Kit Clarke as Rupert Everett? Good casting!

We totally missed sharing this story that is now a bit old but it might be news to you! 

Rupert Everett will be played by Kit Clarke in a new film

Rupert Everett was one of our first heroes. The now 62 year-old actor is the first movie star in our lifetime that came out of the closet. It was such a ballsy move for a leading man in 1989, you can't even imagine if you weren't alive at the time. While it's still a brave move in some ways for today's actors, it's no longer at all unusual and large pockets of the media, Hollywood, and fan culture are supportive enough that we have dozens of famous  out actors in 2021! (The closet still exists in Hollywood, too, of course). Everett was the only one back in the day. (Sir Ian McKellen came out a year before Rupert but he was not yet a movie star and the stage has always been more accepting of gay talent.) Everett doesn't always get the credit for being a pioneer, partially because of his repeatedly sharp tongue and controversial statements (including his own coming out) as well as that "difficult" reputation. But we will forever love him for paving the way.

We forgot to share the news from a month back that the star is moving behind the camera for his latest which will be an autobiographical film called Lost and Found in Paris...

Click to read more ...

Would you rather?

We haven't loooked at Instagram for a bit. So let's play our fantasies about celebrity bffs game which is just an elaborate excuse to share photos we liked recently. Would you rather...

• hang at the pool with Elliot Page?
• celebrate the anniversary of "Born this Way" with Lady Gaga?
• sit for a portrait with Kristin Scott Thomas?
• make like Tarzan under a waterfall with Tony Goldwyn?
• have a "salad" with Reese Witherspoon?
• get an honorary degree from Yale with Ava DuVernay?
• visit Monaco with Haz Osterfield and Tom Holland?
• relax at a resort with Kathryn Newton?
• bungee jump with Zac Efron and brother?
• celebrate pride with Jeremy Pope's cake?

Pictures are after the jump to help you decide. (If there's a gif, you can click on it to see the whole video)

Click to read more ...

Angels & Insects @ 25: Entomological Perversions

by Cláudio Alves

Angels & Insects arrived in US theaters 25 years ago. The picture had had its premiere at the 48th Cannes Film Festival, where it competed for the Palme d'Or but it would take several more months for it to get a commercial release in the UK and the States. Once that happened, Phillip Haas' adaptation of an A.S. Byatt novel received plenty of acclaim from such renowned critics as Roger Ebert, conquering enough buzz to get a surprising, if deserved, Best Costume Design Oscar nomination. Nowadays, the flick isn't talked about, which is a terrible injustice as far as I'm concerned.

To rectify such lack of contemporary discussion, let's try to explore the sensuous perversions and entomological nightmares of this tale insects, incest, and insidiousness…

Click to read more ...

Horror Actressing: Judith Anderson in "Rebecca"

by Jason Adams

How could I help myself, right? Tomorrow Netflix is unveiling director Ben Wheatley's re-do of Daphne Du Maurier's "celebrated novel" (I love that is how the book is credited on IMDb) starring Armie Hammer, Lily James, and most enticingly of all Kristin Scott Thomas as the housekeeper-with-secrets. And yet somehow, despite it being one of my favorite performances in a horror film, I haven't gotten around to given Judith Anderson, in that same role in Alfred Hitchcock's Oscar-winning 1940 film, her due with this series. No more! The time for dangerously caressing silky underthings is nigh I say, nigh!

Not that we've exactly been clammed up when it comes tot he subject of Judith Anderson's turn in Rebecca around these parts in the past...

Click to read more ...

Yes No Maybe So: Rebecca (2020)

I don't have the strength for a full Yes No Maybe So so it's BYO...YNMS  time in the comments!

But briefly, let's say. Yes: Kristin Scott Thomas looks promising (though is that her shouting at the end because that sounds like... too much ; Maybe So: The title font is kind of pretty with its understated flourishes; No: Why? As previously stated.