#john papsidera

About casting Matt Damon and Tom Holland as father and son:

"I think Tom Holland is a chameleon. I think he has such a range within him. He shapeshifts into characters that are nuanced, have a youth to them and yet are incredibly bright. It's a combination of things you don't see often in young actors, especially of that skill. And so I just thought that with Matt, Tom felt not only a young leading man following in his father's footsteps, but somebody that matched him intelectually, somebody matched him physically in a certain sense. All those kind of things kinda came together, and yet he still has the sensitivity that Anne Hathaway possesses as his mom, and the nuance that she has in her acting. Tom was a real perfect fit for me in that kind of triangle of relationships."

About casting for the movie overall:

"In Oppenheimer, I talked about this before in interviews, we worked on filling the roles with actors that gave respect to the history and place that they held in that time-frame. The scientists were the rockstars of their generation, so we worked hard not to make them faceless characters, but to give them the dignity of a soul, right? And I think with The Odyssey the stakes were even higher, because these are characters with epic proportions. So while people might go 'oh, it's a star-studded cast'. Yes! We also needed people of that magnitude to fill the magnitude of the story, the giganticness of these characters. Not only in their literary history, but in what they do. Chris recently said that Homer wrote the Marvel superheroes of his time, and that is kinda the case. So we needed superstars and people to fill that largeness of characters. And once it started, it was putting all pro-athlethes on a field all day long. The meshing happened because they were so tighten in their own ways."

NOTE: This write-up contains full spoilers.

Superman (2025)

When Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster met in 1932 at a Cleveland high school, the two struck a friendship over their mutual love for pulp novels, science fiction, and comic strips. Both men came from Eastern European Jewish refugee families who fled the Old World due to anti-Semitic violence. A year after they met, Siegel and Shuster began forming the character we know as Superman. Their shared familial background informed the origins of their superhero: Kal-El’s arrival and adoption following the destruction of his home planet makes Clark Kent/Superman a refugee. Refugees are perpetual outsiders, no matter how well they assimilate. This has long been a hallmark of Superman narratives in various mediums, and so it is, perhaps more noticeably than ever, with James Gunn’s Superman.

As the first film in Warner Bros.’ DC Universe (DCU), Gunn’s Superman is in a difficult spot. The defunct DC Extended Universe (DCEU; 2013-2023) saw producer/director Zack Snyder – a filmmaker known for prioritizing violence and visual spectacle over emotional depth – completely misinterpret Superman as a character. In Man of Steel (2013), Snyder posited that Superman is powerful because of his superpowers. Snyder also shows that Superman comes to truly value life only after passively watching his father die and after taking a life (the latter in violation of Superman’s historic aversion to killing unless it is a last resort). Snyder’s grim misinterpretation damaged perceptions of DC’s superheroes for a decade, Superman in particular. Gunn came into his Superman in hopes to banish the darkness, issue a tonal course correction, relaunch DC superheroes for audiences, help Warners emerge from a chaotic last few years, and to honor the superhero’s past while creating something new. No biggie.

Any Superman adaptation will inevitably draw comparisons with Richard Donner’s Superman (1978). Any actor’s portrayal of Clark Kent/Superman will inevitably draw comparisons with those of the late Christopher Reeve – forever, in the eyes of many (including yours truly), the definitive live-action Superman. Gunn’s film does not surpass Donner’s. However, this is the best Superman adaptation since Reeve hung up the cape, and David Corenswet proves himself worthy of the role.

Our film opens with text describing Kal-El’s escape from Krypton three decades prior; his adoption as Clark Kent by farmers Jonathan and Martha Kent (Pruitt Taylor Vance and Neva Howell) of Smallville, Kansas; and his emergence as Superman three years prior. On this version of Earth, superheroes have made their presence known for centuries, but none have ever been as powerful as Superman. We also learn that Superman recently halted an invasion by Boravia, a United States ally, against Jarhanpur. The controversy over his actions have the Department of Defense befuddled, American civilians (who generally admire Superman) questioning his intentions, and the smartest/wealthiest man in the world fuming.

That bad, bald billionaire is Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult), and he has no love for metahumans – referring to Superman as “it”. Luthor tells the DoD of a plan to kill Superman through subterfuge, a pocket universe, and an imprisoned metahuman named Metamorpho (Anthony Carrigan). The DoD does not explicitly sanction his plans, but Luthor presses ahead anyways. Later, Luthor lucks out when he discovers a damning message to Kal-El from his parents, which turns the public quickly against Superman. It is a distraction to Luthor’s endgame.

Beyond Superman, standing in Luthor’s way is the staff of the Daily Planet – Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan), Clark Kent, Jimmy Olsen (Skyler Gisondo), and Perry White (Wendell Pierce). The film also stars the Justice Gang – Michael Holt/Mister Terrific (a terrific Edi Gathegi), Guy Gardner/Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion), and Kendra Saunders/Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced). For our canine lovers, this is the first live-action Superman to feature Krypto the Superdog.

I have been writing on films on this blog for almost thirteen years. For the first time after several hundred reviews, I offer my plaudits to a casting director. Thanks to John Pasidera (every Christopher Nolan film since 2000’s Memento, the Fallout television series), I cannot think of a single actor who did not look, sound, or acted the part. If anything, if any character feels undercooked (see: Merced’s Hawkgirl, Vance and Howell’s Ma and Pa Kent, María Gabriela de Faría’s Angela Spica/The Engineer, Zlatko Burić as the Boravian president), that is down to Gunn’s writing and the character's lack of screentime, rather than the talent on-screen.

Corenswet’s Superman is spot-on, as if leaping from the 1930s and ‘40s out of a Frank Capra movie (Gunn admits 1939’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington heavily influenced this Superman). I just wish there was more Clark Kent, if only to provide the behavioral contrast and tension within his double life. Corenswet’s warmth – whether speaking to civilians and Brosnahan’s Lois – radiates on-screen. Speaking of Lois, Rachel Brosnahan gives, like her co-lead, the best performance in her role since Donner’s Superman. Brosnahan injects a spunk and go-getting intelligence into Lois that has been missing in the movies since Margot Kidder. Unlike Kidder’s Lois, I suspect Brosnahan’s Lois knows how to spell! Though there are not many Clark/Lois scenes, Brosnahan and Corenswet have a familiar chemistry that is enjoyable to see (Gunn, Brosnahan, and Corenswet should watch some screwball comedies from the ‘30s and ‘40s if we are going to have a great volume of Clark/Lois scenes going forward – and we should). Hoult is great as the best (and easily the most competent) live-action cinematic Luthor. His seething disdain retains some of the high campiness seen in Gene Hackman and Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayals, but Hoult’s Luthor is exactly what the character should be – composed, cunning, and remorseless. The moral here: if Gunn wants to make the DCU work, a lot of it will come down to casting, so keep John Pasidera onboard.

Coincidence or not, Gunn’s screenplay echoes more loudly now than when he started writing it in August 2022. The Boravia-Jarhanpur conflict reminded me of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War (for others, the current Gaza War). Gunn’s laborious exposition of that conflict is complete with Zlatko Burić speaking broken Croatian (like Russian, Croatian is a Slavic language) as the Boravian president. The Boravian president also possesses a self-aggrandizing horseback portrait recalling the iconography of Russia's murderous dictator. Since his creation, Lex Luthor has been the archetypal evil billionaire – but such an archetype in decades past seemed more cartoonish, distant. Wealth inequality in the U.S. has soared in the last few decades, as the rich are now disproportionately wealthier and more influential than ever before. Unlike some billionaires, this Luthor does not move fast and break things. He prizes stability. To manipulate the system, not dismantle it. No cinematic Luthor has ever amassed this much soft power – from his connections at the DoD and his ability to influence the mass media and, with it, the public (their reaction to the translated video of Kal-El’s parents seems realistic; the counter-reaction when the Daily Planet exposes seems far too hasty in this fragmented media landscape, but I suspect that is Gunn commendably holding onto an idealism). It is eerie to behold.

Further parallels abound. When Superman turns himself into the federal government for questioning, he is surprised to learn that it is not the military or federal law enforcement taking him in, but Luthor’s forces. Whether this is an under-the-table deal or part of a contractors’ agreement, we see a private citizen’s paramilitary apprehending the Man of Steel, forcing him to enter a place that could be outside U.S. jurisdiction (the pocket universe), and imprisoning him on nonexistent charges. Is it because of the threat he poses? Or is it also because he is an outsider, an alien, a refugee? Seeing Superman’s face pounded into the pavement after not resisting arrest by Luthor’s masked men, his captors speaking to him as a subhuman unworthy of respect, and his imprisonment will not look unlike a scene that has played out too often in the United States – these last several weeks especially.

In the pocket universe, Superman also finds that Luthor has imprisoned his critics, people he deems enemies, and others he believes to be useful to his cause (Metamorpho). Luthor’s actions are extrajudicial. From false imprisonment, the illegal silencing of those who dare challenge him, family separation, and the hideous execution of a civilian who simply helped Superman back on his feet in an earlier scene, the U.S. Constitution is only a suggestion to this billionaire and for the government that (at the very least) tacitly supports him. This is the culmination of Luthor’s belief that might makes right. Righteousness comes before goodness, Luthor would say. Values should come from those with power – not from a centuries-old and fading piece of paper, and certainly not from an alien who identifies as human. Lex’s beliefs have nothing to do with truth, justice, and the American way. That remains true even when the nation’s political leaders believe and practice otherwise, and the wealthy beholden to them are in lockstep.

James Gunn’s unwillingness to let a moment emotionally play out and resonate – what does one expect from the mastermind behind the Guardians of the Galaxy series for the MCU? – threatens to derail some of the film’s most earnest scenes and its political messaging. Other decisions such as leaning into cartoon humor during some violent scenes (Superman knocking out a grunt’s teeth out in slow motion, this Green Lantern’s preference for Looney Tunes-esque combat) robs Corenswet’s Superman of aura and mythos. As good as Corenswet’s performance is, Gunn’s screenplay too often makes him just another quip merchant with superpowers.

That humor, however, largely disappears in the all-too-brief scenes spent in Smallville. The best Superman media will always remind you that even though Superman’s powers are Kryptonian, his true superpowers come from childhood lessons learned on a Kansas farmstead, growing up as the adoptive son of Jonathan and Martha Kent. The central twist in Gunn’s Superman – that Kal-El’s parents sent their baby to Earth in Krypton’s final moments to conquer our planet (whether or not this is true or a doctoring job from LuthorCorp is unclear) – sets up the foundation needed to raise that contrast. Clark’s father will remind him that his personhood has nothing to do with the intentions of his biological parents or the nature of his superhuman strength. “Your choices, your actions… [make] you what you are,” Jonathan reminds Clark. Too many superhero movies lost sight of that truth over the last two decades. As refreshing as it is to not have to go through Superman’s origin story for the umpteenth time and to still experience the Kent's love for their son, we the viewers lose the ability to see Clark’s growth and the depth of his love for them. Maybe for the future, then.

Before composers John Murphy (2021’s The Suicide Squad, 2023’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3) and David Fleming (The Last of Us television series, BBC’s Blue Planet II) set to work on the score, Warner Bros. told the duo that it was important that they incorporate John Williams’ always-stirring Superman March into their work. Because Williams’ magnificent score to Donner’s Superman looms so large over this series, subsequent composers have faced a difficult choice: how to honor Williams’ work while creating something of their own. John Ottman’s score to Superman Returns (2006) was too reverent of Williams like that film was too reverent of the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. Hans Zimmer’s score was a complete departure from Williams’ and it fit Snyder’s Man of Steel. But given that Snyder’s vision lacked any sense of nobility, romance, or beauty, I consider it one of Zimmer’s worst works (for new readers, I think that the vast majority of Zimmer’s work, post-Batman Begins has been dreadful).

Murphy and Fleming will reference Williams’ march numerous times in their score. However, in their and Gunn’s words, they “update” Williams’ music. If by “update” they mean reduce the march’s rhythmic complexity and flair, never develop it further, and subordinate the orchestra underneath rocking electric guitars, it is a sign of bad things to come in an underdeveloped score. For the record, Williams’ music does not need “updating” – especially if you come from the school of music that believes that an electric guitar and/or a synthesizer are more versatile than whatever an orchestra can evoke.

For Murphy and Fleming, there are hints that of thematic development, but they never transpire. “LuthorCorp” introduces us to Luthor’s motif – two notes on either a growling electric guitar or synthesizer – but, again, Murphy and Fleming never develop this idea further. The film’s love theme, “Lois & Clark”, is so ambient it might as well not be there at all. Thank goodness Hoult, Brosnahan, and Corenswet are wonderful in this film, because otherwise I cannot imagine how Murphy (who has a hard rock background and limited understanding of orchestral music) and Fleming (an acolyte of Zimmer’s Remote Control Productions – which is homogenizing and industrializing film music in the major studios – and a devotee of a style I despise, ambient music) could have empowered the love between our two leads and Luthor’s villainy. Superman’s score is a massive missed opportunity on too many levels. It is reflective of an environment where too many directors are chasing a post-Batman Begins Hans Zimmer-like sound, believe film music should not be noticed most of the time, and do not understand how their films can benefit with melodies that develop (listen to “The Flying Sequence” from Williams’ score to the Donner Superman to hear what I mean by development in music) across the course of their work.

Despite some Gunn-isms distracting from this film’s more emotional passages, this is a solid start for the DCU. Impeccable casting has a lot to do with its success, but that alone cannot keep a series successful long-term – Christopher Reeve may be the Superman to DC’s diehards, but even his presence and sincere performances in the third (1983) and fourth (1987) Superman movies could not save them from terrible writing and filmmaking. Whoever makes the subsequent Superman movies for the DCU, they have to rein in the Gunn-isms (whether that is Gunn himself or someone else).

By a strange twist of fate, Gunn’s Superman arrives at a moment of political peril for the country that he and this writer calls home, the country that gave Siegel and Shuster’s families (and Kal-El) safe haven, the country whose values raised Clark Kent, the country whose unalienable rights Superman defends. The United States has, often, failed to uphold the ideas central to its founding. Those central ideas don’t go away just because those in power do not believe in them, making human decency look like a lost cause. To slightly paraphrase Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Superman’s narrative arc follows that of Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith very closely), in a world full of hatred, strive even harder to love thy neighbor. Frank Capra understood this and Jimmy Stewart embodied that in 1939. James Gunn understood this and David Corenswet embodied this eighty-six years later.

My rating: 7.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog. Half-points are always rounded down.

Casting Directors Reveal the Hardest Roles to Cast

Casting directors reveal the hardest part of their jobs. Actors have a tough job. They are to read a few lines of dialogue and try to assume what the casting director, director, producer, and studio is looking for. But, for casting directors, it is sometimes extremely stressful to find the right talent for a project they are working on. Especially, when it’s for a one-liner or small acting role.…

To all those people who said Harry only got the part in Dunkirk because he’s a famous popstar, or that he’s going to make an idiot of himself because he can’t actually act... read the Mirror story below and weep!

I’m so, so glad John Papsidera has come out and said how good Harry is and how hard he worked to get this role. He beat hundreds of trained and experienced actors to get it, which is no mean feat. So many people think Harry gets things handed to him on a plate: not true. He works bloody hard, and he deserves all of his success. Every last bit.

I’m so very, very proud of him - well done, Harry and all the love xxx

Story: Sharon Feinstein, www.mirror.co.uk

Harry Styles has been tipped for Hollywood stardom by the man who has given him his first movie break.

The One Direction star beat several big name actors to land his movie debut, World War II Dunkirk, the Sunday People reports.

The pop hearthrob will appear alongside Tom Hardy and acting icons Kenneth Branagh and Mark Rylance - with shooting currently taking place in France.

Directed by Christopher Nolan , the man behind The Dark Knight and Interstellar, the movie looks destined to transform Harry into a Hollywood star.

Harry, 22, caused a storm when the first snaps of him on set emerged - complete with his new-look short hair and army uniform.

The man who handed Harry, 22, the breakthrough role says he was head and shoulders above experienced stars.

John Papsidera said: “Harry was absolutely right for the role. As an actor he is unknown, but his readings made him an obvious choice. We thought he was fresh and interesting and he won the role.

“It wasn’t because he’s a well known pop star – if anything that was more of a detriment, because it could bring the wrong message and we don’t want people pulled out of the film because of who they are.

“Our aim was to have people who are fresh and don’t bring a lot of prior work with them, so the audience will be really immersed in the film and not struggling with recognisable famous personalities.

“So Harry really had to overcome hurdles to get past that. He fought hard for it and his work was impressive and that’s what attracted us to him.

I don’t think he studied acting professionally and yet he won the role against some very well known actors.”

The details of Harry’s role are being kept under wraps, but John added: “He read for me, then us collectively in London. He did half a dozen readings, coming back and forth and it was no easy task for him.

‘This is a young man who passionately wanted this film and we looked at a lot of actors, certainly in the hundreds, some of them very well-known and many who had been to prestigious acting schools.

“It’s a great achievement for Harry that he won it, a great feather in his cap and we’re very excited having him in the film. I hope for him that he goes on to bigger things in Hollywood, he’s a lovely guy.

“I have never gone to his concerts, listened to his music or anything like that. None of us had. Chris’ kids knew who he was and we knew of him but we aren’t followers of his career.

“It is absolutely his own talent, ambition and hard work that has got him a part in a Christopher Nolan movie.

“It was because of his passion for being in the film, he jumped through every hurdle we put him through and really won it of his own accord.”

The movie sees Harry wade through mud as a soldier during the evacuation of 338,000 Allied troops after France was overrun by the Nazis in 1940.

Filming takes place around the world until September this year - with the movie expected to hit big screens in 2017.

“There will be a fair amount of wading through mud,” John adds. “But the Battle of Dunkirk was a monumental task and a lot of it was on the beach, so the beach is prominent in the film.