English actor Charlie Hunnam has been cast in the lead role in season 3 of Ryan Murphy’s Monster series on Netflix. The show is based on infamous true-crime figures, and each season focuses on a particular case. z31b

The first season, titled Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, told the real-life horrifying tale of notorious cannibalistic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who was portrayed by Evan Peters. Season 2, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, tackles the story of the Menendez brothers who brutally murdered their parents in 1996. Lyle and Erik are played by Nicholas Alexander Chavez and Cooper Koch, respectively. 

Details are scant about the next season, which will presumably be released in Sept. 2025 based on previous seasons’ release dates, but Murphy confirmed that he has found his next “monster” in Hunnam. The 44-year-old actor is most known for his role as Jax Teller in the FX series Sons of Anarchy, which ran from 2008 to 2014. He also appeared as the lead in movies such as Pacific Rim, The Lost City of Z, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

Charlie Hunnam as killer Ed Gein 64i4x

Murphy has also revealed that Monster season 3 will be about killer Ed Gein, who was convicted of one count of murder but was suspected to have had more victims. Gein lived in Plainfield, Wisconsin, with his mother Augusta, who was a religious fanatic. Gein was a recluse and devoted his life to his mother, but his life spiraled after Augusta died in 1945.

In the years following Augusta’s death, several people went missing in Plainfield, and one of them was a 58-year-old woman named Bernice Worden who owned a hardware store. Worden’s son had suspicions that Gein had something to do with his mother’s disappearance, as he had visited the store the day before she was discovered missing. Authorities visited Gein’s property and in the shed, they discovered Worden’s headless and mutilated corpse. Further investigation uncovered grisly items in the home including human bones, clothing made of human skin, skulls, and several body parts from different people.

Gein was arrested in 1957, and he pleaded not guilty due to insanity. He was sent to a mental facility, but by 1968, he was deemed fit to stand trial. He was found guilty but was brought to a psychiatric institution, as he was found legally insane. Gein died of heart failure in 1984 at 77 years old.

Gein, also known as the “Butcher of Plainfield,” has inspired many characters and movies. Psycho’s Norman Bates, who had an unhealthy infatuation with his mother, shared characteristics with the real-life killer. The Silence of the Lambs serial killer Buffalo Bill, who used the skin of his victims to create clothing, was also based on Gein. It’s interesting to see how Hunnam will be playing the part of the reclusive killer and bring his horror to life on screen.

Season 3 of Monster will begin filming in Oct. 2024.

Sons of Anarchy was no stranger to brutal deaths. The crime drama, which detailed the exploits of an outlaw motorcycle club, gave Game of Thrones a run for its money when it came to dispatching main characters in shocking manners. One never knew who was going to bite the dust next, which added to the show’s tension. That being said, few deaths hit as hard as that of Tara. The character, played by Maggie Siff, was a doctor who made her debut in the very first episode.

Tara played a substantial role in season 1. She was the wife of Sons of Anarchy protagonist Jax Teller (Charlie Hunnam), which made it seem as though she’d be safe from the horrors that Jax’s motorcycle club unleashed on their enemies. For a while, this proved to be the case. Tara was a steady recurring presence throughout the majority of the show, but she couldn’t escape her husband’s dangerous lifestyle.

Here’s a breakdown of when, how, and why Tara Knowles was killed in Sons of Anarchy.

Tara dies in the season 6 finale “A Mother’s Work” 515r4m

Tara Knowles made a point of staying out of Jax’s business as much as possible, but it proved not to be enough. The character ran afoul of Jax’s mother, Gemma (Katey Sagal), in the season 6 finale, and their interaction proved to be fatal. Gemma became convinced that Tara was going to rat her and Jax out to the rest of SAMCRO (Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club Redwood Originals), and she decided to nullify the risk through the simplest means imaginable: murder.

Gemma’s dispatch of Tara is absolutely brutal. She bashes her daughter-in-law’s head in, and then shoves her bloodied face into an overflowing sink. If that weren’t bad enough, Gemma then takes a barbecue fork and stabs Tara in the head multiple times before calling it a day. It’s a devastating scene, made all the more upsetting by the fact that Jax was considering going clean in the days leading up to Tara’s death. He realized things had gone too far with SAMCRO, and decided he wanted to turn over a new leaf with his family.

Does Jax get revenge against Tara’s killer? 4p2l6n

Gemma manages to keep the truth of Tara’s death a secret for most of season 7, but Jax learns the truth in the episode “Suits of Woe.” He’s absolutely gutted to discover the familial betrayal that his own mother perpetrated against him, and kills her in the following episode, “Red Rose.” The death of both his wife and mother effectively dooms Jax to a life of sin and crime, with the brief window in which he considered going straight being little more than a pipe dream.

Maggie Siff talked about her character’s death during a 2013 interview with TV Guide. She told the outlet that she had a feeling Tara was going to meet an untimely end, but itted that it was hard to shoot the scenes given how high the emotions on set were. “My character is supposedly dead but I’m very much there,” she explained. “Witnessing and experiencing the gamut of emotions that they’re having about it, both as actors and as characters…. That was really painful.”

Charlie Hunnam also felt overwhelmed by Tara’s death. During the featurette for the season 6 DVD release of Sons of Anarchy, the actor reflected on the Jax and Tara relationship. “The relationship with Jax and Tara is the thing that I find plays the most real and deep and rich and has been the thing I’ve been most proud of,” he asserted. It’s one of the most consequential moments in the show’s history, and it remains as impactful today as when “A Mother’s Work” aired.

Netflix has released a video to let viewers know what is in store in 2023. The action-packed teaser shows off the streaming platform’s planned biggest hits, one of which has a lot of people very excited. Rebel Moon, directed by Zack Snyder, looks set to be one of the big releases of the year, on Netflix or otherwise, but the appearance of Charlie Hunnam in the teaser has many now calling for him to be cast as DC’s Green Arrow.

Rebel Moon is Zack Snyder’s homage to Star Wars, an epic sci-fi adventure set in space that sees rebels going up against the armies of a tyrannical regent. Sounds familiar, no? Well, there are no original stories, or so they say, and everything is a copy of something else. The overall story will be told over two films, with Netflix film chief, Ori Marmur, telling Variety, “when we saw how big the world he created was, we thought it would be better served as two pieces versus one film. It’s the kind of story that can continue to grow.”

We know that Sofia Boutella (Kingsman: The Secret Service) will be in what looks to be the lead role as Kora, a capable woman with a mysterious past and a bone to pick. She sets off to find warriors from nearby planets to challenge the regent, and it looks like Hunnam could be one of these warriors she finds. Though we aren’t certain yet what role Hunnam has to play in this story, fans know what role they want to see him in in the DCU.

Hunnam has been a fan-casting for the character for some time, so popular in fact that it seems to have sprouted a meme, “Charlie Hunnam, will it be Green Arrow,” which came about after a fan relentlessly tweeted the phrase tagging Snyder until the director even responded, “bro” likely out of sheer frustration. Now it would seem that Snyder is having his own little joke, not casting Hunnam as Green Arrow, but styling him in such a way in Rebel Moon that the similarities are obvious.

Here a Hunnam/Green Arrow fan posts the aforementioned tweets.

Now many are laughing at how it’s all worked out.

True this character has guns rather than a bow and arrow but the likeness is still uncanny.

Many fans see exactly what Snyder did there.

This Twitter loves that Snyder appears to have leant into it.

You have to it, it is a pretty damn good fan-cast.

Though this may be as close as we get to it, given that Snyder doesn’t really work in the DCU anymore.

We may not get exactly what we want all the time, but if we can get a close enough approximation then we should be thankful, and fans are loving getting to see Hunnam looking as close to Green Arrow as he is ever likely to get.

His days using guns in Sons of Anarchy and swords as King Arthur may be over, but fans will still find themselves satiated to see Charlie Hunnam put on his best running shoes in the new Shantaram trailer.

The new Apple TV+ series dramatizes the beloved novel Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts, bringing life into the period story depicting the life of a fugitive seeking sanctuary in 1980s Bombay. Although completely encapsulated as a novel, SeattleTimes noted the events in the story are still “strongly autobiographical, concentrating on [Robert’s] life in Bombay from 1981 to 1987.”

Starring Charlie Hunnam as Lin, a heroin addict fugitive incarcerated for a robbery, Shantaram is expected to be a story filled with action, mystery, and plenty of shots from the blond hunk Hunnam, who will reinvent himself as a doctor working in the chaotic Bombay slums. As any good historical novel from the 1980s, the story will lead Lin into Afghanistan, where he will partner up with a mob boss, and naturally, fall in love with an enchanting woman, portrayed by the French actress Antonia Desplat. Also ing this Australian/Indian tale are Elektra Kilbey, Alexander Siddig, and David Field.

If the question “Where do I know Charlie Hunnam from">box office disaster bomb), the 2013 American action film Pacific Rim, and surprisingly, the British version of Queer as Folk are also found in Hunnam’s lengthy repertoire.

Shantaram is set to premiere on Oct. 14 on Apple TV+

With the X-Men ing the MCU shortly, fans want to know who could stand a chance at playing Wolverine. While there is no definite release window for the mutants to appear, both Kevin Feige and Disney have said that it is not far off, which leaves fans wondering who is going to play their favorite characters. 

In the original X-Men trilogy, Logan was played by Aussie Hugh Jackman. Now the reboot is on the way it’s time we introduce our top 5 actors to play the rebooted Wolverine.

5. Charlie Hunnam 4o1269

From Sons of Anarchy and Pacific Rim, Charlie Hunnam has shown himself to be a talented actor versed across many genres including television, independent film, and blockbusters. With his perfect angst, swagger, and easy looks, Hunnam would definitely be a clear choice for Wolverine. In fact, some recent fan art perfectly depicts him as the clawed mutant.

4. Henry Cavill 295t6x

Yes he is Superman, and yes he could possibly play Captain Britain, but should the MCU ever look to cast him as Wolverine then we know he can grow a great beard and throw an even better punch. And with Superman rumored to be recast in the DCEU, perhaps Cavill might find his way over to the MCU sooner rather than later.

3. Scott Eastwood 6q5o3e

Scott is probably more known as the son of legendary Clint Eastwood, but he has already set his mark on Hollywood and is fast becoming a leading man. Could the somewhat unknown actor make his big mark as Wolverine? Well, fans seem to think so, as fan art of the actor as Logan has already begun making the rounds and we have to say, we aren’t mad about it.

2. Taron Egerton 4j552t

A somewhat still unknown actor that has built quite a resume under his belt at only 32 years old, from his nominated performance for Rocketman to his well-known role in Kingsman, Egerton’s youthfulness could bring a fresh take on Wolverine, and by doing so could reestablish his origin story. Plus he has expressed interest in playing Wolverine should the role ever be recast.

1. Keanu Reeves 3311m

Does Keanu even need an introduction? Everyone loves him, and everyone knows he is an action king that will also bring the acting chops. Reeves’s talent could bring forth a new side of the character that fans have not seen yet and Keanu is Canadian, just like Wolverine, so it isn’t much of a stretch, especially since the John Wick actor has previously expressed interest in ing the MCU and playing Logan.

Regardless of which way you choose to look at it, Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is an unmitigated disaster and one of the most notorious bombs of the 21st Century.

Not only did it effectively end any ideas people had for Charlie Hunnam as Hollywood’s next blockbuster leading man, but those ambitious plans for a six-film Knights of the Roundtable franchise went out of the window by the end of the movie’s opening weekend.

Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey delivers a performance that’s almost impressive in how wooden and emotionless it is, while Ritchie’s pal David Beckham contributes what might just be cinema’s worst-ever cameo. On top of that, it didn’t even come close to recouping the mammoth $175 million budget, ultimately posting a loss north of $150 million.

The positives? Well, Jude Law is clearly having fun chewing on the scenery, and Daniel Pemberton’s score f*cking bangs all day, and really deserved to come attached to something that wasn’t a steaming pile of ye olde horsesh*t. For reasons that can’t be readily explained, though, FlixPatrol reveals that Legend of the Sword has re-entered the global most-watched list, so a number of subscribers have readily wasted 126 minutes of their lives they’ll never get back.

We’re all to blame, here. We’ve sat idly by as the act of cinematic consumption has turned from delicate imbibing to gluttonous devouring, but it wasn’t until Guillermo del Toro made a little movie called Crimson Peak that I realized how bad things have actually gotten. After del Toro’s fairytale found itself incorrectly branded as a horror movie (before anyone even saw it), he was forced to generalize his artistry, which is something an artist should never be asked to do. He’s since publicly tweeted about Crimson Peak‘s romantic focus, wrote a pre-press-screening leaflet that clarified how Crimson Peak is NOT a horror movie, and emphasized marketing materials that focused on everyone’s apparent “misconception” that Crimson Peak is meant to be a gruesome, dark nightmare – again, before MOST viewers (besides a few Fantastic Fest audiences) had seen it. So, instead of audiences experiencing a film as it unfolds before them, del Toro was asked to classify something that we, ourselves, should be classifying in-theater. Do you see a problem with that? Current film culture is turning audiences into greedy little kids on Christmas morning, who complain because they got a Nintendo Wii when they wanted a Playstation 4. We demand that filmmakers make films to satiate OUR preferences, not their own ionate imagination – which is fine, to a degree. Something might not be in line with our tastes, and we’re allowed to make intelligent critiques after viewing, but to dismiss a movie because you THOUGHT it’d be horror, and not sweet, bloody romantics? No. That’s now how movie watching works. I’m not coming to you as an advocate of Crimson Peak, either. This isn’t about protecting del Toro’s latest property. My review sways towards the negative side, yet I completely understand why its lovers are so vocal. Del Toro is like a child in a candy story, and he always finds the most visually appealing eye-candy (or eye-protein, as he dubbed it), but the foundation of his pseudo-haunted-house-tryst is hollow and sparse. This is not an attack on all the haters of Crimson Peak, but instead a commentary on how we watch movies as a whole. Let’s start here – movies are an experience. They’re not something to be confined before watching, as we sit there and DEMAND to see a certain flow of expected scenework. We can speculate, and we can HOPE that a film includes our own anticipated fantasies, but if the film goes another direction, there’s absolutely no reason to give up. We’re supposed to let filmmakers tell a story through their own unique vision. To pigeonhole them before we digest a second of content is absolutely ludicrous, and sets a film up for monotonous disaster before the title card ever flashes. In Chopped , if filmmakers were the chefs, it’d be like them finding a recipe included in the mystery basket that they MUST follow, removing individuality from the final equation. I believe it was del Toro himself who remarked about the medium of film being a personal journey (sounds like him, at least), as each unique brain has its own neurons that perceive just a little differently than the next hunk of pink tissue. Don’t you your pre-school teacher’s words? We’re all special snowflakes, who react to art with our own opinions. Yet, if we start discussions based on a few details that leak during production, general statements start to form about something nobody can confirm, thus polluting minds with bias. It’s almost impossible to ignore. This locks away certain reaches of our brain that might have provided an enlightening insight to new cinematic material, but instead, we’re left focusing on the narrow-sighted notions of a boisterous congregation. Films should be experienced and discussed (respectfully) AFTER the fact, with substance to debate – not BEFORE. As you can surmise from the above, we live in a world where surprises are rarely ever hidden. Artistic integrity vanishes with each released set photo, as a vast majority of people no longer want to enter a film blind. They want to see loads of production stills, spoilers, and even revealed twists so they understand what they’re getting into. People have no patience anymore. They want what they want, and they want it now. Surprises are no longer viewed as a treat, and thoughtful cameos are nothing but casting decisions in today’s day and age.

If there’s one film that moviegoers have been waiting to feast their eyes on for some time now it’s Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim. Those who attened Comic-Con this past year got a look at the film but the rest of us have been very much in the dark as to what del Toro is cooking up with his monsters vs. robots epic. And speaking of epic, it looks like the director is blowing this one right off the charts. The massive scale of the film comes across very effectively in this trailer and while the CGI isn’t exactly top-notch, it looks like Guillermo del Toro is going to have a crowd pleaser with this one. Now, the film will be competing with big blockbusters like Iron Man 3, Man of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness but judging from this first trailer, silly set-up aside, I think it stands a chance at doing some serious damage at the box office. Plus, there’s still eight months till the film releases so I’m more than confident that they’ll be able to clean up the CGI. That aside, everything else looks great, especially the design of the robots and monsters, which I’m really digging. Pacific Rim stars Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Idris Elba, Ron Perlman, and Charlie Day, and will be released in 2D and 3D on July 12, 2013. Check out the trailer and plot summary below and let us know what you think. [springboard type=”video” id=”623137″ player=”wgtc007″ width=”600″ height=”350″ ]

When legions of monstrous creatures, known as Kaiju, started rising from the sea, a war began that would take millions of lives and consume humanity’s resources for years on end. To combat the giant Kaiju, a special type of weapon was devised: massive robots, called Jaegers, which are controlled simultaneously by two pilots whose minds are locked in a neural bridge. But even the Jaegers are proving nearly defenseless in the face of the relentless Kaiju. On the verge of defeat, the forces defending mankind have no choice but to turn to two unlikely heroes—a washed up former pilot (Charlie Hunnam) and an untested trainee (Rinko Kikuchi)—who are teamed to drive a legendary but seemingly obsolete Jaeger from the past. Together, they stand as mankind’s last hope against the mounting apocalypse.

Deadfall is an intense thriller from director Stefan Ruzowitzky. It stars Eric Bana as a vicious bank robber named Addison who is on the run with his sister Liza (Olivia Wilde) after their car crashes in the snow. They are forced to split up in order to avoid detection from the authorities and Addison is quick to eliminate those who are unfortunate enough to get in his way. Liza almost freezes to death until Jay (Charlie Hunnam), an ex-con with his own reasons to stay clear of the police, rescues her and soon after falls for her. But with all these characters desperate to avoid jail time, not everyone is going to get away clean. Deadfall recently had its press conference at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills, California and in attendance were director Stefan Ruzowitzky, Eric Bana, Charlie Hunnam and Olivia Wilde. They talked about what attracted them to the film, what it was like working in the freezing cold of a Canadian winter, how they approached their characters and more. Check it out below. We Got This Covered: Eric, what was it about the role of Addison that fascinated you so much? Eric Bana: I just thought that Zach (Dean) did an amazing job with the script. Sometimes you get real interesting scripts with not the best dialogue, and sometimes you get great dialogue without a great story. In this case it was a great marriage of the two. I was immediately compelled by Addison and thought he was really interesting, and I found him to be quite hilarious actually. That was one of the reasons I wanted to play him. We Got This Covered: I understand that you actually started out as a stand-up comic and there is definitely a comic element to this. Did you see playing Addison as an opportunity for you to some dark comedy? Eric Bana: Yeah. I don’t think there was anything deliberately funny in Addison, but I think the situations that all the characters find themselves in and some of the things he does are inadvertently very funny. It wasn’t like playing for laughs but I knew the audience probably would laugh at some of the ridiculous nature of what we’re all forced to do. We Got This Covered: Charlie, you were filming in temperatures that looked to be below freezing and yet you showed quite a bit of skin in the film. Was it extra challenging to be in the freezing cold and wearing almost nothing? Charlie Hunnam: It was. I had actually been really excited about a period in the cold weather because we shoot Sons of Anarchy in LA through the course of the summer, and I’m a skinny guy who wants to look as big as possible so I wear several layers of clothing; it gets really old being that hot. But I must say that a couple of days in, I was craving the sunshine. You know when you’re really hot you get miserable and a little bit grumpy, but the cold is really debilitating. Olivia Wilde: I love that the snow is two things: At once it is able to cover your tracks so you can hide things and clean up a mess very quickly, but it also reveals a lot. When I read the script I thought the landscape was one of the more interesting things, particularly in that first scene with the image of the car in the snow which was the first thing that caught my eye. Stefan Ruzowitzky: Visually it’s great because the snow is very graphic. It allowed us to work with a lot of really wide shots especially in the beginning. That was fun to do. We Got This Covered: Olivia, your character has some interesting dynamics going on with Addison and Jay. How did you go about establishing your chemistry with the both of them? Olivia Wilde: Well I think with Addison she’s a perpetual child, she’ll always be his little Liza. So that established what that dynamic was like in that she’s very dependent on him, she’s terrified of him and yet she is still very drawn to him. But the romance between Jay and Liza allows her to be a woman, and you really see her coming into her own. So naturally in the writing they were very different relationships and that kind of did the work for me. We Got This Covered: Eric, can you talk a little more about working in that cold weather? Eric Bana: I’d so much rather be cold on a production that goes to the trouble of shooting in real snow than be comfortable while sitting around fake snow. We Got This Covered: Eric, did you see this role as a bit of return to Chopper just in of the ruthlessness of the character? Eric Bana: Not really. I sort of read Addison as being morally straight and quite humorous in a way, and I didn’t see him so much as a bad guy. He had a strong sense of purpose in what he was doing and that is what makes those characters so scary, knowing you can’t really negotiate with him. In his mind everything he’s doing is completely and morally correct and there’s a real reason for it. It’s not the actor’s place to judge, but I’m more than happy to be morally corrupt for a few months for the benefit of my career. We Got This Covered: Charlie, could you tell us how you got into the psychology of your character Jay? Charlie Hunnam: I always find that the trick is to identify a way to get close to the character emotionally without having to resort to intellectual analysis or empathy. I’ve experienced working out a lot and then stopping and what a negative effect that has on the psyche, and I felt that was a very close area to where Jay was coming out of prison. I’ve also always been interested in boxing so I put myself through an intense boxing academy where I got up and ran five miles every morning and then went and had breakfast and boxed a couple of hours and then came home and watched fights all day long and then went and swam, and I did this seven days a week for five weeks before filming this movie. Then when I got to Montreal (where the film was shot) I wanted to stop completely and feel the absence, and I knew that was going to have a very negative effect on my psychology. It’s kind of a shortcut, rather than intellectually empathizing, to actually feeling the emotion. I got into a very dark and happy place during shooting because of that preparation. We Got This Covered: Stefan, what led you to cast Sissy Spacek and Kris Kristofferson in Deadfall? Stefan Ruzowitzky: I felt they were sort of the iconic American parents. What I enjoyed is that they really liked the idea of working together for the first time, especially Kris who said he had ired Sissy for a long, long time and wanted to have this opportunity. There was a scene which is not in the movie anymore where he was supposed to give her a kiss on the cheek, and that turned into something bigger. They liked it! We Got This Covered: The sexual tension between Liza and Addison was kind of disturbing. Was that in the script initially? Eric Bana: That wasn’t in the script. Olivia Wilde: That kind of underlined the tension between them. I heard someone say that the relationship between ion and rage is very close, and there’s a violence to our upbringing in our lives that I think it could just easily fall over into sex. It was really helpful to read about incestuous relationships and to know quite a lot about how that tends to happen, and yet it’s a very subtle part of the film. There are only one or two spots where it’s hinted at and I’m glad we didn’t over explain it because it does leave it a bit of a mystery, but it adds so much to the story. We Got This Covered: The great thing about Eric’s character was that he was so unpredictable at times. Was that something palpable on set and was he surprising you all a lot? Olivia Wilde: The creepiest thing about Eric is that he can be laughing and generally affable, and then a second later when they call “action” the most terrifying motherf**ker I’ve ever seen in my entire life! The first time when we were in the snow and it’s the scene where we are getting our stuff together before we separate, I looking at Eric and seeing him be Addison for the first time and being really chilled by it. I think the most terrifying villains are the really charming ones, and that’s what I loved so much about his performance. And yes you could sense it on set that the unpredictability was making it very electric. We Got This Covered: Did filming in the cold and snow create any technical challenges? Stefan Ruzowitzky: Yes. We were shooting in March and April and of course we were worried that we would be running out of snow at some point. And I learned that if we had shot the movie one year later it would have been a disaster because it was a mild winter and the snow was gone in March. So we’ve been lucky overall, and I think we had a so called snow budget for adding snow digitally or snow machines but the budget was limited in a way and I think that was a huge factor logistically and in every way.

The past few years have brought a lot success to English actor Charlie Hunnam, who stars in the hit FX series Sons Of Anarchy, which just wrapped its fifth and most successful season on Tuesday night. On top of the hit series, Hunnam has a new film in theatres titled Deadfall, where he stars alongside Eric Bana and Olivia Wilde. Oh, and he also has a major blockbuster coming up as he’ll be starring in Pacific Rim, which will arrive in 2013. As if that wasn’t enough for the rising star, Collider has revealed that Hunnam will make his directorial debut shortly with a screenplay he wrote and that the film will star his Sons Of Anarchy co-star Tommy Flanagan.

“I’m going to write is this film that I have for Tommy Flanagan that I want to direct for him to star in. We want to go and make that for a million bucks in Britain. Tommy is just amazing. I just think he’s phenomenal. Some of the work he did this season (on Sons of Anarchy) was just breathtaking.”

Hunnam has also revealed he has another four screenplays in development, one of which is about Vlad The Impaler, which Brad Pitt’s production company Plan B bought a few years back. Of the other three, we know that one of them is set up at Warner Bros. and Legendary and is the real life story of a Texan drug dealer. Hunnam spoke about the project, saying the following:

“It’s the true story of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, all-American Texas player who was dirt poor and grew up in Laredo. At eight or nine years old, he just had a total existential crisis. He looked around and was like, “This is shit! Where’s the intention? Everybody is just a slave to the social and economic demands of their life. Where’s the life here?” He said, “Fuck it! This is not going to be my life.” From eight to 17, he never smoked a cigarette, never drank a beer, never had a cup of coffee, and didn’t even look at a t. He had total discipline. He wanted to get himself a football scholarship, go to college, use his time at college to get an education, escape poverty and live a meaningful life. He got the football scholarship to an Ivy League school when he was 17. Ten days after he got the football scholarship, he got into an accident in his car and got charged with criminally negligent homicide because the other person died. He got sent to prison for two years, and he came out at 19 with all of that discipline and ion and hope for his future, and nowhere to put it. He said, “Fuck it! I’m going to start dealing drugs.” By the time he was 27, he was running the third biggest drug cartel in Mexico. It’s a fucking crazy story of the American dream gone wrong and the lengths that people will go to, to feel as though they’ve escaped the drudgery of everyday civilization.”

Hunnam states that he is unsure if he will be starring in the film but with the protagonist being described as “blonde-haired, blue eyed”, it would seem that the actor fits the physical profile. Plus, if Pacific Rim is successful, Warner Bros. and Legendary may realize that Hunnam is the perfect person to lead their next big project. No details on any of the other projects he has in development have been revealed but as always, we’ll keep you posted on more Charlie Hunnam news as it comes in.

Here I was thinking Kurt Sutter would ignore the painfully obvious Chekhov’s gun he introduced when Clay gifted his prized gun, handed down to him by his father, to Juice, the closest thing he has left to a son. I’ve never been happier to be dead wrong. Jax’s play to get the CIA off his back earlier in the season was impressive, but he and Sutter were clearly saving the best for last. When I saw Juice wrapping what looked to be the aforementioned gun and putting it in a side-compartment on one of the bikes, I thought nothing of it. If it were really important, he wouldn’t have had it happen so far in the background. Or so I thought, not realizing it was Sutter being subtle for once, not wanting to show his hand until the end when it came time for the big reveal. So when Jax took out Pope’s men, and let Tig take out Pope himself as revenge for his daughter’s murder, I took it to mean that Jax had lost his mind to his ego and blood-thirst much as Clay had. Even when Tig pointed out it was Clay’s gun, I remained blissfully unaware of what exactly Jax was up to. It wasn’t until Jax brought the sheriff into the fold and led him to the gun that it all began to coalesce in my mind. This was all to frame Clay and mark him for death, which Pope’s second in command was quick to guess, thus making me feel dumb for not getting it sooner. What this means is Jax is proving himself to be a chess-master of a president and that Clay has yet another death-sentence, yet one that he’s not likely to avoid knowing who it is that’s after him. Sure, Sutter could give him another bullshit reprieve, as he’s done it numerous times already, but I’d like to think he’s tired of that by now. There being no last-minute deus ex machina, as there was in last season’s finale, makes me optimistic that Sutter won’t go back on it this time. Then again, Clay’s death has been delayed until next season, so it could be a tease, like Jax going after Juice earlier in the season. To be honest, I have no idea which direction Sutter will end up going with this. All I know is I’m liking the direction he’s gone with it so far. He’s established Jax as something formidable and brought Clay to his knees, not just by framing him and getting a bounty put on his head, but also by shattering two illusions of his: that Gemma was his once again and that Juice was someone he could trust. What I’m not liking, on the other hand, is where he’s going with everything else. Firstly, Otto biting his own tongue off as his way of refusing to speak made absolutely no sense to me. He orchestrated the murder of that woman with the sole intent of punishing Tara, who gave him the murder weapon, and, by extension, Jax. Yet now he won’t make the statement necessary to incriminate her in all this? Could Jax have gotten to Otto and somehow made him do this? It wouldn’t be completely out of the realm of possibility, but it seems like quite a stretch. Otto would undoubtedly have been hard to get to, what with having had just brutally murdered someone. He also would’ve been hard to get through to. Most importantly, though, the showy way he went about it, throwing his severed and bloody tongue against the wall, suggests that this was all his own doing. Otto’s proven himself to be as lacking in subtlety as the man who portrays him, showrunner Kurt Sunner, and so his actions have his name written all over them. Which, again, doesn’t make a lick of sense. So the only explanation I can think of is that Sutter thought the episode needed more shock value and that this would certainly help with that. Viewers get an in-your-face visual, then they get tricked into thinking Tara’s in the clear with relation to Otto. Continue reading on the next page…

How else can I describe the second-to-last episode of Sons of Anarchy‘s fifth season other than with a single word: happenstance. “Darthy” was obviously meant to be a murky episode for all the show’s major players, Clay’s being stripped of his patch causing the club to tear apart at the seams, but I know Sutter didn’t intend for it to all play out in such a hard-to-swallow fashion. It all began last week when Bobby negotiated with Clay in order to save his life. In “Darthy” he explains to Jax what drove him to do that, talking about not wanting Jax to sprint headlong down the same path as Clay, but it never quite gels. Since the start, Bobby’s seen Jax as the golden boy of the club and has done his best to mentor him, to help him become the sort of president Clay never was. On that count, his actions make a certain amount of sense. He also knew, as he tells Jax, that they had no proof of Clay’s involvement with the Nomads. This was his way of convincing Clay to come forward, incriminating himself and thus saving them the trouble. But what was to stop him from going back on his promise? Clay was out of the room and thus would’ve been unaware of his betrayal until it came time for him to meet “Mr. Mayhem.” It would’ve taken Clay out of the picture permanently, something Bobby of seasons past wouldn’t exactly lobby against, especially if he knew what Bobby knows now. Lastly, it would’ve saved Jax from having to take matters into and put blood onto his own hands, what Bobby seemed to want to prevent. Why was it, then, that he stuck to the script he’d fed Clay, a move which he should’ve realized would be counter-intuitive? Jax is now set against him and teetering even nearer the territory once occupied by Clay. It says a lot about him as a character that I fell for the cheap baiting at the end, taking Tig’s comment about “it” being ready to shoot as a suggestion that Jax was about to put a bullet through Wendy’s endlessly yapping skull. Though what he actually ended up shooting her with was somehow worse. By pressing down on the plunger of that syringe, Jax robbed Wendy of everything she’d worked so hard to regain. Firstly, and most importantly, she’s now lost her ability to lobby for custody on the strength of her reform, it making her a better guardian in the eyes of the court than Jax. But there’s also the matter of her sobriety which is now most likely (pun intended) shot. No differently than a single drink can send a recovering alcoholic reeling back into old habits, this dose could very well make Wendy back into what Jax and Tara saw her as when she first started coming after Abel, a junkie. Rather than simply kill her, letting her die with a clear head, Jax has seen fit to ruin her life but let her go on living with little hope of regaining that life she’d worked so hard to rebuild for herself. One would find it hard to believe, but Clay suddenly looks almost virtuous when put alongside Jax. His past crimes are numerous and well-documented, but he’s not the same man who committed them. He outs himself as the one behind the home invasions, at Bobby’s bequest, takes his being booted out of the club as well as could be expected, only breaking down once and that when he was by himself, and wants merely what he’d been working towards all those years as president, “retiring” in essence with Gemma at his side. Continue reading on the next page…