1980s will soon get the biopic treatment when Forever and Ever, Amen explores the life and legacy of Randy Travis. Named after the singer-songwriter’s 1987 hit “Forever and Ever, Amen,” the movie was announced at the Grand Ole Opry in March 2025, according to Deadline.

There haven’t been any details about the movie’s plot, but we do know that country singer Clay Walker will play the iconic country star and that Andrew Hyatt is writing and directing.

Queen Latifah Biopic - TBD

Queen Latifah's run with The Equalizer may be finished now that the CBS series has been cancelled after five seasons, but it’s not all bad for the rapper-turned-actress. In September 2024, Deadline reported that the “Ladies First” and “U.N.I.T.Y.” hip-hop artist would be the subject of a new biographical drama. The untitled biopic, which will focus on Latifah’s rise in the rap game in the latter part of the 20th century, is to be the first of a series of hip-hop dramas about iconic artists.

Though she didn’t share any details about the movie when speaking with Today back in May 2025, the rapper-turned-actor said whoever is cast to portray her needs to be brave and that it’s going to be hard to cast the part.

All Out Of Love: The Air Supply Story - TBD

An Air Supply biopic is something we never thought we’d get to see, but there’s one in the works. The Australian soft rock duo consisting of Russell Hitchcock and Graham Russell will be at the center of All Out of Love: The Air Supply Story, a biographical drama first announced by Variety back in 2024.

There’s not a lot of information about the movie chronicling the life and times of the successful outfit known for hits like “All Out of Love” and “Lost in Love,” but it was initially slated for 2026, though there have been almost no updates in quite some time, so that seems unlikely.

Be My Baby (Ronnie Spector Biopic) - TBD

Zendaya has become one of the biggest stars on the planet in the years since showing off her vocal skills in The Greatest Showman, and soon, she’ll get to exhibit that range once again when she plays one of the most iconic singers of the 20th century. In March 2025, Deadline announced that the Spider-Man: No Way Home and Challengers star will be playing the late Ronnie Spector in Be My Baby, the upcoming A24 movie directed by Barry Jenkins.

Zendaya has been attached to the role for some years, and even penned a moving tribute to the “Be My Baby” singer upon her death in 2022. She has a huge year this year, with movies like The Drama, The Odyssey, Spider-Man: Brand New Day, and Dune III (not to mention Season 3 of Euphoria), and she indicated recently that she might be taking a break after all that, so the status of this one seems up in the air.

Rosetta (Sister Rosetta Tharpe Biopic) - TBD

After spending the past few years tearing it up on the pop charts, the multi-talented Lizzo will soon turn her attention to the big screen when she leads an upcoming biopic about one of the most influential figures in American music history: Sister Rosetta Tharpe. In March 2025, Deadline reported that the Grammy Award-winning singer and rapper has been tasked with playing Tharpe in Amazon MGM Studios’ Rosetta, a long-overdue drama about the gospel singer who helped craft rock n’ roll and R&B nearly 100 years ago.

Inspired by Tharpe’s incredible life story, the movie will reportedly follow the trailblazing musician as she shatters boundaries and navigates societal restraints while concealing her relationship with the woman she loves.

Madonna Biographical Drama Series - TBD

Madonna is one of the most successful, influential, and prolific singers of all time, and it’s wild that the artist behind “Material Girl,” “Papa Don’t Preach,” and “Vogue” hasn’t gotten the biopic treatment at this point. Well, it’s not for a lack of trying, as she has been working on getting a drama about her life off the ground since 2020. Though there have been some hiccups and unforeseen obstacles along the way, it sounds like it’s in the works yet again.

Now it appears as if Madonna will be teaming up with Shawn Levy to bring her story to the small screen at some point in the future. In May 2025, Deadline reported that the two are teaming up with Netflix for a limited series about the transformative singer’s life and career.

Boy George Biopic - TBD

There are so many biopics about transformative ‘80s artists, both already released and in the works, and soon Boy George will be added to the mix. In 2024, Deadline reported that TriStar Pictures was moving forward with a biographical drama about the lead singer of Culture Club, known for hit songs like “Karma Chameleon” and “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me,” with J.C. Lee working on the script. The movie is said to be based on George’s autobiographies, Take It Like a Man, Straight, and Karma.

And, there’s no need to worry about the movie not featuring any of Boy George or Culture Club’s famous tracks, as Primary Wave Music, which owns the rights, is producing the biopic. The current status of the production is unknown.

Keith Moon Biopic - TBD

There has been talk of a biographical drama about the late Who drummer Keith Moon for 20 years at this point, but it sounds like the long-in-the-works project is finally getting closer to becoming a reality. In 2023, Who frontman Roger Daltrey told NME that he had completed a script for the film and was waiting for replies from directors.

Later on, in 2024, Daltrey gave a similar update to Ultimate Classic Rock when he said the script was written and that he was trying to work with the best available director (“all the good ones are always working”). There have been no updates since then, however.

Unforgettable (Nat King Cole Biopic) - TBD

Colman Domingo, who is currently in theaters as Joe Jackson in Michael, has been on a tear as of late, and that momentum will hopefully be enough to get his long-in-the-works Nat King Cole biopic into theaters sooner rather than later. In January 2024, the Michael and Euphoria star told Variety’s Awards Circuit Podcast that the movie, which he is attached to lead and direct, is something he’s been working on quietly for several years and something he’s looking forward to putting together.

According to Variety, this isn’t the first time the multi-talented star has crafted a project based on the “Unforgettable” singer, as Domingo previously co-wrote the play Lights Out: Nat King Cole, which followed the singer during his 1957 Christmas special, the first of its kind hosted by an African American performer. In February 2026, Deadline reported the movie was being pitched as being PG-13 in order to reach a larger audience.

Shout It Out Loud (Kiss) - TBD

KISS, one of the biggest rock bands (and brands) of all time, will be getting the biopic treatment at some point in the future, as Deadline has reported that McG is slated to direct Shout It Out Loud, a film based on the life and career of the iconic outfit. Details about the movie are scarce at this point in its development, but considering the history and iconography that made the Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley-led rock group so legendary over the past 50 years, this could be a flashy, splashy, and over-the-top rock pic.

In June 2025, Deadline reported that Nick Jonas would be playing guitarist and vocalist Paul Stanley, but there’s no word on who’ll be playing the other members of KISS.

Janis Joplin Biopic - TBD

Despite being one of the most transformative and beloved singers of the ‘60s counter-culture movement, Janis Joplin has never been the subject of a biographical drama, though there have been numerous attempts. Well, that will soon change as Variety has reported that Big Little Lies star Shailene Woodley is set to play the “Piece of My Heart” singer in an untitled biopic.

The singer, who’s remembered for her electric performances and powerful voice, passed away in October 1970, joining the ranks of other famous musicians like Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix who passed away at the age of 27.

Frank Sinatra Biopic - TBD

One of the most exciting music biographical dramas in the works, Martin Scorsese’s Frank Sinatra biopic will focus on the life and career of the iconic crooner and actor who dominated American music and pop culture throughout the 20th century. Though details are limited at this point, Variety reported in April 2024 that the Killers of the Flower Moon director was looking to make the movie one of his next two projects and that longtime collaborator Leonardo DiCaprio was being eyed for the lead role alongside Jennifer Lawrence.

Though it seemed like production was going to get underway in 2024, Variety reported in September that filming had been postponed along with a couple of Scorsese’s other projects. Leo provided an update at the 2026 Santa Barbara Film Festival (via World of Reel) in February 2026, where he said it was “still in the works, still in the works.”

Linda Ronstadt Biopic - TBD

Linda Ronstadt, the 11-time Grammy winner behind iconic tracks like “You’re No Good,” “Somewhere Out There,” and “Blue Bayou,” will be getting the biopic treatment at some point in the future, and the actress tied to portraying her has us very excited. In January 2024, Rolling Stone confirmed that Only Murders in the Building star Selena Gomez was attached to star in the untitled movie after she shared an image of Ronstadt’s Simple Dreams memoir on her Instagram page.

Gomez told The Hollywood Reporter in 2024 that the movie was still happening, but she didn’t know when it would all go down. Though we still don’t know when things will get going, World of Reel confirmed in March 2025 that Miramax had acquired the rights and that David O. Russell is still in talks to direct. Fingers crossed.

With so many great biopics in the works, we’re in for a real treat the next few years. Check back for updates for each of these projects as more information becomes available.

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! 

“Empire of Light” stars Olivia Coleman, Colin Firth, Michael Ward, Toby Jones, Tanya Moodie and writer/director Sam Mendes discuss their new film in this interview with CinemaBlend's Sean O'Connell. They chat about the making of Mendes' semi-autobiographical love letter to cinema and more.

Video Chapters

00:00 - Intro
00:10 - The 'Empire of Light' Movie Theater Set Is A Character Of Its Own
04:33 - Director Sam Mendes On “Being There’s” Inclusion In The Film
07:08 - How Movies Played A Key Role In Tanya Moodie’s Own Relationship
08:20 - Collin Firth Talks “Love Actually” Turning 20

Getting the opportunity to star in a James Bond movie is pretty huge, no matter the role. For Spectre actor Andrew Scott, that chance came through the antagonistic role of Max Denbigh, head of the Joint Security Service – though you may know him better as “C.” A thorn in the side of Daniel Craig’s 007, Scott’s role was one that the actor has recently admitted left him with some choice regrets. 

In the midst of breaking down his career for a video with Vanity Fair, the veteran of shows like Fleabag and Sherlock revealed that he went into Sam Mendes’ second James Bond movie with all of the enthusiasm in the world. By time he’d wrapped the picture, Andrew Scott was singing a different tune. Scott recalled his journey, saying,

With decades of films and the usual obscene amount of money going into Spectre’s production, one can easily understand Andrew Scott’s case of nerves. It may not have been as big of a deal as the polarizing ending to No Time To Die, but the fourth film of Daniel Craig’s 007 era is still the subject of some controversy among fans to this very day.

Those conversations usually focus more on the twist centered around Christoph Waltz’s Blofeld. However, that didn’t stop Andrew Scott from providing what he felt was an accurate picture of what he regretted not doing on Spectre. Speaking of what was missing from this big ticket experience, Scott said, 

Even with that knowledge, Andrew Scott still seems to be a bit unfair to himself with his overall role Spectre. Playing the menace of corrupted bureaucracy to a tee, his air of unpleasant superiority made for moments both comedic and suspenseful with his co-stars. It also part of how Spectre twisted the Daniel Craig era of 007, especially with Scott’s character being in close cahoots with Blofeld.

At least the experience didn’t sour the working relationship between Andrew Scott and Spectre director Sam Mendes. The pair would go on to work together again in 1917, and judging by how Andrew Scott described filming the World War I epic, the experience was as thrilling as it was rewarding. 

You can currently see Andrew Scott in the film Catherine Called Birdy, which is available to stream for those with a Prime Video subscription. Coincidentally enough, that’s also where you can relive Scott’s era as the Hot Priest in the Prime Video original series Fleabag, and find almost every James Bond movie (Spectre being an exception).

Sam Mendes is an Oscar-winning director and helmed two James Bond films starring Daniel Craig -- Spectre and Skyfall. Both were massive hits and are strong additions to Mendes’ filmography as well as being favorites amongst Bond fans. Mendes knows first hand how difficult making a 007 film can be, partially stemming from the 60 years of history behind the franchise. The acclaimed director recently got candid about the "exhausting" challenges -- and why moving on from Daniel Craig may be tough.

In a recent interview with Deadline, Sam Mendes detailed his feelings about his experience directing two Bond films. He talked about how intensive helming such a production is when you have to take world-building into account. He found the process tiresome, saying:

It’s clear that the 007 films were complicated projects for Sam Mendes, which is saying a lot considering that he's helmed ambitious productions like Jarhead and 1917. OF Of course, what will be even more difficult, in his mind, is the search for a new lead. Many would probably agree that Daniel Craig’s departure left a major hole in the franchise and, since the release of No Time to Die, many have been wondering how the producers will proceed. During the same interview, Mendes provides some honest thoughts on the task that lies ahead of franchise producer Barbara Broccoli, saying:

Honestly, I can't say that I envy the producer and her team, either. Despite initial backlash around his casting, Daniel Craig was beloved in the role and made the character his own. The studio has yet to announce who will be replacing him, and several names have been thrown around to play the titular character. This includes Man of Steel actor Henry Cavill and Idris Elba, who has been a longtime fan favorite. Some suggest the best way to reimagine the franchise is to make 007 female. IT's not a bad thought to have a woman in front of and behind the camera. Phoebe Waller-Bridge contributed to the No Time To Die script, so clearly a female voice can be a positive influence on the character. 

As for Sam Mendes, I don't think he will return to Bond in a post-Daniel Craig world. This doesn’t mean the visionary hasn’t been plenty busy. His film Empire of Light, starring Olivia Coleman, premiered at the Telluride Film Festival and will be released theatrically in December. The film is about cinema and love and takes place on the English seaside in the 1980s. For the film, Mendes reunited with Skyfall cinematographer Roger Deakins, with whom he also collaborated with on several other movies. So Bond or not, rest assured that Mendes has other things on his plate.

It may be a while before we see another 007 film but, in the meantime you can watch Sam Mendes’ Skyfall, which is currently streaming for Netflix subscribers. Also, catch up on the history of James Bond movies ahead of the next era in the franchise. 

As the true shot-callers of the James Bond franchise, the decision-making buck is supposed to stop with franchise producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. Pretty much any component you could think of falls under their purview, with nothing escaping their final seal of approval. Even outgoing 007 Daniel Craig knows this, but that didn’t stop him from making an offer to an old friend at Hugh Jackman’s Christmas party. The problem was, the negotiated prize was the director's chair to 2012’s Skyfall. 

Speaking with THR’s Awards Chatter podcast, Mr. Craig broke out some rather exciting stories about his time in the tuxedo. With his No Time To Die journey marking the end of his days as England’s greatest defender, now’s the time to spill all the beans that he can in the name of candor and entertainment. Which led to this amusing anecdote about how Sam Mendes was offered his eventual post in the franchise: 

Knowing the result of this Skyfall story, as well as the fact that it leads to Sam Mendes also reprising his duties on 2015’s Spectre, doesn’t kill this story’s appeal. Thinking about the historical context of this meeting, with Daniel Craig on two completed 007 adventures at this point, this was probably the best and worst time to make such a move. Looking at where this drunken encounter led in the long run, this is probably the most brazen franchise decision made under the influence. At least, it was until Tom Holland saved the Spider-Man franchise under similar circumstances. 

Skyfall became the most successful James Bond movie ever, and some even argue it’s the best in the Daniel Craig era of the series. Working with classic hallmarks and modern twists, Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig delivered a $1.1 billion hit, just in time for the 50th anniversary celebration that took place in its year of release. Now strip away all of that foreknowledge and read the rest of the story about what happened after Craig offered the gig to Mr. Mendes: 

While everything turned out for the best and history was made for the better, just imagine the fear that may have run through Daniel Craig’s mind at that moment. Sure, he had all of the faith in the world from Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson from the word go, but that doesn’t mean he had carte blanche privileges. One could imagine the follow-up conversation was over coffee, as well as some serious words involving pitching at any further holiday get-togethers. 

The history of Daniel Craig’s time as James Bond is about to become even more defined, with every new story showing the world just how the process truly did work in this unprecedented era of Bond films. Maybe this means we’ll even get the full story on how Danny Boyle’s scrapped Bond 25 concept caused the ultimate rift that saw his departure. In the meantime, maybe someone should sit Tom Holland down with a couple of drinks and let him try to pitch his way into the world of 007 again. It’s a new year, and there is a job vacancy open in the fictional representation of MI6.

No Time To Die is available in all of its splendor, with options to rent or purchase the 25th James Bond film on physical and digital media. Those of you looking to revisit Skyfall at the time of this writing can do so with a subscription to either Hulu or Paramount+. For a full rundown of what this cinematic year has to offer, turn your attention to the 2022 release schedule, and happy hunting! 

There are war movies and then there is 1917, Sam Mendes' Oscar-winning epic about two young British soldiers sent into No Man's Land to deliver a message that could potentially save thousands of lives, or cost them if they fail. And as intense as a cinematic experience the film ended up being, some of the behind-the-scenes facts about how it all came together are just as, if not more, insane than what we saw in the final cut.

From the decision to present the film as a continuous one-shot that only breaks from the action for a specific reason to the way the production team had to secure a license to possibly exhume bodies while filming to the meaningful story behind the narrative, there's a lot to unpack regarding 1917, so let's not waste any more time and get this thing going.

1917 Was Inspired By A Story Sam Mendes' Grandfather Told About The War

Although it wasn't based on a true story, 1917 was very much inspired by a story that director Sam Mendes' grandfather told him about serving in World War I. During a conversation with the Washington Post after taking home a Golden Globe for Best Director earlier in 2020, Mendes explained that when he was younger, his grandfather told him a story about being tasked with delivering a message that took him places that would end up in the movie, stating:

One thing Mendes still remembers about his grandfather was the way in which the war changed him, including the need to constantly wash his hands because of his memories of spending those fateful days in muddy trenches on the Western front.

George MacKay's Fall During The Epic Trench Run Was A Total Accident

One of the most iconic shots in all of 1917 is the one in which George MacKay's Lance Corporal William Schofield is seen running to deliver his message to Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) and is knocked over by a British soldier rushing into No Man's Land. As great as this moment was, it wasn't part of the script and happened by accident. Screenwriter Krysty Wilson-Cairns revealed this during an interview with CinemaBlend in which she compared seeing MacKay fall down to watching your team miss a field goal in the Super Bowl. The scene ended up being the Academy Award-nominated writer's favorite part of the entire movie.

That Specific Scene Was The Toughest MacKay Shot During Production

In a separate interview with CinemaBlend, George MacKay revealed that the the scene in which he climbs out of the trenches and sprints against the grain of thousands of soldiers running into battle was the most grueling of the entire shoot, which is saying something considering he filmed his own stunts. During that conversation, the actor said there was short window of time in order to capture the moment and so there were no breaks between takes. After doing it again and again and again, MacKay said his legs were shaking.

Sam Mendes Pushed The One-Shot Format To Put The Audience In The Main Characters' Shoes

Once Lance Corporal William Schofield and Lance Corporal Thomas Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are awoken in the opening moments of 1917, the film is mostly presented as a single one-shot that never gives the audience a chance to catch their breath. This was very much the intention of director Sam Mendes, who explained during a conversation with Variety that this was to put the audience in the characters' shoes, stating:

Sam Mendes decision paid off, making 1917 not only one of the best war movies in recent memory, but also one of the greatest dramas of the 21st Century, one that won't be forgotten for some time.

The Director Broke The Format At One Point For A Very Specific Reason

There is only one point in 1917 where the continuous shot is broken after Lance Corporal William Schofield is knocked unconscious after taking out the sniper about two-thirds of the way through the narrative. It's daytime when Schofield is running for his life and night when he awakes, and director Sam Mendes explained during an appearance on CinemaBlend's ReelBlend podcast that this break was used to better set up the major shift that follows, stating:

You may recall, when the young soldier wakes up, the city is in ruins after being constantly shelled during the preceding battle. There's the tense shootout with an enemy soldier, the run-in with the young mother and child which reveals Schofield's character, and then finally at daybreak the epic river scene as the central protagonist returns to the battlefield.

When Digging The Trenches, The Production Team Was Required To Get A License To Exhume Bodies

When preparing for 1917, location manager Emma Pill was tasked with overseeing the digging of an extensive system of trenches that would be used throughout the movie. And with shooting in close proximity of Stonehenge, Pill was concerned that in digging into the ground, they would uncover bodies that could have been as old as 3,000 years, which led to the production going through the process of securing a license to exhume them if they ever came across an ancient grave. During a conversation with Vulture, Pill revealed that luckily no bodies were ever dug up, but they wanted to have all contingencies in place just in case.

The 1917 Script Contained Extremely Detailed And Gross Descriptions Of Dead Bodies

There is a scene early in 1917 where Lance Corporal William Schofield cuts his hand open on some barbed wire and then not long after puts his wounded hand into the partially decomposed corpse of fallen German soldier. During a conversation with CinemaBlend around the time of the film's home release, screenwriter Krysty Wilson-Cairns revealed that the description of that scene, and the body, in one of the early drafts of the film is something that sticks with her to this day, stating:

If the scene wasn't bad enough already, the description in the original draft really puts the icing on the cake.

Relatively Unknown Actors Were Cast So The Audience Would Form A Unique Bond With The Leads

Some of the most well-known British stars — Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong — show up at different points in 1917, but the real focus of the movie is on George MacKay's Lance Corporal William Schofield and Dean-Charles Chapman's Lance Corporal Thomas Blake, two relatively unknown actors. During a conversation with CinemaBlend's ReelBlend podcast, director Sam Mendes revealed that this was done so the audience would form a unique bond with two leads while also keeping them on their toes as two young soldiers embark on their suicide mission. With these fresh faces, the audience never knows what's going to happen along the way, which works out tremendously here.

Roger Deakins Filmed 1917 On A Camera That Was The First Of Its Kind

Roger Deakins, who took home his second Academy Award for Cinematography with 1917 in early 2020, had to go through quite a lot to pull off the film's eye-catching shots and the feel of it all being a single long-take. When speaking about his award-winning work on the film with Business Insider, Deakins revealed Arri, one of the leading camera manufacturers, created the ALEXA Mini LF and sent him a prototype to see how it would do when he was doing test shots. And despite the small size compared to cameras Deakins has used in the past, he told the publication that the ALEXA Mini LF was able to give him the versatility and quality required.

The Mexico City Opening Sequence In Spectre Helped Sam Mendes When Making 1917

Prior to 1917, Sam Mendes' most recent effort was his second James Bond film Spectre, which started off with one of the most impressive one-shots in recent memory. During an interview with Looper shortly after the World War I epic received a wide release, Michael Lerman, who worked with the acclaimed director on both films, revealed that the Mexico City sequence at the start of the 2015 spy flick helped Mendes plan out his shooting method for 1917. That opening scene and 1917 both feature long shots of the action shot either in the face or over the shoulder of the main characters, creating a more intimate and intense experience.

If you found all of these 1917 behind-the-scenes facts interesting and want to check out the movie again, it debuts tonight on Showtime and will be streaming on the premium cable outlet's app and website as well.

Warning: spoilers for 1917 are present throughout this article. If you haven’t seen the film yet, head out of this story and come back once you’ve caught up.

When people talk about Sam Mendes’ World War I epic 1917, the conversation tends to center around the amazing real time approach to the film’s narrative. While a technical marvel of a film, there’s a strong narrative that Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns have woven with their protagonist’s journey through the frontlines of warfare. Looking deeper into that story, 1917’s ending ties together a constant stream of events into one resonating finale of emotion. Consider this the last chance to turn back before spoilers, as we’re going to dive deep into the true meaning of 1917.

What Happens At The End Of 1917

Lance Corporal William Schofield (George MacKay) prevents Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch) from launching the all-out attack he and his men thought would break the German line in 1917. Upon completion of his mission, he informs Lieutenant Joseph Blake (Richard Madden), the older brother of Lance Corporal Thomas (Dean-Charles Chapman) died in the line of duty. His mission completed, and this somber message delivered, Schofield rests in front of a tree and looks at a photo of his family. The film closes as he takes in the sunlight, re-reading the message written on the back of that photo: “Come back to us.”

What Does 1917’s Ending Mean

Lance Corporal Schofield has been having a bit of a hard go when it comes to 1917’s real life conflict. He’s previously received a medal, and is about to go home for leave soon; but he enjoys neither of those facts. Medals mean nothing, as he traded his medal away for a bottle of French wine; and he’s not looking forward to going home because he knows he’ll just be back soon enough. But his friendship with Lance Corporal Blake keeps him going, and after witnessing his death, as well as some other events, Schofield ends the film a changed man. He’s ready to keep fighting, and it seems like he’s ready to go home and be with the ones he loves. And it’s all thanks to the following chain of events.

The Emotional Journey Of 1917’s Lance Corporal Schofield

During his journey along with Lance Corporal Thomas in 1917, Lance Corporal Schofield had some important experiences that changed him throughout the adventure that took place over the course of the two hour movie. After starting their trek together, it didn’t take long before events started to change the initially jaded Lance Corporal Schofield.

The Near Death Of Lance Corporal Schofield

An explosion in the German bunker leaves Schofield temporarily blinded, forcing him to depend on Blake to get out of the crumbling underground trap. Like most people, it feels like the Lance Corporal’s journey back to the land of the living started with his brush with death in 1917. Getting out of the bunker alive, and the revelation of Blake’s friendship with Schofield leading him to select his compatriot for a supposedly easy mission, show the connection between the two.

The Death Of Lance Corporal Blake

While we see their friendship in shorthand from the start of 1917, Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield are firmly established in a friendly mode at the point where they discover the abandoned farm. By time Blake dies at the hands of the German pilot they tried to save, Schofield’s emotional state after the departure of his friend leaves him even more honor bound to complete his mission. While Blake was the catalyst for their mission, Schofield is even more motivated after this moment.

The Truck Ride With His Fellow Troops

In a show of kindness, Lieutenant Leslie (Mark Strong) lets Lance Corporal Schofield ride on the troop transport with his men in 1917. Listening to the stories of snooty superior officers, and sharing a flask with the group, it’s a big help in letting Schofield process the trauma of losing Lance Corporal Blake, and helps cement his need to deliver this message.

Finding Lauri And The Baby

As he continues to evade German troops after being knocked out by a gunshot, providing the only obvious cut in 1917, Lance Corporal Schofield finds shelter in the basement of a destroyed building. There he meets Lauri (Claire Duburcq,) a young French girl who is taking care of a baby. Providing milk for the baby, he’s tempted to stay with the two in the building. But, dutybound, Schofield leaves safety and heads back into battle.

Discovering The Troops In The Woods

Floating down the river after evading a handful of German troops, Lance Corporal Schofield finds the Second Battalion, and one of their men singing “I Am A Poor Wayfaring Stranger.” Whether he’s blown away by the singing in this beautiful 1917 moment, or he thinks he’s dead, it’s another moment that stops him in his tracks before his final push. A restful respite, before coming to his senses, Schofield snaps back into place, knowing what he has to do.

Scofield’s Dangerous Run

The final set-piece on 1917’s journey, Schofield knows it’s do or die in the name of the Second Battalion. Fully committed, he sprints along the ensuing push out of the trenches near the Hindenburg Line, running against the soldiers mounting the battlefield. Fighting against other officers trying to stop him, he fights for the cause he has taken up in the name of a fallen soldier.

Meeting Lieutenant Blake

Completing the mission at the heart of 1917, one final important task lies ahead of Lance Corporal Schofield. Informing Lieutenant Blake of his brother’s passing isn’t a happy event, to be sure. However, it reminds Schofield of the personal cost of war and why we fight. He finishes the job on behalf of the men he was saving, as well as his departed friend, and allows himself a moment in the sunshine to reflect on those he misses at home.

The True Meaning Of 1917

1917 isn’t a war movie, if anything it’s an anti-war movie. Glory and country only mean so much to Lance Corporals Schofield and Blake, as their families are their true motivations. Schofield isn’t trying to kill anyone he doesn’t have to, in fact he’s trying to stop the slaughter of his men. By the end of his experiences, Schofield seems ready to embrace life again, allowing himself to hope again.

Through near death encounters, and instances of kindness and warmth, the fog of war is pierced and Lance Corporal Schofield regains the humanity he needs to save 1600 men, while reminding him of what is at stake in World War I. Both a technical marvel and a personal triumph, the true meaning of 1917 is that when you remember what you’re fighting for, even the impossible seems doable. If you're look

Shortly after Harrison Ford shared the exciting update that he’d finally be cracking the whip on the set of Indiana Jones 5 in April, a bomb was dropped. Steven Spielberg is no longer directing the movie anymore. This will mark the first time the legendary filmmaker will not head an Indy flick, but he’s reportedly still producing. So it’s time to put our best alternatives for directors on the table. Who could rise to the occasion and make Ford’s return to the fedora worthwhile?

Many fans are coming into Indiana Jones 5 with a certain weariness. 2008’s Kingdom of the Crystal Skull didn’t impress overall and it’s gone through a ton of script rewrites. So much so that the original writer David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spider-Man, 2017’s The Mummy) left and returned to the screenplay to say “we’ve got a good idea this time”. Indiana Jones 5 needs a good director to lead its vision. The loss of Spielberg is a tough blow, but since he’s gone it could be a good opportunity for the franchise to do something different.

With the report of Steven Spielberg’s exit, it's said the director wanted to ”pass along Indy’s whip to a new generation to bring their perspective to the story”. James Mangold is reportedly in talks to take directing duties. This is a great choice already! Mangold is coming off a Best Picture nomination for Ford v. Ferrari and he’s the filmmaker behind Logan, Walk The Line and Girl, Interrupted. But if for some reason he doesn’t end up sticking to the high-profile project (he is developing The Force with Matt Damon and a Bob Dylan biopic with Timothée Chalamet), here’s some more ideas for Indiana Jones 5:

David F. Sandberg

One of the things on the checklist of Indiana Jones fans is a return to the ‘80s filmmaking Raiders of the Lost Ark was born from. Just when it feels like movies aren’t just made like they used to anymore something like David F. Sandberg’s Shazam! hits theaters. The DC film felt like a cross between Big and Superman and struck that unique balance between an action-adventure film being family-friendly and just fun. This is the kind of tone that could be perfect for Indiana Jones 5. Plus, Sandberg has a background in horror (Lights Out and Annabelle: Creation) and some of the most fascinating elements of the franchise was when it leaned into that direction.

Kathryn Bigelow

For a more gritty approach to Indiana Jones why not bring in Oscar-winner Kathryn Bigelow? The director has been making nail-biting action flicks for decades but has yet to put her name on a massive franchise. She’s the name behind 1991 classic Point Break, 2010 Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. What’s interesting about a Bigelow Indiana Jones 5 is she’s been keyed into politics and war through her work. She won’t make a movie without it having something to say and that’s in the DNA of this franchise. Indy is a globetrotter and the artifacts he finds often have him entangled in government affairs and so forth, Bigelow’s voice could elevate Dr. Jones’ adventure in a completely fresh way.

Deborah Chow

If Lucasfilm is looking for a fresher face to helm Indiana Jones 5, it certainly wouldn’t be a surprise if they pulled from a director they’ve been working closely with lately on Star Wars: Deborah Chow. The up-and-coming filmmaker is set to helm the Obi-Wan Kenobi series for Disney+ and she’s coming off lending her talents to a couple of the most impressive episodes of The Mandalorian. Prior to this, she has directed episodes of Mr. Robot, Jessica Jones and Better Call Saul. Kathleen Kennedy certainly sees something in Chow and it would be an awesome debut feature film for a female director to be given the keys to.

Jon Favreau

Along the same lines, Jon Favreau has been a pivotal pillar in Lucasfilm’s new era. The director led Star Wars to television with The Mandalorian and back in 2008 he helmed the first movie of the MCU, Iron Man. Sure, he’s in high demand, but if you look at The Mandalorian as a series, it’s very much influenced by the Indiana Jones movies. It’s been nice to see Jon Favreau move away from live-action Disney remakes with the Star Wars series and Indiana Jones 5 might be a good fit for him as well.

Sam Mendes

Along the same lines of Kathryn Bigelow as a choice, Sam Mendes has historically been a director who makes important films. Just a few months ago, many experts believed 1917 was poised to win Best Picture after all. Roger Deakins’ unbroken shots aside, what stood out about Mendes’ 1917 was its message about the tiredness of war. And as Indiana Jones grows older, fans might be looking for more depth in his adventures. Mendes also took over the Bond franchise for a while and produced some of the best of the franchise with Skyfall and Spectre.

Denis Villeneuve

It’s become clear over the years that Harrison Ford sticks with directors who he trusts and has worked together before. The actor probably signed on to Indiana Jones 5 to begin with because he wanted to work with Steven Spielberg again. Recently he talked about how he cameoed in Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker because J.J. Abrams asked him to. Simple as that. Now that Spielberg is out, one would imagine Ford would jump at the opportunity to work with Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve. Although he has limited screen time, you could tell Ford really responded to the direction with his performance.

These are all hypothetical choices of course. Many of these directors are busy working on other projects and the latest reporting suggests James Mangold has the project in his hands. It’s tricky because the script for Indiana Jones 5 has been passed along for so long and it’s unclear whether Lucasfilm is aiming to stay on schedule for its July 9, 2021 release date. These choices don’t just put their name on any old thing.

What do you think? Which of these directors would you like to see behind Indiana Jones 5? Or do you have another filmmaker in mind? Sound off in the comments and vote in our poll below.

This poll is no longer available.

By now, if you know anything about 1917 you probably know its WWI-set story was a hassle to film. We’ve heard over and over again about the one-shot technique – or as director Sam Mendes would prefer to call it, “a movie with no cuts in it.” However, it was a huge hassle for the production design team as well, as they had to take into consideration everything from birds to dead bodies.

Here’s the gist. 1917 shot much of the movie somewhat near Stonehenge, in fields where trenches had to be dug months in advance. The trenches weren’t the only set pieces the movie used, but creating them did require digging, and location manager Emma Pill recently revealed that one concern was that the production might disturb dead bodies left in the ground for upwards of 3,000 years.

She actually got a license to exhume bodies, noting,

No bodies were actually dug up in the making of the trenches, but the whole thing was an eight-month ordeal that also meant the trenches had to be filled when 1917 had wrapped its last day on set.

Bodies weren’t the only problem, as Emma Pill also said in her interview with Vulture that the production went to the trouble of creating an old barn for one memorable sequence. It was on Salisbury Plain and the production was required to tear the barn down when the movie was done filming, but the production also had to protect the local wildlife in the area, including stone curlew birds.

The 1917 crew ended up in a Catch-22 where the protected birds began living in the barn they were supposed to tear down in order to leave no trace and protect the birds. The birds ultimately left and all was well that ended well, but looking back Emma Pill said,

This may sound like a comedy bit, but in reality it’s not the first time a movie set has had to take birds into consideration and it’s unlikely to be the last. When Star Wars was filming The Last Jedi, for example, the island with the porgs, Skellig Michael, was a wildlife preserve that was covered in birds and that was the real reason why porgs were created for the film. Digitally removing them wasn’t really an option, so porgs were born, for better or worse.

Although the hard work paid off for the WWI movie and 1917 has been a frontrunner in the awards conversation in the weeks since its release at the end of 2019, it sounds like filming the movie was not remotely easy. We’ve previously heard tales about scenes being shot and coming out perfectly, that is until a lighter or some other minor set piece malfunctioned and every single moment had to be reset and shot again.

Shooting in one take meant resets on 1917 involving large swaths of filming at a time. But the end result has been impressive enough to earn the film over $252 million worldwide. On Sunday, it is up for Academy Awards in 10 categories, just one shy of Joker, which has earned 11 nominations. You can see which movie takes home the most statues when the 2020 Oscars air on ABC on Sunday night at 8 p.m. ET.

While not exactly gender-diverse, this year’s race for Best Picture at the Academy Awards is an interesting one. In addition to there being an interesting mix of genres represented in the films up for the prize, the 2020 class has filmmakers who have taken very different paths to where they are today. It’s a mix of legends and first-time nominees, and the result is that it’s hard to precisely predict who will end up walking away with the trophy.

We here at CinemaBlend have our own thoughts on the proceedings, and in recent weeks members of our staff have been letting their voices be heard by ranking the nominees in all of the major Oscar categories. Votes were only cast by those who saw every film in a given category, and each vote ranked the five nominees from most to least deserving (a "1" being the best, and a "5" being the lowest). Those scores have been averaged, and those averages have generated the order you see below.

#5. Todd Phillips, Joker

Average Rank: 4.5789474

If you time traveled to 2010 and told random movie fans that Todd Phillips would one day be up for Best Director at the Oscars, it would probably inspire a fair bit of laughter. After all, ten years ago Phillips was best known for making broad comedies like Old School, Road Trip, and The Hangover, which weren’t exactly movies sending out awards screeners. That being said, Phillips’ profile as a filmmaker has changed a great deal in recent years, and Joker is excellent evidence of that.

Phillips had a chance to express the deepest parts of his dark sensibilities with the DC Comics adaptation, and what he has crafted is a disturbing and impressively atmospheric feature unlike any comic book movie we’ve seen before. The feeling that you need to take a shower after watching Joker is evidence of its effectiveness, as the film gets under your skin in all the ways that it should.

#4. Martin Scorsese, The Irishman

Average Rank: 3.8947368

The Irishman is a project that has been with Martin Scorsese for years – long imagined as a film that would not only reunite him with fellow legends Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, but also give him his first opportunity to work with Al Pacino. But the director had to bide his time, waiting for the industry to catch up with vision of what the movie could be. It took more than a decade for it to get done, but what he accomplished with the project is truly extraordinary.

There are 20-year-old directors to struggle to manage the reins of an 80 minute comedy, but the 77-year-old Martin Scorsese builds The Irishman in all of its three-and-a-half hour glory like a sculptor with a scalpel, designing one of the most incredible works he’s ever done.  It’s a tremendous blend of classic and modern cinema techniques, and a remarkable journey that only Scorsese could deliver.

#3. Bong Joon-ho, Parasite

Average Rank: 2.2105263

This is the first year that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have recognized the work of Bong Joon-ho, but the reality is that the filmmaker has been delivering extraordinary work for years. Each of his movies explores new genre and theme, but all of his work is marked by fantastic camerawork and sharp commentary. One could make a strong argument that the director’s work has been overlooked by the Academy before, but at the very least that’s not happening this year with what is his best work to date.

Parasite is a mind-blower of craftsmanship, with every scene delicately building the escalating plot, the narrative striking many different tones, and it upending expectations each step of the way. It’s a shocking and brutal examination of class warfare with no detail left overlooked, and an incredible achievement for Bong Joon-ho as a director. In short, it was ranked as CineamBlend’s number one film of 2019 for a reason.

#2. Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

Average Rank: 2.2105263

Quentin Tarantino’s work has changed a great deal over the course of his career. When he first started in the 1990s he earned acclaim for his tremendous contributions to the crime genre, but since the start of the 21st century, and the release of Kill Bill, his films have become far more experimental. An extension of this, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is unlike any movie that he’s ever made, but infused with all the greatest elements of his sensibilities, it easily ranks as one of his greatest contributions to cinema.

The statistical tie between Tarantino and Bong Joon-ho in the rankings was broken by the former having more #1 votes (six versus four), and he finishes here higher than he did in our vote for Best Original Screenplay, where Once Upon A Time In Hollywood finished in third. Still, while our staff didn’t deliver it the ballots for the Best Director trophy, there is a lot of love here at CinemaBlend for Tarantino’s epic journey through Los Angeles in 1969.

#1. Sam Mendes, 1917

Average Rank: 2.1052632

Making a film is tremendously hard work. It involves coordinating hundreds of people, executing a plan that is guaranteed to change along the way, and managing input from a wide variety of sources, all while dealing with the immense pressure that comes from the money invested in the project. To purposefully make the whole process infinitely harder by attempting something as intrepid as capturing the feeling of everything being in a single shot is, on paper, a crazy thing to do – but that just emphasizes the magnificence of what Sam Mendes has accomplished with 1917.

There is an incredible urgency added to the plot of the film through its stylistic choices, and Mendes’ collaboration with cinematographer Roger Deakins has resulted in one of the most audacious and impressive war movies of all time. You can’t help but marvel at the technical achievement that’s seen in the final product on the big screen, but that gets taken to the next level when you take into consideration the level of synchronization that was necessary to achieve everything. It’s a remarkable accomplishment, and one that the CinemaBlend team feels makes Sam Mendes deserving of the 2020 Oscar for Best Director.

As for who will actually win the award, we won’t find that out until tomorrow night when the Academy Awards are broadcast around the globe. We have tons more coverage of the event coming your way, so stay tuned, and be on the lookout for more of our rankings of the Oscar nominees in the top categories.

This poll is no longer available.

Sam Mendes' World War I film 1917 has a legitimate shot at winning Best Picture at the Oscars in just over a week. The film has received a lot of critical success and has also been the rare Best Picture nominee to also see some decent box office returns. Much of the praise for 1917 comes from its structure where Roger Deakins' cinematography and Lee Smith's editing combine to give the film the appearance of being filmed as a single continuous shot, but Mendes apparently doesn't care for that term.

Speaking to ABC News, Sam Mendes spoke about the film's lack of obvious cuts and also said that's how he prefers to think of the film, as a story without cuts, rather than being a single shot film...

Certainly, referring to 1917 as a movie with no cuts, rather than a one-shot movie, is a nuanced position, but it also makes some sense. Calling it a one-shot movie focuses on the filmmaking, the craft involved in making the movie look the way it does. Referring to it as a movie without cuts focuses more on the story, the fact that we won't be leaving these characters for even a moment. While the filmmaking craft is certainly worthy of note, and will hopefully be well rewarded at the Oscars, the story is what engages the audience and everything, including the great cinematography and editing skill, is in service of that.

This is at least how the director sees the situation. The key is how the audience emotionally invests in the characters...

The point of making 1917 a movie without cuts is so that the audience feels like they're following the main characters every step of the way, without any breaks. That's where the tension comes from. We don't know what's going to happen next because the characters have no idea what's going to happen next. There's also never any break in the tension for that reason. The characters are in fear for their lives for basically every minute of the film, and so are we. It's sort of an exhausting movie actually.

However you choose to describe it, 1917 is certainly working. The film won the Golden Globe for Best Picture as well as a directing award for Sam Mendes. It's made $200 million around the world, and it will almost certainly go home from the Oscars with some trophies, potentially in major categories like best Original Screenplay, Best Director and/or Best Picture.

The Academy Awards will be given out on Sunday February 9.

As the Oscars approach, there’s been considerable buzz surrounding 1917, and the increasing likelihood that it may pick up some of the night’s biggest awards. The momentum has translated into box office success for the World War I movie, too. And director Sam Mendes has a pretty good idea what’s driving 1917’s popularity.

Thus far, much of the conversation surrounding 1917 has been focused on its unique cinematic feats. Namely, the fact that it unfolds as though it’s been filmed in one continuous take, aka the one-shot approach. Sam Mendes has spoken to why the movie chose this approach, as well as how the creative team was able to make it happen. He’s also alluded to the personal inspiration he tapped into when deciding to make 1917. And in a recent interview with Kino+, he explained why he thinks his Golden Globe-winning film is striking a chord with audiences:

If Hollywood history is anything to go by, Sam Mendes may be onto something. 1917 recently crossed the $100 million threshold domestically, and joined a host of other war films like Saving Private Ryan, American Sniper, Pearl Harbor and Black Hawk Down in finding tremendous box office success. These movies run the gamut in terms of the wars they cover, which definitely speaks to Sam Mendes’ theory that war movies have a universal appeal because they all represent a very real, human experience.

The director made a conscious choice to tap into that feeling when he was casting 1917. He purposely chose actors that were not well known to play the main characters so that the audience would be able to get invested in those characters without seeing them, first and foremost, as movie stars. That seems to further prove his point, because 1917 has become a hit despite its minimal Hollywood star power.

1917 is nominated for 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. We’ll find out if the visceral impact Sam Mendes strived for made an impact on Oscar voters when the ceremony airs on February 9, 2020.

While the film itself is so much more than just its technical achievements, a lot has understandably been made about how director Sam Mendes’ 1917 is made to look like a single continuous shot. We can all appreciate how cool that is just from an aesthetic standpoint, but what gets lost is just how incredibly difficult that is to pull off. It was so difficult that something minor like a broken cigarette lighter could derail filming, as actor Andrew Scott explained:

That sounds like a positively exasperating and incredibly tense filming experience. As Andrew Scott, who plays Lieutenant Leslie in the film, explained, the single-shot nature of the filming on 1917 necessitated much longer takes than you would have in a more traditional movie. And if anything screwed up during the filming of that long scene, you had to start all over, even if it was something as small as a cigarette lighter not working.

That meant that everyone had to be on their A-games every second that the camera was rolling. The production team needed everything to be in place, the cameramen had to be perfect, the actors had to know all of their lines and hit all of their marks, from the moment the director called "action" to the moment he called "cut." And even if everyone was perfect, something minor that wasn't really anyone’s fault like a broken prop could force everyone to start back at the beginning.

That’s because it wasn’t just a quick shot that they had to redo. Even if the error occurred at the very last moment, it was a complete do over. The unbroken shot couldn’t be broken to swap in a better take if something went wrong. It was back to the beginning every time.

Feature filmmaking is already an arduous and laborious endeavor and the one-shot approach used on 1917 just raised the level of difficulty for all involved to a punishing degree. It’s like playing an old school videogame with no save points and no extra lives, where you had to beat the game from start to finish or go all the way back to the beginning.

I can’t imagine what it must have been like if you were the guy who screwed up a take and everyone else had to pay for it. Beyond just being incredibly frustrating to have to do a 10-minute scene all over again, Andrew Scott highlighted another challenge to this style of filmmaking.

As the actor told Hey U Guys, the scene might be going really well and as an actor you might feel like you’re putting in great work, but one hiccup and that all gets erased. So your best take may not be the one that makes it into the movie because of a mistake that occurred over the long duration of the shot that had nothing to do with you. Therefore Andrew Scott said a balance had to be struck.

It’s pretty wild, but although it was far from easy, Andrew Scott seems to have appreciated the challenge of making 1917. The industry seems to be appreciating it too. Following its Golden Globes win for Best Motion Picture-Drama, 1917 just won top honors at the PGA Awards. With 10 Oscar nominations to its name, Sam Mendes’ film is in a strong position to claim Best Picture.

1917 is now playing. Check out our 2020 Release Schedule to keep track of all this year’s biggest movies.

Among Sam Mendes’ accomplishments last decade was contributing to the James Bond franchise through Skyfall and Spectre, but the filmmaker concluded the 2010s with 1917. On the surface, it might not seem like a World War I-set movie about two boys being sent on a mission would have that much in common with 007's global exploits aside from the inherent Britishness of both, but as it turns out, Mendes’ work on the James Bond movies informed 1917 quite a bit, especially Spectre.

1917’s first assistant director Michael Lerman recently noted how Spectre’s opening sequence, which tracked James Bond navigating through a Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico City, utilized the same kind of single, uninterrupted shot presentation that was used for nearly all of 1917. Recalling his time with Mendes on Spectre, Lerman said:

Now obviously with 1917, the movie wasn’t literally shot as one take. It was stitched together to look that way from numerous other shots, and Michael Lerman mentioned that with Spectre, that was a compilation of five shots that were filmed over four days. When it came time for Lerman and Sam Mendes to tackle 1917, they repeated many of the same techniques they’d used on Spectre, such as rehearsing for “four or five hours” and then shooting for the same amount of time “until you get it and you go home.”

But the influence of the James Bond movies on 1917 extended past the continuous shot aspect. Later in his interview with Looper, Michael Lerman talked about it was important for the action in the World War I movie to be as practical as possible, just like what’s been done with James Bond on the big screen. As Lerman put it:

Michael Lerman wasn’t willing to go into detail on how 1917 pulled off some of its biggest action-packed scenes using practical effects, but suffice it to say that the end result has been incredible well received. 1917 has been met with largely positive reception, and its accolades include two Golden Globe wins and 10 Academy Award nominations.

As for James Bond, his next movie, No Time to Die, was directed by Cary Fukanaga, making him the first American to helm a Bond flick. It will serve as the final appearance of Daniel Craig’s version of the character, with James Bond being called back into active duty to track down a missing scientist.

1917 finally opened wide on January 10 following its limited release on December 25, and No Time to Die will come out on April 10. Be sure to look through our 2020 release schedule to learn what other movies are hitting theaters this year.

The following contains spoilers for 1917.

1917 is having a great run so far. It had some big wins at the Golden Globes ahead of opening in first place at the domestic box office during its first week of wide release. Now, it's got a collection of Oscar nominations in major categories and a serious shot at winning most of them. It's a film that has a lot of people talking, but the biggest thing that's being talked about is the way the movie has been filmed.

It's fairly common knowledge that 1917 has been filmed and edited in such a way as to make the movie feel like it's all done in "one shot," with no obvious cuts. The camera simply follows the characters through their story never leaving their side and never drifting too far away. However, if you've seen 1917, then you know that's not quite true, the movie isn't one shot, but it's actually two.

About two thirds of the way through the movie one of the characters is knocked unconscious, and the screen fades to black, when the image returns, time has passed, and we have shifted from day to night. CinemaBlend's own Reelblend podcast spoke to 1917 director Sam Mendes, and asked him why he made the decision to have this single transition in the movie. He revealed that he wanted to the story to make a significant shift in time, because doing so would change the tone of the movie. According to Mendes...

The shift certainly works. When Lance Corporal Schofield wakes up after taking a crack to the head, he's disoriented, and the overcast sky from earlier is now black. It certainly feels like he's awoken in another world. We see enemu soldiers who are little more than shadows, meet new characters we would never expect to see, which only enhances the dream-like quality that Mendes was trying to create.

Everything that happens in 1917 feels very real, for lack of a better word. We follow a pair of soldiers on a journey through no man's land, into a trench, and across a field. Nothing feels fantastic or larger than life. Mendes wanted to see this transition into something else, and for that, he needed to make the one obvious transition in the film itself.

Without the cut, 1917 would have had to continue it's naturalistic style throughout, or try to make a sort of running transition into this new tone, it almost certainly would have felt strange to the audience. The cut allows the viewer to feel the change in a way that doesn't take them out of the movie.

Check out Sam Mendes complete comments to Reelblend, which includes some additional spoilers, below.

Following its Golden Globe win, 1917 has a serious shot at winning the Oscar for Best Picture, as well as a Best Director statue for Sam Mendes. We'll find out when the awards arrive next month.

At this past Sunday’s Golden Globe Awards ceremony, 1917 took home two of the biggest prizes of the night, with director Sam Mendes winning the award for Best Director and the film itself taking home Best Motion Picture in the Drama category. It was a well-timed victory for the film, which opens in wide release this weekend. And following its Golden Globes win, 1917 has gotten off to a great start at the box office.

1917 actually opened in limited release on Christmas Day (thus qualifying itself for Oscar contention) but its theatrical run began in earnest last night with Thursday night preview screenings in 2,900 theaters. According to Deadline, the preview screenings, which began at 7 p.m., brought in $3.25 million. That more than doubles the film’s domestic haul of $2.7 million it has made since Christmas.

It seems that 1917’s surprise Golden Globes win didn’t hurt its opening night and should only help it at the box office this weekend. Following 1917’s victory over other Best Motion Picture Drama contenders like The Irishman and Marriage Story, the film saw a spike in advance ticket sales on Fandango. While the exact relationship is better left to the statisticians, awards gold does seem to confer some financial benefit on a film.

The World War I film’s $3.25 million opening night slots it in behind other similar fare like Dunkirk and American Sniper, which had opening nights of $5.5 million and $5.3 million respectively. Sam Mendes’ film expands to 3,434 theaters today heading into the weekend, where it is tracking to unseat another war film of a very different variety for the number one spot.

After a solid $3.25 million start, 1917 is predicted to make $20 million to $25 million and possibly more opening weekend. That should be enough to knock Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker out of the top spot that it has occupied for three straight weekends since its release. Last weekend The Rise of Skywalker made around $34 million but is expected to drop into second place with a $17 million to $19 million performance this weekend.

In addition to its awards bump, 1917 should also benefit from its widespread critical acclaim and potentially great word of mouth given the A CinemaScore it received in limited polling in December. Also, as far as I can tell 1917 will be playing in premium formats in many locations. Given that the film is lensed by Roger Deakins and made to look all like one continuous shot, it seems like the kind of movie that is well worth paying the upcharge for and perhaps many audiences will do just that.

As far as competition is concerned, the comedy Like a Boss earned $1 million opening night and should wind up with $10 million to $12.5 million this weekend. The Kristen Stewart film Underwater is not expected to fare quite so well. The film made $500K in previews and is expected to remain underwater with a three-day debut in the single digits.

1917 is now playing. Check out our 2020 Release Schedule to see all the movies this year has in store.

Throughout every frame of director Sam Mendes’ award winning World War I epic 1917, we follow two young soldiers on a race against time to prevent the deaths of numerous soldiers on the front lines. Played by relative newcomers George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman, those young men and their journey is an electrifying experience that sees them crossing paths with some familiar faces throughout.

While some might worry that bringing in A-List talent such as Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Mark Strong would distract from the film’s story, Mendes revealed some very specific reasoning as to why he wasn’t concerned at all.

During his recent appearance on ReelBlend, the director filled our team in with this specific rationale:

Ultimately, when Sam Mendes is casting people to play the parts in one of his films, he wants them to be the best choice for the job. So having a star studded supporting cast, flanking two extremely talented up-and-comers, was the perfect recipe for Mendes to execute the specific vision he and writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns had for 1917’s intense narrative.

This only enhances the specific casting choice of pegging George MacKay as Lance Corporal Schofield and Dean-Charles Chapman as Lance Corporal Blake, the two young men 1917 focuses its’ story around. Sam Mendes’ intent was for the audience to be able to form a unique relationship with these characters, while also keeping people on their toes in terms of their fates.

With fresh faced actors in the leads, you’re never 100% sure what’s going to happen to 1917’s young protagonists. And with established leads like Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch cast as commanding officers throughout the film, you can get lost in the stakes of the missions they’re calling the shots on.

And in the case of Mark Strong’s appearance in 1917, his character offers not only a convenient shortcut to speed up some of the film’s action, he also acts as an anchor of humanity that keeps the film from getting too isolated and despondent. All of the A-Listers cast in 1917 have their own moments to shine, but they’re singular incidents that enhance the journey being taken by the leads they were cast against.

The combination is a potent one that makes this awards contender, and Golden Globe winner, all the more of an adrenaline rush for those who choose to experience it. And if you’re curious to hear more about how Sam Mendes put together 1917, you can listen to his appearance on ReelBlend in the embed below:

If you’re looking forward to when you can see 1917 in a theater near you, it’s suggested you check your local listings to see if you’re near one of the locations showcasing the film’s currently limited theatrical release. Should you not be blessed with such availability, don’t fret, as the film goes into wide release this Friday.

When you look back on the history of warfare at the movies, World War II has a clear cut advantage over World War I when it comes to the quantity of films that have adapted each conflict’s respective struggles. 1917 writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns knows this fact quite well, and in her opinion, the war is underserved in film, although they’re sidelined for some specific reasons.

At the recent press day in London for the World War I epic she wrote alongside director/co-writer Sam Mendes, I asked Ms. Wilson-Cairns just why she felt this war in particular was at a disadvantage when it comes to cinematic output. In her opinion, the aspects that have held this specific niche of war history back are this combination of factors:

As far as cinematic constructs go, it’s undeniable that a conflict that covers a wide scope of countries and battles makes for an easier well to go back to over the course of several decades of filmmaking. Not to mention, World War II took place during an era where the boom of cinema was just starting to take hold.

This saw the contemporary subject of WIII covered in films like The Best Years Of Our Lives, before being revisited throughout time with notables like The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan, and more recently, Dunkirk. These iconic movies told tales of heroism from World War II’s theater of war.

That doesn’t mean that World War I is a subject less worth making into a feature film, but rather as Krysty Wilson-Cairns pointed out, it’s just going to be a more difficult undertaking. It's also important to mention notable films covering this period of warfare spanning from 1914 to 1918; as classics such as All Quiet On The Western Front and Lawrence of Arabia both cover the war to a certain extent.

However, there’s still a relative drought of content when it comes to this chapter in history, which meant that 1917’s writers would have to get creative with telling their story. Wilson-Cairns is a keen student of history, so an opportunity presented itself, allowing the film to build on one particular moment in time:

As trench warfare and the limited scope of World War I’s area of operations may stymy a traditionally open narrative, director Sam Mendes’ real time/continuous take approach to 1917 probably made those conditions ideal to telling the story he was inspired to create with Krysty Wilson-Cairns.

Tales from his grandfather Alfred’s service during World War I as a messenger were the initial catalyst for the journey embarked upon in 1917’s by Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield, played by Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay respectively. And after some initial growing pains and difficulties, a story was born, and a film could be made.

Of course, the story that Mendes and Wilson-Cairns had to work with needed to be an idea that not only fit into a World War I narrative, but also one that could change on the fly. Without the ability to film and use multiple takes in the editing process, as 1917’s continuous continuity wouldn’t allow such a practice, it was up to the writing team to make sure the film still made sense on a daily basis.

Much like the constraints of trench warfare, the real time journey of this film’s narrative provided very little room for the usual theatrical approaches that give the filmmaking team more room to breathe and find the film in the edit. So in a sense, World War I films like 1917 are not only historically difficult to make, but if you confine them to a scope as intimate and demanding as Sam Mendes’ continuous flow of action, they’re also technically and personally demanding as well.

However, that certainly hasn’t stopped Hollywood from starting to make World War I a sort of filmmaking trend in recent years. With director Peter Jackson’s documentary They Shall Not Grow Old, Dome Karukoski’s biopic Tolkien, and even Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman prequel The King’s Man, it looks like audiences are about to get that much more familiar with a chapter of history that was previously deemed as the less cinematic of the two World Wars.

The end result of 1917 is surely going to lend to that effect, as the picture is already starting to rack up awards nominations, as well as the usual healthy buzz that will see it as a shoo-in come Oscar season.

But it’s important for anyone who wants to make a World War I movie like 1917 to realize that it is a much different beast than its more popular counterpart. Serving as the dawning of modern warfare, it’s not a battlefield the world at large is intimately familiar with, so certain care is needed when telling these sorts of stories.

1917 is currently in limited release, with the film’s wider release rollout planning to start on January 10th.

Everyone and their mother knows creating a major motion picture is not an easy take. There’s a lot of lighting, framing, resetting equipment, and of course the performances, each time a director yells, ‘Action.’ However, when it came to director Sam Mendes’ continuous shot epic 1917, the challenge of making the film seem like one unbroken stream of real time madness proved to be insanely difficult, as one would expect from such an exercise.

This much was confirmed when I was given the opportunity to speak with Mendes, as well as writer Krysty Wilson-Carnes, during the press day for 1917’s limited release. On behalf of CinemaBlend, I got to ask both of them just what the hardest part about using this format was, as well as what they thought the most difficult sequence was to execute through such a vision.

As it turns out, the locked down format that 1917 had to adhere to made the entire film an obstacle to overcome, as Sam Mendes said it best when he told me the following:

One gigantic factor that made the World War I drama so challenging was the age-old problem of maintaining continuity. While that’s taxing enough when it comes to a film that can be strung together in the editing room, the real time format of 1917 offered no such comforts.

Not only did Sam Mendes have to rely on filming everything he needed at the moment he was filming it; he also needed to delay filming certain sequences until the conditions were right. Put those restrictions on top of the action that the director mentions in his continued remarks below, and you’ve got a film that’s probably as tense to make as it is to watch:

In a good natured way, it could be said that Sam Mendes has no one to blame for how hard 1917 was to make, except himself. While that remark is definitely fair, there’s some of that comedic blame that can be shared with the film’s writer, Krysty Wilson-Carnes.

Just as the movie was insanely difficult to shoot, it was even more insane to put the script together with the knowledge that it was going to be one continuous shot. So much so, that when Wilson-Carnes was asked during the New York Comic Con panel, she admitted that she told Sam Mendes that he was “batshit” when he dreamed it up.

As I spoke with her during our press day interview, Krysty Wilson-Carnes expanded on those difficulties, in the terms of how the writing process was continually evolving on 1917, on these certain terms:

Wilson-Carnes had an advantage on 1917 that a lot of writers don’t when it comes to editing their work. That killer edge came from the fact that she was on set pretty much every day, from start to finish, making sure what was being filmed and what was on the page could live in perfect harmony.

Tweaks were made on the fly, and ultimately she was living by an important motto that was shared during our discussion on the film’s intense production: “Every line is a prisoner.”

As Krysty Wilson-Carnes laid out in our chat, the script she co-wrote with Sam Mendes had to be exact in how it described what Dean-Charles Chapman’s Blake and George MacKay’s Scofield saw and did in the movie, but it also needed to work towards that “emotional climax” that Mendes saw as one of the cruxes to the 1917 experience.

Balancing those two factors on their own is hard enough. However, having to do so in an environment where you don’t have multiple takes to play around with and your shooting window is limited to specific conditions in continuity is something that puts 1917 in an even more rarified category of films that seem absolutely magical in their mere existence.

This too was understood by both Krysty Wilson-Carnes and Sam Mendes, as they described the challenges that this project presented them in their effort to make a thrilling, as well as honorable, tribute to the soldiers that fought through World War I. And you can hear both collaborators talk about the artistic difficulties 1917 presented them throughout the project, as you watch the clip from our interviews below:

Through all of the challenges, be they writing, staging, or filming 1917, nothing was as high stakes as the actual events that inspired the film’s narrative. This was something that was especially reinforced in everyone’s heads throughout production.

While actors George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman would be executing long takes of grueling sequences like their trek across No Man’s Land, a scene that according to Krysty Wilson-Carnes took about 40-50 takes to nail, this was still a walk in the park compared to the actual conflict that 1917 was trying to bring to life.

It was in discussing that scene as her pick for the most technically grueling that Wilson-Carnes put things into perspective, as follows:

1917 is a spectacle that really should be seen on the big screen, but at the same time, it’s a film that remembers to honor the memories of those who fought in The Great War. With an insane dedication to making a technically flawless but also emotionally rewarding film, director Sam Mendes and writer Krysty Wilson-Carnes have crafted a perfect tribute to those men who came home, as well as the ones who didn’t.

1917 will be in limited release on Christmas Day, with a wide release slated for January 10th. So stay tuned to CinemaBlend for continued coverage, and feel free to check out the 2019 release schedule to see what movies you need to catch up on before the year closes out!

In a perfect world, every director would be able to say they’re a fan of the movies they’ve made. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case -- but luckily, it is for Sam Mendes. The director recently admitted that he’s super stoked to see the next James Bond film, even though he had nothing to do with it.

Between 2012 and 2015, Sam Mendes directed two films for the legendary franchise -- Daniel Craig's Skyfall and Spectre. In 2016, he announced that he wouldn’t be returning to the franchise, and he’s since moved onto other projects, like his upcoming World War I drama, 1917. But there’s clearly no bad blood between the director and the James Bond crew. In an exclusive conversation with CinemaBlend’s ReelBlend podcast, Sam Mendes made it clear that he’s just as excited to see No Time to Die as anyone else:

Even though Sam Mendes clearly has some connections within the James Bond world, he didn’t try to get a sneak peek of the latest installment. He told ReelBlend that he’s looking forward to seeing No Time to Die without any spoilers or insider information:

Sam Mendes seems eager to transition from James Bond director to fan, and we can’t really blame him. While his tenure with the franchise proved to be very successful, it’s easy to see how it would be stressful to hold the legacy of one of the most iconic characters of all times in your directorial hands. And the director will likely get his wish when it comes to going into the latest Bond installment blind. His successor, Cary Joji Fukunaga, has been pretty tight lipped about how No Time to Die will play out. The film hits theaters in the United States on April 8, 2020.

Sorry guys. Quentin Tarantino isn’t on this week’s episode. I know, I know. We hyped his appearance, but we had to bump him back.

Because we got time with 1917 director Sam Mendes!

It’s an embarrassment of riches on ReelBlend, as brilliant directors we adore are stopping by on the regular to discuss their craft in-depth with Kevin, Jake and Sean. We love 1917, and we couldn’t pass on the chance to sit down with Mendes for an exclusive and lengthy conversation about his WWI epic. So don’t wait. Press play on this week’s episode, and enjoy the chat with Sam Mendes, director of American Beauty, Skyfall, Revolutionary Road, Road to Perdition and 1917 (amongst other classics).

As for news this week, the guys covered the Golden Globe nominations. They sing the praises of the movies they thought earned their slots. They argue over a few selections that might have been snubbed (Kevin really thinks Adam Sandler deserves to be in for Uncut Gems, and he’s not wrong.) But these arguments are just getting warmed up for when the Oscar nominations are revealed.

As for Movie reviews this week, the guys comment on Jumanji: The Next Level, fight a little over Richard Jewell, and gush slightly more over Uncut Gems. Sean also saw Bombshell, and had some thoughts.

Finally, we have this week’s Blend Game, which is dedicated to the 2000s as a decade. So many great movies for the ReelBlend boys to choose from. Which ones do you think they selected?

ReelBlend is a weekly podcast that we do on CinemaBlend. 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.

If you’ve heard of 1917, chances are you’ve also heard that it’s a 2-hour long film that appears to play out over one continuous shot. The headline-grabbing filmmaking technique has been at the center of the conversation about Sam Mendes’ World War I film. And ahead of its release, the director has spoken out about why he made that unique narrative choice.

The one-shot technique has been a part of 1917 since its inception. And though it has the potential to feel like a marketing gimmick, Sam Mendes explained to Variety that he viewed it as an essential part of telling the film’s story effectively:

1917 is partially based on Sam Mendes’ grandfather’s experience during World War I. It follows two young British soldiers as they cross enemy lines, and face relentless danger, to deliver news about an incoming ambush. During their journey, they are exposed to the dangers and the destruction wrought during and immediately after Operation Alberich.

Keeping the viewer continuously in the moment definitely helps sustain the unique tension that comes from being in combat. And it presented a unique challenge for both Sam Mendes and the film’s legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins, who created the one-shot effect by combining long takes with intricate moving camera shots:

Though at times frustrating, Sam Mendes’ approach to 1917 gives viewers an idea of what life must have been like on the World War I front lines. The Great War rarely gets the cinematic treatment, so this intimate glimpse into harrowing conditions that soldiers faced is notable. The dedication to realism also drove the director’s decision to cast two relatively unknown actors as the leads. He told Variety that if he'd had A-list actors play the main characters, viewers would automatically assume they will survive, and become less engaged in the film's outcome.

Sam Mendes’ methodical approach to bringing 1917 to the screen wasn’t for nothing. The film is bringing the director some of the best reviews of his career, and inspiring some Oscar buzz. 1917 begins a limited theatrical release on December 25.

Capturing the horror, thrill and chaos of war has been approached by many talented filmmakers throughout the years. Movies like Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper and Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan have defined the genre’s best entries. Now, American Beauty and Spectre filmmaker Sam Mendes has teamed up with legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins for 1917, a technically-impressive epic about two British privates’ mission impossible across No Man’s Land.

Ahead of the film’s upcoming release during the packed holiday season, critics have screened the war movie and started to weigh in with their reviews. Overall, 1917 has detonated with positive impressions, but let’s dive into the trenches about the movie’s merits and shortcomings.

First up is CinemaBlend’s own Eric Eisenberg, who gave 1917 a glowing 4.5 out of 5 stars in his review. He applauded Roger Deakins' efforts, a one-shot experience through war territory, as unlike anything he’s ever accomplished. The following best summarizes his thoughts:

It sounds like the visual approach is worth the price of admission all on its own! IndieWire’s Kate Erbland also raved about 1917 with these words:

1917 follows two young WWI soldiers (played by Game of Thrones’ Dean-Charles Chapman and Captain Fantastic’s George MacKay) who are tasked with an important mission to deliver a message in a matter of hours across the battlefield in order to save more than a thousand soldiers from death. The film’s story takes place right as the United States enters the war effort against Germany. Chapman’s character takes on the mission with the motivation to find his brother.

Entertainment Weekly’s Leah Greenblatt especially praised the performances of the pair of main stars. Here’s what she said:

Some critics had some flaws to report about 1917, too, such as The Wrap’s Alonso Duralde. He felt the movie focused more on gripping the audience than tackling the complex topic of the war at hand. He said this:

Additionally, for Polygon’s Matt Patches, the single-take technique felt more gimmicky than anything else, and left the film devoid of meaning. In his words:

But overall, it looks as if Sam Mendes’ 1917 is a praise-worthy cimematic achievement. The film currently has even debuted with a 89% Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. Check out Peter DeBruge’s thoughts in his review for Variety:

1917’s limited release begins on December 25 and expands to wide release on January 10, 2020. Are you excited to see the upcoming war epic? Sound off in the comments below.

While there are few cinematographers who can be classified as household names, Roger Deakins remains an exceptionally special talent. His career stretches back to the late 1970s, getting his start in documentary filmmaking, but today he is best known for collaborating with some of the greatest directors in the industry (including the Coen brothers, Sam Mendes, and Denis Villenueve), and in the process producing truly jaw-dropping visions.

When Deakins’ name is in the credits, the educated film-goer now knows to mentally prepare for something sumptuous and special – but 1917 is a cinematic experience unlike anything he’s ever accomplished before. Working together for the fourth time, the Academy Award cinematographer and Sam Mendes have crafted a powerful, unrelenting tour through the absolute hell that was World War I, with the stunning method to the madness being a design that sees everything captured in what feels like one continuous shot.

And while the material being featured through the narrative is familiar from World War I movies of the past, the way it’s brought to life here lets it feel entirely new and just as horrific and terrifying as ever.

Set during the third year of the global conflict, as thousands of soldiers died from artillery and aircraft fire and spent days if not weeks trapped in trenches, 1917 centers on Schofield (George MacKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman), two privates in the British army who are given a devastatingly important mission from their General (Colin Firth). A regiment that includes Blake’s brother is planning an attack on what they believe to be retreating Germans – but what they don’t know is that it’s actually a strategic retreat. A trap is being set, and should the British forces fall into it, the result could be 1,600 casualties.

The Captain leading the charge set to dispatch his men at dawn, so Schofield and Blake must travel through the French countryside to deliver the message in time, all while navigating the tortured and unpredictable terrain and keeping mindful of enemy combatants.

1917 doesn’t feature a new side of World War I, but it does drop you running and screaming into the action.

With a natural ticking clock narrative and a cinematography style that – barring some exception I won’t get in to – tracks events in real time, pressure is ratcheted up to 10 just a few minutes into 1917, and does everything in its power to try and keep you holding your breath throughout the entire ordeal. The friendly comradery between Schofield and Blake at times provides a bit of a release, as the characters can lean on each other for help and support, but it means less and less as the story plays out and the circumstances become even more dangerous and dire.

There is a certain episodic nature to the plot, as there are several action and character-driven vignettes that play out across the movie’s runtime, and each does its part to both continue the journey and depict life during World War I. The trek across the dreaded and body-strewn No Man’s Land sucks the air out of your lungs; witnessing a taste of civilian life is heartbreaking; and even aerial combat finds its way into the piece.

The one-shot cinematography in 1917 is phenomenal and special.

Ultimately the story is pretty simple, and there are a couple of contrivances run into along the way, but 1917 primarily exists as a technical achievement, and in that capacity it is a true marvel. The construction isn’t TOTALLY perfect, as the one-shot aesthetic isn’t seamless due to some fairly obvious cut points, but that hardly detracts from what’s being done in the big picture.

This is a case where a behind-the-scenes documentary may end up being as fascinating as the finished film itself, as there are certain camera maneuvers that are simultaneously breathtaking and mind-boggling to the point where thoughts of “How did they do that?” momentarily take you out of the cinematic journey. The perfect second viewing of this film would be a cut that is put side-by-side with footage taken from set that just follows everything that the main camera is doing during every shot.

As though executing the camera movement weren’t enough, the style also demands that scenes cannot be traditionally lit, with the added “bonus” being that it’s almost all set outside, and yet the work of Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins is still able to expose incredible color and atmosphere in the environments – with some of the most spectacular work coming when the sun has gone down and fire is the primary source of illumination.

Very much carrying 1917, George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman are excellent.

The less that’s known about the cast of 1917 the better, as there are some fun surprise appearances from great actors laced into the story – but truly the movie is hoisted on the shoulders of George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman, both of whom deliver excellent performances. MacKay in particular is continually proving to be a great actor, as his turn as Schofield is a dramatic and harrowing turn following his wonderful work in Matt Ross’ Captain Fantastic and the limited series 11.22.63. Not to be sold short, Chapman gets across some emotional material here, proving to be more than just Game of Thrones’ Tommen Baratheon.

There is a thin line that exists between “storytelling device” and “gimmick,” and while 1917 tiptoes on that line as it unfolds its war story, there is no questioning the extraordinary achievement in what’s been crafted here. It’s a must to behold on the biggest screen available, and sits alongside some of the best works in Mendes’ and Deakins’ respective careers.

Sam Mendes' World War I film 1917 just screened, and it's epic -- not in length, but in ambition and impact. The movie runs at just under two hours, but it's presented in real-time and plays as one continuous shot. With the great Roger Deakins as director of photography, it's no surprise early viewers of 1917 were blown away.

In 1917, at the heart of WWI, two young British soldiers, Schofield (Captain Fantastic’s George MacKay) and Blake (Game of Thrones’ Dean-Charles Chapman), are given a seemingly impossible mission. In a race against time, they must cross enemy territory and deliver a message that will stop a deadly attack on hundreds of soldiers -- Blake’s own brother among them. As the trailer noted, time is the enemy here.

Several critics got to see 1917 on Saturday, November 23 in New York, and while some expressed initial skepticism about the "one-take" idea, they were won over by the movie itself:

Yes, there's a lot of praise for Roger Deakins, but also for the music by Thomas Newman and the performances by the two lead actors. You'll also see several comparisons to Saving Private Ryan and The Revenant:

A Christmas release date is a powerhouse date because it suggests Oscars consideration as well as a potential blockbuster. Sometimes that doesn't work out, but it looks like 1917 may at least be a major awards contender:

The World War II movie Midway just had a surprise (I guess?) win at the box office but I'm glad Hollywood is finally making time for a greater focus on World War I. Between Sam Mendes' 1917 and Peter Jackson's recent World War I documentary They Shall Not Grow Old, the First World War is now having something of a cinematic moment.

1917 is Sam Mendes' follow-up to two Bond films -- Skyfall and Spectre. Mendes told Vanity Fair why he wanted to tell a real-time battlefield story:

1917 was directed by Sam Mendes and co-written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, based in part on an account told to Mendes by his paternal grandfather, Alfred Mendes. The film stars George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Claire Duburcq, with Colin Firth, and Benedict Cumberbatch.

Here's more about the movie to get you ready:

1917 is scheduled to open in theaters in the United States on December 25, 2019, before opening across North America and United Kingdom on January 10, 2020.

Keep up with everything still headed to the big screen this year with our 2019 movie release date schedule. And prepare for a jam-packed new year with our 2020 movie release date schedule.

While World War II has gotten its fair share of cinematic epics, World War I is a conflict that has only recently started to attract more of the attention of big ticket filmmakers. Peter Jackson recently paid tribute to The Great War with his documentary feature They Shall Not Grow Old, and now we have former James Bond director Sam Mendes visiting the war in a more fictional context with 1917.

The first trailer for the film has now been released, and as you’ll see below, while the war may not be terribly familiar with audiences, the plot and styling of the film will intrigue audiences to see it:

Mendes’ latest film focuses on one particularly tense storyline, as 1917 shows two young soldiers (played by George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman) on a mission against time. Tasked with delivering a message to prevent an attack that’d wipe out 1600 men, including one of their own brothers, this brave pair will have to risk it all to accomplish this great feat. Especially when that task will bring them into enemy territory.

On the surface, 1917 feels like a mashup of Saving Private Ryan and Dunkirk, as this new movie mixes the race against time element of the latter with the purpose of saving a family member from the former. But instead of merely showing the wide open countryside or sea-bound action that either of those films traded on, there’s a big difference that sets this film apart from the rest.

In 1917, we’ll get to see the intense trench warfare that World War I is famously known for. Not only that, but the claustrophobia will also extend to sequences that see the central pair of soldiers going underground, and dealing with the potential danger that a sudden cave-in presents at a moment’s notice.

Not only is there a very spectacle-driven component to this first look at 1917, there’s a suspenseful, character fueled element that keeps this film grounded in its mission of survival. Showing off co-stars Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch is probably the finishing touch this trailer needs, as it sets the scene for a saga of two young men making their way through a bloody skirmish, in hopes that they can prevent the ultimate tragedy.

It’s very obvious that 1917 is poised for a run as a prestige title, in hopes that the 2019-2020 awards season will pick it up as a contender. Seeing the reasons why Universal has done this is clear in this tensely edited trailer, and with the closing scene of one of our protagonists running, eyes closed, through an exploding battlefield; it’s pretty much sold us on this film’s promise of being one of the must-see films of the last cinematic season of 2019.

We’ll see if that promise pays off when 1917 goes into limited release on December 25, and will expand to wide release on January 10, 2020.

Disney is deep into rummaging through its collection of classic animated movies and remaking them into live action stories for the current generation. This year saw the release of The Jungle Book, and we've also gotten news about more of these adaptations, like Snow White and The Little Mermaid. Just when you thought they'd exhausted this kind of material, they've pulled another one out from their vault of ideas, as it's being reported that a live action adaptation of James and the Giant Peach is in the works.

According to Deadline, Spectre director Sam Mendes is in talks to helm this new version of James and the Giant Peach, with An Education's Nick Hornby writing the script. Just like the 1996 film, it would adapt the 1961 children's novel written by Roald Dahl. What's interesting about making a "live action version" of James and the Giant Peach is that the first movie had live action moments, so this would give it more in common with the Pete's Dragon remake than the upcoming re-tellings of purely animated movies like Beauty and the Beast or Mulan.

James and the Giant Peach follows the eponymous protagonist living in England under the care of his abusive aunts after his parents are killed by an ethereal rhinoceros. One day, the boy receives "crocodile tongues" from a mysterious man, who tells him to keep them safe. However, soon after James drops them, resulting in one of their peaches on a tree next to his house growing enormously. His aunts soon start selling tickets for tourists to see the gigantic fruit, but eventually he crawls within through a hole to the center he accidentally created. That's when the 1996 movie became stop-motion animated, as within, James discovered a group of human-sized, anthropomorphic bugs living within, including a spider he saved before getting the crocodile tongues. Wishing to help James escape his relatives, the bugs cut the giant peach loose from the tree, roll it to the ocean and set forth to New York City, the metropolis he's dreamed of visiting.

Since this new James and the Giant Peach movie will be a live action take on the story, we can likely expect whoever plays James to look normal the whole time rather than become animated once inside the peach. The bugs, on the other hand, will be CGI creations, as movie technology has advanced a lot since the first movie came out. Beyond that, there's no information yet about how this remake will differ from its predecessor, but it's safe to assume it will retain the primary classic features of Roald Dahl's original tale, though I wouldn't be surprised if the time period was changed from the 1930s to somewhere more contemporary.

It may be a while until this new James and the Giant Peach enters production, but we'll keep you updated on its progress as more information comes in.

Hollywood seems to be in the habit of pre planning franchises many years in advance. Marvel’s Cinematic Universe maps out their phases up to four years ahead of time, Star Wars will be releasing films every year, and DC is trying to get in on the shared universe format. One major film franchise which seems to be surprisingly juxtaposed to this business model would be the always classic James Bond films. After the mixed reception of Spectre, there are a ton of factors up in the air for the next Bond film. And now it appears that one major player won’t be returning to the franchise anytime soon.

Prolific director Sam Mendes, who directed both Skyfall and Spectre, has announced that he will not be returning for the next chapter in Bond’s adventures. Regarding this decision, Mendes said the following:

This statement, which comes to us from the Associated Press, seems pretty cut and dry. Sam Mendes is ready to focus his passion and vision toward a non-Bond film. Since Mendes isn’t typically an action-adventure director, this seems to make a great deal of sense.

James Bond films are some of the most complicated and expensive films to produce. James’ adventures usually take him to all corners of the globe, with production of each film often moving with him. These films also have to contain a ton of outrageous action and explosions.

Considering that Sam Mendes got his big break with the incredibly grounded and surprisingly low budget American Beauty, he seems unlikely to even be considered to direct the crazy production that is James Bond. Then again, Skyfall succeeded in becoming one of the more emotionally grounded and human of recent Bond films, so his sensibility for intimacy surely helped the film’s quality. Unfortunately, Spectre seemed to be non-stop action, so the character development and story lacked the magic that Skyfall had.

Sam Mendes’ departure from the world of James Bond might mean big things for 007 movies as a whole. To start, a new director is obviously needed who hasn’t been so intimately involved in the franchise for the past. But with Daniel Craig presumably passing the role of James Bond to another actor, the entire franchise might be ready for a total reboot. Daniel Craig’s films seem to be more serialized than Bond films typically are, but now that the two biggest roles in the franchise are open, it wouldn’t be surprising if they started fresh with a new Bond.

Are you sad to see Sam Mendes go? Or is it time for another director to get behind Bond? Sound off in the comments section below.

Spectre continues to lead the box office in its second week of release and while it doesn’t look like it will be another Skyfall, the movie will certainly do some solid business. Where the James Bond franchise will go from here is now a question of debate. The biggest question is whether or not Daniel Craig will return to the role that made him a household name. However, there’s another successful member of the franchise that may also be signaling that he’s not looking to return to the series: Director Sam Mendes.

Mendes directed both of the last two entries in the James Bond mythos, and while he would likely by the go-to director for the next movies as well (the one thing that we can be sure of is that, one way or another, there will be a next movie), it looks like it probably won’t be Mendes behind the lens. In an interview with Deadline, Mendes calls Spectre the end of a journey, both for the character, and for himself.

Sam Mendes had implied following Skyfall that he would not return, but then -- with Daniel Craig's prodding -- he made the decision to do so. Mendes implies here that part of the reason he changed his mind was because Skyfall wasn’t "complete." Now with Spectre wrapping up a story arc, something most Bond films have never bothered with, Mendes apparently feels that he’s finished something here. While he doesn’t definitively say he’s done, he does say there are other stories he’d like to tell.

Mendes also speaks about whether or not Craig will return, or rather, that there’s simply no way to know right now. He says Craig exhausts himself while filming, so it’s to be expected that he would say he doesn’t want to return immediately after filming. After a few months of rest and separation, though, the director thinks Craig may have a different view, though he also admits that he won’t, and that Craig may be ready to be done as James Bond, as well.

From a cinematic and storytelling perspective, Spectre would certainly be a good place to refresh and restart. A new director will bring new ideas into the franchise, with or without a new actor. Who would you like to see direct the next James Bond movie?

I liked Spectre. Sure, it’s no Skyfall, but for 2 hours and 30 minutes it thoroughly entertained me. At the points, when its flaws were painfully obvious, I decided to internally tell myself in the broad Italian American accent that my mind surpisingly adopted, "Fuhgeddaboudit," and enjoyed the blockbuster film in the escapist manner it was intended.

As the countless negative American reviews have revealed, that hasn’t been the case for some critics, with the general consensus being that Spectre is cumbersome and bland. Does this mean that Daniel Craig’s James Bond reboot now needs to be rebooted back to the classic incarnation of yesteryear? At this point, it’s too early to tell. But here are 6 big changes that the Bond franchise could make with Spectre's follow-up that should appease the naysayers. WARNING: They almost certainly won’t stop the complaining, because, sometimes, people are just like that. Oh yeah, and there are also SPOILERS ahead. So don’t read on if you haven't seen Spectre.

New Director

I love Sam Mendes. Not only is his eye the cinematic equivalent of an Andrea Pirlo pass – elegant, beautiful, and he produces things that only he could have both spotted and executed – but if I was shooting a plastic bag floating in the wind and needed someone to make it poignant, almost magical, he’d be my first call. With both Skyfall and Spectre, Mendes has eked out what I consider to be the two most compelling James Bond performances ever. I believe that Daniel Craig needs, needs, needs to bring his Bond to a resolute end that doesn’t end with him living happily ever after. In order to do this, Sam Mendes’ poignant, classy beauty should be replaced by a more rugged and direct filmmaker. I’m thinking Danny Boyle. Just because, well, he’s Danny fucking Boyle.

It Shouldn’t Be Connected To Past James Bond Films

There’s a line close to the end of Spectre where Christoph Waltz’s Blofeld tells Craig’s Bond, "I’ve put you through quite the ringer haven’t I, James?" It made me think, "Has he? Really?" It was obvious that the villain wasn't just talking about the antics of Spectre, because he made it clear that he was the architect of all of the heinous things that have happened to James Bond starting with Casino Royale. But it was impossible for me to be overly impressed with Christoph Waltz’s villainy because Casino Royale was released nine years ago. The fact that Spectre tried to use Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace, and Skyfall’s villains, as well as the character’s own past, to try and make Blofeld more imposing just didn’t work. And the constant references to these films just felt superfluous. Of course there was another reason why Christoph Walt’s Blofeld wasn't as potent as he could have been…

More Scenes With The Villain

What is it this year with blockbusters and their tepid villains? OK, I admit that when Christoph Waltz was actually on screen he was deliciously and magnetically evil, but there just wasn’t enough of him. Instead, Sam Mendes rather infuriatingly kept him at arm’s length for much of the film. First we got to see his back. Then his face was obscured by the shadows. In fact, even when he originally talked he whispered to his assistant. If Christoph Waltz then featured prominently in Spectre for the rest of the film, that might have been a good introduction, but instead, Bond chased around the world for over an hour looking for clues to track him down. All this meant that Blofeld felt underused. There was yet another issue why audiences had every right to feel aggrieved with Blofeld though…

No More Lying To The Audience

OK, this isn’t just Spectre’s fault. Spectre gets the brunt of my frustration because of the fact that Star Trek: Into Darkness insisted Benedict Cumberbatch wasn’t Khan, only for that to be a downright lie. This was also the case for Christoph Waltz in Spectre, who continually, and at times rather vehemently, denied he was Blofeld, only to end up being Blofeld. Here’s my issue: Why lie? Doing this only has a negative effect on the film. Not only does it suggest that those involved needed to trick their audience to somehow increase their enjoyment, but as soon as you learn that they were lying, you're instantly taken out and lose focus of the film. Especially since you can’t help but tell those around that you always knew they were lying. It’s a sly, idiotic trick that needs to come to an end.

More Gags And Wit, Less Waffle And Heart

Spectre is written by Jez Butterworth, John Logan, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade, with the latter trio having also penned Skyfall. And you can tell, which is both a good and bad thing. Like its predecessor, Spectre is wonderfully structured and has a flowing rhythm and enjoyable energy that keeps it bouncing along nicely for its entire run time. Unfortunately, Spectre also doesn’t sparkle with wit or humor. Sure, there are gags, they’re just not laugh out loud funny. Instead, they’re the sort you smile at just to be polite. Plus, characters repeatedly use waffling imagery to describe situations, and dialogue regularly goes on for just one line too long. Meanwhile, the fact that Daniel Crag’s James Bond was still lovelorn and seemed to walk away happily ever after with Lea Seydoux’s Dr. Madeline Swann was too heartfelt. Sadly, especially since Seydoux was so magnificent, it was so heartfelt and out of place that I was hoping for an On Her Majesty’s Secret Service type ending to befall Swan. Maybe we’ll get it at the start of the next film.

Time To Look Forward, Not Back

This one’s a little bit harder considering James Bond’s esteemed cinematic history. However, it’s not just directed to the filmmakers, who, in Spectre, failed in their attempt to build a mini-Marvel-esque universe by referencing Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace, and Skyfall. It’s also aimed at the fans and critics that perennially judge James Bond against his prior films and incarnations. Any slight alteration to the character is instantly seen as the equivalent of a swift kick in the groin. Of course, living up to these comparisons has helped make James Bond so great and what he is today, but it hindered Spectre. Instead of being celebrated for just how gloriously fun and entertaining it is, Spectre has been criticised for not matching the traits of its past. The car, women, gadgets, and villain have all been attacked, which is rather funny since a decade ago the first three were being used as examples as why Bond was obsolete in comparison to Jason Bourne. Despite these insipid traits, Spectre is still a hugely enjoyable film, and as long as James Bond's latest adventure is satisfying, thrilling, and a compelling slice of escapism then it should be celebrated, not chastised for trivial reasons.

Generally, sequels to movies are less successful than the original film of a series. Occasionally, a direct sequel will ride the wave of good will and enthusiasm carried over from the first film to be as large or larger in terms of sheer box office. What makes the James Bond series so special is that, even now, in its 24th iteration, the Bond movies continue to eclipse one another as looks to be happening with the latest Bond movie, Spectre.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, in just its first night of release in the UK, Spectre raked in $6.4 million in just 647 locations as the film released in London a week ahead of its United States debut. Spectre is already tracking even with, and in some ways outperforming, the previous Bond movie Skyfall, which set records as the highest grossing Bond film of all time, hauling in $1.1 billion at the global box office in 2012.

Spectre sees Daniel Craig return to the role of international spy James Bond, and is joined by two new Bond girls: Monica Bellucci, who plays Lucia Sicarra, and is best known for her turns as Magdalen in The Passion of the Christ and Persephone in the Matrix series; and Lea Seydoux as Madeleine Swann, best known for her roles as Clotilde in The Grand Budapest Hotel, Sabine Moreau in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, and as Charlotte LaPadite in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, which catapulted Christoph Waltz to the A-list with his turn as "Jew Hunter" Col. Hans Landa. Waltz, sharing the screen again with Seydoux in Spectre, plays the archetypal Bond villain Franz Oberhauser opposite Craig.

In Spectre, a cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

In what is being rumored as possibly Daniel Craig’s last turn as the iconic super spy, this kind of opening, proving both Bond fan’s appetite for Craig in the beloved role as well as Craig’s star power and profit generating ability, should entice the studios to back several Brinks trucks up to Craig’s front door and convince him to stay on in the role. In many Bond fan’s eyes, Craig as already assumed the mantle of "THE" James Bond, and certainly of this generation. He is what Pierce Brosnan was to Bond fans of the '90s, and what Sean Connery should be to every generation. The character has become so passionately revered that maybe it wouldn’t matter if Daniel Craig stepped away and made way for a new take on Bond. But what can’t be debated is Craig’s overwhelming success with the role.

It would be hard to imagine someone other than Daniel Craig as James Bond at this point, and it would be hard to imagine -- especially if Spectre can top Skyfall as the most lucrative Bond film of all time -- Daniel Craig leaving that much money on the table.

Easily one of the most anticipated films of the last quarter of 2015, many already expected James Bond’s latest adventure, Spectre, to be a rather sizeable hit. Less than a month from release, that’s still the case, but new estimates are predicting that it could become huge, starting with a potentially massive opening weekend.

According to The Wrap, industry folks who are well versed in this sort of prophecy are saying that Spectre could rule the box office with an $80 million-plus debut in just a few weeks. As the trade points out, this early tracking number, "intended more as a marketing guage than a box office forecast," is worth taking notice of because the final advertising deluge hasn't really started yet. We'’re definitely on the downhill slope, and though we saw the final trailer, and a few TV spots have shown up, it’s not everywhere just yet, but that will likely come in rather short order.

If this prediction does indeed pan out, this would put the 24th Bond film in the same general area as the last one, 2012’s Skyfall, which earned $88 million its first weekend. That’s not bad company to be in, as Skyfall eventually went on to earn north of $1.1 billion at the worldwide box office. It also earned a total of five Academy Award nominations, walking away with two statues at the end of the night—one for best original song, and the other for best sound editing. Part of the projected big opening for Spectre will be based on fans who loved the last film, but it will be interesting to see if is has the same legs and staying power.

Eon Production, MGM, and Sony, the folks behind both films, can only hope that their latest endeavor follows its predecessor to similar success. On the other side of that coin, however, Spectre has some big shoes to fill, and some rather lofty expectations to meet. Even if it’s a success, but simply not as world-conquering as Skyfall, some might view it as a failure. What we’ve seen thus far looks pretty great, and most of us have nothing to gain if the movie performs well, so I don’t really care if it makes money, I just want to see another awesome James Bond movie.

One thing that some predict that could impact Spectre’s opening is that it goes up against The Peanuts Movie. There may not be a lot of crossover, but that could earn upwards of $50 million its first weekend according to some. Skyfall, on the other hand, was largely alone at the metroplex during its debut, so we will have to see how that shakes out, or if that has any bearing whatsoever.

Starring Daniel Craig as the iconic international man of mystery, and with Skyfall director Sam Mendes behind the camera once again, Spectre opens in the U.K. on October 26 and hit U.S. shores on November 6.

The James Bond movie franchise is now more than 50 years old, but age is in no way slowing it down. The great spy series is as popular as it ever was, and anticipation for espionage adventure is at an extreme high thanks to the forthcoming release of Spectre. The brilliant and daring 007 is ready to go toe-to-toe with his greatest nemeses, and we’re excited for every moment.

You can get a taste of what to expect with the final trailer embedded below:

So what is the new James Bond movie about? Who is making it? What are returning characters up to, and what can we expect from the series’ new faces? We’ve broken all of that down in our What We Know So Far guide below!

The Story

MGM, Eon Productions and Sony seem to have a lot of confidence in the work of John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, as they have brought them back for another round of James Bond storytelling (the second for Logan, and the sixth for the team of Purvis and Wade). The movie will begin with a big action sequence set during the Day of the Dead in Mexico City, but it will see things go seriously rough for Daniel Craig’s 007. It’s after this incident that he receives a cryptic message from a former associate that puts him on the path of a sinister organization: Spectre. We once again are in store for another globe-trotting adventure, as various clues and action sequences will take Bond to places like Austria, Italy and Morocco.

The Director

There's a long tradition of filmmakers taking the helm of more than one James Bond movie (a total of 12 directors have helmed the previous 23 installments), and Sam Mendes will be a part of that tradition with Spectre. With Skyfall, the man crafted one of the most beautiful and well-executed action movies of recent memory, so it was a surprise to very few that producers Barbra Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson reached out to him. It wasn’t a total slam dunk that he would return just a few months after his last 007 film’s release, but he’s been officially at the helm since July 2013

James Bond

Daniel Craig has now been playing James Bond for nearly a decade, and in that time we’ve seen the character go from first getting his 007 status to becoming a weathered and tired veteran. The events of Skyfall nearly pushed him to his end, but nobody ever expects the great super spy to ever give up his job protecting queen and country. Given the way things go in Mexico City, and what we’ve seen in footage, it doesn’t sound like the film will feature him having the greatest relationship with MI6, but that certainly won’t stop Bond from trying to protect it and the entire world. And while many have continued to wonder who could potentially replace Craig as the next incarnation of the hero, it doesn’t look like Spectre will be his last go-round, as he still has one more feature left on his studio contract.

Franz Oberhauser

We have been kept very much in the dark when it comes to details about Christoph Waltz’s role as Franz Oberhauser in Spectre, but as far as we can tell, he definitely isn’t Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Footage that we’ve seen and comments made from people involved with the production have suggested that the guy is the head of the movie’s titular evil organization, and apparently he has deep ties to James Bond’s past (describing himself as the author of all the hero’s pain). It also seems that he’s been lurking around in the shadows for as long as we’ve known Daniel Craig’s version of 007, but has kept hidden from site and just out of reach. As a result of this, we’re just fascinated to learn what his ultimate plan is for the super spy.

M

Skyfall saw the end come to a particular era, as Judi Dench concluded her time as M after a seven film and 17 year-long run. The end of the film also saw the esteemed mantle – representing the head of MI6 - passed on to Ralph Fiennes’ Gareth Mallory, who will now be in charge of sending Daniel Craig’s James Bond around the world to stop terror. Unfortunately, things kind of get off to a rocky start in Spectre. Not only does Bond wind up going rogue and orchestrate some kind of international incident in Mexico City, but M must also battle political forces that are working to try and close the espionage agency’s doors forever.

Eve Moneypenny

The name of Naomi Harris’ character was kept a mystery for most of Skyfall, but it was in the movie’s final moments that it was revealed that she actually plays a very key role in the history of the James Bond franchise. A part originated by actress Lois Maxwell – who starred in 15 different Bond movies during her career – Eve Moneypenny was first introduced as 007’s personal assistant, but you should expect her just to be sitting behind a desk in Spectre. Discussing the character during the production earlier this year, producer Barbara Broccoli described, "This Moneypenny is very active. She is key to the story and key to helping Bond on his mission." We’re still waiting on the "how," but that’s probably something that we won’t learn until we’re actually watching the movie.

Q

Daniel Craig’s James Bond went through two full movies without having anyone committed to outfitting him with awesome gadgets, but fortunately that’s a problem that was fixed in Sam Mendes’ Skyfall. Actor Ben Whishaw brought back the role classically played by the great Desmond Llewelyn, and he’ll be back to his old tricks in Spectre. Thus far, trailers have only revealed one new toy that 007 will get to play with – a super sleek new car – but we fully expect that the film will have plenty of surprises in store for that department. I personally have my fingers crossed for at least one thing that comes out of the super spy’s watch.

Mr. Hinx

James Bond has faced off with many notable villains over the years, but one could make the argument that some of the evil henchmen he’s gone toe-to-toe with are even more memorable. In the tradition of characters like Richard Kiel’s Jaws and Harold Sakata’s Oddjob, Spectre will introduce audiences to Dave Bautista’s Mr. Hinx. The actor has described his role being a mix of both brains and brawn, and footage from trailers have suggested that he will be a very capable adversary for Bond. The only thing we don’t really know at this point is exactly what his special kind of hook will be. He doesn’t have metal teeth, and throwing that hat probably wouldn’t be very effective, so what could it be?

Madeleine Swann

When it comes to Lea Seydoux’s character in Spectre, we know she is named Madeleine Swann, we know that she’s a doctor… and that’s pretty much it. Trailers have suggested that she has information that James Bond needs about the eponymous terrorist organization, but what hasn’t been made immediately clear is whether she is playing for the good guys, playing for the bad guys, or pretending to play for the good guys while playing for the bad guys, or vice versa. Either way, the actress is another member of this cast joining an incredible legacy – specifically the legacy of "Bond Girls" – and it’s a place in cinema history she will share with…

Lucia Sciarra

Monica Bellucci will be joining Lea Seydoux as Spectre’s second Bond Girl, Lucia Sciarra, but one could say that we actually know even less about her role. Every image we’ve seen of her, including the one above, shows her as a woman grieving the death of her husband – though the cast and filmmakers also haven’t been subtle about the idea of her being just a tad bit mysterious and holding on to one or two secrets. How will she wind up fitting into the film’s larger plot? That seems to be a card that the production is playing close to the chest, and won’t have an answer until early November.

Mr. White

After being established as a recurring villain, featured in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Jesper Christensen’s Mr. White took a hiatus while the events of Skyfall played out – but the shady bad guy is back in action in Spectre. When we last saw him, he was escaping from James Bond after being captured and thrown in the trunk of a car – but from everything we’ve seen, it doesn’t look like he held on to freedom for very long. Footage and stills have suggested that the past few years have been super rough for him, and Bond probably had a pretty key hand in making sure of that (White was, after all, directly involved in the death of Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd). We can presume that he has very strong ties to the goings on at Spectre, and should be a pretty rich source of information for 007, provided that he cooperates.

The Theme Song

During his run as James Bond, Daniel Craig has been backed by some truly impressive singers and musicians performing the new theme song, as Chris Cornell, Jack White, Alicia Keys and Adele all brought special little touches to their incarnations. Given the prestigious honor for Spectre is British crooner Sam Smith, who also wrote and produced the song alongside Jimmy Napes. You can give it a listen in the embed below:

The song has been criticized for being slow and lifeless, but at the very least we can hope that it will A) wind up being better in the context of the movie, and B) be backed by a sleek, cool opening credits sequence.

That’s all we know about Spectre so far, but stay turned for more updates to this guide, and get ready for the next amazing James Bond adventure to hit theaters on November 6th.

The list of singers who have lent their pipes to an official James Bond theme song is long and illustrious. It includes Sir Paul McCartney, Carly Simon, Shirley Bassey, Nancy Sinatra, Madonna and – most recently – Adele (who helped Skyfall win the Oscar for Best Original Song). So, who will add their name to the list with Spectre? Here’s a major hint:

Four-time Grammy Award winner Sam Smith just posted this mic drop of a picture to his Twitter feed, apparently making it clear to anyone who follows him on social media that he will be singing the theme song from Sam Mendes’ Spectre, which opens in November.

The timing of the announcement isn’t as strange as you may think. On Sunday evening, HitFix dropped a scoop claiming that the official theme song for Spectre will arrive on Tuesday – the same day that advance tickets go on sale in most markets. Maybe Sony has some plan in place where those who buy their Spectre tickets early get a free download of the new track? That’s pure speculation, though it would be a very nice way to reward fans.

Speaking of pure speculation, there has been a significant amount of it surrounding the identity of the singer for the new James Bond theme song. The gambling practices of several UK bookies led us to believe that the experimental rock outfit Radiohead had secured the gig. At the same time, pop singer Ellie Goulding had people on her scent after she posted an image of Abbey Road Studios with the message "That’s a wrap." Since Skyfall was recorded there, several people jumped to conclusions.

The ring on Sam Smith’s finger is the one worn by members of the evil organization Spectre, as seen in the latest Bond trailer:

It’s possible that he’s pulling people’s chains, and he didn’t sing the new theme song. But I’m willing to be that his Twitter pic is more than a clue. It’s a reveal. And we will hear his new song tomorrow. In the meantime, Sam Mendes’ next James Bond movie – with Daniel Craig in the lead role of super agent 007 – will open in theaters on November 6. This is getting close to the end of the line for Daniel Craig in the iconic role (if you believe a lot of the behind-the-scenes chatter). Let’s see if he can go out with a bang.

You know his name, you’ve memorized his number, and you know how he takes his martinis; but do you really know the man who is Bond, James Bond? It’s hard to say, as he really wasn’t given much opportunity to develop as a character in the first iteration of the decades spanning franchise. It’s something that Sam Mendes intends to explore very thoroughly in Spectre, and he plans to answer some long standing questions about how James became Bond.

Warning: We will get in to spoilers for the Daniel Craig era of Bond.

Speaking with Entertainment Weekly during a recent interview, Mendes elaborated on how he changed the franchise with his record-breaking film Skyfall by noting that by the end of the film, the Bond universe was officially and totally rebooted. With the death of Dame Judi Dench’s M, the final vestiges of Bond 1.0 were thrown off and for good, allowing Sam Mendes to push further into material that he hinted at in the third act of the 2012 action adventure film. The driving force of the Bond franchise’s immediate future, according to Mendes, is the following:

Throughout Skyfall, we learn that James Bond was orphaned as a child, which is explained in the Fleming source material as the result of a mountain climbing accident that claims his Scottish father and Swiss mother. This not only puts him on a hard scrabble path throughout his life, but it also makes him a perfect candidate for service in the clandestine world of espionage.

This background is, for the most part, never used in the first 20 films that made up the previous incarnation of the James Bond franchise, much like the incident involving Vesper Lynd. A lot of this background was only ever developed in the literary source material, as well as Charlie Higson’s "Young Bond" series of novels – though whether the latter is accepted as canon or not is to be debated. While few have dipped their toes into Ian Fleming’s original literature, Sam Mendes seems to be diving in head first with his films... and it’s about time.

James Bond has always typified the "international man of mystery," but when we first saw him in Dr. No, he was already an operative in the field of espionage. From that point on, and through 20 films, we learned only what we needed to know to follow him along on an adventure and that was it. However, once Martin Campbell’s Casino Royale rebooted the franchise in 2006 – a full 44 years after the first Bond film hit theaters - a new focus on the origins of Bond started to take hold. We saw him not only earn his 00 status, but also witnessed the heartbreak that shaped him from day one. From that moment, James Bond ceased to be an archetype and started to become something he was never allowed to be: a person. It’s that thread of "Bond Begins" that’s followed through both Mendes’ Skyfall, as well as Marc Forster’s misguided Quantum Of Solace, and it’s what the acclaimed stage director wants to follow through on in Spectre.

Of course, this only fuels the previous speculation that Skyfall and Spectre serve as the first two parts to a core trilogy that would help keep the Bond franchise going for another couple of decades, and it’s a good reason why Sam Mendes needs to stay on for a third film. The foundation for Bond 2.0 was laid with Skyfall and is rising quickly with Spectre from what we’ve seen. One more film should help put the character in a good position to carry on with business as usual, as well as provide a fitting swan song for Daniel Craig’s tenure as the character. Though, to be fair, Sam Mendes probably already has those thoughts running through his head, and just as he reneged on his rejection of directing Spectre, we’ll never say never until Bond 25 goes into production without him.

Spectre hits theaters on November 6th.

The history of the "Bond Girl" is as diverse as it is long. However, with Spectre on its way and the world being much different than it was when the term was coined, it is perhaps time to retire that terminology. With that, please enjoy the latest featurette from the Spectre team, which introduces the first two "Bond Women."

Thanks are in order, as 007.com released this new video this morning, giving us a better look into the characters of both Lea Seydoux's Madeline Swann and Monica Bellucci's Lucia Sciarra. While there are some details that we already knew about both women, there are some new clues as to where the 24th James Bond film will be taking them in terms of plot. The most revealing piece of information came from Bellucci, as she described her character's motivation in Spectre, as seen below:

So now we know that Lucia Sciarra is the widow of a mob associate, or even possibly a mob boss. Given that Spectre is a wide-reaching criminal organization, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that Ms. Sciarra's husband was somehow involved in the workings of the massive criminal empire that seeks to destabilize the world to its advantage. Also, we do know that we get to see her husband's demise in the Mexico City pre-credits sequence, leading to the funeral where Bond starts to receive deeper hints at just how far the organization reaches. So Bellucci's Lucia isn't merely window dressing, she's a core piece to the puzzle that is Spectre.

As for Lea Seydoux's Madeline Swann, she's a rather interesting piece to the over all mystery, as well, especially considering that the most important piece of her character's identity is hiding in plain sight and hardly ever talked about. Dr. Swann is not only a psychiatrist who teams up with Bond to help him navigate the treacherous water's he's facing in order to defeat his enemies, she's also the daughter of Mr. White himself – explaining just how she knows what Spectre is, and why she's qualified to help Bond face them. Much like Lucia, Madeline has a personal tie to an organization of some really bad people, and a life event – or perhaps some of that gruff Daniel Craig charm – has motivated her to assist in that organization's demise.

With Lucia and Madeline helping him out, Bond has a good shot to make, at the very least, a serious dent in Spectre's organization. While Moneypenny is strangely omitted from this discussion of Bond Women assisting 007 on his latest mission, it is refreshing that they are being labeled as women, instead of the traditional "girl." Casting Lea Seydoux and Monica Bellucci is a clear sign that Sam Mendes and his team are going for actresses who are absolutely stunning, while at the same time able to hold their own in a complex plot that will require them to do more than kiss the hero or die in his arms. In fact, Mendes sums up this sentiment rather nicely below:

With only a couple of months left before Spectre reveals its secrets to us, we've got a strange feeling that there's a lot more than meets the eye when it comes to both of these beautiful, resilient women. Whatever the truth is, it's good to know that the James Bond franchise is aiming away from the stereotypes and tropes it has created in more than five decades of operation, giving us a more mature and developed product that even Ian Fleming himself would be proud of. And we'll see what the full story is when Spectre is released in theaters on November 6th.

James Bond movies are iconic for a wide variety of reasons. There is, of course, the international super spy, his badass cars, his cool gadgets, and his lady friends, among other elements. One of these is the opening theme of the movie. If you’re interested in such things, you can lay a wager on who will sing the signature tune for Spectre, Bond’s upcoming adventure, but according to British Bookies, there is one clear frontrunner in this race.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the odds-on favorite to share his vocal stylings with the opening of Spectre is Sam Smith. The 23-year-old British troubadour may be young, but he walked away with four Grammys earlier this year on the back of his maudlin single "Stay With Me." According to the bookies, he is a 2/5 favorite to land the coveted job. To give you pause before you plunk down your hard-earned dollars, however, Smith has denied rumors that he is involved, though the bookies don’t seem to buy his story.

Spectre director Sam Mendes, who helmed the last James Bond movie, the billion-dollar-earning Skyfall, even fanned the flames. He says the theme has already been recorded and is "fantastic," and indicated that we won’t have too long to wait to find out who landed the gig. All of this, of course, only fuels the speculation even more.

If Smith does wind up with the job, he’ll have some big shoes to fill. British singer and songwriter Adele belted out the Skyfall theme and was rewarded with an Academy Award and Golden Globe for her soulful efforts. She’s not the only notable artist to lend their pipes to the Bond franchise, either. Over the years you’ve heard Paul McCartney, Chris Cornell, Shirley Bassey, Duran Duran, and many more add their talents to the Bond pool.

Though Smith may be at the head of this pack by a wide margin, at least according to bookmakers in the U.K., he’s not the only contender. Ed Sheeran comes in at 8/1 odds. Like Smith, he has also denied being involved, but if one of them does wind up with the job, they’ll be the first British male solo singers to belt out the James Bond theme since 1965, when Tom Jones contributed the theme to Thunderball.

Running down the list, "Love Me Like You Do" singer Ellie Goulding comes in at 10/1; a repeat Adele performance sits at 12/1, which would make her only the second artist to record multiple Bond themes; Lana Del Rey at 14/1 is the highest non-Brit on the list; 18-year-old Lourde sits at 16/1, though she contributed a song to The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part 2, which opens shortly after Spectre and may diminish her chances; and Oasis frontman Noel Gallagher is at 25/1.

We don’t know exactly when we’ll find out how accurate the bookie’s prediction are, but we do know that we’ll see it for ourselves on the big screen when Spectre opens in the U.K. on October 26 and in the U.S. on November 6.

After playing cinema’s most famous secret agent for nearly a decade, the legacy of Daniel Craig as one of the best James Bonds is certainly already cemented. However, back in the day his casting was initially met with pessimism from certain segments of the fanbase. Interestingly enough, Sam Mendes, the director of the series’ upcoming entry, Spectre, reveals that he also thought Craig was wrong for the role.

In an interview with The BBC, Mendes looks back on a rather fascinating change of opinion going back to the initial proposal within industry circles that Daniel Craig was inheriting the James Bond mantle from Pierce Brosnan. With snarky memes referring to Craig as "James Blonde" after it went public, the proposal was not widely seen as an auspicious acquisition, a sentiment that Mendes, who even had a working history with Craig, once shared. As he explains:

It turns out that Mendes’ doubts were more of a testament to his respect for Craig, who performed in his 2002 directorial effort, Road to Perdition. He believed that the flat, living caricature into which the James Bond character had devolved by the end of Brosnan’s tenure left the role as something that did little to elevate Craig as an actor. While Brosnan had proven himself to be a great portrayer of Bond, the series, by 2002’s Die Another Day, had become a juvenile and superficial showcase of pseudo-technology and plot points that were equally nonsensical. Thus, it was hardly the kind of platform that he wished to see his former collaborator showcase his acting talents.

Fortuitously enough, Craig saw the potential in the script adapting Ian Flemming’s very first James Bond story, Casino Royale. With the directorial talents of Martin Campbell returning to franchise after having impressed with Brosnan’s debut in 1995’s GoldenEye, Craig’s coming out party with Casino Royale in 2006 was a success. The film was a much-needed gritty, action-infused reinvention of the franchise. Likewise, the powerful, angst-filled, tragedy-prone presence of Craig’s rendition of the high-rolling, martini-sipping globe-trotter with a license to kill silenced most of the initial doubters. Mendes openly counts himself as one of those folks who now stand corrected on that particular point.

After providing the James Bond franchise a bit of a thematic upgrade of his own with the celebrated, $1 billion-earning Skyfall in 2012, Sam Mendes is spending his days putting the final touches on what he claims will be his last Bond effort with Spectre. With the title providing all the indication one needs, it’s clear that this next film will be a game-changing moment for Craig’s tortured Bond, as he will come face-to-face with a modernized take on the classic killer cabal and its yet-to-be-revealed mastermind.

Spectre will see Daniel Craig’s James Bond use one of Q’s fancy gadgets to slash away at the sinister tentacles of the titular organization when it hits theaters on November 6.

As many are still left wondering whether Daniel Craig will continue his Bond duties after Spectre, one of his crucial compatriots will definitely not: his director. Sam Mendes, who previously directed Craig in Skyfall, recently spoke about his future with the franchise and he was forthcoming about not returning.

According to the BBC, Mendes said:

Spectre marks Craig’s fourth foray as 007, but his second, Quantum of Solace, didn’t excite the fans as the producers probably hoped. Then Mendes stepped in and reinvigorated the franchise with Skyfall, but getting him to come back for Spectre was like pulling teeth. As he explained before in interviews, the act of directing a Bond movie takes up all your life, and he described it in this latest chat with BBC as more of a lifestyle choice. However, he came back for Spectre because he cast a new Moneypenny (in Naomie Harris), a new Q (in Ben Whishaw), and replaced Judi Dench’s M with Ralph Fiennes. As such, he felt there were a number of stories still incomplete, hence his return.

After Spectre is all said and done, he’s ready to return to the stage and film editing. Mendes said that he is happiest when he working on stage plays or editing films, as opposed to the chaos of a film set. When he’s finished his editing, he usually then turns to the stage in order to keep from becoming overwhelmed with one or the other.

Craig’s return as 007 for whatever Bond 25 film is being cooked up also seems iffy. Though, while on a visit to Mexico City to check out the set of Spectre, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson told us that the actor has an "open-ended contract," which means he could potentially part ways at any time. Much like Mendes had to weigh the merits of returning to Bond, Craig had to be talked into the role, as it takes over one’s life.

As for Spectre, not much is known about the film beyond what we’ve seen in the trailer, and a brief plot synopsis that involves Bond receiving a cryptic message that sends him on a mission to uncover a villainous organization.

The film is scheduled for release on November 6, and Craig is joined by a cast that includes Christoph Waltz as Oberhauser, Lea Seydoux as Madeleine Swann, Monica Bellucci as Lucia Sciarra, and Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx, as well as many of the returning players.

Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig and the capable team behind Spectre have been pulling back the curtain on 007’s next adventure at regular intervals. We saw a trailer (which I’ll include below). We visited the film’s set in Mexico City, and reported back. And today, we get a new look at the amazing cars from the upcoming movie. Watch it now:

This video, shared on 007.com, goes in-depth on the automobiles James Bond (Daniel Craig) will use as he hops the globe in search of the SPECTRE baddies. There are eight Aston Martins being used in the production, according to the clip, and Mendes teases some incredible night-time chase scenes through the streets of Rome. It all builds to a race between Bond and Mr. Hinx, played by Guardians of the Galaxy bruiser Dave Bautista. Bond, naturally, is in his signature Aston. Hinx, meanwhile, is suited with a Jaguar that HAS to be custom-made if it’s going to fit around a dude the size of Drax. Mendes claims they are two of the world’s fastest automobiles, and they shut down the streets of the Italian city to take them for a high-speed test drive. They look fantastic in this footage.

Sam Mendes returns to the James Bond series after delivering the most successful (financially speaking) chapter in the ongoing 007 legacy, Skyfall. From all that we have been able to piece together, Spectre will build on story elements introduced in Skyfall, plunging even further into the dark and storied past of Daniel Craig’s version of the timeless spy. The movie stars Skyfall faces Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw and Ralph Fiennes. It also adds series newcomers Dave Bautista, Lea Seydoux, Monica Bellucci, Andrew Scott and Christoph Waltz, in a mysterious role.

But a Bond movie isn’t a "Bond movie" without all of the high-tech bells and whistles, and its’ comforting to know that Sam Mendes is going out of his way to equip 007 with the fastest car available. Daniel Craig continues to mature into the role of James Bond, and the character work he brought to 007 in Skyfall sets the stage for some massive plot twists in this installment. Spectre reaches theaters on November 6. Are you interested to see what’s in store for Her Majesty’s Secret Servant?

In the storied tradition of the franchise, we can expect to see James Bond use a whole bunch of gadgets as he goes through his latest adventure in the upcoming Spectre - but one gadget you definitely won't be seeing in his hand will be a Sony cell phone. This is evidently because Daniel Craig and director Sam Mendes didn't believe the device was cool enough for 007 - even though they were offered a whole bunch of money to use it in the movie.

Mashable has gotten its hands on some internal communication from Sony Pictures that says that the star and director of Spectre turned down a good chunk of money from the studio because they didn't want to use a Sony cell phone. According to the report, Sony Mobile made an offer to Daniel Craig for $5 million to use one of their devices in the next James Bond film. This deal was ultimately rejected, however, both because of a competing offer from Samsung, and because both Craig and Sam Mendes believed that the Sony phones were not good enough for the MI6 agent - who is accustomed to using the best of the best.

It's not exactly hard to see where Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes are coming from here. After all, it's not like the guy is driving around in London in a Ford Focus:

And that's not a Timex that he has strapped around his wrist:

So while Daniel Craig and Sam Mendes' views on the matter might sound pretentious, the truth of the matter is that James Bond is classically kind of a pretentious dude. But he still manages to do it while also being badass and stylish, so we'll always forgive him.

Spectre is currently in production, and will find James Bond once again on a globe-trotting adventure, this time hunting down the notorious terrorist organization that has been a key part of the action franchise for decades. In addition to Daniel Craig, the impressive film also stars Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Dave Bautista, Monica Bellucci, and Andrew Scott. Look for it in theaters November 6th.

When a franchise like the James Bond series reaches a certain age, your hits are bound to be met in fair measure by your flops. Ask any James Bond fan who their favorite Bond was, and they’ll most certainly tell you who their least favorite was in the same breath. Thankfully, Sam Mendes didn’t incur such wrath with his 50th anniversary spectacular known as Skyfall, and judging by the remarks of his Spectre collaborator Christoph Waltz, he won’t be lying down on the job any time soon.

This month’s British edition of GQ has a particularly awesome spread with the two-time Academy Award winner, and latest Bond villain, as Waltz talks about his own misgivings about taking the role of Franz Oberhaeuser in Spectre. Like any good actor, he was obviously nervous, but ultimately the quality of the product inspired him to say yes, as he displays in his vote of confidence below.

Now, while Christoph Waltz doesn’t name names when it comes to his scathing critique of the lesser entries of the Bond series, there’s obviously one particular era that these comments could only belong to. While he might be a philanthropic gentleman and a raconteur of a high degree, it looks like Roger Moore just got called out by the man who could be Blofeld. But again, no specific names were named, so there’s a good chance that Waltz might not have enjoyed the Connery or Brosnan eras of Bond – because calling Timothy Dalton a ham is like calling Leonardo DiCaprio a repertory theater groupie.

Still, it’s nice to hear that Waltz, much like the rest of us looking forward to Spectre, is a true Bond fan at heart. Having his knowledge of the franchise’s history knows the man realizes the fine line between chilling villain and silly baddie. It’s a line that Sam Mendes and his crack team of actors, writers, and crew members seem to be ever mindful of, and it’s proved to only be a good thing when it comes to the future of the James Bond universe. Whoever Christoph Waltz is playing, and whatever Spectre truly is about, at the very least you can be assured that it’s being tackled with the conviction and worksmanship of true professionals. That, and you won’t be seeing Daniel Craig’s stunt double hanging off of a fire truck anytime soon.

Spectre takes its first shot on November 6.

Daniel Craig is one tough trooper. Towards the start of production for the next James Bond movie, Spectre, 007 suffered a knee injury that was reportedly a sprain. Though, he kept trucking along. After all, the crew still had to shoot in various other locations with the film’s November 6 release date lingering in the back of their minds. Unfortunately, it looks like the incident was more severe than we thought, as the actor recently underwent surgery to rectify the sprain.

A Spectre spokesperson confirmed to BBC that Craig had arthroscopic surgery during a scheduled break from production to repair his knee. The rep stated that he will rejoin the cast and crew on April 22 when production returns to Pinewood Studios. Though the details surrounding the incident are not entirely clear, The Mirror reports that he was filming a fight sequence in the Austrian Alps when it occurred. We learned on the set of Spectre that this location will host a major action scene involving Bond, Madeleine Swan (Lea Seydoux) and Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista). As seen in a promotional behind-the-scenes video, Bond is wearing an all-black turtleneck and firing off rounds as black cars speed off on the snowy landscape.

Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli told us they are confident in making the November release date. With such a hectic and tight schedule, however, could such an injury delay production? According to The Mirror, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Their source said that Craig underwent the surgery while director Sam Mendes was filming certain scenes that didn’t need his leading man. The source adds:

There’s already a lot of pressure bearing down on Spectre. As its name suggests, Bond 24 will see the famed villainous counter-intelligence organization emerge from the shadows. Though it’s leader, played by Christoph Waltz, is still very much in the shadows. Fans have been speculating that he will be revealed to be Blofeld, the iconic leader of SPECTRE. Waltz is clearly getting sick of this theory, as he reinforces his identity as Franz Oberhauser.

With a teaser and a few brief previews to go on, Bond lovers continue to try and fit all the puzzle pieces together. And according to Wilson, some of them are on the right track. Having already shot sequences in Austria, Rome and Mexico City, Spectre will eventually head on over to Morocco to film another major scene. We'll be sure to keep an eye on Craig to see how he fairs as the action gets a bit more intense.

It has all been leading up to the Day of the Dead. It’s Sam Mendes’ fourth day of shooting the opening sequences of the new James Bond movie, Spectre, on location in Mexico City. Thousands of extras (1,500 to be exact), donning traditional face paint, parade down the street in celebration of the Mexican holiday. They’re moving to the beat of the drummers banging away on an ornamented stage surrounded by acrobats. And emerging from within all the raucous is an epic chase between 007 and his target. 

This is the only day throughout the entire production of Spectre that members of the media are able to attend. So a barrage of journalists, both foreign and domestic, are crowding the balcony at the Gran Hotel Ciudad de Mexico to get a glimpse of the action in Zocalo Square below. We were on hand and, trust us, there’s far more details to be gleaned than what the teaser trailer showed.

Based on what I saw and details heard from Sony's unit publicist, here’s what went down:

The first scenes of Spectre take place in Mexico City, and Bond is on a mission. This is where he encounters the newly cast Stephanie Sigman as Estrella. Her and Bond are weaving in and out of the Day of the Dead celebration, heading towards her hotel room. She thinks she’s bringing Bond to bed, but 007 has his eyes out the window. It’s while he's in the hotel that he spots two villains having a conversation across the way. Bond jumps into action. He stops "something really bad" from happening. The scuffle causes a building to explode, after which a chase commences. 

Marco Sciarra, played by Italian actor Alessandro Cremona, is pushing his way through the day’s festivities as Bond is in hot pursuit. (Worth noting is that actress Monica Belluci portrays "Bond Girl" Lucia Sciarra. We glimpsed her in the Spectre trailer at a funeral.) After Sciarra calls for backup on his phone, a helicopter descends into Zocalo Square. Sciarra bursts through the crowd  of people dancing to the music and sprints for his only visible escape route. But Bond is on his heels. 007 fights his way through Sciarra’s cohorts and leaps onto the plane. The two grapple with each other as the craft is taking off. 

To give you an idea of what ensues, stunt pilot Chuck Aaron is manning the craft on the set. He is the only person insured to do 360-degree flips in this helicopter. Ponder that for a moment. A rep for Sony told us that some of the copter’s stunts are being filmed in Zocalo Square, while the others take place 10 hours outside of the city and are performed at a lower altitude. 

"Ultimately our job right now is to top Skyfall," said production designer Dennis Gassner. That means starting Spectre off in the traditional manner: with a bang! As he describes,

Spectre hits theaters on November 6. We'll have more to report from the set in the coming days, so stay tuned!

Following up Skyfall is no easy task. Sam Mendes’ first crack at a James Bond thriller produced the most lucrative chapter in the ongoing series, as well as a near-universally praised installment by critics and fans. 007’s producers wisely brought Mendes back into the fold for Spectre, which dropped its first footage below. Watch it now!

"You are a kite, dancing in a hurricane," James Bond is told by the mysterious and deadly Mr. White, who we think that Bond (Daniel Craig) has been sent to kill. That doesn’t sound good for our favorite spy with a license to kill. We also learn in this brief but informative clip that 007 has a secret, which he has been holding close to the vest because he was unable to trust anyone. Do you think that will change any time soon?

It’s interesting to learn that, unlike other Bond films, Spectre will continue to build off of the events of Skyfall. Information that was unearthed at Skyfall, the country estate where Bond was raised, sets 007 down a path to discover secrets from his past… and I’m making the leap to say that it has something to do with his old man. Or his caretaker. How much do we know about Bond’s early days? About his family? I have a feeling that Spectre is going to explore the secret agent’s deepest, darkest roots. Does that intrigue you?

Now, let’s talk about Christoph Waltz. The legendary Oscar winner signed on for a mysterious role, which most of us assumed would be Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE. And we get a glimpse of him at the end of the trailer, but his face is hidden by shadows and his speech is… ominous. He suggests that the dark and shady organization that he heads up – SPECTRE – has been waiting for James Bond for a while now. And the spy’s path is predestined.

This is our first official glimpse at the 25th James Bond, and I’m ecstatic at the type of narrative construction going on with Daniel Craig’s turn in Bond’s tuxedo. The movies, up until Craig’s tenure, have been standalone adventures that lived or died by their villains and their set pieces. But ever since Casino Royale soft rebooted the spy franchise, Craig has been able to properly develop 007’s backstory… with significant help from some outstanding supporting cast and, of course, Sam Mendes.

We were lucky enough to visit the Spectre set in Mexico City, and will have full reports from the action-packed location momentarily. For now, tell us what you thought of the first Spectre trailer. The movie’s targeting a November 6 release date.