Andy Serkis has picked the perfect actor for the next iteration of the Lord of the Rings franchise. But if Tolkien didn’t linger over this subplot, should we?

Let’s be honest: Anya Taylor-Joy would make a great elf. If any human being could flit from tree to tree as if woven from gossamer and starlight, or appear on a moonlit branch looking as though she had just been summoned by a haunted lute, it would be the star of The Queen’s Gambit, The Witch and Furiosa. She is perfect for Lord of the Rings, and it is no surprise whatsoever that she has been cast as the elf Seren in the forthcoming Andy Serkis-directed The Hunt for Gollum, as confirmed this week by the Hollywood Reporter.

You’ll probably have heard about the movie: Serkis is back as Gollum, Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, and the whole thing is about a barely mentioned, if crucial, section of LotR in which Aragorn is charged with chasing down the snivelling, one-time owner of the One Ring before Sauron’s forces can get to him.

WARNING: Minor spoiler ahead!
By the power of Grayskull, Amazon MGM has the power to revive a franchise that hasn’t been big since Choppers were the coolest bikes in town

Reports suggest Travis Knight’s Masters of the Universe made just $54m (£40m) globally on debut at the weekend, a figure that, while not exactly fatal, would usually be considered a disappointment for a mainstream movie with a budget of more than $200m. Worse still, this heavily caffeinated, meta take on the 1980s TV show arrived carrying the weight of a major studio relaunch and decades of pent-up nostalgia. On paper at least, its bow looks less like the birth of a cinematic universe than the sort of expensive stumble from which some franchises never recover.

So why then does everyone involved in this thing seem so cheerful? “Travis Knight and the entire cast and film-making team have delivered something truly special,” Amazon MGM’s Kevin Wilson gushed to Variety. “This opening is exactly the kind of critical first moment that validates our holistic distribution strategy – building awareness and engagement that will carry well beyond the theatrical window.”

The hooded supervillain is a scientist, a sorcerer, a monarch and a mummy’s boy – Robert Downey Jr’s Doom should be all these things and more, radiating history, magic and the biggest ego

The problem with building the next stage of your superhero franchise around Doctor Doom is that nobody really knows if he is Marvel’s Darth Vader, or just the guy from those terrible 20th Century Fox films. We wouldn’t even be getting Doom in the forthcoming Avengers: Doomsday if Marvel’s original post-Thanos masterplan had not collapsed when Jonathan Majors, who played Kang, was dropped from the franchise. And we don’t really know if the subsequent casting of Robert Downey Jr (previously Marvel’s Iron Man) in the role is some kind of ingenious masterstroke that will all make sense when we finally see the finished film, or just an expensive nostalgia panic button.

The stakes are so high here that the geekosphere is delving into every possible clue, no matter how fleeting, as to which version of Doom we might be getting in the film. Will this be a flamboyant, comics-accurate take on the Latverian dictator? Or will Marvel dip into the multiverse of convenience and deliver an iteration that is little more than Tony Stark in eastern Europe?

Cinema’s great maximalist going full pumpkin-bomb pantomime in the 2002 film might have dragged it into an even more operatically deranged dimension

There are numerous sliding doors moments in Hollywood that, had they actually happened, would have fractured the space-time continuum like a DeLorean hitting potholes at 88mph. Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones, Eric Stoltz as Marty McFly, Sean Connery as Gandalf, Bill Murray as a distinctly sardonic Batman. And yet, if there has ever been a more deliciously unhinged alternate timeline than Nicolas Cage as the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man from 2002, it has probably already been confiscated by the time police for crimes against narrative stability.

This is not the first time we’ve heard about Cage’s potential involvement in the film - Entertainment Weekly’s feature from 24 years ago noted that Cage, John Malkovich and Willem Dafoe (who eventually got the role) were all “up for the Green Goblin”. But it appears to be the first time Cage himself has spoken about it in any detail. While promoting the new series Spider-Noir, Cage told Variety: “Sam and I had a great lunch, and I did say during the lunch, ‘Listen: whoever plays Spider-Man, let them do one scene where they’re crawling around like a spider when they’re alone,’ and it didn’t happen … He wanted me to do the Green Goblin. I liked the idea of Sam Raimi, because of Evil Dead 1 and 2, and I wanted to work with him.”

Is the promotion to the big screen of Star Wars’ breakout Disney+ show just a delightful distraction – or exactly what the franchise needs?
• This article contains spoilers for Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu

Star Wars, with its fondness for grand emotional crescendos, mythic reversals and violent turns of fate, is perhaps cinema’s purest example of space opera. Even the oft-derided prequels, those overheated tales of democracy collapsing, forbidden love and angst-ridden space monks, are intensely Wagnerian. The Mandalorian and Grogu, despite being a warm, funny, rollicking tale of outer rim adventures, ingenious aliens and surprisingly touching surrogate fatherhood, is not really on that scale. Which is probably why it’s getting such a lukewarm reaction from critics.

This is a movie that zips along pleasantly, offers up plenty of cute “Baby Yoda” moments, delivers more than enough badass Mando action sequences, and even quietly reimagines what some of its most infamous alien creatures are capable of as a species. It is not so much space opera as cosmic picaresque, wandering frontier serial, intergalactic side-quest cinema. And that’s just not what we’re used to after the best part of 50 years of Star Wars on the big screen. Here’s what makes this new adventure so different from what came before.

As a standalone, the new adventure is perfectly fine matinee fodder – but the galaxy is now so congested that we seem doomed to shiny retreads of the same old story

When Disney bought Lucasfilm for roughly $4bn in 2012, it must have felt like an obvious piece of business: who wouldn’t throw wads of cash at a saga boasting an entire galaxy in a box? For a while, it seemed too good to be true. The Force Awakens made more than $2bn worldwide. Rogue One did more than $1bn. The Last Jedi conjured up more than $1.3bn, even while triggering a culture war so radioactive it could power the Death Star. Most of the fandom hated The Rise of Skywalker, but that most execrable of movies still earned Disney more than $1bn.

Then came Disney+, the perfect delivery system. No more waiting years between films: just hang around for a few months and something else would pop up on the conveyor belt. Andor, The Book of Boba Fett, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Ahsoka, The Mandalorian. Plot holes were filled, animated side characters got their magnum opus, and we all learned far more about the middle-management structure of galactic fascism than we had ever imagined possible. So why are we, almost 14 years on from that monumental shift in the Star Wars power structure, reading yet another slew of critical notices declaring that the saga has run its course? The Mandalorian and Grogu, at time of writing, has a rating of 61% on Rotten Tomatoes, pushing it just into the “fresh” category. The positives, broadly speaking, are that it is charming, brisk, visually polished and has Baby Yoda, a character precision-engineered for adorability. On the negative side, critics have complained the film feels thin, formulaic and weirdly televisual, less a grand restoration of Star Wars on the big screen than three Disney+ episodes.

The long-suffering saga has been kept alive this decade by TV alone – but even that will perish if the new movie fails to extend its universe

Star Wars has always been big on prophecy. Yoda peers into the future like Nostradamus with messed-up syntax, the Emperor cackles that everything is proceeding exactly as he has foreseen, Darth Vader breathes doom through the front grille of his shiny death helmet. And yet not even the most omniscient of Jedi could have predicted that the franchise responsible for practically inventing the modern Hollywood blockbuster would end up as a TV-centric operation with only occasional forays on to the big screen. Which is why it comes as a genuine shock to realise that, ahead of the release of new movie The Mandalorian and Grogu later this month, it has been more than six years since Star Wars last hit the multiplex.

Then again, perhaps the real humdinger is that it hasn’t been longer. The most recent Disney Star Wars film, JJ Abrams’ The Rise of Skywalker, did not so much conclude the long-running space saga as destroy several decades of perfectly serviceable mythology and ruin all sense of congruence with previous films. It was frantic, weirdly apologetic (about previous instalment The Last Jedi) and overstuffed with dodgy fan service. It was essentially a $590m act of narrative panic.

Pulp Fiction co-writer Roger Avary wants to bring the epic poem to the big screen using the power of artificial intelligence. It can’t be any good

The thing about unfilmable works of literature is that most of them eventually turn out to be quite filmable after all. The Lord of the Rings was a bit of a mess when shot in rotoscope on a minuscule budget by the guy who filmed Fritz the Cat; it won Oscars when handed to Peter Jackson, given the GDP of a small nation and a visual effects department the size of Gondor. The 1984 version of Dune was a disappointment, despite the presence of David Lynch in the director’s chair, largely because all that gleaming, tawdry galactic opulence couldn’t make up for the comprehensively bad acting, clotted exposition and obsession with freaky heart plugs. And yet the 2021 adaptation from Denis Villeneuve ended up being a tour de force of masterly restraint and monolithic scale.

Milton’s Paradise Lost? The 17th-century epic poem has always felt like an outlier, a work of literature too religiously inspired to be filmed purely as a work of fantasy, yet too riotously bonkers to be treated with puritanical reverence. It contains more drama than the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe in every line of thunderous God-baiting iambic pentameter. And now Roger Avary, co-writer of Pulp Fiction and director of Killing Zoe and The Rules of Attraction, wants to bring it to the big screen using the power of AI.

The latest in our series of writers paying tribute to their most rewatched comfort films is an unusual journey back to the 1980s through the lens of the early 2000s

If the stereotypical feelgood movie is a cashmere comfort blanket – the kind of film that leaves viewers blissed out on the sofa as the credits roll and Bridget Jones finally gets to snog Mark Darcy – I should probably notify a qualified team of specialists that my own is a tale of teenage alienation, suburban hypocrisy, apocalyptic dread and a man in a monstrous rabbit suit issuing stern instructions about death. Then again, it does have a considerably better soundtrack.

Richard Kelly’s Donnie Darko explored alternate realities decades before the Marvel films and Everything Everywhere All at Once made the multiverse a pop-cultural touchstone. Its tree-lined streets, Halloween skies and teenagers pedalling through suburbia were like a weirder, sadder blueprint for Stranger Things long before Hawkins existed. It’s a suburban fever dream about fate, madness and collapsing timelines, a nightmarish physics puzzle steeped in existential dread. But beneath all the cult-film weirdness, it is also the oddly uplifting story of a lonely, damaged kid who finally understands his place in the world – and sacrifices himself to save it against the backdrop of some of the most luminous 80s alt-pop atmospherics ever recorded.

If Avengers: Endgame is being recut to segue neatly into Doomsday, the saga wasn’t a spandex spider web of smartly linked super-stories after all. So why did we watch Loki and She-Hulk: Attorney at Law?

Marvel’s Multiverse saga, the run of more than a dozen films and umpteen TV shows that have emerged since Avengers: Endgame seven years ago, was intended to be many things: a bold new kaleidoscopic chapter, a narrative playground playing out across infinite parallel realities, a chance to prove this celebrated franchise could keep regenerating like an irradiated interdimensional gecko. But if Marvel Studios really is bolting new Avengers: Doomsday material on to Avengers: Endgame ahead of the latter’s rerelease in multiplexes this September, the somewhat less-successful Multiverse phase now seems like something the studio wants to forget.

Speaking at the Sands international film festival in St Andrews at the weekend, director (of both films) Joe Russo revealed that Endgame is being recut and rereleased in September, apparently with some sort of neat segue to the forthcoming Avengers: Doomsday. In comments reported in Deadline, Russo said: “It’s critically important to rerelease the movie, and, in fact, we’ll be rereleasing the film with footage that is set in the Doomsday story that we have added to Avengers: Endgame. It’s an opportunity to create a bridge from Endgame to Doomsday in a unique way and, because the movie was so successful, we have an opportunity to rerelease it.

Creating a definitive Top 10 list never fails to spark endless debate – but who doesn’t want to give it a shot? Don your capes and shields, and let the arguments begin …

Putting together a Top 10 list of the best superhero movies of all time may just be the critical equivalent of trying to herd thunder through a spreadsheet. Are we rating the best-made movie, the most influential or the most emotionally ruinous? The genre has exploded over the past 20 years to the point where it long ago swallowed cinema whole: we have crime sagas (most Batman flicks), family comedies (The Incredibles, Guardians of the Galaxy), cultural and political allegories (Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men, Black Panther), pop-art fever dreams (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse) and even tales of Wagnerian apocalypse (Watchmen, Avengers: Infinity War).

The sense is that these movies are too varied, the emotional criteria too slippery, the personal attachments some of us have to them too embarrassingly primal, to be placed in a clear hierarchy. Is the No 1 comic book movie of all time the film that made fangirls and boys whimper into their crumpled copies of Amazing Fantasy #15? In which case we might be looking at Spider-Man: No Way Home. Or is it the picture that’s so good it appeals to filmgoers who don’t actually like superhero flicks? That would be The Dark Knight. Is Matt Reeves’ gloriously offbeat, Fincher-esque The Batman too weird and languid to make the list? And does Patty Jenkins’ breezily old-fashioned Wonder Woman get downgraded because it was part of a superhero universe that ultimately tanked?

A criticism of Superman stories is the guy’s near invincibility. And while a new trailer sees Kara tearing about like a cosmic gunslinger, there are hints her powers are at risk

If James Gunn’s aim with last year’s Superman was to give us a Man of Steel who stood out from those who came before him on the big screen, he nailed it. Even those who didn’t quite warm to this sunnier, weirder but more human incarnation could at least admire the way the film vaulted clear of almost every previous iteration. Delivering Kara Zor-El ought to be an easier job, for it is possible to argue that there has never been a definitive version of Supergirl on any screen, big or small.

Yet it is starting to look as if the newly formed DC Universe is once again ready to push outwards rather than merely backwards. This week saw the release of a new trailer, in which Milly Alcock’s Kara tears through alien bars, starships and off-world landscapes with the swagger of a cosmic gunslinger. But perhaps more intriguing were comments from director Craig Gillespie in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, which saw the film-maker open up about the story’s nine-world structure and the unusually heavy amount of planet-hopping involved.

The US talkshow host’s script will focus on chapters three to eight of Tolkien’s first volume – a section Hollywood originally thought disposable but is now circling back to monetise

As I write this, there are at least five days to April Fools’ Day. Yet the news that Stephen Colbert, the American late night host, is about to write a new Lord of the Rings movie based at least in part on some (more) bits of the JRR Tolkien tome that didn’t make it into Peter Jackson’s Oscar-winning trilogy certainly feels like a prank.

We already knew we are about to get an entire film, directed by and starring Andy Serkis, titled Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum, and based on a sequence that was told in brief flashback during 2001’s The Fellowship of the Ring. It’s due out next year. And there were rumours that more movies would be coming. The Scouring of the Shire, perhaps, based on the bit at the end of The Lord of the Rings when the hobbits go home and discover Saruman has set himself up as King of the Hobbits? Something centred on long forgotten segments of The Silmarillion or The Book of Lost Tales that have somehow not been covered by Amazon’s megabudget Rings of Power TV show? Perhaps an action adventure based on Farmer Giles of Ham?

An intriguing chat about warped DNA in the record-breaking trailer for the new Spider-Man movie could mean a host of long-awaited arrivals in the MCU

There was a time when the mere mention of the term “mutant” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was frowned upon. Rival studio 20th Century Fox owned the rights to the X-Men and with it the whole idea of a parallel branch of humanity, which meant superheroes were contractually obliged to have received their powers from somewhere else. Radioactive accidents, experimental serums, infinity stones, the bite of an unusually committed arachnid: Marvel tried them all, but left the mutation thing alone. Occasionally, comic book icons such as Scarlet Witch were retconned in the MCU to remove their X-gene origins, but for the most part, the very notion of mutation seemed to be placed under narrative quarantine – as if this were a door the studio had quietly agreed not to open.

This week saw the record-breaking release of the debut teaser trailer for Spider-Man: Brand New Day, and it was immediately clear that something had changed. We all know the X-Men are coming to the MCU: Deadpool and Wolverine have already had their own movies, while various mutants have turned up in post-credit scenes and brief multiversal detours. Now Spidey seems to be edging close to the same territory.

If the long-mooted third instalment of the 80s sword and sorcery series finally gets off the ground, it could be Arnie’s chance to go from ageing action hero to cinematic totem

If you’re a fan of 1980s and 1990s Arnold Schwarzenegger, his late-era career has probably come as a bit of a disappointment. The Austrian oak was once Hollywood’s most reliable tool for punching killer robots, but he’s never really had his Unforgiven moment. Despite an absurdly influential run of sci-fi and fantasy movies, Schwarzenegger has missed out on the sort of grizzled, late-career reckoning that might have deconstructed his own youthful myth, just as Clint Eastwood’s epic 1992 western confronted the very legend the actor-director spent decades building.

It’s not as if Hollywood hasn’t tried. In fact, studios have spent the last decade or so trying to produce Schwarzenegger’s “old warrior” phase, as if prodding the action hero myth with a stick to see if it still roars. The problem is, nothing has quite landed. Terminator: Dark Fate turned the T-800 into a retired drapery salesman reflecting on his own violent past. Maggie had him as a grieving father in a quiet zombie family drama. Aftermath is essentially a sombre meditation on grief that briefly veers into revenge thriller territory. None quite managed to become the monument to the Schwarzenegger enigma that the actor’s era-defining body of work seemed to demand. If Arnold fans wanted the sort of late-career statement that turns an ageing action star into a cinematic totem, they instead got an increasingly mortal-looking man who turns up in mid-budget streaming thrillers looking faintly concerned.

The early intel from George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire novels paints the Targaryens as tyrants – so making them the heroes is going to require some hefty literary PR

There must be a few Game of Thrones fans out there who have rather mixed feelings about the news that Warner Bros is to bring George RR Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire “universe” to the big screen. On the one hand, the prospect of a properly enormous fantasy epic featuring dragons the size of commuter trains is undeniably appealing; on the other, have they really thought this thing through?

Reports suggest that the feature film will take as its source material Aegon Targaryen’s conquest, which brought the purple-eyed, dragon-riding clan to continental Westeros (and united six of its seven kingdoms) about 300 years before the events of HBO’s Game of Thrones itself. There’s also a TV series happening, which will presumably cover much of the same ground in greater detail. At first glance, this ought to make even the most reluctant fantasy acolyte want to punch the air. After all, Aegon’s conquest is the sort of story cinema was invented for: dragons blotting out the sky, castles melting like cheese toasties under a blowtorch; an entire continent being thrillingly upended by a bunch of platinum-haired dragonlords.

Six movies in, the series about characters linked to the web-slinger is looking ever ropier. More are on the way – but with no sign of the obvious way refresh the franchise

The old adage goes that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The news this week that Sony is planning to reboot its once much-vaunted, now completely risible “Spider-Man Universe”, shows there must be a few Hollywood executives who still believe in it.

Speaking on The Town podcast this week, the studio’s chief executive and chair Tom Rothman was asked about the future of the bafflingly superfluous superhero franchise that gave us three lukewarm Venom films, the odious Morbius and the tonally anaemic Madame Web. Despite scant clamour for more movies, he confirmed that the saga will live to fight another day. “Is the larger Spider-Verse dead?” Rothman was asked. “No,” he replied. “Are you going to go back to those at some point?” asked his interviewer. “Yes,” Rothman said. “But it’ll be a fresh reboot?” “Yes.” “New people?” “Yes, yes.” Rothman then added: “Scarcity has value … you got to make the audience miss you.”

As the film-makers behind the seemingly neverending river of Tolkien adaptations seek to wring every last drop of story from Middle-earth, it risks running the whole thing into the ground

Now in his 80s, Ian McKellen appears to have taken a strategically sedentary route for his appearance as Gandalf the Grey in the next year’s Lord of the Rings weird-quel The Hunt for Gollum. You’ve probably heard about this thing: it’s the new movie that’s based on bits and pieces of JRR Tolkien’s esteemed high-fantasy epic that were only mentioned in passing during the three original three-hour movies, and didn’t get much more of a mention in the extended cuts that came out later.

In the original novels, Gandalf reveals to hobbit Frodo Baggins that he and Aragorn, AKA Strider, AKA the future King of Gondor and Arnor, searched for decades for the creature Gollum in an effort to find out what might have happened to the ring he once held. In the new movie, though, things will be different. According to McKellen, Aragorn will take charge of the quest to find Gollum, while Gandalf will operate more like a wizardly mission controller. “The script is designed to appeal to people who like Lord of the Rings,” McKellen told the Times. “It’s an adventure story, Aragorn trying to find Gollum with Gandalf directing operations from the sidelines.”

“Before the Fellowship, one creature’s obsession holds the key to Middle-earth’s survival – or its demise. In The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum, we meet young Sméagol – an outsider drawn to trinkets and mischief – long before The One Ring consumed him and began his tragic descent into the tortured, deceitful creature Gollum. With the ring lost and carried away by Bilbo Baggins, Gollum finds himself compelled to leave his cave in search of it.

Gandalf the Grey calls upon Aragorn, still known as the ranger Strider, to track the elusive creature whose knowledge of the whereabouts of the ring could tip the balance toward the Dark Lord Sauron. Set in the shadowed time between Bilbo’s birthday disappearance and the Fellowship’s formation, this perilous journey through Middle-earth’s darkest corners reveals untold truths, tests the resolve of its future king, and explores the fractured soul and backstory of Gollum, one of Tolkien’s most enigmatic characters.

With audiences fatigued by endlessly interconnected mashups, studios are reverting to movies with one storyline that ends in a natural conclusion – what a radical idea

The news this week that Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are to return in a new Mummy film for the first time in a quarter of a century feels a bit like Hollywood stumbling out of a very long house party it doesn’t entirely remember attending. The last time the pair appeared together was 2001, when The Mummy Returns (itself an insipid sequel to 1999’s much better The Mummy) hit multiplexes. Since then we’ve had a spin-off (2002’s The Scorpion King, featuring an early turn from Dwayne Johnson) and a second sequel that didn’t feature Weisz, 2008’s forgettable The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

And then, of course, there was the ill-fated “Dark Universe”, forever immortalised by that solemn publicity photograph of Russell Crowe (Dr Jekyll), Javier Bardem (Frankenstein’s Monster), Tom Cruise and Johnny Depp (The Invisible Man) staring into the middle distance like an ageing goth supergroup. The plan was to launch an interconnected saga in which Jekyll would act as a sort of monster-movie Nick Fury, corralling Dracula, Frankenstein and assorted undead assets into a synergised Marvel-style cinematic ecosystem. Fortunately it rapidly fell apart: 2017’s Cruise-led The Mummy landed with all the grace of a cursed sarcophagus dropped down a lift shaft. And that, as far as the Dark Universe was concerned, was that. Universal pivoted to smaller films such as Leigh Whannell’s The Invisible Man, while Bardem’s Monster and Depp’s Invisible Man never materialised at all.

A message board on the Russo brothers’ website briefly hosted Marvel fans’ best guesses about the direction their forthcoming film will take. Here are the wildest

With its enigmatic promo run for Avengers: Doomsday, Marvel has perfected the trailer that reveals precisely nothing. Teasers have consisted of portentous glances, mood lighting, and characters standing very still. Dialogue is pre-scrubbed of context. Music swells with the confidence that something enormous is happening just out of frame. Plot, meanwhile, has been placed in witness protection. The studio is clearly well aware that giving away even a smidgen of detail this early on – the film isn’t due for release until December – would result in fans cracking the code long before any bums actually go on seats.

After all, Marvel has been here before. Avengers: Infinity War’s trailers laid out just enough narrative scaffolding for the internet to calmly conclude, months in advance, that Thanos was going to win and leave the universe in binary tatters. And it happened again with Avengers: Endgame, a film whose storyline was deduced from toy leaks, casting announcements and the radical insight that actors rarely sign multi-picture deals only for their characters to die permanently.