Today's News: one more hero returns to the marvelous fold

MovieScene got it first (thanks to me) the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146577/daredevil_terug_bij_marvel

I can only say I'm pleased by this decision. So far Daredevil wasn't treated with the proper respect that should have been this devil's due at Fox. The 2003 Daredevil movie was mildly entertaining at best. And Elektra got it even worse, being a very eligible candidate for 'Worst Marvel Adaptation' yet, its lack of quality being a prime reason it didn't even get a Dutch theater release but was released straight to DVD. And even if Daredevil had stayed at Fox with that studio's intention of creating its own 'anti-Marvel' Marvel Universe, the character would have felt awkward between the other studio properties, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. You would have two seminal superhero teams... and this one blind guy stuck in the middle as a bonus. I couldn't see that working. Still, having him join forces with some of the superheroes belonging to those teams might have worked out: a Daredevil/Wolverine crossover could have been fascinating material. But now that 'the Man without Fear' has officially returned to Marvel, that's not gonna happen.

And considering the potential alternatives we are presented with now, that's not much of a loss. Marvel Studios can go ahead and reboot Daredevil properly, carefully planning his role in the bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe as they undoubtedly intend to do. And after all, why not? Even though Daredevil isn't exactly a mighty superhero powerhouse compared to the likes of Thor or the Hulk, he fits right in with the more down-to-earth kinda heroes like Black Widow or Hawkeye that were (mostly) done justice in The Avengers. Plus, he resides in New York, which is conveniently also the location of the Avengers' base of operations, so they would be bound to run into him sooner or later. And of course, Daredevil has had a stint running with the Avengers for quite some years in the comics with which it all began (even though that was much later in the run of the series). So there's plenty of reasons to start incorporating Daredevil into the larger context, somewhere in Marvel's Phase 3 (which probably won't start until 2016). But let's start with his own movie first of course, making us forget all about the Ben Affleck flick and proving to the audience that Daredevil can still be a compelling character in his own rights. And worry about Elektra later, please. For now, it's all speaking long term, since Marvel's Phase 2 has all been planned out already.

And speaking of Marvel Phase 2, it has begun this week with Iron Man 3 hitting theaters. I haven't had the chance yet to go and see it, but I did get to see the after-credits scene (which will save me from having to sit through the end credits with that horrible tune!). I think fans of either the Hulk or Mark Ruffalo will get a kick out of it, even though it's mostly for laughs and doesn't hint at a future Hulk movie for sure. Think The Avengers' shoarma scene, but with more dialogue. I laughed.

Today's News: there's a Storm coming

Look what came flying in from MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146510/eerste_foto_halle_berry_in_x-men:_days_of_future_past

Other than the intriguing (and far less sexy, which is appropriate for this darker story) new outfit for Storm, what interests me most at this point is Bryan Singer's blatant readyness to communicate with the X-fans. Whereas most directors and studios try to keep the amount of officially released information rather limited so as to entice moviegoers by their lack of knowing what it's actually all about (I'm talking to you, Star Trek Into Darkness!!), Singer happily continues to tweet bits and pieces like this. Of course, no major plot points are revealed so far - not that there'll be that many of those, since X-Men: Days of Future Past is said to follow the original Uncanny X-Men story line of the same name fairly closely - and any existing cast list on sites like IMDb will tell you X-veterans the likes of Halle Berry, Shawn Ashmore and Patrick Stewart are returning to the mutated fold with a vengeance, but still, it's good to see an established director like Singer taking some of his valuable time to personally relay news goodies like this to a fanboy world that's eager to see this new X-travaganza of his. Here's to hoping we'll get a decent update on Tyrion Lannister's Peter Dinklage's character and costume soon, though I'm guessing that might prove to be just a little too big a spoiler after all.

I'm kinda digging the new outfit. Cape seems a bit small though, but hey, there must be economic crises in bleak, near Apocalyptic alternate timelines too, eh?

Today's Review: Kid

Wrote this review for MovieScene the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146055/kid_-_recensie

So overall, an interesting concept, but not the best execution imaginable. It's a rather inaccessible and at turns downright dull film, but it's surprising to see the climax works as well as it does regardless. Does it help us better understand the inner mind of children after an intense trauma like the violent death of a parent? Not particularly. Does the plight of the main haracter(s) compel us enough to feel a sense of shock at the unpredictable conclusion of events? Apparently so. Considering we spent most of the time watching at people staring at each other in overly drawn out silent close-ups, Troch must have been doing something right after all. But that doesn't make for a fully satisfying cinematic experience.

Today's News: Fast 7 is a go

This just in from MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146359/fast_and_furious_7_krijgt_releasedatum

This is a trend Hollywood seems to appropriate more and more: they spread the word about a sequel just mere weeks before its predecessor hits theatres to boost awareness of that film in question. That way, they suggest they have real faith in the upcoming film - even if it turns out to be a total dud and the studio knew it all along - so everyone should go and see it to make sure the promised sequel will indeed happen (even if we do not yet know whether we want it to happen ourselves). Sometimes this backfires on the studios, as in the case of John Carter where such a tactic didn't pan out: the film flopped (sadly, since I happened to like it) and the sequel we were told in advance was sure to happen got canned after all. However, in this particular case Universal risks less, since Fast and Furious has already been established as a proven concept that continues to draw audiences because it delivers the simple goods spectators expect to see: fast cars, tough guys, pretty girls and mesmerizing highway stunts. Considering Fast Five did surprisingly well at the box office, Fast Six was a logical next step: interest is still very much alive and awreness is fairly fresh, so the studio took a minor gamble on announcing Fast Seven just before Fast Six arrives in theatres. Releasing such news via the lips of the main actor (Diesel) at a movie convention, instead of using a regular press release, shows the audience is rewarded directly for its loyalty by making the star promise his return directly to them to wow them once more. 'Do ut des', as the Romans once said with relation to their gods: I give if you give. As long as we go and pay to see the film, we'll get what we want, with the promise of a continuing fruitful relationship in the form of more of these fun action flicks down the road. Until one of these sequels turns out truly horrendous of course, and the deal is broken.

Do I want to see Fast Seven? I dunno, haven't seen Fast Six yet... However, I liked Fast Five more than I thought I would. Though, I got the feeling the story was about to be concluded for good in the upcoming installment of this franchise, all loose ends neatly tied up: hence the tagline 'all roads lead to this'. Apparently there's some more roads nobody knew about that lead to part seven. But hey, I should have known better, since Hollywood doesn't really care about loose ends: it just creates it own ends if needs be, and money is certainly such a need.

Today's News: more Star Trek Into Darkness stuff I'm not interested in

Recent news posted on MovieScene by me, myself and I:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146259/nieuwe_poster_en_tv-spot_star_trek_into_darkness

By now I doubt there's anyone I know that isn't aware of my contempt for the new Star Trek by J.J. Abrams. It's called "Star Trek", but it only bears the name, since in terms of content there's very little that is reminiscent to real Trek. Certainly not the social awareness, the politics, the science, the philosophy and all those other intelligent elements that made Star Trek into the beloved adult science fiction franchise it once was. Abrams' take on it is an overly bombastic and loud CGI-fest filled with lens flares and expensive visual effects to wow audiences (which is ever harder to accomplish, considering contemporary audiences are satiated by the possibilities of digital effects artistry), all the while ignoring what made Trek so special compared to the likes of Star Wars, which is downright science fantasy instead. In fact, Abrams' Trek was much more similar in tone and style to Star Wars than it was to real Trek, which is not so surprising, considering Abrams has never been a Trekkie but has been outed as an avid Star Wars fan on several occasions. Now that he is finally "moving up in the world", set to direct Star Wars Episode VII, I had hoped he would hand the Trek franchise over to someone who does actually care, but unfortunately that doesn'seem likely.

So why do I post news on a movie I have little hope for and would rather not see happen? Integrity. This was news and it had not been posted yet. I had the time to do so and nobody else was doing it. Plus, like it or not, I have some knowledge about this film and the people around it that might come in handy when posting bit of news like this. This will occasionally happen and I can either just accept it or whine about it 'till I look as green as an Orion slaver. I opted for the former. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one) after all. But I do not expect Abrams to understand such sentiments...

Today's bunch of mini-reviews

Great Expectations: ***/*****, or 6/10

Mike Newell's take on the classic novel by Charles Dickens. The elaborate visual look to the film suggests a director who has dabbled in big Hollywood pictures, correctly so with the likes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time on Newell's resumé. Despite his experience in big American movies, Great Expectations is decidedly British in tone, as it should be considering it's based on a British novel centered on a poor British boy getting involved in the affairs of wealthy British folk. Little Pip leads a normal harsh life in the lower class, struggling to make a living. He soon finds himself entranced by the eerie Ms. Havisham, a bat shit crazy lady who was betrayed by her bethrothed and since hates all men. The woman sets him up with her young but cold ward Estella with the purpose that he falls in love with her and she gets to break his heart, which kinda happens. Later in life Pip (now played by Jeremy Irvine) is invited to become a gentleman in London, learning the do's and don'ts of high society, courtesy of an unknown benefactor. He soon meets Estella again, now performed by the ravishing Holliday Grainger (of Borgias fame), but is dismayed to hear she is set to marry a not so likable other. Can Pip rescue his love from the clutches of the upperclass? Will he become a gentleman after all? What's the deal with Ms. Havisham and who is paying for his upbringing? Thanks to the lovely acting of the cast of Harry Potter notable veteran English actors, among them Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes and Robbie Coltrane, we are about to find out. And still, despite this solid cast with its impeccable performances and a grandiose detailed period look, Newell's Great Expectations just ends up being somewhat dull. Is it the fact the story has been done so often in years past (even South Park has done an episode around it)? Is it the dated story of social inequality and upperclass intrigue? Who's to say? Truth is, it's better not to foster too great an expectation beforehand, since you might end up disappointed, but it won't be the actors' or the production designer's fault. And don't expect any robot monkeys either.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters: ***/*****, or 6/10

This is not the fairy tale you heard as a kid, about two young siblings killing a witch in an oven. Well, that does happen, but this movie mostly focuses on the successful career of slaying witches those children made afterwards as they grew up. Thanks to Norse director Tommy Wirkola, who in his own country is noted for his 'Nazi zombie' flick Dead Snow, this new spin to the fairy tale ends up being a slick, action packed horror flick filled with many an over-the-top witch kill and creepy monstrous crones to match (good make-up effects there!). Hansel (Jeremy Renner doing what he always does, which is not so interesting) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton, always interesting!) scour the land as bounty hunters, often being hired to track and eliminate local witch infestations. Now, they must face the ultimate ordeal of converging black magic as a powerful witch leader (Famke Janssen) is determined to perform a dark ritual that would grant her great power to the ruin of all good things. As an added nuisance, she needs Gretel's blood to do the trick and Gretel doesn't agree with that decision. Soon the pair must fight off more witches than they ever did before, at the same time learning a new thing or two about the place of witches in the world and the fate of their parents they always thought abandoned them in the woods to die. A typical simple plot bereft of true narrative surprises, but a decent stage for nice hardcore action and a plethora of thrilling stunts. The movie delivers in those regards, and with a running time of just under 90 minutes doesn't overstay its welcome.

Oz: The Great and Powerful: ***/*****, or 7/10

Big budget semi-prequel to The Wizard of Oz (more so to the book than to the 1939 classic film, also for copyright reasons), directed by Sam Raimi who gets more family friendly than we've ever seen him before. Down-on-his-luck country magician Oz (James Franco) gets swept to the far away fantasy land of the same name via balloon and tornado where he is hailed as the saviour of the realm. Since it would make him king, earn him the love of several gorgeous woman (Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz, lucky bastard!) and provide him with a fabulous treasure, the greedy swindler all too eagerly accepts, despite the fact he's expected to kill a wicked witch (a lot of witches in Hollywood all of a sudden: I guess vampires are retro by now). Accompanied by several digital characters, Oz sets out to complete his task, which will cost him more effort than he initially considered. Even though our protagonist is basically a truly egomaniacal dick, the obligatory stereotypical moral lessons soon do their work (this is Disney after all) and all ends well with Oz being outed as a good man with his heart in the right place. This is not a movie you see for character development, but one you watch for visual thrills. Oz has never looked so ominously breathtaking, the Emerald City has never been greener and the Yellow Brick Road is just so dastardly yellow. Inhabited by a multitude of strange creatures (including terrifying flying baboons to scare the kids... in 3D!) and adorned with all manners of spectacular vistas, the technical aspect of the film is secure. In fact, it's underscored by a delightful nod to the classic film – they just couldn't ignore that one – as the film opens in black & white, in the original Academy frame ratio, up until the moment Oz meets Oz and we're colourblinded by contemporary digital possibilities in three dimensions. It works well enough, despite the story being largely 'been there, done that'. It's not Raimi's most original production, but there's great fun to be had for the whole family for a good two hours, as is Disney's goal in life.

Today's Review: Jurassic Park 3D, at last!

Fresh off MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146189/imagine_2013:_jurassic_park_3d_-_recensie

Needless to say this was the best moviegoing experience I had in twenty tears time. I have never felt both so old and so young at the same time. All the good experiences I had as a kid (and there have been many!) I relived, while simultaneously it dawned on me just what an impact this film has made on my life for two decades, most vigorously in the last eight years since I became a true die-hard JP collector. Despite having undergone a digital makeover, it is clear Jurassic Park has aged more gracefully than I could ever hope to do myself.

This anniversary celebration (though to be strict, for the Netherlands the exact mark would be September 30 of this year) also marks another milestone (possibly and quite probably) in my cinematic life, my first visit to EYE in Amsterdam. Much to anybody's surprise if they ask me what I think of the new Filmmuseum, I never actually went there until two nights ago. It took my all-time favourite film to persuade me the time was now, and I do not regret it. It's a wonderful building for sure. It works great as both a museum, which it strikingly appears to be in every conceivable facet - grotesque overly futuristic visual look, overuse of bare white walls, big dining facility, funky gift shop selling books, umbrellas and postcards (all overpriced), etc. - and as a genuine movie theater, housing several large theater rooms where one can sit in the dark and enjoy good cinema endlessly. It was kinda fun to see the actual theater looked in no way like the rest of the building on the inside, but more like any decent 'bioscope' theater. It was a pretty big theater at that, with a capacity of some 300 spectators I reckon. The show wasn't fully sold out (for shame!), but with at least 200 to 250 people still rather crowded. Thankfully all of them were pros when it came to watching films, so they behaved properly and sat quietly, undoubtedly as awestruck as I was myself. The 3D glasses were not my favorite model, being those pesky electronic, battery run devices, that are placed tightly around your head (cutting off some of the blood flow around the ears after a while) and are overly cumbersome in terms of weight: but they did their job adequately, and considering the nostalgia extravaganza I was undergoing I couldn't be bothered noticing them all that much, except of course where it concerned good use of 3D effects in the movie itself, which could be found surprisingly often. But for that I'll just let you read the review above. Here I'm just informing you of my first visit to EYE, which beyond the shadow of a doubt won't be limited to this single experience (though I doubt there will be any trips that can surpass or even equal it in quality).

The funniest thing about EYE I consider to be the restaurant, which completely lacks the feel of the rest of the building, except for that huge screen forever showing the movie that is the life and times of Amsterdam (I'm referring to the giant panoramic window over the IJ, for those of you who did not get the gist). Basically the restaurant is a separate entity inside EYE, a parasitic organism thriving on those audience members who feel the need to whet more than just their visual appetite. It's devoid of the stylistic touch of the rest of the building and has a menu to match, which one can use to order all kinds of stupendously fancy food, among them quails' egg pastries and other exotic dishes containing dead animals. The whole menu had an 'elite' feeling to it. Heck, even the butter for the free bread sidedish was some classy brand with a label that mentioned some ancient Duchess used its secret family recipe (now clearly open to all) only for royal occasions. Say what you will, it did have a sort of theatrical touch to it, as if you were in a movie yourself. Or maybe I just don't go out to restaurants enough. Sorry, I'm too busy going to the movies, and I did exactly that after finishing my plate of French Fries (they did have those too, but not on the menu, you had to ask for them specifically). After all, I came here to watch a film, my detour to the restaurant was only meant to satiate my appetite and to have a nice place to sit down and talk to my friend. I didn't go alone as you might have thought. Jurassic Park after all is far too good a film to watch alone, especially if you can watch it with someone else who thorougly appreciates its supreme quality. EYE sure delivered in that regard, as we both had the time of our lives. Again, after so many years.

It's ridiculous really: EYE's been open for over a year, yet I never bothered to cross the water and go there so far, despite the many classic movies they have exhibited there. Of course, none of those classics could ever be as classic for me on a personal level, but in hindsight I really should have made time for sweeping epics like Lawrence of Arabia or marvelous adventure flicks like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Oh well, JP 3D turned out such a great experience the ice has definitely been broken. Now if only they had more vacancies available so I might get the chance to get to know EYE on a truly professional level. And I don't mean serving quails' egg pastries...

Today's mini-reviews

Though my posting of news and reviews originally meant for MovieScene continues to advance my blog in terms of content, the posting of mini-reviews of recently seen movies is still somewhat lagging behind. I hope to catch up on it soon, so here's another batch of short critiques to fill that gap. There isn't that much more of these to come at the moment, but since I still watch new films every week, that might change if I don't get them all up faster. So no time to lose!

De Wederopstanding van een Klootzak: ****/*****, or 7/10

Probably one of the most originally titled Dutch films (official English title: The Resurrection of a Bastard), this cinematic adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name by original author Guido van Driel is both a visual feast and a character study of a small time crime boss (Yorick van Wageningen in one of his best roles yet) whose life is changed after a failed assassination attempt. Van Wageningen does an excellent job at playing both sides of Ronnie B., but the vile, 'bastard' side sticks with you the most. As violent and despicable as Ronnie used to be before – aspects of his character of which we get to see our fair share in flashbacks; we'll never forget the disturbing connection between eye balls and vacuum cleaners... – afterwards he's a peaceful, caring man, and has even seemed to be given the ability to see danger coming when he saves someone else's life. Tracking down his would-be killer (either for forgiveness or retribution, the movie doesn't provide a clear answer on that) to Dokkum, his destiny soon becomes intertwined with the locals, including an elderly couple who was once wronged by him and an African immigrant who means to make something of his life against all odds. As befits a graphic novel adaptation, Van Driel does not ignore the visual aspect, resulting in surprisingly impressive vistas of Friesland and Dokkum, as well as poetic shots of semi-sacred trees that play an integral part in the plot and the history of the town. Another good Dutch movie in the same year as De Ontmaagding van Eva van End, who would have guessed there is still so much talent in the Dutch film industry?

Lincoln: ****/*****, or 7/10

Another one of Steven Spielberg's historical dramas regarding American history, this time centered around the person of Abraham Lincoln at the time of the last year of the American Civil War, as he attempts to have the Thirteenth Amendment, which would mean the abolition of slavery, passed. Focusing less on the war and more on the battleground that is politics, Lincoln is not at all portrayed in the same saint like quality we have come to expect from Hollywood, but more as an insidiously pragmatic politician who's not afraid to engage in less cleaner tactics to achieve his goals. Wheeling and dealing his way through the House of Representatives to secure enough votes to make this historic change to the Consitution possible, the audience has to stay sharp to follow all the political intrigue and squabbling, which tends to dominate the picture a little too much at times. Though not the centrepiece of the film, the tragedy of the Civil War is not neglected, as we witness various dramatic scenes of carnage and human suffering on both sides. The problem Lincoln faces is whether to end this onslaught on his terms, freeing all the slaves simultaneously, or accepting the Confederate terms instead which would not reach that goal but would make for an easier restoration of the country. Going to enormous lengths to hide the Confederate offer, Lincoln and his closest advisors have to race against the clock to get the Amendment passed and persuade (or in some cases downright bribe) enough political adversaries to join their cause. At the same time, Abe has to contend with problems at home, as his son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) rebels against him in an attempt to join the army, much to his mother's (Sally Field) dismay. An excellent cast through and through: even the less noteworthy parts seem to be occupied by notable character actors only, but of course Daniel Day-Lewis utterly dominates the film in his all too human portrayal of the ill-fated American president. It got him another Oscar, well deserved as always, but not much of a surprise to anyone. Of the total of twelve Academy Award nominations, the film only took home one more statue for Best Production design: also very much earned, considering the fabulous, but raw and gritty, look of 1865 Washington and its political arena.

Last Stand, The: ***/*****, or 7/10

After playing small parts in The Expendables (2010) and its sequel, The Last Stand finally marks the definitive return of the Austrian Oak in a starring role – his first since 2003's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines – to the genre he helped define in prior decades. Sherrif Owens leads a quiet life in the small backward town of Sommerton Junction near the Mexican border, where not much ever happens except for the mayor parking his car in all the wrong places. Unfortunately for both the sherrif and his town, this peaceful situation is about to change drastically when a ruthless drug lord (delightfully wicked Eduardo Noriega) escapes police custody after a carefully planned and elaborately staged bust-out, racing to the Mexican border with a hostage with only Owens and his small staff of inexperienced deputies (some only present for poorly executed comic relief unfortunately) standing is his path. As we have come to expect from Schwarzenegger in whatever role, he doesn't take this kind of shit from anyone and prepares a warm welcome for the gangster boss and his band of merciless minions, who are armed to the teeth in an outrageous fashion and led by the maniacal Peter Stormare. He has little choice, considering the bumbling FBI agents (led by Forest Whitaker) are ever one step behind in catching up with the crook, so Arnie might as well do things all by himself once more. Korean director Jee-woon Kim shows he has an absolute blast with this typical plot, featuring various high speed chases and completely over-the-top action scenes, while also respecting Ahnuld's position in the genre and acknowledging his age in tongue-in-cheek dialogue. This movie is at no point meant to be taken too seriously, and people who don't can expect a fun, adrenaline rushed action flick with lots of big guns, fast cars and a few sexy dames thrown in. Schwarzenegger may be old but he's still got it where it counts.

Today's review: Kon-Tiki

 Here's another review I wrote for MovieScene the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145872/kon-tiki_-_recensie

Im pretty hapy with how this review turned out, as I am equally pleased with how the movie itself turned out. It was a blast to watch and to review, something I already anticipated considering its fascinating topic: a genuine mix between history and adventure on the high seas, with all kinds of adorable marine creatures to make us wonder. Of course, a bit of spectacle and theatrics has been added to the story to make it more of a true adrenaline rushed adventure flick at times. I don't mind, since no historically themed movie is fully 100% accurate. It's just not possible to make them like that, and as long as they aren't twisting the truth 180 degrees just for entertainment's sake - or worse, for nefarious ideological reasons-  slight alterations I deem to be acceptable. Except for J.J. Abrams' Star Trek of course.

Today's News: Marvel's Phase 2 sneak peek

Here's a news flash for ya:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145974/eerste_beelden_marvel_phase_2

As a comic book lover, I'm obviously very excited about these, though my enthusiasm for Guardians of the Galaxy remains restrained, considering I never really got into that cosmic stuff and none of these characters honestly appeal to me (especially Rocket Raccoon, which I think is just a lame JarJarBinksian concept). Plus, it just seems so out of whack with the rest of the current Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's good to see Marvel isn't afraid to explore other avenues from its 70+ years of comic books run than just the regular superhero stuff though, but I have yet to be convinced.
Thor: The Dark World looks pretty decent, as I expected it to be after Thor's first foray onto the big screen which turned out so well. Nice to know Natalie Portman is still onboard despite her near falling out with the studio over the departure of the original (female) director. Little vexation regarding Captain America: The Winter Soldier either, even though I understand this overly patriottic super soldier isn't everybody's cup of tea. I'm not all that high on the Falcon being a participant, though considering his long history with Cap (the pair shared a comic book series for a long time) his presence is far from surprising. His look is pretty slick (definitely Ultimate Universe inspired, which I can appreciate), but he remains a guy with metal wings on his back, which isn't a really fancy ability to say the last. Plus, his appearance in this particular Marvel movie might spell doom for an eventual (and quite often foretold) presence of the Vulture in a future Spider-Man movie. In the latter's case, again, not much of a loss for moviegoers.
Ant-Man: now that's something I look forward to! A tough nut to crack, considering his rather awkward powers: getting small, growing tall and communicating with ants. However, also a deeply flawed though brilliant personality (depending on which particular Ant-Man they will use, since there have been multiple over the years) with a plethora of human traits making him that much more identifiable. Wife beating, voyeurist activities, having people eaten by army ants: all in a day's work for the not quite so heroic Ant-Man! Coupled with capable, witty and stylistically intriguing director Edgar Wright (of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim v.s. the World fame), this might very well turn out to be the most delectable and off-beat character of the bunch. It could also suck bug balls big time of course, but let's keep a little optimism here, Wright certainly deserves it.

Make Mine Marvel Phase 2! Iron Man 3 gets to kick it off in three weeks, The Avengers 2 will finish it in a few more years (2015 probably).

Today's News: Finding Nemo 2 is happening for realsies

Look what the cat dragged in on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145938/finding_nemo_2_wordt_finding_dory

So Finding Nemo 2 at last has gotten a definite go. Too bad...

Don't get me wrong, I love Finding Nemo. In fact, I love it so much that I don't need a sequel to remind me why I love it so much ten years later. Fact is, Finding Dory is just another sad case of Pixar suffering from that most dreaded disease known as sequelitis grandis, a severe creative condition that causes a studio to regurgitate its own age old "excrements" and produce much less healthy appearing shit. For the longest time, Pixar seemed not to be swayed by this illness, unlike its competitors DreamWorks and Blue Sky, which produced more sequels than they did original projects. For a while, Pixar was the absolute pinnacle of originality and inspiredness in the department of computer animation, its only exception being Toy Story 2 and 3, which turned out surprisingly good against all odds. But now, the studio is drowning itself in recycling past glory. Like Ellen DeGeneres said regarding the prospect of doing more voice work for Dory: 'I’m not mad it took this long. I know the people at Pixar were busy creating ‘Toy Story 16’. One cannot help but sense an awkward bit of sarcasm in this quote, one that applies as much to Finding Nemo as it does to the Toy Story franchise. DeGeneres of course has little reason to complain since she can do what she likes again and gets payed for it. But what about the audience? Cars 2, Monsters University, Planes, Toy Story 4 and now Finding Nemo 2, where will it end? Is there no more place for unique stories any more at Pixar?
Then again, with Brave, Pixar's last original piece of work, it was already evident a quality decline had set in. All good things must come to an end, it's a natural law. It seems Pixar has stopped producing good things. Then again, maybe there's a few more miracles a la Toy Story 2 and 3 in the works...