First Images from PASSION PLAY and RABBIT HOLE; Starring Mickey Rourke, Megan Fox, Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart

by     Posted 4 years, 102 days ago

Continuing on the journey of first look images, after the jump you can check out the first images from writer-director Mitch Glazer’s Passion Play and director John Cameron Mitchell’s (Shortbus, Hedwig and the Angry Inch) Rabbit HolePassion Play stars Mickey Rourke, Megan Fox, Bill Murray, Kelly Lynch, and Rhys Ifans, while Rabbit Hole stars  Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart, Dianne Wiest, Miles Teller, Tammy Blanchard, and Sandra Oh.

While Mitch Glazer wrote Scrooged, Great Expectations, and The Recruit, this is his first time behind the camera, so fingers crossed he’s made a solid transition.  On the other hand, John Cameron Mitchell has only made two films in the last ten years, so I’m very curious to check out what got him behind the camera again.  I just wish he hadn’t cast Nicole Kidman, as her frozen face has distracted me from enjoying her performances of late.  If this had been the Kidman of ten years ago, maybe I’d have a different opinion.  Anyway, hit the jump for the first images and the synopses:

And if you missed our previous first look images articles, here’s a few links:

Passion Play

When a jazz trumpeter is taken to the desert and a gun held to his head, we are at the beginning of a delightful fable about romance and dreams. When he meets a beautiful woman who works as the Bird Woman in a circus, he falls madly in love and persuades her to run away with him only to find that life is a little more complicated than simply living one’s fantasies.

Credits:

Programme: Special Presentations
Director: Mitch Glazer
Country: USA
Year: 2010
Language: English
Runtime: 91 minutes
Format: DCP(D-Cinema) Colour
Principle Cast: Mickey Rourke, Megan Fox, Bill Murray, Kelly Lynch, Rhys Ifans
Director: Mitch Glazer
Producer: Daniel Dubiecki, Megan Ellison
Executive Producer: Rebecca Wang
Cinematographer: Christopher Doyle
Editor: Billy Weber
Production Designer: Waldemar Kalinowski

Full Synopsis via TIFF

This strange and lyrical love story blends old-fashioned romanticism with all the fantasy of a fairy tale. It is also a welcome sight to see Mickey Rourke in a role that bores beneath his shambling gruffness to find a tender core. The slow-burning passion that gradually simmers between him and a darkly vulnerable Megan Fox showcases the talents of both actors with finesse. Finally there is Bill Murray, the counterpoint whose role is to act as a cold shower whenever heat blows between the two star-crossed lovers.

Nate (Rourke), a small-time jazz musician, is clearly a hard-luck case. Caught trying to break into a car, he is taken off into the desert where his assailant puts a gun to his head. Game over? Not quite. Stumbling into a circus pitched amidst the vast expanses of the southwest desert, Nate finds himself drawn to the exotic beauty of Lily (Fox), the Bird Woman. Lily is cold and dismissive; socializing with customers is not her scene. But it dawns on her that this gentle giant may well be her way out of a life of eccentric exposition. Nate is protective and understanding, and to him her aquiline beauty is a magic part of her uniqueness. As their bond deepens, Nate finds that his dreams of bliss are about to be thwarted by Happy Shannon (Murray), a cucumber-cool businessman with deep pockets and an eye for the bizarre.

Drawing on the remarkable talents of its high-powered cast, this wonderfully offbeat film is filled with surprises and proves that magic can be found in many places. Mitch Glazer balances the tough-guy moments and the rocky romance with the touch and feel of a high-wire artist. It makes for a spirited and uplifting spectacle with all the spirited colour of the circus.

-

Rabbit Hole

John Cameron Mitchell

Synopsis via TIFF

A family navigates the deepest form of loss in John Cameron Mitchell’s screen adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning play by David Lindsay-Abaire. Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart deliver captivating performances as a husband and wife who fight to save their marriage in the life that begins again after tragedy.

Country: USA

  • Year: 2010
  • Language: English
  • Producer: Leslie Urdang, Dean Vanech, Nicole Kidman, Per Saari, Gigi Pritzker
  • Executive Producer: Dan Revers, William Lischak, Linda McDonough, Brian O’Shea
  • Screenplay: David Lindsay-Abaire, based on his play.
  • Principle Cast: Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart, Dianne Wiest, Miles Teller, Tammy Blanchard, Sandra Oh
  • Director: John Cameron Mitchell
  • Producer: Leslie Urdang, Dean Vanech, Nicole Kidman, Per Saari, Gigi Pritzker
  • Executive Producer: Dan Revers, William Lischak, Linda McDonough, Brian O’Shea
  • Cinematographer: Frank G. DeMarco
  • Editor: Joe Klotz
  • Sound: Ron Bochar, Ben Cheah
  • Production Designer: Kalina Ivanov



Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Claudius09

    What a waste of time to read this post……
    First, it was Kidman who brought John Cameron Mitchell to direct the film, this is Kidman's film, developed and produced by her, apart from directing it, JCM has no powers of a say in it production-wise. As for this being a “first look”, the Rabbit Hole pic was released exactly ONE YEAR ago by the New York Times and has been ALL OVER THE WEB. Join the program at an earlier time next year.

    As for Kidman's frozen face, unless someone has a gun to your head then don't go and see it. She does not need your money.

  • Jack62

    I'm so sick of the cruel comments about Nicole Kidman. The 'Frozen Face' bullsh*t started 6 years ago and since then, she has given some truly fantastic performances in Birth, The Golden Compass, Margot at the Wedding or even Nine. Her face wasn't 'frozen' at all in those movies. It seems that it has become a game on the internet to post the same cr*p over and over again. Even now, when it's very obvious that she has stopped whatever she was doing to her face, some people just refuse to let this story go. Have you even look at that picture from Rabbit Hole you posted?? Don't tell me you think her face is frozen in that picture?? No she doesn't look like she did 10 years ago. So what? It's called aging. Maybe you think actresses should stop getting roles at the age of 35. And she uses Botox sometimes? So what? She's not the only one in Hollywood. Look at Angelina Jolie, Julianne Moore or Johnny Depp (yep, men use botox too, but only women are attacked for it). Why aren't those actors constantly attacked like Kidman is? (Also hilarious is that you bash Kidman but don't say anything about the awful Mickey Rourke. WTF? He's a man so he gets a pass?) Kidman is such a fantastic actress, she deserves to be praised for all the wonderful performances she's given over the years (Moulin Rouge, To Die For, Dogville, Birth, The Others, Margot…). Instead of that, she's being bashed for no reason (oh yeah, because 'she's not as sexy as she was 10 years ago so you're distracted so she shouldn't be cast in movies anymore', that's basically what you said) . FYI, John Cameron Mitchell didn't cast her. She chose him. She bought the rights of the 'Rabbit Hole' script and asked him to direct the film. See, she's not only a great actress, she's also a very intelligent woman. She knows that after 40, an actress gets less and less roles in Hollywood (sexist Hollywood producers desperately want to please people like you, people who think Kidman should ALWAYS look like she did ten years ago, ahem). So she buys the rights of books or plays that she likes and asks directors that she likes to work with her. If you had done some research about Rabbit Hole, you would have known that. But posting some nasty remark about her face is so much easier and so much cooler, mmm?

  • Jake23429

    What a poor site. We've seen Rabbit Hole's images MONTHS before. And you call it a movie site ? Poor drop-out losers.

  • http://www.collider.com/ Steve 'Frosty' Weintraub

    FYI, not everyone reads The New York Times and I'm online 24/7 and hadn't seen the image. That leads me to believe many others haven't either. And sorry to say, her face is a distraction. I can never tell when someone has had plastic surgery, but with Kidman…
    Next time you watch a movie with her in it, tell me any scene that shows her face with any wrinkles or movement. I haven't seen any in years.

  • http://www.collider.com/ Steve 'Frosty' Weintraub

    FYI, not everyone reads The New York Times and I'm online 24/7 and hadn't seen the image. That leads me to believe many others haven't either. Also, it's not so much about the “first images” as raising awareness on the films playing at the Toronto Film Festival.

  • Jack62

    “Next time you watch a movie with her in it, tell me any scene that shows her face with any wrinkles or movement. I haven't seen any in years.”
    Wow. You do realize how silly you sound, right?

  • Jack62

    For anyone interested, you can read The New York Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/movies/30ryzi
    Far more interesting than the “article” on this site…

  • Danny

    Frosty, I totally agree with the frozen face comment. It looks like Botox damage to me. I like Kidman, but the last time I really seem to have sean her move her face was in “Fur”, filmed in 2003. I've seen her performances in “The Golden Compass” and “Margot at the Wedding” and she has lost most of the expressions she had/used in pre-Botox films.

    In regards to the NYT article, it has an imprint date of 8/30/2009, so one source not the web does not “all over the web” make.

    So to sum up my comments, I like Kidman, but she needs to lay off the Botox before she permanently damages the nerves in her face.

  • Jack62

    The thing is she HAS laid off the Botox. Just look at any recent picture of her. My point is that some people keep repeating the same cr*p on the internet and refuse to let that story go and it doesn't even matter whether she stops or not.
    Botox or not, she was fantastic in Margot at the Wedding and The Golden Compass . It seems to me that the problem for people like you is not Botox, it is the fact that she has aged and changed and doesn't look like she did in To Die For (she was 27, she is 43 now).She's not as attractive anymore.
    Saying something like “she shouldn't be cast anymore” like the writer on this article did is absolutely shocking IMO. She's a terrific actress, why shouldn't she be cast? Do you only want mediocre actresses like Scarlett Johannson or Megan Fox? Because they are young and sexy and their faces don't “distract” you? That's sickening.
    And “Fur” was filmed in 2005, not 2003. Where do you get your movie info? On this site, probably. And it's weird that you say the last time you saw her face move (what a ridiculous statement!) was in Fur in 2006 (that's when it was released) when the sh*t about her face started in 2003…

    • Jen

      I’ve seen her really up close. She has wrinkles. Just like any other 43 year old.

    • Jen

      I’ve seen her really up close. She has wrinkles. Just like any other 43 year old.

  • Highwayroller

    Wow what an idiotic comment, seriously. Rent Kidman's Margot at the wedding if you're so obsessed with wrinkles on her face. Wait, you haven't seen this movie, just like you didn't read The NYTimes.

  • Claudius09

    Really, you want to respond to the comment? You are online 24/7 and yet have no idea about the images? really? The still has been online since 2009, ONE WHOLE YEAR, a quick google check would have solved the problem. Infact, 2 stills were released at the time. First look my behind. Did you just pick the stills from somewhere? did you check the dates they were posted by your original source?

    The point of my post is this, as someone who writes about film news, you had no idea to go and research information about a film before putting your news out about how a film came to be? or do you think it is the director who always OWNS the film. I guess John Cameron Mitchell like other filmmakers who cast Kidman really need the money so they just have to go to whatever they can find and if it is Kidman and her frozen face then they just have to take it?

    The important parts of the information you posted were old and erroneous and that is ridiculous.

    My point is not whether you or others can tell if her face moves or not, Like I said, if you don't enjoy her work because of her frozen, wrinkle-less face then don't go and see it I mean, why would you if you don't enjoy it, so you can whine? There is a choice is that and if you choose to watch her then lump it, don't whine about it.

  • Pingback: Nursing School Information

Click Here