Hermès to Tom Ford: Surveying ‘The Avengers’ Style

We know that Joss Whedon’s mega superhero blockbuster The Avengers scored the second largest opening ever and made $1 billion in 10 days for its kickass cast, witty dialogue and cohesive storyline, but what about the fashion, dahling? Costume designer Alexandra Byrne (of Thor, Elizabeth and Hamlet fame) did a stellar job providing each character with a unique swagger that never felt contrived or over-styled. Here, we round up some standout sartorial moments from the film—complete with designer name-drops.

The Men


Some of the film’s most statement-making fashion occurred when our superheroes were off-duty. Save for a dapper Hermès tie moment, Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is a rocker at heart. His signature is a vintage Black Sabbath T-shirt, which is a playful nod to the British heavy metal band’s song, aptly-titled "Iron Man." (For all the die-hards out there, I found a replica of the tee on eBay that’s going for an easy $17.75.) As Iron Man, RDJ sports a limited-edition titanium bracelet by Colanttote called the Magititan Neo Legend, which is available for $199 on the brand’s site (and is apparently flying off the shelves) here


Speaking of man jewelry, Samuel L. Jackson’s character Nick Fury also flashes some bling by wearing a timepiece from Swiss luxury watchmaker Piaget. Byrne hooked the S.H.I.E.L.D. leader up with the $35,000 Piaget Polo Chronograph, which features an 18k white gold case, silver dial and black alligator strap. About that leather trench coat: a few replicas of the European-designed number are still floating around the web.

As for the other main male characters, symbolism was used in lieu of designer threads: Mark Ruffalo’s Dr. Bruce Banner sports a purple button-up shirt to match his alter-ego The Hulk’s purple pants, and, as Clothes on Film points out, Chris Evans’ Steve Rogers dons ’40s-style pleated trousers and a leather bomber jacket with epaulettes in honor of his World War II veteran background.

The Women


Contrary to the male audience’s preference, Byrne downplays Scarlett Johannsson’s sexiness by cloaking her in sophisticated ensembles appropriate for her superspy character, Natasha Romanoff. Yes, there is still some curve hugging involved, but it’s all done tastefully, like when she rocks a Victoria Beckham-esq structured LBD with black tights and sensible slingbacks. As for her alter ego Black Widow’s notorious catsuit, Staci Layne Wilson of Yahoo! Movies explains, that Byrne wanted it to look more wetsuit than dominatrix to ensure that the clever character was never undermined by ScarJo’s lovely lady lumps.


Finally, there’s the ever-chic Pepper Potts, played once again by Gwyneth Paltrow. After proving her expensive taste in Iron Man (she rocked Ferragamo and Louis Vuitton), Potts’ style ranges from effortlessly cool in cutoffs and a white button-down to straight-up high fashion. Her standout moment is when she dons a strong-shouldered grey dress by none other than Tom Ford, which Paltrow saluted at the Oscars by wearing a Ford superhero-like dress in a similar cut. That detachable white cape makes complete sense now, doesn’t it?

Alexis Denisof on Reawakening the World of Shakespeare in Joss Whedon’s ‘Much Ado About Nothing’

When it comes to cinematic preferences, I lean toward the darker side, falling for films that make me ache—in the best way possible. More often than not, it’s the more haunting, dramatic features that evoke the physical reaction I so yearn for. But on occasion, a film comes along that’s so absolutely delightful, so pleasurable in every aspect that I cannot help but find myself in a state of utter glee, completely tickled with what’s happening before me on screen. It’s a rare occurrence, but with Joss Whedon’s contemporary retelling of William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, I found myself transfixed in the allure of his black-and-white world. 

Playing out as a love letter to Shakespeare’s comedic tale of a merry war betwixt two lovers, Much Ado is brimming with charisma and sensual thrill. You don’t need to be a scholar of the bard to find yourself captivated by the story, with its silky smooth and velvety jazz-filled atmosphere, you’re eased into the film in a way that’s far from intimidating. Whedon infuses a conversational style to the story that makes it more accessible than any other Shakespearean re-workings in recent memory, adding to a charm that’s heightened by its phenomenal cast of characters. 
Filmed in his own home in Los Angeles, for the director best known for hit shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, or Hollywood blockbusters like The Avengers, Much Ado was a welcome surprise. The comedy feels like a breath of fresh air, a respite from major studio pictures that allows Whedon the freedom to let loose with a rapturous mix of refinement and playfulness. Much Ado may seem minimalistic in its production style, but that speaks nothing of the beauty with which it was shot and the wonderfully nuanced performances by its sprawling cast. 
Peppered with members of Whedon’s world, from Nathan Fillion and Clark Gregg to Reed Diamond and Fran Kranz, the film stars Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof as its main pair of lovers, Beatrice and Benedick. With an instant and palpable chemistry between the two, we see them verbally spar their way into love in the tale that goes as follows:
Leonato, the governor of Messina, is visited by his friend Don Pedro who is returning from a victorious campaign against his rebellious brother Don John. Accompanying Don Pedro are two of his officers: Benedick and Claudio. While in Messina, Claudio falls for Leonato’s daughter Hero, while Benedick verbally spars with Beatrice, the governor’s niece. The budding love between Claudio and Hero prompts Don Pedro to arrange with Leonato for a marriage.In the days leading up to the ceremony, Don Pedro, with the help of Leonato, Claudio and Hero, attempts to sport with Benedick and Beatrice in an effort to trick the two into falling in love. Meanwhile, the villainous Don John, with the help of his allies: Conrade and Borachio, plots against the happy couple, using his own form of trickery to try to destroy the marriage before it begins.A series of comic and tragic events continue to keep the two couples from truly finding happiness, but then again perhaps love may prevail.
No stranger to Shakespearean text, actor Alexis Denisof takes on the role of Benedick with a mix of humor and sensitivity. Beloved for his roles on Buffy, Angel, and Dollhouse, here we see a new side to Denisof that’s as endearing as it is hilarious to watch. So with the film’s premiere this Friday, I got the chance to speak with him about stepping into his leading role, his natural chemistry with Amy Acker, and the passion behind the picture.
You’ve been traveling around a lot with the film, bringing it to different festivals and premieres. I imagine this is a pretty amazing group of people to be doing this with.
It’s very true. We are genuinely friends, so it didn’t feel like work when we were making it and it doesn’t feel like work when we’re promoting it. All of it has been a huge amount of fun and that’s the best kind of work there is. If you can make it fun, then it doesn’t feel like work.

I absolutely loved the film. I can’t remember another recent film where I found myself just grinning the entire time.
Oh good, that’s a perfect way to say it.

What I loved about it was that it felt like a very indie 1990s chamber comedy, like The Anniversary Party, with Shakespeare as the vernacular. The combination of those two things is probably my ideal film.
Yeah, that’s very well put. I’ve seen it a few times now and each time I get a slightly different feel and I see more of the references that Joss is inserting here and there. I love how it all pulls together even though it’s 400 year old language, two-year-old suits and ties, mid-century black-and-white, and cool jazz.

The jazz was a great element and gave it that extra bit of play.
And yet somehow it all pulls together into one experience that just flies by. I normally find it difficult to watch films or television shows that I’m in because I pick them apart, but with this one, I just get carried away and remember how much fun we had making it . I think almost all of that fun is on the screen.

As someone who loves Shakespeare it was obviously enjoyable, but what’s great with this is that it feels much more accessible than a lot of other adaptations of the work.
I agree. If you love Shakespeare and you’ve seen Shakespeare, I think you’ll go to this movie surprised and delighted at this fresh interpretation. I think people will watch this movie and feel good that you understood it and enjoyed it. It’s accessible and it’s fun and hip and sexy and cool, and it’s very hard not to like it. The movie is not trying to scare you off or make a statement about Shakespeare or become a polemic about the Bard, it’s just these people brought to life in a way that the directors and actors felt were right for them and creating a world that we believed in. And we tried to make it fast and fun.

How did you find yourself cast in the role of Benedick? You’ve worked with Joss in the past.
I have been fortunate to collaborate with him quite a few times over the years. Before Much Ado, the last time was on The Avengers, in which I had a small part. So I saw him in the middle of shooting that huge movie and when we wrapped principal photography, I got a call at home asking where was I and if he could come see me. I told him he could come over right now and I hung up the phone and said to my wife, "Oh dear, I think he’s coming to tell me that the footage we shot of me in The Avengers was terrible and they need to recast and reshoot, and wants to break the news in person." And she told me to relax and see what he wanted to say. So it was a double surprise when he arrived and plucked the script for Much Ado out of his pocket and said, "So I’ve got a couple weeks off and my wife has suggested that instead of the European vacation we planned, that we shoot Much Ado at my house. It starts in three weeks and we have twelve days to shoot it." I said yes before he’d even finished the question, and thankfully didn’t have enough time to freak out. A couple weeks isn’t much time time to prep for that kind of role, and 12 days is certainly not a lot of time to shoot that kind of film, but everybody involved has worked with each other either directly or knew each other socially, and we had pretty much all worked with Joss, so we had a rapport and could work quickly with each other— that was a key element. And most of us participated in casual Shakespeare readings at Joss’s house just for fun from time to time, so that created a springboard as well and all that conspired along with Joss’s extraordinary vision for the film. 

Did he say right away that he wanted you for Benedick? 
He did. When he first proposed it, he said that he was thinking me for Benedick and Amy for Beatrice—for me, that’s the holy trinity: Joss, Amy Acker, and myself. I couldn’t be happier than when I’m working with those people. We just have a very special chemistry, the three of us, and it’s always challenging and exciting. We feel relaxed and free to play. If you really boil it down, whether it’s comic or tragic, it’s all play in this movie-making, television, or theater business—it’s complicated versions of playing and I think Joss and Amy and I play well together. 

The scenes between you and Amy were certainly my favorite, whether it was a dramatic moment or the many moments of comedy, you two have such a wonderful chemistry together that was befitting of your characters.
I do appreciate it and I want to speak frankly about my feelings about it, but at the same time, I’m not trying to give myself compliments. I agree, I feel we have a chemistry but it’s up to everybody else to agree that the chemistry is working. I feel like in this case we hit on something special.

The film was shot at Joss’ house and on a very small scale, yet it still felt so polished and the cinematography was beautiful.
Yeah, if you were just told about a black-and-white movie shot in 12 days at his house, you would immediately think it sounds down and dirty and it’s going to look down and dirty and be all that shaky camera kind of hand-held flip cam style of shooting that’s become in vogue—but it’s not that. It’s very luxurious to look at and very sensuous and sexy, and I think the black and white lets you ease into it comfortably, and the language is not intimidating. Anybody that has spoken to me about the movie, all of them have said, "It’s so strange, after a couple of minutes I didn’t realize it was Shakespeare anymore, I understood what people were saying." So it is beautiful to look at, and I knew Joss had fallen truly in love with this movie when he told me that he was composing the score. Once he starts to hear music when he’s working on something, then it means his heart is in it, it’s taken him over. By the time he was in editing and post-production, he was having to do that on his own free time from post-production of The Avengers. So that meant occasional late nights during the week and occasional late hours on the weekend on his laptop and yet, that’s the kind of talent he is: from the moment he conceived his vision of this movie, to the final note on the bass and treble clef that he wrote, it was one fully-realized vision that was slow and extremely challenging, but nevertheless beautifully extracted from him.

My first thought when hearing about the film was that doing something like this so passionately in such a short amount of time, and so cheaply, it must have been a wonderful revitalizing breath of fresh air for him.
You don’t have to know anything about movies to conceive what it must be like to shoot a $200 million movie. It’s just painstaking minutia, thousands of decisions, and many, many people involved in every aspect of the film. So a movie like The Avengers is a military operation, and I think he wanted to go back to grass roots and let things fly a little and get back to that feeling of being in a rip-roaring collaboration with people that he loved to work with and just see what happens. So with low or no expectations—which was what we all had—you’re free really to do whatever and that’s one of many strengths of Joss as a director: he creates an atmosphere in which you feel absolutely safe and free. I think that’s a perfect balance when you’re in a creative process—safety and freedom.

With such short time shooting and in prep, did you and Amy have a chance to rehearse a lot together, or did your relationship develop more on set?
The rehearsals were grab them when you can. Amy and I called each other immediately after Joss dropped this bombshell and said, "How soon can you get together?" And the three of us would meet whenever possible before shooting began, and Amy and I would work on things ourselves and bring Joss in when we could, or he would pull us aside when he could. That was a process, and that continued throughout the shooting. If we were in a lightning turn around, we would walk off and take a look at things and map them out. And of course it’s his house, so he has the advantage of knowing every nook and cranny and has total comfort in the space, in terms of what it is and what it can do. And while shooting in a real location confines the cast and crew into small spaces—which a film stage doesn’t—a real house gives you that authenticity that supports what you’re doing. There’s something about real walls as opposed to flimsy painted canvas walls that give you reassurance, and if I open the fridge in the kitchen there’s actually milk and eggs and the kid’s lunch because it’s his house. All of that lent itself to the movie.

And just as a play, Much Ado offers itself so well to physical comedy, and with something like this where you’re able to see small details closer than you would on a stage, you were able to play more with that and it really added to the entire film.
That’s a good point. Joss wanted to have a feel of live theater in this to some degree, but at the same time, because it’s film and there’s a camera, you can direct the eye more than you can in a theater. He took long takes when he could and shot things a little bit wider so that you could see everybody that was in the scene in the room. That pulls the audience into the room, and if it’s a party scene you really are in the party, and if it’s a love scene, you’re comfortably close to the lovers. This film is as close to merging film and live theater as anything I’ve seen successfully. Of course if you were just to put a camera on sticks and shoot a theatrical performance, it’s very tedious, it just doesn’t translate and it rarely works. You’ve got to get the cameras in closer and you’ve got to have cut-aways and close-ups —you just have to because the screen is a different visual medium. Somehow this is a successful merger of the two.

I feel like so many Shakespearean adaptations nowadays are either the very grand, romantic Kenneth Branagh-type pictures, or the more veiled, contemporary re-imagining of the text. This, to me, felt like the perfect merger of both those worlds.
I would agree with that. We were certainly not attempting something highbrow and sophisticated, this was not a reproduction of Elizabethan theater, and we’re not attempting to present poetry to people. We wanted to get under the skins of these charters, and bring them to life, and find a journey through these relationships, and bring a real contemporary authenticity to it, but still respecting the fact that this was written 400 plus years ago. Some of it is very poetic, but we wanted to let the audience find that poetry rather than present it to them. So it’s very conversational and we took a very relaxed approach with the language. I think the roots go back to the readings at Joss’ house where we would have fun with plays and you could do whatever you want and weren’t’ necessarily cast in a role that you would ever play—but who cares, it was a reading and a glass of wine.

Did those readings happen often?
Well, they were in a nice groove during the Buffy and Angel days when Joss was on a TV schedule. Now that the shape of his career has changed and there’s much more of a movie schedule to his life, it’s been difficult to get together and read the plays as of late. But it’s always a possibility and they’re always spontaneous. He’ll think of it on a Wednesday and call a bunch of people, then email a bunch of people on Thursday, and if enough people say yes, then he sends out a list of parts on Friday or Saturday, and then you show up on Sunday and read the play. I know it’s not everybody’s idea of fun…

Are you kidding? I can’t think of a better way to spend an evening.
Well, clearly you would find this great, and for people who have an interest in the plays, it is fun. I think what this movie has done is take the fun that we all have in the reading of the plays and brought it to life in a very vivid way. We’ve committed to it whole-heartedly here, so now with this movie, you could like the plays or not like the plays, the movie stands on its own as the story—a complex story about two pairs of lovers clearly meant for each other but instead are quarreling and resisting each other. The other pair are on the opposite end of the spectrum and are models for Romeo and Juliet and the whole cosmopolitan political world in which they’re set, and all of the wonderful characters that weave through the whole story. The bottom line with this movie is that it’s an indie. There’s no big studio behind this, we want to get it out to people, and we’re lucky that LionsGate picked it up and people will get a chance to see it. But it’s only people like you and people who tell their friends about it that creates the demand that will give it a shot to get out to a broader audience.

[More by Hillary Weston; Follow Hillary on Twitter]

Is ‘Iron Man 3’ Just ‘The Avengers 2?’

Don’t let the beard and social deficit fool you – I’m actually not all that into superhero movies, unless I’m seeing one to win a bet with my friend about how bad it will be (Jesse, you still owe me for Watchmen). But the Iron Man franchise, deftly done by Robert Downey Jr., Jon Favreau and others, is a nice exception. They’re breezy pop films with humor and heart and little Christopher Nolan bombast. All the same,  Iron Man 3 suffers one notable hiccup.

It’s not the script or direction by Shane Black of Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, though I am starting to think the man can’t write a movie that doesn’t take place over Christmas. Nor is it the villains – and the twist on Ben Kingsley’s role that is so good you have to be glad the trailers didn’t spoil it. Even the 140-minute run time didn’t cause scenes to drag very much. The only issue with it is: all the characters keep talking about the events of The Avengers

Look, I get it: you want to have this immersive Marvel world where none of the blockbusters contradict each other. It’s a noble idea, but it just doesn’t work in a field where characters are rebooted every six years regardless. Iron Man 3 does an okay job of wittily conveying the nature and consequences of what happened “in New York” for those who don’t know, but when you begin to build on The Avengers – which itself builds on Thor – you lose out to the comic book geek’s idea of overnetworked narrative when you might have done something a bit looser, which is what Iron Man has always been about. 

Follow Miles on Twitter here

‘Avengers’ LEGOs Do The ‘Harlem Shake’

"Harlem Shake" videos know no bounds: even children’s toys are not immune.


Here’s an animated video by SpastikChuwawa of LEGOs of The Avengers characters doing a Harlem Shake video.

We’ve got Hulk tossing Loki in the air, Captain America missing out on the fun, and Black Widow, Thor and Iron Man are shaking their little plastic thangs. 

It’s not quite as good as Michael Jackson dance moves recreated in LEGOs. Or the Grumpy Cat "Harlem Shake" video. But then again, what is? 

Contact the author of this post at Jessica.Wakeman@Gmail.com. Follow me on Twitter.

Joss Whedon Was Going to Start ‘The Avengers’ Very Differently

This has been a summer of superheroes, from a decidedly likable Spider-Man reboot to The Dark Knight Rises to the headliner-packed Marvel extravaganza that was The Avengers. Although the latter won’t be released on DVD until the end of September, you can reignite the Marvel fanatic flame now with Joss Whedon’s alternate opening to the film, which surfaced today.

Instead of the comic-book-fantastical, Tom Hiddleston-packed actual opening of the film, in which Loki meets with the other for some shady dealings, the original plan was a lot more subdued and kind of depressing. As the city smoulders, the S.H.I.E.L.D. team interrogates Robin Scherbatsky… erm, Agent Maria Hill… and she says some unflattering things about Nick Fury. Watch below. 

Let’s Talk About Sexism in Movie Reviews, You Guys!

A few weeks ago, Lola Versus was released in theaters and received mediocre reviews. It’s really a shame, because I thought it was quite good! Sadly, a lot of (mostly male) critics did not, and a lot of them did what many male critics do: they compared it to other things about young women. You see? This thing about a woman is just like that thing about a woman, because those two things are about women! UGH, dumb women, always trying to get men to watch chick flicks and shit. Why do they keep making them anyway? Ugh, because they are dumb, I guess. 

Obviously that is not how I feel, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a review of Lola Versus that would openly call all women dumb. Having said that, let’s hop back into our internet time machines and go back to a place just a few weeks ago!

On The Hairpin, writer Jessica Hopper wrote about seeing Lola Versus to check out if the movie was actually not good or if the negative reviews were actually kind of sexist. She is a woman, and you know how they are—she kind of liked it! And she also found an unfortunate trend among the reviews of the film!

The Lola Versus folks may not be able to correlate their lagging box office directly to the bad-to-awful reviews that they got from mostly male critics, who gave it a collective HELLS NAW and did some deep shitting upon the little film, but the facts of a critical gender split on the movie remain: of the 64 Google-able reviews of the film that were written by men, 65% of them were negative. In comparison, of the 39 reviews by women, 79% of them were positive. The unifying theme of the critique? There can be only one show/movie with a quirky single lady having questionable break-up sex in New York, U.S.A. — and that show is Girls.

A quick stroll through some of the notable negative review finds consensus — once we have seenGirls, we should be sated. Lena Dunham, uber alles.

“This is the kind of cutely alienated indie relationship comedy that Lena Dunham’s HBO series Girlshas made irrelevant.” – Entertainment Weekly

"Lola Versus" deserves the bulk of the ire being misdirected at the new HBO series "Girls."  – Indie Wire

“It’s all like an extended episode of “Girls,” minus that series’ self-lacerating sense of humor." – New York Film Critics Circle

“I’m sorry, but in the season of  “Girls” a secondhand, sentimental sex comedy, however well-meaning, is not going to cut it.” – So sayeth an uncharacteristically sharp A.O. Scott of the New York Times.

“You’re better off with HBO’s “Girls” if you want a sharper and more fulfilling take on the 20-something female experience in New York.” – The Playlist

Wait, facts and statistics and numbers? I thought girls were bad at math? Anyway, I think what we have learned here is that Lena Dunham is a bad feminist because she is TOO SMART AND GOOD and has ruined it for the rest of the women who want to create art about being women. Case closed!

OH NO, but wait! I am only kidding, because not only is Lena Dunham smart and talented, but so are a lot of other writers, like, for example, Zoe Lister-Jones, who co-wrote Lola Versus before Girls premiered on HBO. In fact, I saw Lola Verses months before I first watched Girls, and other than the fact that both the film and the TV show depict a young woman living in New York City, I found them to be very different! Am I the only one? 

That’s a rhetorical question, obviously. But here is one that is not rhetorical: Why the fuck is there another Spider-Man movie? For that matter, why are we going to have The Dark Knight Rises? And what the hell was up with The Avengers—hadn’t we already seen those characters before? And why, please God, WHY, are all of these movies getting good reviews? Is it because they are, like, works of art? No, they are about adult men wearing spandex and shooting shit at other adult men wearing spandex! The sort of feeling I’m getting is: It is OK for there to be a million movies about dudes blowing shit up, but, nope, no more comedies about young women in their twenties because we already have Girls. And also, women need to stop trying to be funny because Bridesmaids showed that they can make jokes and poop in streets just like dudes can, so it’s time for the ladies just to chilllllll with their feelings and stuff because it’s summertime and that means it’s time for the men to finally wear the tights. 

Luke Hemsworth is the Lesser-Known, Hottest Hemsworth

They’re the Australian version of the Barrymores (I guess?): Chris and Liam Hemsworth, those hotties from down under who have starred in two of the biggest movies this year—Chris in The Avengers and Liam in The Hunger Games. But did you know they have an older brother? And he is also hot? Ladies and gentlemen, meet Luke Hemsworth.

Luke Hemsworth is also an actor, appearing on Aussie soap Neighbours and most recently in the miniseries Bikie Wars: Brothers in Arms, although he has taken a bit of a hiatus from to focus on his family. Entertainment Weekly has a pretty fluffy interview with the eldest Hemsworth in which they mostly ask about his more famous brothers. Like, in a way that is actually kind of embarrassing? Take a look:

Did you keep in touch with Chris when he first moved out to Los Angeles?
We were definitely in contact for a lot of that time. Chris had some funny stories living in the back of [his manager’s] house, the guest house there, and becoming a bit of an unofficial nanny with his kids. He sort of had a bit of a trial-by-fire there as well. He called me up a few times and said, “What do I do?” And once again, I’d just lead him in the wrong direction.

Wasn’t your character on Neighbours an ex-surfer who became a paraplegic?
No, that was Liam! (laughs) Liam was in a wheelchair.

Well this is embarrassing. I mixed up my Hemsworths! Tell me about your character.
I was a footballer, and I was actually a drug dealer on the show, like a dealer of growth hormones. It’s funny, because I played football as a kid—Australian rules football—for ten years, and one of my nicknames was Roids.

Be honest. Did you ever do them?
No! (laughs) I never had to. I was all ridiculously oversized calves and thighs and biceps and head. My head is massive. My head is like off the charts.

"LOL whoops I am terrible at interviewing actors!" is basically what I got out of this Q&A. Because, come on—let’s just not even comment on the fact that the person interviewing Liam Hemsworth screwed up and got him confused with his brother, but he also asked him a ridiculous question like, "Do you still speak to your brother after he left your country and came to ours? I don’t know how email or phones work. Y’all got those in the Outback? Like, with your bloomin’ onions?" But this is probably the most offensive exchange:

Have you met Liam’s fiancé, Miley Cyrus?
Yeah, she’s great. She loves our kids, and our kids absolutely love her. She won our hearts. I find her really interesting. I find her very articulate, and years in maturity above her age. But at the same time, she’s very much like Liam. I think a lot of people don’t realize that they are really, really in love. They actually are a perfect match in a lot of ways.

Poor Luke Hemsworth. He’s the least famous actor in his family, his younger brothers get more attention than him, and all he wants to do is do an interview in which he talks about his own career and some dumb-dumb at what is basically turned into a tabloid is asking him about his brother’s upcoming marriage to Miley Cyrus. How dreadful! Why the hell didn’t this interviewer ask things like, "How did you get so hot?" and "How come your brothers are more famous than you and you’re the hot one?" and "Is it nice to be the Hemsworth who looks like a real grown-up man?" and "What is the Australian version of ‘corn fed,’ because that is what you are and it’s really working on me." Basically, I’m saying that Liam Hemsworth’s publicist should reach out to me because I have some things I need to ask him.

‘Snow White’ Tops Friday Box Office

Even though its domestical haul now puts it behind only Avatar and Titanic on the all-time gross revenues list, The Avengers was no match for newcomer Snow White and the Huntsman on Friday at the U.S. box office.

Snow White raked in $20.3 million last night–higher than studio execs had predicted for the Charlize Theron and Kristen Stewart-starring flick–good for first place and a likely weekend total of about $55 million. Last week’s champ, Men in Black 3, slipped to second place with $8.1 million, and as previously mentioned, mega-blockbuster The Avengers finished in third with $5.6 million.

Courtesy Nikki Finke at Deadline, here’s how things are likely to shape up this weekend:

1. Snow White And The Huntsman (Universal) NEW [3,773 Theaters]
Friday $20.3M, Weekend $55.8M, International $39.3M

2. Men In Black 3 (Columbia/Sony) Week 2 [4,248 Theaters]
Friday $8.1M (-54%), Weekend $29M, Cume $112M

3. The Avengers (Marvels/Disney) Week 5 [3,670 Theaters]
Friday $5.6M, Weekend $19M, Cume $541.5M

4. What To Expect When… (Warner Bros) Week 3 [2,907 Theaters]
Friday $1.4M, Weekend $4.8M, Cume $31.1M

5. The Dictator (Paramount) Week 3 [2,649 Theaters]
Friday $1.4M, Weekend $5M, Cume $51.1M

6. Battleship (Universal) Week 3 [3,144 Theaters]
Friday $1.3M, Weekend $4.9M, Cume $55.2M

7. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (Fox Searchlight) Week 5 [1,294 Theaters]
Friday $1.2M, Weekend $4.8M, Cume $25.7M

8. Dark Shadows (Warner Bros) Week 4 [3,002 Theaters]
Friday $1.0M, Weekend $3.6M, Cume $70.6M

9. Chernobyl Diaries (Alcon/Warner Bros) Week 2 [2,433 Theaters]
Friday $1.0M (-70%), Weekend $2.8M, Cume $14.2M

10. For Greater Glory (Arc Entertainment) NEW [575 Theaters]
Friday $585K, Weekend $1.5M

What movie are you excited to see this weekend?

Inside ‘The Avengers’: Ten Things You Might Have Missed

If you didn’t see The Avengers in its opening weekend, you might have been the only one: the superhero mash-up scored the biggest opening weekend ever with an estimated $200.3 million in its first three days. The story of Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk and co. trying to save the world from an evil alien army is a smashing crowd-pleaser, complete with big explosions, confusing scientific jargon and winks toward the Marvel diehards.

While the whizz-bang special effects and snappy screenplay of The Avengers have lit up many a multiplex in its opening weekend, a few of the most interesting cameos, voiceovers and general nuances may have slipped by its millions of onlookers. Check out these 10 fun facts about The Avengers—WARNING: major spoilers ahead!

Read the full story at VIBE.com