Who? Ann. Her? Yes. If you ask us, it's as Ann as the nose on Plain's face that Ann needs to be a part of the new season of Arrested Development. And you know who agrees? Mae Whitman. Hollywood.com spoke with Whitman on Sunday and she told us that she absolutely, positively wants to be a part of the excitement.
"I've always been like 'Oh I don't want to give anything away,' but I definitely, definitely wouldn't ever let this chance go by without being a part of it," Whitman said. "I told Mitch [Hurwitz] that I would stand outside the sound stage until he would let me just walk through the background or something."
Whitman continued, "I would say yes, you can definitely expect to find a little bit of Ann hiding in the background somewhere, at least."
"At least" is right! We would like to go on record right here, right now, to say that Whitman deserves more than a cameo in Arrested Development's new season. Not only do we need more Egg/Ann jokes to fill our hearts with laughter, but Ann plays a fairly large role in the series' non-finale. In the final episode of Season 3, we learn that Ann has been dating G.O.B. It was as shocking a revelation for the audience as it was for George Michael, who punched his uncle in the face upon hearing the news. Now, we can't be the only ones eager to hear where things went from here.
In all seriousness, Whitman has proven herself to be a superb dramatic actress by tackling meaty roles in films such as the upcoming Perks of Being a Wallflower, but we are eager to see her return to her comedic roots. Throw the girl a mayonegg, Mitch, and write her a good-sized part in Arrested's new season.
Follow Abbey Stone on Twitter @abbeystone
[Photo Credit: WENN]
'Arrested Development': 20 Running Jokes We Hope Keep Running
Did the New 'Arrested Development' Extend From 10 to 13 Episodes?
‘Arrested Development’ Sets Production Date: 5 Things We Thought We’d See First
From Our Partners:
Relive Ryan Reynolds' Sexiest Looks — GALLERY
John Mayer Involved in Ponzi Scheme Lawsuit: Report
When Ann Romney gets home after a long day on the campaign trail, she likes to kick off her shoes, pour herself a cup of tea, and settle into the couch to watch her favorite TV show, which just happens to be Modern Family. Wait, the Modern Family adored by coastal-living liberals? The very same Modern Family that features a (gasp) happily committed gay couple? Yeah, that one.
Ann Romney — whose husband, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney — is firmly against gay marriage, revealed to The Insider that her favorite show is one that features a gay couple. Following President Obama's profession of support for gay marriage in May, Mitt Romeny responded by saying, "My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman." Ann has supported her husband in his views.
On Modern Family, gay couple Cam and Mitchell have an adopted child together, but are not married; the series is set in California, where gay marriage is not presently legal.
In response to Ann Romney's declaration, Modern Family creator Steve Levitan took to Twitter to highlight Romney's hypocrisy. "Thrilled Ann Romney says ModFam is her favorite show. We'll offer her the role of officiant at Mitch & Cam's wedding. As soon as it's legal." Details, shmetails.
Thrilled Ann Romney says ModFam is her favorite show. We'll offer her the role of officiant at Mitch & Cam's wedding. As soon as it's legal.— Steve Levitan (@SteveLevitan) August 28, 2012Modern Family is already a favorite in the White House. Obama told People last December, "For the girls and me, Modern Family, that's our favorite show." If Romney is successful in his bid for the Presidency, he wouldn't even need to reprogram the DVR.
Skip to the end of the video below to see Romney's surprising revelation.
Follow Abbey Stone on Twitter @abbeystone
[Photo Credit: WENN; ABC]
The Silversun Pickups Issues Mitt Romney a Cease and Desist
Mitt Romney is 'Considering' Appearing on 'SNL'
Sarah Silverman's Indecent Proposal for a Romney Supporter — VIDEO
The Five-Year Engagement is an ambitious film by Hollywood rom-com standards. The script by director Nicholas Stoller and lead actor Jason Segel aims for charm and pain and laughs and truth. The presentation is slick with the beauty of San Francisco and small town Michigan backdropping the comedy captured with above-average photography that screams "This isn't your run-of-the-mill Katherine Heigl flick!" Five-Year Engagement is a shotgun blast of grand ideas every element spread so thin it ends up being not that charming not that painful not that funny and not that truthful.
Tom (Segel) a professional cook and his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt) a hopeful psychology student have been dating for one year before the question is finally popped. They seem perfect for one another understanding the other's perspectives sharing sensibilities and helping each other loving life to the fullest. The couple's wedding planning process is slow and steady but when the date is finally in sight Violet finds herself with an offer to attend the University of Michigan. The wrench in the life plan sets the nuptials back much to the chagrin of Violet's mother (Oscar-nominee Jacki Weaver) who pushes her daughter to tie the knot before all the grandparents are dead. The potential move doesn't sit well with Tom either — leaving San Fran means quitting a high profile cook job and saying goodbye to his best bud Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie). But the compromise is eventually made and Tom and Violet find themselves driving into the cold snowy unknown of Michigan.
Five-Year Engagement maximizes Segel's and Blunt's inherent charisma (and really they're two of the gosh darn nicest on-screen people in recent years) by making them kind loving and flawless. To give the movie a reason to exist problems for their relationship are then randomly conjured up. Slowly but surely their relationship suffers strain from all the bending over backwards. The archaic conceit of why these two actually need to get married to profess their love isn't really addressed — they just have to and life is standing in their way. Tom can't find a cooking job; Violet's professor plays devil on her shoulder about marriage; Tom hates Michigan but turns out to be too nice to say anything; Violet sees shades of her psychological experiments ripping apart Tom's exterior. After meeting them in the beginning the hurdles the central couple faces throughout their five year engagement are nonsensical. They're perfect for each other they're just written to have rom-com problems.
The movie earns a few chuckles. Pratt and Brie steal the show as the friend and sister who quickly fall in love tie the knot have kids and foil Segel and Blunt's relationship. The two leads are comedically proficient too — a conversation between Blunt and Brie performed with Cookie Monster/Elmo voices is pure genius. But it's a movie of moments diluted by a non-action arc that's simply a bore. Halfway through the movie Segel's Tom goes full-on cartoon character embracing a mountain man persona who's obsessed with venison and brewing his own honey mead. The jokes could work in another movie but not in Five-Year Engagement which strives for something more.
Time is essential to Five-Year Engagement but it's unclear how many months have passed between the movie's scatterbrained scenes. Alex and Suzie visit Tom and Violet with kids then magically they're all grown up when a year (maybe) has passed. And when did Tom go crazy? How quickly did they put their third marriage attempt together? The film's timeline is key but never feels established — even with a run-time of over two hours. Much like Tom and Violet the audience waits and waits and waits and waits for the couple to finally tie the knot in Five-Year Engagement. Tom Petty was right: the waiting is the hardest part.
Much like its Greek mythological source material Wrath of the Titans is light on dramatic characterization sticking to blunt moral lessons and fantastical battles to tell its epic tale. That's perfectly acceptable for its 100 minute run time in which director Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles) unleashes an eclectic hoard of monsters upon his gruff demigod hero Perseus. The creature design is jagged gnarly and exaggerated not unlike a twelve-year-old's sugar high-induced crayon creations — which is perfect as Wrath is tailor made to entertain and enamor that slice of the population.
Clash of the Titans star Sam Worthington once again slips on the sandals to take on a not-quite-based-on-a-myth adventure a mission that pits Perseus against the greatest force in the universe: Kronos formally-incarcerated father of the Gods. A few years after his last adventure Perseus is grieving for his deceased wife and caring for their lone son but a visit from Zeus (Liam Neeson) alerts the warrior to a task even more urgent than his current seabass fishing gig. Irked that the whole Kraken thing didn't work out Hades (Ralph Fiennes) with the help of Zeus' disaffected son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) is preparing to unleash Kronos — and only Perseus has the required machismo to stop him. But Perseus enjoys the simple life and brushes off Zeus forcing the head deity to take matters into his own hands…just as Hades and Ares planned. The diabolical duo capture Zeus and having no one else to turn to Perseus proceeds into battle.
The actual reasoning for all the goings on in Wrath of the Titans tend to drift into the mystical realm of convolution but the ensemble and Liebesman's visual visceral directing techniques keep the messy script speeding along. As soon as one starts wondering why Perseus would ever need to hook up with battle-ready Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) or Poseiden's navigator son Agenor (Toby Kebbell) Liebesman and writers Dan Mazeu and David Johnson throw in another bombastic set piece another three-headed four-armed 10 000-fanged monstrosity on screen. Perseus' journey pits him against a fire-breathing Chimera a set of Cyclopses a shifting labyrinth (complete with Minotaur) and all the dangers that come with Hell itself. The sequences have all the suspense of an action figure sandbox brawl but on a towering IMAX screen they're geeky fun. If only the filler material was a bit more logical and interesting the final product would be the slightest bit memorable.
Liebesman reaps the best performances he possibly can from Wrath's silly formula Worthington again proves himself a charismatic underrated leading man. As the main trio of Gods Neeson Fiennes and Ramirez completely acknowledge how goofy shooting lightning bolts out of their hands must look on screen but they own it with campy fun tones. But the film's overwhelming CG spectacle suffocates the glimmer of great acting opting for slice-and-dice battle scenes over ridiculous (and fun) epic speak nonsense. If a movie has Liam Neeson as the top God it shouldn't chain him up in molten lava shackles for a majority of the time.
Wrath of the Titans is a non-offensive superhero movie treatment of classic heroes that feels more like an exercise in 3D monster modeling than filmmaking. Its 3D makeover never helps the creatures or Perseus pop turning Wrath into an even muddier affair than the single-planed alternative (although unlike Clash of the Titans you won't have 3D shaky-cam blur burned directly into your retinas). The movie reaches for that child sense of wonderment but instead cranks out a picture that may not even hold a child's attention.