On this installment of FYCDaily:
1) Breaking down the new Spider-Man Trailer
2) Daniel Radcliffe’s future
3) Machette 2 starts shooting
4) Should we see Phantom Menace 3D?

Subscribe to all For Your Consideration podcasts on iTunes here:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/for-your-consideration/id415159487

Use this link to subscribe to the audio only version of the podcasts:

http://www.fyc.blip.tv/rss/mp3

On this installment of FYCDaily:
1) Superbowl movie commercials. Which ones were hits, which ones missed.
2) Weekend boxoffice look
3) Upcoming movies this weekend
4) Questions from the audience.

DOWNLOAD AND SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS
Download Audio Only version
Download – Video version
Video Podcast iTunes Subscription
Audio Only Subscription Link (for use in any podcasting client including iTunes)

On this installment of FYCDaily, John is joined by regular co-host Matthew Barnard and together they discuss:

1) Crowe NOT in the Robocop reboot and the pattern of blogs reporting rumors as fact.

2) The big topic of the daily is discussing which 2012 film will be better and people should anticipate the most. The Avengers, The Hobbit or The Dark Knight Rises.

All this and a few things more:

DOWNLOAD AND SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS
Download Audio Only version
Download – Video version
Video Podcast iTunes Subscription
Audio Only Subscription Link (for use in any podcasting client including iTunes)

Here’s my review:

On this installment of FYCDaily, John is joined by regular co-host Matthew Barnard and together they discuss:

1) Phone in movie theatres
2) Russell Crowe as Noah and RoboCop
3) Katy Perry 3D concert movie
4) John reviews the new movie “Chronicle”
5) Taking questions live from the audience

All this and a few things more.

DOWNLOAD AND SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS
Download Audio Only version
Download – Video version
Video Podcast iTunes Subscription
Audio Only Subscription Link (for use in any podcasting client including iTunes)

“Three high school friends are exploring in the woods when they come across a mysterious substance. Soon after the strange discovery, they each begin developing a unique super power and find that the best way to hone their new skills is to play around with them together. But as their personal lives get in the way, the very powers that brought them closer together may just be what inevitably destroys them.”

Check out my video review here:

And now, here’s our Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 review:

When an unexpected enemy emerges that threatens global safety and security, Nick Fury, Director of the international peacekeeping agency known as S.H.I.E.L.D., finds himself in need of a team to pull the world back from the brink of disaster. Spanning the globe, a daring recruitment effort begins.

This is the film all of us comic book fans have been waiting for.  In these new banners we get to see all of the Heroes (and the villain Loki) for the film.  I wish they would have shown the Hulk, but I guess I’ll have to settle for puny Banner for now.  Click below for the full size versions of each banner.  The Avengers Assemble on May 4, 2012!

A lot of thing have gone on this week in the word of film and so George Roush, Jenna Busch and John Campea decide to look at Johnny Depp’s comments suggesting Americans are too dumb for his movie, the interesting decision to bring Ricky Gervais back as host of the Golden Globes, the newest installment of the Twilight franchise Breaking Dawn Part 1, the news that the Star Trek sequel may finally be going into production… and John even takes a minute to rant against the unbelievable selfishness of the NBA players association telling America that being the highest paid professional athletes with an average salary of over $5 million and guaranteed contracts just isn’t good enough for them in this current global economy.   Hit the jump to watch.

The break down for this week’s episode looks like this:

1:05 – Off topic NBA rant
4:30 – Ricky Gervais hosting Golden Globes again
15:00 – Johnny Depp say “Rum Diary” failed because it’s “too smart” for Americans
21:32 – Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 1
32:37 – Star Trek sequel going into production in January

Please take a moment to head over to our Facebook page and follow (“like”) us!

DOWNLOAD AND SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS
Download Audio Only version
Download – HD version
Download – SD version
Video Podcast iTunes Subscription
Audio Only Subscription Link (for use in any podcasting client including iTunes)

So… did Immortals end up being the waste it first looked like or a fun flick that Comic Con made it look like? It’s not a fantastic film, but I’d have to say it’s pretty damn fun.

THE BASIC IDEA: “A brave young stonemason assembles a fierce band of warriors to prevent an evil king from acquiring the artifact that will permit him to rule the world in this epic mythological fantasy from visionary filmmaker Tarsem Singh. King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) is a brutal tyrant on a bloody mission to seek out the mythical Bow of Epirus. Should he succeed, even the gods of Olympus will be forced to bow before him. In his efforts to locate the invincible and elusive weapon, Hyperion leads his Heraklion army on a brutal rampage across Greece, razing every town in their path, and killing with impunity. When the Hyperions lay waste to his village and cut down his mother in cold blood, vengeful stonemason Theseus (Henry Cavill) emerges from the rubble determined to make the king pay for his crimes. Later, the Sybelline Oracle, Phaedra (Freida Pinto), experiences a vision of Theseus’ future that convinces her he will play a pivotal role in defeating King Hyperion. Armed with that supernatural knowledge, she agrees to help Theseus assemble a small army capable of defeating the tyrannical king and preventing him from enslaving the entire human race. Stephen Dorff, Kellan Lutz, and John Hurt co-star.”

Watch the video version of our IMMORTALS review here. Continue reading the written review below:

THE GOOD

Not having watched the TV show “The Tudors” I’ve been completely unfamiliar with the word of Henry Cavill (who as most of you know is the new Superman). I’ve been curious to see if he can carry a film and specifically shine in an action/adventure role (much like Superman will be). Although I won’t be putting his name on any Oscar ballots for his leading role in Immortals, I have to say I was impressed by his screen presence and intensity (probably 2 of the most important qualities in someone carrying an action film… and Superman). He’s not the best I’ve ever seen at hiding his considerable accent, but I found as the movie progressed I noticed it less and less… not sure if that means he was getting better at it or if I was just getting used to it. That being said, I found his performance to be solid and he owned the screen when he was on it.

The fight sequences are more than impressive. I’ve always said that a comedy can be forgiven a lot of flaws if it at least is funny and makes the audience laugh. The same sort of principle applies to action/adventure films. If the action is solid and the battles are grand (peppered with some good visual effects) then a lot of the flaws can be forgiven. One scene in particular stands out to me and that’s the aforementioned fight between the gods and the titans. It will probably end up as the single best fight scene of the year and had me saying “wow” out loud more than a few times.

I’m becoming a Luke Evans fan. He was seen a few weeks ago in the completely awful “The Three Musketeers” as the Musketeers Aramis and believe me when I tell you his performance was the only redeemable thing about that train wreck. Luke has a terrific screen presence and does a fantastic job playing the king of the gods… Zeus. Zeus also plays a key role in a major subplot of the film being the nature of the relationship between the gods and humanity… between Olympus and Earth. Zeus has a strict non-interference law forbidding to intercede in man’s affairs as a god stating at one point “we ask the mortals to believe in us, so we must do the same for them”. And so Zeus’ refusal to help humanity comes from his firm belief and faith in humanity. It’s fodder for interesting conversation when you come out of the movie if you’re looking for that sort of thing.

THE BAD

The film is directed by Tarsem Singh who already has a bit of a reputation of being a visual visionary… but lacking a bit when it comes to how he handles narrative. No less can be said about his work on Immortals. Yes, the action and visuals are all there, but as a director his first job to is drive the story, make it compelling and get us as the audience invested in the narrative. Unfortunately Singh falls short in delivering an engaging story despite having a rich concept with larger than life characters and an epic scale. With all that at his disposal it’s almost unforgivable to not tell the story in some sort of compelling way.

Despite the fact that Freida Pinto is one of the single most beautiful women on the face of the earth and that she gets naked in it (I’m a man, I had to notice) and despite the fact that I like Stephen Dorff a lot, it has to be said that all the “side” characters in the film were quite weak and poorly used. Once you moved outside of Theseus (Henry Cavill) and Zeus (Luke Evans) there was simply nothing interesting there. Often it just felt like the other character were just impotently there with no real value or function. Again, this could be pointed right back at Tarsem Singh’s failure to craft narrative.

Look, I’m sure I’ll take some flack for this but it has to be said: Mickey Rourke’s performance in Immortals is something he should be ashamed of. We all know how good of an actor Rourke can be and I’m a big fan of his… but at NO POINT in Immortals did I ever get the sense that Rourke cared about the film or gave the slightest bit of effort in his performance. This was the classic example of someone just mailing it in to cash a quick paycheck. These films need a strong antagonist, and King Hyperion could have been one… but Rourke, seemingly intentionally, tries to sabotage the film. As a Rourke fan I was embarrassed and he should be too.

OVERALL

Despite a poorly handled narrative, misused secondary characters and an inexcusably poor “effort” given by Rourke as the villain of the film, Immortals still somehow manages to entertain with a beautiful visual style, solid performances by Cavill and Evans and some absolutely terrific actions scenes to make up for it. Immortals is a deeply flawed film that I believe still has enough going for it to deliver a good time at the theatre. Overall I give Immortals a 6 out of 10.

So what do I think of it? I’m not impressed. If I had never heard of “Hunger Games” or knew how many people were looking forward to seeing it on the big screen, this trailer would have done NOTHING to entice me to see it or generate any excitement in to about the movie at all. Frankly it looks like a low budget student film to me (which really is not a good or bad thing now that I think about it).

This is just a trailer… and not matter how good it is it doesn’t mean the movie will be good… and no matter how bad it is it doesn’t mean the movie will be bad so I’m certainly not passing any judgements on the MOVIE. All I’m saying is that based on the trailer alone, I’m not pumped to see this one in the least.

What did you think of it?

Click on the picture below for a full size version.

THE BASIC IDEA: “Christmas gets green as pot-smoking pals Harold and Kumar reunite for a hilariously hazy holiday adventure set six years after the events of the previous film. It’s been a long time since Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) escaped from Guantanamo Bay, and these days they’re just not as tight as they used to be. But as they each prepare to celebrate Christmas Eve with their new best buds, Kumar receives a very special delivery that should have gone to Harold. Always the dutiful friend, Kumar does his best to see that the package reaches its intended destination by the time sleigh bells start ringing. Unfortunately, while making the delivery Kumar causes Harold’s family Christmas tree to go up in flames. Thankfully for Harold, the in-laws are away for the evening, giving him just enough time to track down a replacement and avoid the wrath of his wife’s temperamental father. With the clock counting down to Christmas and the family returning home soon, Harold and Kumar race though New York City on a mad dash to find the perfect substitute tree. Neil Patrick Harris returns for more raunchy fun in a sequel also featuring Danneel Harris, David Krumholtz, and Eddie Kaye Thomas.”

You can watch the video version of our A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas review here. Continue reading the written version below:

THE GOOD

As far as comedy goes it’s undeniable that this movie hits a couple of very strong high notes a few times. There’s a great little homage to the classic “A Christmas Story” frozen pole scene that nearly made me spit up my popcorn, a few sharp and well timed one liners and a great scene exploring the true sexuality of Neil Patrick Harris that all had me laughing really hard. It seems like all the Harold and Kumar films have been able to hit those high notes that provide some of the best laughs of the year.

Surprisingly enough at the heart of A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas is a fairly grown up “moral to the story”. There’s a terrific scene near the end of the film where Harold (always the more “mature” of the two I guess) explains to Kumar why he’s willing to go to such extreme lengths to replace something as simple as a Christmas tree. In the midst of all the ridiculousness the scene hits you across the face with some emotional pop. It was a very well written and acted scene that I’m sure made a lot of married guys pause for a second to think about their wives (you’ll see what I mean). The mini speech ends up having a profound impact on Kumar and it sort of marks the “turning point” for the two friends.

You just can’t have a Harold and Kumar film without Neil Patrick Harris. This guy is pure entertainment on a thin stick. No, he wasn’t quite as funny in this third installment of the franchise as he was in the other two, but he still delivered some of the best laughs in the movie and is fun to watch on screen.

THE BAD

While there certainly are some great laugh out loud moments in A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, the unfortunate thing is there just aren’t enough. Good comedies have the BIG laugh moments, a bunch of GOOD laugh moments, and then a bunch of smaller grin moments. Harold and Kumar hit the BIG laughs, but after those few scenes there wasn’t much else to smile at. It felt desperate and random and… well… dull.

There’s no story to this movie. Yes, the second movie didn’t have MUCH of a story, but it still had one coherent plot that we could follow our heros along with. A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas is just a random collection of scenes that serve no purpose slapped together very loosely in this “Harold needs a Christmas tree” container. If all these completely random scenes were funny, you may be able to forgive it for that… but as I mention above they just weren’t.

OVERALL

A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas ends up falling somewhere in between the first two Harold and Kumar films. There are some big laugh out loud moments with a solid “moral of the story” hit at the end and Neil Patrick Harris is always a treat, but unfortunately it just isn’t all that funny and feels more like a random assortment of skits than a feature film. This was a big let down for me after the hilarity of the second film. Overall I give A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas a 4 out of 10.

Casey Affleck also stars in the film. I’m completely baffled why this guy isn’t in more movies. After his performances in “Gone Baby Gone” and “The Assassination of Jesse James” you’d think producers would be lining up to get this guy. Anyway…

THE BASIC IDEA: “The workers at a posh Central Park condominium plot to steal back their pensions from the thieving Wall Street billionaire who’s about to get away with the ultimate white-collar crime in this heist comedy starring Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy. Financial giant Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) has just been placed under house arrest in his luxury New York City penthouse for cleaning out his investors to the tune of two billion dollars. Meanwhile, on the complete opposite end of the financial spectrum, Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller) earns a modest living as the manager of The Tower – the luxurious building where Shaw resides. Upon learning that the tower staffers who entrusted Shaw with their retirement funds are about to lose their life earnings, and that the thief will likely get off scot-free, Josh convinces a small group of Tower employees and a downtrodden former resident that Shaw has stashed a million dollar safety net somewhere in his opulent penthouse, and that it’s theirs for the taking if they can just slip past security. With dim-witted concierge Charlie (Casey Affleck), under-educated electrical engineer Enrique (Michael Peña), safecracking maid Odessa (Gabourey Sidibe) and downtrodden former resident Mr. Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick) to back him, Josh recruits crafty swindler Slide (Eddie Murphy) to help get their money back. Though the security in Arthur’s condo is unusually tight, between Josh’s knowledge of the building and Slide’s sleight of hand, this ragtag gang of criminals might just have what it takes to get the job done.”

Watch the video version of our Tower Heist review here. Continue reading the written version below.

THE GOOD

The ensemble cast in the film is fantastic. Ben Stiller carries the movie which he does so well in most comedies so there’s not much more you need to say about that. One of the things that surprised me in Tower Heist was Eddie Murphy. Let’s be honest, Murphy has been terrible for a decade now, but Tower Heist gives us the best Eddie Murphy we’ve seen in years. It’s not just the dialog either… his comedic timing seems to be back as well as his physical humor. I think this movie will give us something of a Eddie Murphy resurgence. But it’s not just Murphy and Stiller. Pena, Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Alan Alda, Tea Leoni and Gabourey Sidibe all do wonderful jobs and somehow all seemed to blend quite well together on screen.

If you’re going to have a movie called “Tower Heist”, you better have a pretty good heist in it, and “Tower Heist” delivers working quite well as a heist film. The best heist films are the ones that spend a lot of time on the actual planning and plotting of the heist as opposed to just the event of the heist and the action that goes along with it. No, these guys aren’t trying to break into Nazi Germany to take out top level officers, but they are faced with a daunting state of the art building and security system to find something they’re not even 100% sure is there. The movie brilliantly doesn’t give too much of the plan away to the audience during the planning phase of the movie which leaves a lot of guessing and surprises later on.

Comedies better be funny, and Tower Heist is a funny film. There are a lot of laugh out loud moments, a lot of smaller giggle and a lot of smiling throughout the film mostly brought on by the sharp and witty dialog within the script penned by Ted Griffin (who also penned Ocrean’s Eleven and Matchstick Men) and Jeff Nathanson (who had previously worked with Brett Ratner on Rush Hour 2).

THE BAD

One of the great ideas in the film was doing a long montage of Eddie Murphy “training” the crew on how to be criminals other various skills that would be required to pull off the heist. It was a great idea, but it was poorly done. The “training” scenes were pretty much reduced to just a few seconds each, only given enough time to deliver a quick funny one liner. I started to get frustrated with these pretty quickly since you could tell that given a little more time those scenes could have been really funny and added more to the film overall.

The “romance” between Ben Stiller and Tea Leoni’s characters felt far too forced and frankly unnecessary. As you’ll see, there is a need for Leoni and Stiller’s characters to get along, but trying to force feed a unbelieveable and (as I already mentioned) unnecessary love interest down our throats was distracting and pointless.

Sometimes movies are far too drawn out, but sometimes the opposite is true. I found the ending to Tower Heist to be a bit dissatisfying due to the abruptness of it. I think this is one of those film where a bit of a epilogue showing about 5-10 minutes of the characters after the heist was done could have benefitted the movie overall. This point is a bit of nitpicking, but it was a low note for me after a good movie watching experience.

OVERALL

Tower Heist is a well thought out heist film with solid laughs and strong performances by the ensemble cast that suffers here and there from an unnecessary love interest, poorly handled training montages and too abrupt of an ending. Still, the film is genuinely entertaining and well worth seeing. Overall I give Tower Heist a 7.5 out of 10.

Like this review? Please share it on twitter or facebook and spread the word about Movie Reviews To Go!

He was positively dreadful in “Fighting” which was only amplified by the fact that he was trying to act alongside Terrence Howard who was actually quite good in the film. He was a walking train wreck in “G.I. Joe” and has pretty much just been visual poison in everything he’s done in his career. However…

Last year his lead dramatic performance in “The Eagle” was clearly a role outside of his ability… BUT… he showed signs of development and growth in his performance. On the surface it appeared there could be a chance he was legitimately getting better. Just a fluke, or was he legitimately improving?

Well, the new red band trailer for “21 Jump Street” just came out and I’ve got to tell you, I’m impressed. Tatum seems to have some comedic chops which to be fair, he displayed a little bit in “The Dilema” last year. On the surface it looks like he actually holds his own and fits right in with comedy veteran (it feels weird to say that about a guy who’s so young) Jonah Hill. The trailer is quick, funny and has suddenly turned me from dreading this movie into really looking forward to it… and yes… Channing Tatum is part of the reason for that. So cudos to him.

Tatum has no less than SEVEN films coming out in the next 2 years. If he’s as good in “21 Jump Street” as he looks in the trailer… and he keeps growing like he did in “The Eagle”, maybe that title will have to be changed from “Channing Tatum is Awful” to “Channing Tatum WAS Awful”. We’ll have to wait and see.

Watch the red band trailer for “21 Jump Street” here and let me know what you think:

It was summer 1999 when four small-town Michigan boys began a quest to lose their virginity. In the years that have passed, Jim and Michelle married while Kevin and Vicky said goodbye. Oz and Heather grew apart, but Finch still longs for Stifler’s mom. Now these lifelong friends have come home as adults to reminisce about — and get inspired by — the hormonal teens they once were.

I always liked the first American Pie film and to a lesser degree its sequels.  Never saw any of the direct to DVD movies.  When the first film came out I remember being surprised by how funny it was.  From the Stifler character, the invention of the term MILF and Jim’s escapades with Nadia it was all pretty damn funny.  However one of the funniest things in the first film to me was Jim’s Dad played by Eugene Levy.  Having the “talk” with his son and walking in on the pie scene were some of the funniest moments in the film to me.  The first American Pie came out around the time I graduated from high school, so I am interested to see how these characters are doing at my age around reunion time.  The film opens April 6, 2012.  Click below to watch the trailer.

Or click below to view the older red band teaser from MSN.

These sorts of numbers generally get studios instantly into sequel frenzies, but such has not been the case for Independence Day as director Roland Emmerich has gone on to do such high profile films as The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, 10,000 B.C., Godzilla and others, and Will Smith has just gone on to be one of the most bankable movie stars in Hollywood. Smith has taken a few years off and we haven’t seen him on screen since his 2008 film Seven Pounds but he’s back in the swing of things and Men In Black 3 will be on screens next year.

Fox announced some time ago that they were looking to finally moving forward with the franchise and would actually be looking to do 2 Independence Day films back to back, but things got held up mostly due to budget issues (that’s the speculation anyway).

It’s now slipped out that director Roland Emmerich has completed the scripts for ID 2 and 3 and is ready to move forward with the projects… WITH OR WITHOUT WILL SMITH.

Why would they possibly consider moving forward without Will Smith, the most bankable star in Hollywood? Well, there are a few reasons why they COULD end up going ahead with Independence Day 2 and 3 without will Smith and why, even thought it would be better to have him there, they would work just fine without him.

1) Will Smith’s Demands
There are unconfirmed reports going around that Will Smith has apparently lost touch with reality. In a day when the economy is still not what it should be and the industry is struggling to a degree, Will Smith has demanded a $50 million salary for the 2 films. That’s $25 million for each film. He’s also demanding that the film shoot close to his home and that roles be made in the films for his family. It seems at some point the sun was removed from the solar system and Will Smith has taken it’s place… the universe now revolves around him.

2) Independence Day 2 and 3 Are Guaranteed To Make Truck Loads Of Money Either Way
News flash: Roland Emmerich films WITHOUT WILL SMITH seem to make a hell of a lot of money on their own too. 2012 made $670 million, The Day After Tomorrow made $540 million, 10,000 BC made $270 million… and with a brand name like Independence Day it’s a lock to be a major hit… with or without Will Smith. Hell, I could star in the film and it’ll still make $200 million. Why give one actor $50 million when you could get another (maybe better) actor for $15 or $20 million? Which leads us too…

3) There Are Better Actors Out There
Don’t misunderstand this point. I’m actually a big Will Smith fan. I think he’s a lot of fun to watch in his movies and I think he’s a better pure actor than a lot of people give him credit for. With that being said, there are a lot of better actors in Hollywood today. The last time I checked Smith’s Oscar shelf is still empty and even though he’s turned in a couple of great performances (like in Ali, The Pursuit of Happyness) he’s never been considered one of the great thespians in the business. Hell, he’s not even the best action guy anymore. The point is, for half of that $50 million pay cheque he’s demanding, you could get someone who would actually make the movie better than Smith could.

4) Will Smith Doesn’t Guarantee A Blockbuster
There is no doubt that Will Smith is the most bankable movie star out there today, however, in an era where stars don’t automatically equal box office success, that doesn’t mean as much as it used to. Yes, Smith has some giant blockbusters under his mighty belt, but some would argue that a few of those were going to be massive hits without or without Smith in the first place. Also, movies like Ali (maybe his best film) only made $58 million domestically, his last film Seven Pounds only made $68 million domestically. Neither of those films were blockbuster material anyway due to the type of movies that they were… but the point is just having Will Smith’s name on them didn’t propel them to blockbuster success. Stars just can’t do that anymore.

CONCLUSION

Please understand I’m NOT saying Will Smith shouldn’t be in Independence Day 2 and 3. I’m NOT saying that he shouldn’t get $50 million. I’m NOT saying he’s not a good actor. All I’m pointing out is that should Fox and Roland Emmerich choose to move forward without Will Smith (or Smith chooses not to do it), the projects will still work out just fine and will undoubtedly make monumental amounts of money. Just my two cents worth.

Like this editorial? Please share it around and follow us!

That being said… I didn’t know the guy was THIS big. Yes, he looks a little bit like Wolverine in these picture, but keep in mind that we don’t know the context of these shots. I’m just stunned by how big the guy is.

I still laugh at people who bitch and moan that they didn’t hire an “American” to play Superman… to which I always reply “You do realize Kal-El isn’t American right? Technically he’s an illegal unregistered (and literal) alien”. It’s a good thing his Kryptonial escape pod landed in Kansas and not in Arizona… they would have deported his ass.

The Hollywood Reporter today is reporting that Samuel L. Jackson has become the top grossing actor of all time claiming his movies have made an estimated $7.4 BILLION dollars. That’s the kind of number that’s difficult to wrap your head around.

You’d be forgiven for not guessing Jackson. I mean, once doesn’t automatically think “blockbuster” when you hear his name, but when you really think about it, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. For the last decade Samuel L. Jackson has been the single hardest working man in the film business appearing in what feels to be 5-8 movies a year. Obviously if you break this down to a dollars per movie average he wouldn’t be anywhere near the top, but as far as the total numbers go… he’s the champ.

Some of the bigger films padding his numbers:

Iron Man
Thor
Captain America
The Phantom Menace
Attack of the Clones
Revenge of the Sith
Jurassic Park (ahhhhh… you almost forgot he was in that didn’t you?)
The Incredibles

My personal favorite performances he’s given are Pulp Fiction, Changing Lanes (hugely underrated film), The Long Kiss Goodnight and Die Hard: With A Vengeance. Tell us some of your favorite performances of Samuel L. Jackson.