Upcoming IR slate

Hope to see that flick soon.

 

I take offense to you age-ism. lol. But who is Sean?

On-set photos


Hilary Swank at 45(younger than me.) with a body still in good shape like that could do it herself. I don't think she needs Sean's help whoever that is. lol.

But I think you have the wrong and shallow idea about what a noir thriller actually is. I don't think the idea is to jack your dick off to this. If you read the plot I think the sexual part of the flick is more provocative, bawdy, SALACIOUS than erotic, bro. But to each it's own.

 

Wow Naughty America? Forgot about them. Surprised anyone actually makes it anymore.

 

Damn autocorrect Swank lol
Sorry she doesn't have sex appeal to me. In all her movies she was a little goofy or super serious like Million Dollar Baby or Boys Don't Cry. She's not a Michelle Pfeiffer or Halle Berry who definitely had sex appeal in their 40s.
If she wants to be a soccer mom looking for her lost kid fine. Hell even an international assassin I can buy or soldier like GI Jane but someone who can seduce someone into messing up their lives? Hell no

 

I agree she isn't classicly Hollywood sexy, but she keeps it pretty tight, so she would definitely be one of the women middle-aged men would flock to in real life.

 

Again I think you're missing the point of the film. It seems as though you are looking to be attracted to her. Why? Carter(Michael Ealy) is the one that was seduced by her and attracted to her. You or I are actually not supposed to be because we're not CARTER. lol.

I put it like this Anne Hathaway is facially unattractive to me, but her body is banging and the girl can act. And it was that combination that was on display in Havoc and Love and Other Drugs that sold it to be made believable those guys were into her.

Swank is kind of the same way but a far better actress. And that is the big part you are missing which is why I made the joke about you looking to jerk your dick off to this flick. She will sell it and he will sell being seduced and attracted to her because the characters calls for it. If she was a bad actress then yeah, but it seems like you are going solely by your personal preference and since you are not attracted to her then she as an actress can't do her job or Michael Ealy's character couldn't possibly be attracted to her because your not attracted to her and that makes no sense. Especially when we don't even know the details ABOUT his character.

But again you're missing the point and concept of the movie. Read the description of the film it's a provocative thriller not an erotic thriller, bro.

 

Sorry fam I completely disagree. Part of an actresses job is to sell it to the audience. I do have to agree with the motivations of the protagonist or it falls apartment. Ann Hathaway may not be pretty to you personally but she can sell beautiful and quarky even sexy to some degree Swank has never had a role even in her youth that has ever presented that notion. Not saying she isn't attractive she just can't sell the you're so hot I'll risk it all sexy like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct or Natasha Henstridge in the Whole Nine Yards.

 

Again you are missing it. You are suppose to buy that his character is seduced and attracted to her. Not you, you're not Ealy's character. You don't even know the type of guy he is playing. You are projecting your feelings onto what HE should feel. That is just silly. In the words of Mahershala Ali It's not about you it's about these characters. There are BIG, FAT women out there in real life that have managed to seduce men. lol. YOU and whoever else agrees with you don't see yourself being seduced by Swank(because you're not thinking about her character which you know nothing about.) and because you don't feel it you think there is no WAY any other man including Michael Ealy's character which we know nothing about could feel it.

Do you not realize there are guys out there that finds Hilary Swank sexy to this day? What about what THEY would feel. And you can't say just because she has had very little roles like that. Anne never had a role like that until Havoc. But we are talking about a movie that is not even out yet there isn't even a TRAILER! lol. So the only thing you are going by are her age, looks and OTHER movies not related to this type of movie. But even though STILL this movie isn't what you are thinking about; she has had done sex scenes and sexy scenes where she is with a lover and showed off her body and sexuality.


So you are wrong. This wouldn't be virgin territory to her to pull it off when she has already done them. But again this isn't the type of movie you are thinking of and you are going by things that don't make any sense. You're thinking that her character wouldn't be able to seduce a character you know nothing about. All because of what you are feeling about the actress. That is silly to do that especially with a good actress in a role we have yet to see.

And I hope you know you just expressed an opinion about Anne Hathaway proving my point that you are going by what you personally feel. Those men out there that ARE fully attracted to Hilary Swank just like Anne Hathaway will buy it regardless because they are attracted to her just like the Carter character. And that is what it is about. Michael Ealy's character. Which you know nothing about, but you think no way he could be seduced by Hilary Swank's character... which you ALSO know nothing about.

Sometimes we like say "we" when we really mean "I". It's an provocative thriller and if that is important to you that you be FULLY attracted to the protagonist or you won't buy that the male character is then go ahead and skip it. It's silly but okay. lol. I'm going to give an oscar winning actress the benefit of a doubt just like I did with Anne Hathaway and just watch the damn movie that sounds pretty good and has a pretty good director, writers and actors in this.

 

Omg knock it off. Its like saying I haven't seen Kevin Hart play an action hero so how do I know he can't pull it off? Because dude is 5'4 and nothing about him says action star to me. Just like you brought Ali I don't see him selling Blade. I don't have to see something to know ahead a time people casted for something won't work. I could be surprised but I doubt it.

 

Swank has had an interesting career. For some reason or another her viability as a Hollywood leading lady was short-lived despite winning two Oscars for best Actress at such a relatively young age. Maybe she has a rep of being difficult, maybe she made bad career choices when she had a small window of time to do whatever she wanted, maybe she just got unlucky in terms of the success of most of her motion pictures or maybe The Dark King is on to something about her not being attractive enough in some people's eyes. I recently finished a book about movies from 1999 and how that year really shaped cinema for the better. Swank was involved with one of those films "Boys Don't Cry" and as a result the book provided some details regarding her professional and personal life. She is clearly a talented performer but possibly that film too affected the way producers and studios thought of her going forward : a woman with an androgynous look/vibe. Has there ever been a role she had that played up her attractiveness or try to pass her off as sexy?

That said I'm gonna side with darkcurry on this one. Sometimes an actor/actress can surprise you by stepping out and doing something no one could envision her doing previously. And once more she is very talented. So was she drawn to this low-budget because it provided a chance for her to stretch herself by playing a character she never got to embody before? Or is her career so much in the dumps as far as motion pictures are concerned that she agreed to take pretty much anything which is how she ended up starring in a Michael Ealy film? And i'm not trying to knock Ealy who had the looks and enough talent to be a leading man following his fantastic turn in Sleeper Cell. But let's face it while he has had steady work for almost two decades (wow, time flies), his career has never quite taken off in the way one would have hoped.

I've read about this film a while back and never thought of posting about it because it sounded so odd with its setup and Swank having a leading role in it. Most of all I wanted to dismiss it because it sounded like some Will Packer garbage like "Obsessed" with an uninspired title and I just assumed Ealy's wife would be a black woman who brow beats him for an affair he never gets to have with a white woman. So when darkcurry dropped the knowledge that Ealy's wife was being played by a white actress that immediately got my attention. But is darkcurry right about this?

Lexa Gluck is listed in IMDB as playing a character called "Carter's Wife". Okay, so who is Carter? We don't know. The IMDB doesn't list anyone as Carter but it also doesn't fill in the names for the characters being played by Ealy, Swank and Colter. So I'm gonna assume that Carter is played by Colter. Why? Because if his character has a wife she could likely be unimportant enough to be referred to as anything other than Carter's Wife in the script. But if Ealy was actually Carter, then this female character would actually have a first name considering she will play an important part in the story. That's just how things are done. There are two young-enough black actresses listed in the IMDB page for this film and both of them have the actual names of the characters they are playing posted right alongside them. IMDB can be tricky. For some reason, before a movie comes out, the lead actor or lead actors won't have his/hers character name placed across from him/her on the page of their film. When that happens than the other most important actors in the film will have a blank in the column where their characters' names should be as well. Sometimes it can be just the opposite with all the important performers being the ones whose character names are listed. And other times it can be a combination. But one thing is consistent....if you are playing a key character to the plot who has multiple scenes and plenty of dialogue, your character is never going to be listed just as someone's spouse or someone's girlfriend or someone's brother. For example if it was around back then the IMDB page of Die Hard would not have a listing for pre-production or post-production of Bonnie Bedelia as John McClane's wife, it would instead list her as Holly McClane.

Now that I think about it I am going to take back my guess that Gluck even plays the wife of Mike Colter's character. This Carter guy may simply be a character/actor not yet listed which also happens all the time because these initial lists of actors in a film tend to be incomplete until the movie gets close to release. And I'm going to be skeptical about any IR going on because with examples like Obsessed we have seen movies in which the black man never goes through with any intercourse with the devil white woman, not when he has a black wife at home. Just because the white female detective is seductive doesn't mean that they fuck, it can just mean she tempts him enough for him to make a bad decision regarding a murder. And I'm pretty sure one of those two black actresses I mentioned earlier will be Ealy's wife. In backwards fashion that could only occur if a white woman is tempting a black married man on screen, TPTB made sure that the black wife was much prettier. Amazing how as I write this my whole perception of the movie starts to change midstream. Fuck it...this is probably the actual reason I never posted about this movie in this thread in the first place, I likely just forgot why I hadn't. This is why I ask that we do our due diligence before posting announcements in this thread.

 

Wasn't interested in posting anything about this either because of the race-bending nonsense of it all. That type of casting is fine for a stage play if they wanted to g that route, but I won't be able to buy Washington as a potential king of Scotland on the big screen. Sorry. So while it technically does belong in this thread, I'm admittedly too biased against it to have make mention of it at all.

 

And now having written what I did about Macbeth....


Bridgerton






Rege-Jean Page
Phoebe Dynevor


Phoebe Dynevor and Regé-Jean Page have been cast as the leads of the Shonda Rhimes-executive produced “Bridgerton” series at Netflix, the streaming service said Wednesday.....

Based on Julia Quinn’s best-selling series of novels, “Bridgerton” is set in the sexy, lavish and competitive world of Regency London high society. From the glittering ballrooms of Mayfair to the aristocratic palaces of Park Lane and beyond, the series unveils a seductive, sumptuous world replete with intricate rules and dramatic power struggles, where no one is truly ever on steady ground. At the heart of the show is the powerful Bridgerton family. Comprised of eight close-knit siblings, this funny, witty, daring and clever group must navigate the upper ten thousand’s marriage mart in search of romance, adventure and love....

PHOEBE DYNEVOR (“Younger,” “Dickensian”) will play “DAPHNE BRIDGERTON.”
The picture-perfect young debutante has been waiting her entire life to make her grand debut on the marriage mart. Poised to be the season of 1813’s forthcoming Incomparable, Daphne’s set to take the town by storm – but not everything goes exactly as planned for this diamond of the first water, especially after she meets a certain Duke.

REGÉ-JEAN PAGE (“For The People,” “Roots”) will play “SIMON BASSET.”
Having newly returned to London, the Duke of Hastings finds himself the primary topic of conversation amongst marriage-minded misses and ambitious mamas alike. Yet, for reasons of his own, our devastating Duke has zero interest in his title, society, or taking a wife.


Another show in which Rhimes and her minions try a revisionist take of European society (both past and present) in which black families are powerful brokers. Ugh. I don't need to do any research on the novels to know that the author didn't make this Duke or any of his relatives black. But you look at the IMDB page. Seriously if I was an author and cared about my books more than the money given to me for the movie rights, I would insist on a non race-bend rule if I thought it was important to stay true to how the characters looked and were presented in my novel.


https://www.thewrap.com/shonda-rhimes-bridgerton-series-netflix-phoebe-dynevor-rege-jean-page/

 

I wrote the description in my post in case you missed it here it is again.

And that stupid ass IMDB had him as Carter and I just seen what you said they must've messed up, but yeah Damaris Lewis IS playing his wife. Which means Carter might be Mike or someone else. Here is an updated description of it where once again they describe the two had an affair.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lionsgate-nabs-hilary-swanks-noir-thriller-fatale-1233880

I agree with most of what you're saying. The reason I mentioned it was because of description title and the concept sounded interesting. I'm just not pre pre-judgey, skeptical and project how I feel about a woman's sexiness onto every other man. We don't know how this movie is going to play out. We Don't know what the performances would be like OR what the characters are like. You could only go by what they are giving you and that's what I did.

 

A black kid Macbeth in my high school. Normally I would agree with you, but I'am also aware that black people existed all over the planet for centuries so I don't see it too far out in race-bending. But I like both actors and I like the play. And as I said before if the material and the performances are good are sounded good then I would support it when it has an IR coupling in it. Until I found out they did them dirty. lol. And you never know who else here might like it so we can't just post things here selfishly. Let's help each other out. Kind of like what you did with your last post on Bridgerton. Didn't sound you like that very much because of Shonda. I will give some of her stuff a try. We have a diverse amount personalities and interest on this board. It's lame and not very community friendly to say oh fuck what anyone else like. An IR community is supposed to be ABOUT that diversity. At least imo.

 

You see I think the lamest excuse ever that black people especially fall back on is this whole "well black people did exist in this place at such and such time". So what? The same can be said almost about every race/group. There were white men who lived in parts of China way back when but you don't cast a white actor for a movie as a man who is set to lord over an ancient Chinese dynasty. There were Arabic people who lived in Victorian London but you don't cast an Arab as Sherlock Holmes. So why is Denzel playing a man who would be king of Scotland when no fucking black man was ever in line to be king of Scotland? There's a barrier of believability that I can't get beyond. I see it done more and ore by white filmmakers and showrunners too, such as the director for "Mary Queen of Scotts" who cast black and Asian people for key supporting roles in that film because she didn't want to make a movie that didn't have diversity. Well, that's very kind of her but you are almost rewriting history by doing such a thing. If you wanna do a movie with a diverse cast pick a story that would naturally allow you to do that.

There was criticism directed that the white female filmmaker who is doing the 1000th remake of "Little Women". She was criticized for not casting a "woman of color" (i.e. a Black Woman) in one of the main female roles. What nonsense. The five most important characters are the white mother and her four daughters. Why would any of her daughters not be white? Even if one was stupid enough to change that around , having a black person in the mix should by all reason change some of the trajectory of the story considering the time and place. In my opinion when black people suggest such things they are guilty of the same cultural appropriation that they charge everyone else with. So, yeah, I'm against Shonda going this route. Her team should at the very least create original material that allows her to do this shit, but instead she keeps acquiring works of art and having half the characters race-bended in order to fulfill her European fantasies.

 

Sometimes I think people are so desperate for inclusion they'll take any old scraps and call it a feast because none of that shit makes sense. There's an aristocracy in various parts of the world hell of you're so desperate for an English accent set it in a colony where there are tons of black British sounding people. Its the desperate ploy to be seen as good as white and it shows. What's weird is Shonda is clearly capable of writing stories about non white well to do people ie Grey's Anatonmy and Scandal. Well just another show I won't be watching

 

How do we really know that to be true? Our knowledge about the history of humanity is what they tell us about history. Do you believe that most of Ancient Egypt was non black during most of those dynasties? Do you believe Nefertiti and Akhenaten we're non black?

Do you believe Septimius Severus who was lauded as the first black emperor of Rome to not be true?


You don't buy The Moors presence as rulers in Europe?

What is the source that we know for certain to be true what mainstream historians and education tells us?

The lamest thing HUMANS do is try to compare modern human social conditions to those of ancient humans. What do you think black people were doing through out ancient times before modern Africa?

But back to Macbeth. Ira Aldridge the man who played Othello also played Macbeth back in the 1820s.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-230-10216-3_5


They have been "race-bending" shakespearian roles for well over 200 years. Maybe unlike us now today they weren't under the impression that black people of ancient times weren't as limited as we are in modern society.

 

Geez, man. This is turning into nothing but an unnecessary pissing which leads to nothing but clutter. The intent of this thread was never for such back-n-forth rebuttals. But since you went out of your way to do some researching on Google I will respond one last time on this issue to clarify my points.


First of all from an early age I was given my Africans in Antiquity texts so no need to assume I’m not aware of black presence in parts of the world during times that would not seem obvious to most folks.

But that doesn’t mean that it is natural to have a black person on film playing certain roles in a non-black society from more ancient times. If one wants to say there had been rare black samurais that’s one thing; if one wants to claim that a black actor should be allowed to play the Emperor of Japan during the Shogun era, well, that’s complete and utter nonsense. Feel me? Never did I write that there weren’t black people in specific high profile, societal positions outside of Africa. But history instructs us there were positions of power, authority and royalty that black people never achieved in non-black societies. One thing we can be assured a black person never was is the King of Scotland. Shakespeare certainly didn’t think a black man ever held that particular royal standing when he wrote Macbeth.


And by the way why even bring Egypt into the conversation? Egypt had a strong black presence as a result of where it was located. The presence of black people in 1500 to 1600 Scotland was not nearly as prevalent.


Hey, its cool some black actor was given the opportunity to play Macbeth in the 1800s. But how is that relevant to this discussion when I already made it clear my argument is not with theater but with film. Theater has been allowing people to get away with all sorts of shit from the beginning. When Shakespeare was alive the female roles would be played by men for God’s sakes. Theater has always allowed for a certain disbelief. It allows you to play with your imagination in a manner movies do not which is why the audience for each have different expectations. On stage all they have to do is tell you that the character is in 900 BC India; when it comes to films they have to show you that the character is there walking on Indian terrain. Theater allows you to get away with things that Film/TV cannot.


That is why I haven’t objected to Denzel Washington playing such roles on Broadway but I balk at the idea of him being Macbeth on the big screen. I simply couldn’t buy him in such a role.

The late, great August Wilson was vehemently against black actors playing "white" roles on stage in part because of the reasons you laid out.

 

Well I'm not the one that gets on here to mainly nit-pick and complain on this site especially about nearly everything I post. We wouldn't be doing this if you guys wouldn't take it so serious to make sure you tell me how wrong I'am for what I post or get all whiny with the things I post. Next time go to the moderator if what I post bothers you guys that much instead of doing this! You guys sound like a bunch of Debby Downers.

You are sitting up here once again projecting your personal feelings and modern human social conditions on humans from another time and ancient geographical places in the world and are insufficient and some what ignorant on the things that you are saying about them. Like you just did saying there was no black King Of Scotland. I could throw out the links and the books but I'm going to save that for a more positive post on another thread because I'm done with this boxed-in thinking.

I'm not like other people that's just going to take what you said is true and at face value just because JamalSpunky said it. Some of you guys say things like you're SO SURE OF YOURSELF and I really don't pay it no mind I find it funny actually.. until you hit that reply button to one of MY post and try to tell me what something is and what something isn't. It don't work like that with me man. Give me proof or stop replying to nearly everything I post to shoot it down. I have always been un-afraid of being wrong, bro. But only if I'm actually wrong. You just can't tell me that I'm wrong. Prove it!

Macbeth is and always was a fictional character. I doubt whether the stage or film if he was known to be white they would "race-bend" unless they didn't respect the knowledge of the audience. Sound familiar? One of the main reasons I disagree with race-bending is because of black presence that have been in this world for centuries and this argument with you is proof that folks need education on the physical, cultural, mental and geographical diversity of black people through out history.

But I don't take race-bending of made up characters this freakin serious you guys sound like those white fanboys.

So many of you live in such a box especially Americans to the point that if it's not in that box than you don't believe it exist. I always been one to think outside of the box so you just can't respond to my post with your issues and try to pass them off truth to me because I'm going to ask proof of that. Whether I'll be right or wrong I'm going to always seek or ask proof. I'm just not going to sit up here and let you tell me what is or what isn't and just accept it like your God.... I'm GOD. lol.