Edward Norton
|
BirthDate BirthPlace |
08/17/1969
Boston, MA |
-
Counting Bourne: How 'Legacy' Coaxes Us Into The Jeremy Renner Era
August 11, 2012 9:40am ESTWhat’s in a name? A hell of a lot if you’re talking about the Bourne series. Since the moment many of us found out the next Bourne would be without the incredible anchor of the series, Matt Damon, we’ve been sitting in silent protest. Nope. Not going to work. And this weekend’s The Bourne Legacy comes prepared for the holdouts and the stalwart Damon enthusiasts. A simple name-count reveals what appears to be a well-thought-out plan to slowly transition us to the Jeremy Renner era of the franchise. And the technique may be simple, but it’s incredibly effective, nonetheless. For those who haven’t spent hours of their lives watching Joan Allen chase Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Ultimatum, the first three films spend a hell of a lot of time repeating that golden ticket of a name – in fact, Bourne can be heard over 100 times in the first trilogy. That’s enough times to make the word lose all meaning. Well, almost. The word “Bourne” still means a great deal to the studio, and that’s clear in the first half of Legacy. Up until the midway point, we’re treated to that signature name a whopping 16 times. While scenes of Renner’s Aaron Cross are interspersed with overwhelming mentions of the series’ namesake, we’re being prepped with the message that “This is still a Bourne movie, even without Matt Damon.” By the time Aaron Cross starts his own ass-kicking movie-long chase alongside his new lady friend (Rachel Wiesz), the Bourne mentions are waning and Renner’s “Aaron” begins making appearances in greater succession. But it’s not a simple flip of the switch. As the Bournes decrease, the script employs a conspicuous name-blackout in which all mentions of Jason Bourne are billed as the Treadstone project and all mentions of Cross — including some rather conspicuous moments where a name is not only merited, but expected — simply consist of Renner’s character being motioned toward or referred to by his lab name: Outcome 5. When the film finally decides it does want you to be hooked on the new renegade super spy, Cross’ first name, Aaron is thrown into the script rapid fire – a grand 14 times. And by the end, even moments that demand the name Jason Bourne simply refer to the franchise’s former hero as “the subject.” Suddenly, it’s all Aaron and no Bourne. We see what you’re doing, Legacy. Step one: establish the connection to the source material. Step 2: prove that the franchise still has the action and fire we need. Step 3: establish Aaron Cross as the mascot of that signature shaky-cam action. Step 4: Remove Bourne as a character and leave behind only his all-important origin story. And just like that, we’ve got a whole new franchise. Of course, as ingenious as this name-drop progression may be, it doesn’t guarantee that audiences will latch on to the new genetically enhanced chase-meister. That’s up to Renner, and no proliferation of his character’s name can alter what he manages to bring to the big screen. Follow Kelsea on Twitter @KelseaStahler. [Photo Credit: Universal Pictures] More: Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz Talk 'Bourne Legacy': "He Was Responsible for My Life!" ’Bourne Legacy’ Lives On: Jeremy Renner Starring in Two More Movies – EXCLUSIVE The Many (Unchanging) Faces of ‘Bourne Legacy’ Star Edward Norton
-
The Bourne Legacy Review
August 09, 2012 12:16pm ESTDo the Bourne movies make any sense? Enough. The first three films — The Bourne Identity Supremacy and Ultimatum — throw in just enough detail into the covert ops babble and high-speed action that by the end Jason Bourne comes out an emotional character with an evident mission. That's where Bourne Legacy drops the ball. A "sidequel" to the original trilogy Legacy follows super soldier Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) as he runs jumps and shoots his way out of the hands of his government captors. The film is identical to its predecessors; political intrigue chase scenes morally ambiguous CIA agents monitoring their man-on-the-run from a computer-filled HQ — a Bourne movie through and through. But Legacy has to dig deeper to find new ground to cover introducing elements of sci-fi into the equation. The result is surprisingly limp and even more incomprehensible. Damon's Bourne spent three blockbusters uncovering his past erased by the assassin training program Treadstone. Renner's Alex Cross has a similar do-or-die mission: after Bourne's antics send Washington into a tizzy Cross' own training program Outcome is terminated. Unlike Bourne Cross is enhanced by "chems" (essentially steroid drugs) that keep him alive and kicking ass. When Outcome is ended Cross goes rogue to stay alive and find more pills. Steeped heavily in the plot lines of the established mythology Bourne Legacy jumps back and forth between Cross and the clean up job of the movie's big bad (Edward Norton) and his elite squad of suits. The movie balances a lot of moving parts but the adventure never feels sprawling or all that exciting. Actress Rachel Weisz vibrant in nearly every role she takes on plays a chemist who is key to Cross' chemical woes. The two are forced into partnership Weisz limited to screaming cowering and sneaking past the occasional airport x-ray machine while her partner aggressively fistfights his way through any hurdle in his path. Renner is equally underserved. Cross is tailored to the actor's strengths — a darker more aggressive character than Damon's Bourne but with one out of every five of the character's lines being "CHEMS!" shouted at the top of his lungs Renner never has the time or the material to develop him. Writer/director Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton Duplicity and the screenwriter of the previous three movies) is a master of dense language but his style choices can't breath life into the 21st century epic speak. In the film's necessary car chase Gilroy mimics the loose camera style of Ultimatum director Paul Greengrass without fully embracing it. The wishy washy approach sucks the life out of large-scale set pieces. The final 30 minutes of Bourne Legacy is a shaky cam naysayer's worst nightmare. The Bourne Legacy demonstrates potential without ever kicking into high gear. One scene when Gilroy finally slows down and unleashes absolute terror on screen is striking. Unfortunately the moment doesn't involve our hero and its implications never explained. That sums up Legacy; by the film's conclusion it only feels like the first hour has played out. The movie crawls — which would be much more forgivable if the intense banter between its large ensemble carried weight. Instead Legacy packs the thrills of an airport thriller: sporadically entertaining and instantly forgettable. ="font-style:>
-
The Reboot Glossary: Which Hollywood Buzzword Fits the Bill?
August 09, 2012 5:54am EST"Oh, I wouldn't call it a remake. It's more of a __________" Taking classics and cinematic obscurities and remaking them into modern movies has been a standard from the beginning of Hollywood. (Fun fact: by 1933, there had already been five versions of Alice in Wonderland. Times never change.) But only in recent years has buzzword jargon been so essential to the process. No longer are film studios in the "remake" business. The word comes with baggage — no one, the filmmakers or the film-watchers, wants to feel like they're regurgitating — and so, brand mining and expansion has taken a whole new turn. By describing new projects in hyperdetail, Hollywood has found a way to sidestep "remake." Thank you, jargon! To help you understand what all these variations of "remake" really mean, Hollywood.com has compiled a rundown of the latest and greatest in franchise-friendly buzzwords: Reimagining Thanks to the magic of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (the 14th big screen adaptation for those counting), this became the go-to term for timeless tales making their way back to the big screen. A "reimagined" movie isn't the previous incarnation you know and love — now it has more CG. And curlicue architecture. Retelling An off-shoot of "reimagining," "retelling" is a director or producer twisting the approach to their source material a weeeeee bit. Tonally different, but not unfamiliar. After Batman Begins, a retelling of the Batman origin story, every property under the sun was overhauled. Suddenly, everyone wanted "the dark version." Which is why we're eventually getting the gritty version of Little Mermaid. Reinvention NBC recently announced that it would be reinventing the 1960s CBS comedy The Munsters. Why is it hard to call it a straight remake? The show will be played as an hour-long drama, constructed from the supernatural elements of the original but with the modern genre spin that's perfectly acceptable on the 2012 small screen. "Reinvention." Reinterpretation You can only remake the same story in the exact same way so many times (well, in Hollywood, that's up for debate, but let's pretend for now). So what do you do if you want your own stab at a time-honored narrative? "Reinterpret," of course. Filter a story through an alternative world and you've got yourself a whole other movie. Say you want to tell the story of Easter, but you don't want to live in the shadow of the countless other Biblical blockbusters that have made their way to screen. Simple solution: tell it with barnyard animals. Boom. Modernization "Modernization" is what happens when a producer wants to reinterpret a text, but decides it's any time period or setting but right here and now is too boring for movie-going audiences. This isn't your Pappy's Shakespeare/Dickens/Bergerac or whatever literary figure may accidentally remind young people of high school English. These are movies! Why read Dracula when you can see the modernized Dracula 2000? You know it's hip, because it has the year in the title. Reboot A favorite of the 2010 and beyond crowd, "reboot" has quickly taken the place as the go-to back-up to the "remake." Studios don't remake their properties that came out 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. They reboot them. The new generation needs their own version of Total Recall and Spider-Man, so Hollywood gives them a swift reboot in the butt with a fresh cast, fresh director and (hopefully) fresh vision. The goal of a reboot isn't to recreate the existing version — even if that's the case 50% of the end products. Preboot Fan expectations is Hollywood's biggest hurdle to concocting new and improved versions of well-known properties. On one hand, they can't cater to them — a movie has to play to the widest audience possible. But angry fans are often the loudest, and negative buzz permeates. That's why there's no better creative weapon than a "preboot." Think J.J. Abrams' Star Trek or the recent X-Men: First Class. A preboot acknowledges the established history of a property, a respectful nod to diehards, while paving over it with a new creative direction. Time travel is a preboot's best friend. Semi-Sequel "Semi-Sequel' can play two distinct roles: either used to tie a movie unofficially to a famous milestone of the past (think the twisted fantasy Return to OZ and its classic predecessor) or as a label for something that really just needs an identifiable anchor. Judd Apatow's upcoming This Is 40 is billed as a semi-sequel to Knocked Up, not because it requires the groundwork of another film to tell its story, but so there's noticeable connective tissue for people wondering why they should fork over $12 to see it in theaters. Whatever works, funny people. Spin-Off Is Elektra a sequel to Daredevil or its own entity? That's what three people (including myself) were asking themselves when the Jennifer Garner-led movie was first announced. Since it lived within the continuity of the established Daredevil universe, Fox considered it a spin-off. Beefing it up with mysticism and a whole lot ninjas make the endeavor suspect. But hey, it really can't be considered a remake! Sidequel Here's where the line between "remake," "reboot," and "spin-off" blur. It could be argued that this weekend's The Bourne Legacy fits into all three categories. It follows a similar path as the original Bourne Identity (inching towards straight remake territory), it features a new actor in a solidified franchise (reboot), but it's part of the grander Bourne mythology (Jason Bourne's story is weaved through the new hero's own mission). This calls for the "sidequel" — the cinematic equivalent of an amoeba splitting in two. Bourne Legacy and the films comprising the first Bourne trilogy are technically two different beasts, but they're composed from the same genetic material. Follow Matt Patches on Twitter @misterpatches [Photo Credit: Universal Pictures] More: 'Bourne Legacy' Lives On: Jeremy Renner Starring in 2 More Movies? — EXCLUSIVE Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz Talk 'Bourne Legacy': "He Was Responsible for My Life!" The Many (Unchanging) Faces of Edward Norton
-
Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz Talk 'Bourne Legacy': "He Was Responsible for My Life!"
August 09, 2012 5:15am ESTWhen news broke that a fourth Bourne movie was in the works, fans and critics alike were understandably wary: Why would the decade-spanning successful franchise, which wrapped itself up so neatly in 2007 with The Bourne Ultimatum, need another installment? What's more, why did the folks behind the curtain decide to go forward without the films' titular character (and big ticket star), Matt Damon? Well, when The Bourne Legacy stars Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton gathered with writer/director Tony Gilroy and his brother, writer Dan Gilroy, in front of a gaggle of Los Angeles reporters last month, their answer was simple: There was more of the story to tell. "A lot of smart people tried to figure out how to go forward after Ultimatum," Tony explained. "It was wrapped up so beautifully. How could we go forward? You could say that there was a much larger conspiracy, you could say that [Bourne] was only a small piece of this [conspiracy]. That's a sexy idea. [The producers] said, 'You know what else you could do? You could have Ultimatum play out in the background of the first 12-15 minutes of our movie. There could be a phone call from the other movie to our movie.'" These ideas did end up forming the basis of Legacy's plot, but the Gilroys weren't sold until Renner's character, Aaron Cross, was fully fleshed out. "When the character came through and we suddenly realized there was a character with as fundamental an issue, as fundamental a problem, as much meat on the bone as there was for Jason Bourne… that's when it really got interesting," Tony said. "And that's when Danny and I started talking to each other 19 times a day on the phone." When Renner decided to step in as Cross, he felt it was crucial to keep his mind off the massive acclaimed heaped on his predecessor. "I don't start off figuring out a character by comparing it to another character," Renner said. "It's a new palate of colors, and a new canvas to paint upon." One major difference between Cross and Bourne, one that will likely be discussed at length when reviews start pouring in, is the fact that Cross wants to be a scientifically altered mega-spy, while Bourne's involvement in the program always posed an ethical dilemma. For Renner, this was a major positive. "I feel connected to that idea of wanting to belong to something, to have a sense of purpose as a man on this planet," he said. "I think most people do. That's what I initially connected to — feeling like you're doing some sort of good." Of course, after back-to-back physically demanding roles in Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol and The Avengers, Renner had another major concern in mind: his health and safety. "Not getting hurt!" he laughed, when asked about his initial hesitations. "I can't get injured. I wanted to do as much as I possibly could, because of the responsibility of the authenticity of the three films prior. It would do a great injustice and disservice to this film if I could not perform what was required. I like those challenges; I like those physical obstacles." If the film's final, elaborate Manila bike chase scene and the mind-blowing stunts Renner performed in Alaska are any indicator, then his physical work was a smashing success. But that still leaves us with the question — did he get hurt? "I hurt my feelings here and there," he joked. Since the Gilroys and co. were given a nearly blank canvas when creating their next super-spy, the possibilities were endless. But one possibility that never entered their minds — until this press conference — was a lead female spy. Still, the Gilroys insisted that Weisz' character, a scientist whose knowledge of "The Program" becomes a direct threat to the CIA, is just as dynamic. "The idea with Rachel was to take somebody who starts out as a victim, and ends up being a full collaborator in her own survival," Tony explained. "That's as interesting as any secret agent or spy." Weisz agreed, saying that her target-on-my-back character's normality was one of the things that attracted her to the project. "I'm not playing an action heroine, I'm playing a scientist who is a pretty normal person," she said. "I'm not physically gifted in any way. It's always realistic — she's really scared, really terrified, and then in the end she tests to kick ass a little bit." The ass-kicking that Weisz is referring to occurs in the aforementioned Manila bike chase scene, a visual stunner that had the actress literally holding on to Renner for dear life. "What it was like to be on the back of a bike with Jeremy?" she said. "It was terrifying! What Jeremy told me today — which was really sweet, he never told me when we were in Manila — was that that was the scariest stunt for him, because he was responsible for my life. I just had to surrender; I just had to hold on. I didn't have to act, it just was terrifying." The Bourne Legacy hits US theaters Friday, Aug. 10. Follow Shaunna on Twitter @HWShaunna [Photo Credit: Universal Pictures] MORE: 'Bourne Legacy' Lives On: Jeremy Renner Starring in 2 More Movies? — EXCLUSIVE New 'Bourne Legacy' Trailer: More Jeremy Renner, Bourne Mentions The Many (Unchanging) Faces of Edward Norton
-
The Sexiest Lady Villains in Film — PICS
August 01, 2012 2:02pm ESTAnne Hathaway kicks major ass in her stiletto boots and skintight bodysuit as Selina Kyle in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, but she is in no way shape or form the first villain we've seen who makes being bad look good. From the femme fatales of Old Hollywood to the legions of comic book villains filling the big screen today, ladies have been using their feminine wiles to ensnare unsuspecting men for decades. In honor of Hathaway's purrfect Catwoman, we've rounded up the sexiest movie lady villains of all time. GALLERY: Film's Sexiest Lady Villains Follow Abbey Stone on Twitter @abbeystone [Photo Credit: Albert L. Ortega/WireImage] More: The Many (Unchanging) Faces of Edward Norton 15 Kick-Ass Cartoon Babes Lady Gaga in 'Machete Kills': 3 Music Videos That Could Inspire Her New Role
-
Tech-Based Movies That No Longer Make Sense
July 31, 2012 11:06am ESTRecent technological advancements have done a lot for our society. They've made communication easier, travel more efficient, and have octupled the usage of the number sign on our keyboards. But technology has also done a bit of damage to one group: movies. Certain films have based their entire plotlines around a technological ideal that has since become obsolete or outdated. Think about how many jams could have been escaped just by using cell phones, or how many horror flicks could have been avoided with a simple GPS. We’ve gathered a list of some of our favorite flicks, from as far back as the 1950s to as recent as the early 2000s, to lament the obsolete nature of their once thrilling plots. They're still entertaining flicks, sure... but the presence of payphones, VHS tapes, and physical photographs seem to make the reality a bit less effective. Tech-Based Movies That Have Become Outdated More: The Ladies of 'Total Recall' and the Best Female Badasses in Movies The Many (Unchanging) Faces of Edward Norton 'Taken 2': This Time, It's Personal — TRAILER
-
The Many (Unchanging) Faces of Edward Norton
July 30, 2012 2:14pm ESTYou don't have to look further than Edward Norton's IMDb page to see the proof of the veteran actor's wonderfully diverse and colorful (no pun intended, Hulk fans) career. He's played a priest, a beast and at least four borderline psychotic cinematic individuals. And yet, as illustrious and admirable as his career has been, what is perhaps even more admirable is the way with which Norton has grown... or, the way in which he hasn't. I posit to you my own theory as to this movie star's boyishly handsome secret: Edward Norton does not age. A person is a person, and as with all persons, facial features don't change too drastically (unless you go and Bruce Jenner yourself). However, Norton seems to have mastered the art of the aging actor — so much so, in fact, that I invite you to join me on my journey through the short visual history of the Bourne Legacy star's ever-unchanging face. Norton, ho! Primal Fear (1996) Distinguishing feature: A youthful hair swoop that would make even Leo DiCaprio swoon. Minor changes since last movie: None — this is Patient Zero, people! American History X (1998) Distinguishing feature: A goatee stolen from Johnny Depp's box of facial hairs. Minor changes since last movie: He shaved off the swoop (que tragique!) and adopted some gravely serious 'brows. Fight Club (1999) Distinguishing feature: Heavy bags under his eyes, sinking low like an overly ambitious old woman who bought too much produce at Whole Foods and now has to carry it back twenty blocks. Minor changes since last movie: More hair topside, less hair chin-side. Keeping The Faith (2000) Distinguishing feature: Blonde!! Minor changes since last movie: Blonde... also, more sleep. Red Dragon (2002) Distinguishing feature: An inquisitive pout. Minor changes since last movie: Stubble? Really, he looks the same. The same! The Italian Job (2003) Distinguishing feature: A meticulous moustache that's equal parts John Waters and Sinestro. Minor changes since last movie: Flavor saver! The Painted Veil (2006) Distinguishing feature: Ambrosial blonde curls. Minor changes since last movie: He speaks Chinese in this one. The Incredible Hulk (2008) Distinguishing feature: Giant green mutant humanoid monster. Minor changes since last movie: Haircut. Stone (2010) Distinguishing feature: Look at them dreadlocks! He's like Snoop Dogg, only slightly less Dogg and slightly more Snoopy. Minor changes since last movie: Green is really only a summer color. Moonrise Kingdom (2012) Distinguishing feature: Man boy-scout chic. Minor changes since last movie: Organizational membership and a clean shave. The Bourne Legacy (2012) Distinguishing feature: Woah. Edward. Did you just age fifty years in less than six months!? Minor changes since last movie: HE'S... OLD! Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcSnetiker [Photo Credits: Think Films, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Focus Features, Relativity Media, New Line Cinema] MORE: 'Moonrise Kingdom': Meet Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray and More — POSTERS 'Moonrise Kingdom' Review 'The Bourne Legacy' Movie Hub
-
Ruby Sparks Review
July 25, 2012 9:51am EST"You can make her do anything you want… For men everywhere tell me you're not going to let that go to waste." It's a chilling turn of phrase that Chris Messina's character Henry utters when he meets the woman that his brother Calvin wrote into being. Calvin played by Paul Dano is a frustrated writer but more than that a writer who published to great acclaim at a young age who has yet to do anything since. He begins writing a character named Ruby Sparks and as he falls in love with his creation he can't stop writing. It's exhilarating and addictive. Played by Dano's real-life girlfriend Zoe Kazan Ruby Sparks is a one-dimensional male fantasy a cutesy young woman on roller skates… until she appears in his kitchen one morning. Calvin quickly learns that even though he can control her with a few taps on his typewriter Ruby has an ever-changing will of her own. Ruby Sparks is written by Kazan with the sort of bite that a trailer can't be tied up with a neat little bow. There is gorgeous California sunshine an airy house in a hip part of Los Angeles the trendy Figaro café where Calvin finds out that other people can see Ruby and a delightful interlude with Calvin's hippie mother and stepfather played by Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas. As gorgeous and gleeful and wide-eyed as Ruby is and as much as Calvin adores her the relationship develops and changes even as he succumbs to the temptation to rewrite her. Calvin an essentially insecure man unravels and becomes more and more of a controlling jerk until he's faced with the truth of how far he's willing to go to keep Ruby from leaving him. It becomes sad and frankly disturbing with an admirably raw performance by Kazan that lingers. While Ruby Sparks serves as an interesting commentary on wish fulfillment in fiction writing its juicy subtext is far more important. Under the surface the film delves into how we're culpable for the way we see our lovers and how we want to change them or make them something they're not. Eventually Calvin has to decide whether or not he wants to continue editing Ruby to fit his specifications; he has to face that that means about him as a person and as a man. It's Pygmalion with a feminist twist. We see plenty of dumb romantic comedies about women tricking men into changing but it seems like there's an endless parade of indie films written by men about loveably girly women whose only reason for being is to act as a catalyst for the man's emotional growth. While this is absolutely true in some ways for Ruby and Calvin there's a meat to the script and Kazan's performance that makes "Ruby" rise to the top. There are plenty of words (or that overused phrase) we can use to describe Ruby but in the end Calvin wrote those traits into her and these are details that Ruby shucks off as she grows. Similarly as women grow up we learn we can (and have to) stop performing tricks to become the person our significant other wants or sees in us. Without revealing too much the end of Ruby Sparks could be read a number of ways. On one hand it is a bit of a misstep that undermines the general thrust of the story but it could also be seen as simply a happier more hopeful ending. Romantics will find it satisfying but those hoping for Ruby's full emancipation might find it lacking. This is the first film for directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris since 2006's Little Miss Sunshine and although they have much in common — including Dano — Ruby is a darker unrulier movie. The idea of movie-goers being led in to see Ruby because of Faris and Dayton's names or because of the trailer is delightful because they're going to get a little bit of a different experience than they're prepared for. [Full disclosure: I interviewed Zoe Kazan for a profile in the August/September issue of BUST magazine.]
-
Johnny Depp to star in new Wes Anderson film
July 17, 2012 1:15pm ESTThe Pirates of the Caribbean star has signed on to appear in The Grand Budapest Hotel - Fantastic Mr. Fox filmmaker's first European project. Anderson will write and direct the movie, and he is hoping to recruit Jude Law and Angela Lansbury for the all-star film. He is also expected to reunite with frequent collaborators Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe and Edward Norton, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Further details about the movie's plot have yet to be released.
-
Wes Anderson Casts Johnny Depp in New Quirky Indie Film
July 16, 2012 7:30pm ESTI'm going to go out on a hyperbolic limb here: the greatest casting news in the history of cinema has arrived! (OK so some people will possibly not agree with me 100% on this one...) But indie twee darling Wes Anderson has officially signed up mega-superstar Johnny Depp to star in his next film, The Grand Budapest Hotel. It's been no secret for awhile that Anderson's been thinking bigger is better in terms of casting for this next feature of his, revealing that he'd ideally cast Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Edward Norton, Jude Law, Jeff Goldblum, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe and Angela Lansbury in addition to Depp for his next endeavor earlier this year. Anderson is planning to combine forces with his Moonrise Kingdom collaborators Scott Rudin and Steven Rales again. Now, nothing is known about the plot for this film, but knowing Anderson's style and Depp's acting chops, we'd like to suggest a few options. If you need a co-writer on the script feel free to shoot us an email, Anderson. - Running the Grand budapest is serious business. And when the wary travelers end up in the run-down but charming hotel they are met by its owner, expat Barney C. Tollwaithe (Depp). Barn (as he is affectionately called by the locals) is a semi-practicing Buddhist with a penchant for hookah smoking, philosophical banter, and drinking absinthe out of a wooden shoe. He is an indirect descendent of Lajos Batthyány (an executed Hungarian Prime Minister from 1849). He has returned to Hungary to uncover the conspiracy against Batthyány. He is also a part-time professional quilter. - Hungary's legendary taxi driver Bence Zsombor (Depp) has been on the underground racing circuit in Budapest for years, but hasn't made enough money to officially enter himself into any professional competitions, as his dreams are continually dashed by his addiction to miniature dollhouses. He is the unofficial driver of all the guests at The Grand Budapest Hotel, as he is also one of three taxi drivers in the city, and faster than all of them. - Walter Reginald Ward is a midlife-crisis-facing children's book editor that dreams of being a stay-at-home dad, only he doesn't have any children or marriage prospects, from being a recluse. Afraid or everything, when his pet parakeet (Percy) dies, he realizes that life is too short to be scared, and he is determined to take back his life. He quits his job and travels to Budapest (home of his great-grandparents: the last great love story he's ever known) to find himself and the secret to love. He goes on several wacky adventures with the locals before ending up at The Grand Budapest Hotel where he falls for a fellow traveler, the one-legged former Olympic runner Azalea Pennyworth of Southwestern England. Will Walter find himself in the love of a woman at last or will his fears keep him in perpetual solitude? Are you excited about this casting development? Are you a fan of Anderson and Depp? Sound off in the comments! [Deadline] Wes Anderson, Johnny Depp Follow Alicia on Twitter @alicialutes More: Johnny Depp Formally Adopted by Comanche Tribe Johnny Depp Wants to be a Rock Star? What He Can Learn from His Movies Jack White Scoring Johnny Depp's 'Lone Ranger': Proof It Will Rock
