Today's News: catching up with lots of trailers

Not done just yet with the news of last week. Let's get that out of the way fast, since this week's news begs attention as well.

Titel eerste Star Wars solofilm bekend

I suppose this was last week's bit of 'breaking news' (insert exclamation mark or two). Even though the Star Wars spin-off films aren't nearly as hugely anticipated as the upcoming Episodes proper, they're still Star Wars movies. The title of the first solo feature, as directed by Monsters Man Gareth Edwards, is now revealed to be Rogue One. Still no plot synopsis, but if the name is any indication, it will undoubtedly involve the famous Rogue Squadron pilots, of which Luke Skywalker was once a member in the Rebel Alliance, before his status as a Jedi Knight took precedence. Rogue One is generally the call sign of the X-Wing Squadron's leader, so could it be about that? With Felicity Jones as the protagonist, will she play a tough female fighter pilot kicking some Imperial ass all over that galaxy far, far away? Sounds a bit like Starbuck on Battlestar Galactica, but hey, that show took a hint or two from Star Wars itself. Maybe the title is simply a huge misdirect and the movie will actually be about something entirely different. Could be, considering the persistence of those bounty hunter plot rumours. But maybe they keep on popping up because people want a bounty hunter movie, as nearly everyone had hoped this first solo feature to be a Boba Fett flick. Doesn't mean that project is off the table if Rogue One is really about Rogue's pilots, since this certainly won't be the last Star Wars spin-off. From the talented Edwards, I'll take any Force filled Fighter fest I can get, rather than facing the inevitable letdown that's gonna be Abrams' Episode VII...

Nieuwe trailer San Andreas

Speaking of letdowns and things resembling other things, this trailer just screams 2012. The plot looks very much like that of Earthquake, except with one main character rather than multiple. I just can't understand why this hugely expensive project was greenlit so soon after 2012's release. Do studio execs really think Dwayne Johnson's presence and lots of visual effects are enough to entice audiences to go see it in theaters? Though I like rampant destruction as much as the next man, to my mind there simply seems little appeal to this film. The devastation scenes are gonna be fun at best, but never original or inspired, while the rest of it just seems utterly dull. Maybe someone in Hollywood knows something the general audience doesn't at this point, and the long expected big bang is finally imminent on the American West-Coast. A big earthquake with lots of property damage and huge numbers of fatalities won't be fun, but would make the film a hot current event at least. But other than that, I can only see this movie being shattered and crushed by the success of others at the box office.

Nieuwe trailer Inside Out

In terms of originality and box office success, I have more hope for this film, Pixar's latest. First of all, it has the Pixar name going for it. It may have taken a dent or two lately because of the lack of inspired projects, but it's still strong enough to stand out amidst a crowd of animation competitors. Second of all, the plot seems much more thoughtful than in the case of most animated features of late, and finally hails another Pixar original rather than a dreaded sequel or spin-off. Lastly, considering the success of characters like the Smurfs and the Minions, clearly colour coded little entities with distinctly different personalities are sure to appeal to kids everywhere en masse, so positive box office results are more or less guaranteed. The only thing in that regard I would have done differently is push the release date back a few more weeks, to stay clear more of the Minions movie and avoid animation competition, but otherwise Inside Out will do just fine. Will it be on the same creative level as the Pixar greats of the previous decade? I dare not speculate. It sure has a unique premise it seems, but whether it will connect to audiences without degenerating into a mindfuck? Probably, but certainly not a given as of yet.

Eerste trailer Hotel Transylvania 2

And here's a less original animated feature for you. An unavoidable sequel from a lesser studio, it's hard to deny. Doesn't mean it will be bad, per se. After all, everybody loves monsters, animated or otherwise. The success of the first film clearly established that, otherwise this sequel would not exist. So far, Hotel Transylvania seems to stick to relatable events, family squabbles and such. No creatures secretly controlling our minds, evil characters hellbent on taking over the world, or other grandiose plot points in this franchise. The plethora of strange and spooky creatures ensures the visual impact needed, while the plot keeps it much more down to Earth. Dracula's daughter has married an outsider (an everyday human) and spawned a halfbreed kid, and now his family, including his overly oldfashioned and conservative father, must learn to cope with current events. Hardly an unrecognizable problem. Just with unusual characters, vampires and werewolves and stuff. I like that notion of turning things upside down. Hopefully Hotel Transylvania 2 will acknowledge the potential of this emotional plot and not let the monstrous take priority over the human aspect.

Meer character posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

Speaking of inhuman characters, here's two of them. Mutants really, though that term is taboo in Marvel Studios's canon. Obviously the new Avengers were the last ones to get their own character posters, since the studio considers the popular returning characters the big audience draw, while these two still have to prove themselves. Quicksilver already turned out a great character in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but that of course wasn't 'Marvel's' Quicksilver. It's gonna be a challenge starting from scratch with the same powers and adding a distinct separate personality on the same creatively enjoyable level. Hopefully the sibling relationship with Scarlet Witch is utilized to maximum effect to make this Quicksilver a decidedly different and original take on the same character. Considering the simultaneous release of these character posters, it seems to be what Marvel is aiming for. After all, they could have mixed things up and paired either one of these with the posters for other newbies like Ultron or Vision (the latter still unaccounted for), but they didn't. Of course, the big question then is, will Olsen and Taylor-Johnson show the necessary chemistry between them to make us like these siblings? I saw the new Godzilla again this week, in which these actors played husband and wife. Can't say they did a particularly compelling job in that role. Hopefully brother and sister suits them better...

Today's News: Dinosaurs avenge Lego Huntsman

This week's load of news. Some bits felt a little repetitive.



Nieuwe poster Avengers: Age of Ultron

Nieuwe posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

Meer character posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

How many characters can you cram on a poster without it looking too crowded? Marvel put ten Avengers on one poster and added a bunch of homicidal robots too, and the result is a one-sheet that looks a little too busy for its own good. Just look how poorly the new characters are reflected, insultingly pushed into the corners. Heck, Hulk's arm muscles are printed in greater close-up than the much anticipated sibling mutants genetic test subjects. Good thing there's the nigh obligatory character posters available to remedy this injustice. So far, no character posters featuring those new characters have been published though. It likely will still happen, after all there's six more weeks before this film opens (eight in the USA even). So until we get to see the final posters for Vision, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, we have to make do with the old line-up of superheroes. Cool characters, but rather conservative and bland posters though. I doubt anybody is getting any more hyped up from these one-sheets than they already were thanks to the trailers. Maybe Downey Jr's upcoming 'big announcement' can get that hype to pick up more momentum perhaps. What could it be? Spider-Man references in this second Avengers flick? Or maybe something a little closer to home, like him stepping down as Iron Man, or that character getting killed off entirely? It's unlikely the last two scenarios would be announced before the film opens, that would be highly spoilerific. I guess we just have to be patient for both this impending news flash and those last few character posters then. Oh, the hype...!

Regisseur gevonden voor Lego Movie 2

I've probably seen a bunch of episodes of Community the new director for Lego Movie 2 helmed, though I can't recall them specifically. However, Community's quirky, whimsical humour is also to be found in the first Lego Movie, so on that note the guy seems well suited. No feature films on his resumé though, but that's not exactly uncommon in directing animation. Besides, he's directed Community's tribute to the classic G.I. Joe cartoon from the Eighties, which means he has both experience in animation and with adapting a toy line into an audiovisual feast. The Lego Movie 2 could have done worse for a director. But how about the Lego Batman spin-off, which is supposed to hit theaters first, but doesn't seem to be as deep in pre-production at this point? Anybody with experience directing toys, animation and superheroes in a humorous fashion? That's a much tougher call, so it's logical to see potential directors have to be screened more thoroughly for that one. How about one of the guys from one of the Toy Story films (Buzz Lightyear sure counts as a superhero in my book)? That would be striking little gold bricks for sure!

Chastain gecast in The Huntsman

Oh Jessica, why would you bother? Snow White and the Huntsman was a decent flick, but not the stuff of sequels. This separate Huntsman movie is just a cash grab that only features a character or two from the first movie and most of the team involved in its production has moved on to more original projects. So why would an Oscar-nominated A-list actress waste time and talent on this flick? The money is probably good. I doubt she'd do it because it'll prove such an acting challenge or because she wants to be closer to Chris Hemsworth's robust manly six-pack. Oh well, the audience only benefits from terrific actors, that means the film is secured of decent performances, even if all else may prove forgettable. So far three damn fine actresses signed on for this flick already, Chastain herself, Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt. So at least Hemsworth flexing his muscles and mumbling his way through the movie will have some actual talent to go up against. Otherwise, this movie, rife with development problems so far, simply doesn't get my hopes up.

Dinosauriërs Jurassic World onthuld

Look at me, spoiling this most anticipated movie of 2015 for myself in the name of duty... Oh well, I've already seen the toys so I know what the dinosaurs will look like. Besides, half the dinosaurs shown here won't make it into the final film, hence the paleoart covering their appearance, rather than the CG rendered models. Sucks that the hand drawn creatures look far more appealing and much more paleontologically accurate. They're putting their movie brothers to shame. Pronated hands, feathery bits and splendidly vibrant colours; quite the opposite of the bald, scientifically incorrect and blandly coloured animals we'll see in the movie. Far more exotic species too, but the audience wants to see T-Rex and Raptors, because that's usually all they know. Forget about the more intriguing, poetically named likes of Metriacanthosaurus or Microceratus, those names don't have the star power or the necessary 'sexy' quality to them needed to entice audiences. Or so the studio thinks. Velociraptor and Dilophosaurus weren't exactly house hold names before JP came around. At least we'll have some new species, like Dimorphodon and that genetically engineered bastard that's going to be the main baddiesaur. It's a Hollywood movie, so we shouldn't expect any realism. As further illustarted by the size chart that shows a huge Sauropod like Apatosaurus to be smaller than T-Rex. At least the kids will know better, they might educate their ignorant parents a bit on the subject. As for me, I refuse to let this bring down my enthusiasm for a new Jurassic film. I've had to wait too long for one and I need my dinosaur fix. It's not like there's such a thing as an accurate portrayal of a dinosaur anyway. We simply can't know.

Today's News: bunch of trailers & bunch of Razzies

So far I have succeeded in my goal to post at least one bit of news on MS every day. Here are the most recent results of that:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158620/nieuwe_trailer_avengers_age_of_ultron

Age of Ultron definitely promises to be a darker movie than the much more lighthearted and cheerful first Marvel ensemble movie that preceded it. Makes sense, in this universe of ramifications and consequences. The general audience probably hasn't kept close track of events as much as the legions of fans have (myself included), but the current state of affairs in the MCU is no cause for more playful superhero shenanigans. Serious stuff has gone down, you know. S.H.I.E.L.D. is in shambles, HYDRA has its tentacles firmly in place wherever there are power bases of mankind to be found, Loki secretly rules Asgard and Iron Man has lost most of his fortune, respect and technology. And then there's those various Avengers we haven't heard from for the least three years, not to mention several new names in their roster to shake things up. Obviously, these people have a lot on their plate and Joss Whedon has no intention of making things too easy for them. The shit is going to hit the fan and previously mounted tensions will erupt. From the look of things, Iron Man will have to take the blow of most of it, after his plan of creating artificial peacekeepers goes horribly awry and the rest of the team has to clean up his mess. However, as per the comic book lore, it seems the team will have to worry about their unpredictable and uncontrollable comrade the Hulk the most. Whatever the outcome, the team will be shaken up severely and it's conceivable that for every new member introduced, a veteran will step down. And we wouldn't have it any other way, since such dramatic results make the MCU the ever interesting place that is.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158629/remake_escape_from_new_york_van_start

This project has been in the works for many years, though it can't be said a lot of actual work was done on it. I'm not surprised it still will happen one day though. This movie has a definite high concept but is obscure enough for the general audience not to be aware of its status as a remake. And it has some clear franchise potential, allowing the main character to escape from other places once he's out of New York in any number of follow-ups. I'm glad originator John Carpenter is involved to some extent, though I know full well 'executive producer' and 'creative influence' can mean any number of things, many of which are not as involving as they sound. I'm pretty sure this remake isn't going to be anywhere near as gritty and grimy as its predecessor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio notched the rating down from R to PG-13, so as to reach a wider audience for that franchise they're aiming for. Too bad, but I can live with it. I'm more interested in how this new dystopian future of theirs is going to play out. The bleak future from the original's 1997 has come and gone and it happily proved not to be as bad as advertized. Nevertheless, there's ample social anxieties in the present to capitalize on and I hope Carpenter will utilize his 'creative influence' steadily enough to ensure this new future is gonna be dirty and rotten but still a heck of a lot of over-the-top fun, as it proved in 1981.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158596/trailers_nieuwe_series_the_messengers_en_izombie

Ignoring the trailer for The Messengers, which looks like typically ludicrous Christian Apocalyptic drivel, I have to ask what's up with the current trend of making the naturally abject notion of a walking cannibal corpse a thing to be romanced and sexualized? I can understand how that works for those other undead in popular fiction, the vampires, since they're normally not in a state of decomposition and generally use their powers of hypnotism to sexually lure their victims in for their blood, which can result in a lot of sultry sex. But a rotting body hellbent on devouring brains simply ought not to be sexy, which clearly doesn't stop folks from fantasizing about it and making TV shows out of it. I gotta say, with the right blend of relative humour the concept can work, as was evidenced in the fairly hilarious Warm Bodies. Can it work over a prolonged period of time rather than a two hour movie though? iZombie will have to prove it can. I gotta say, the female protagonist sure does look cute despite being dead. The zombies in this show clearly aren't as far gone physically as the majority of their cinematic brethren. Then again, the trailer suggests the main zombie is a bit of an anomaly, as she also has kept her ability to reason. That makes the whole zombie element of the show seem a lot less alarming. Her ongoing drive for consuming human flesh apparently isn't as strongly developed, as a job at the coroner suffices to keep that necessary flow of brains coming. Or there are much more people killed in town than ought to be usual, perhaps. I hope the struggle for humanity in the deteriorating zombie brain is gonna be handled as consistently and convincingly as the skeptic would demand, rather than the show quickly devolving into a buddy cop routine or an all-out romantic comedy, as the trailer also indicates could very well be the case.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158630/michael_bay_films_grote_kanshebber_razzies

Few surprises here. It seems ripping on Michael Bay's movies - though often justified - is simply the socially expected and obligatory rather than the objective thing to do. As usual, the GRAF makes little secret of her disdain for the movies and actors she disses (though most of them deservedly so). When you list a title as 'Age of Ex-stink-tion', you can't be said to refrain from any emotional bias. I guess that just comes with an Award foundation that doesn't treat the movies it nominates, or itself for that matter, any serious. Maybe a more objective and refined sort of Worst Movies award foundation is in order to properly serve as a balance for the Oscar circus. Not that the likes of Michael Bay would care much: this particular object of movie mockery doesn't worry in the least about any damage to his reputation the Razzies may cause, considering his ongoing success at the boxoffice still has made him filthy rich and powerful in Tinsel Town. However, I would like to see some Razzie nominations that don't include Bay, Adam Sandler or Jennifer Aniston for a change. I guess the new category of Razzie Redeemers at least is a step in the right direction of the GRAF preventing making too strongly a mockery of itself.

And I'll also take a shot at predicting the winners:

Worst Movie: Transformers 4: Age of Extinction

Worst Actor: Adam Sandler / Blended

Worst Actress:  Cameron Diaz / The Other Woman en Sex Tape

Worst Supporting Actress: Nicola Peltz / Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Supporting Actor:  Kelsey Grammer / Expendables 3, Legends of Oz, Think Like a Man Too en Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Director: Michael Bay / Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Screen Combo: Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Script: Transformers: Age of Extinction / Ehren Kruger

Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel: Annie

RAZZIE REDEEMER AWARD: Ben Affleck (from GIGLI to ARGO and GONE GIRL)

Today's News: suicide Avengers code

This week's news, first batch:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158219/cast_dcs_suicide_squad_bekendgemaakt

Quite a stellar and diverse cast, but I see some possible problems here. The first addresses the casting itself. To my mind, casting Will Smith in an ensemble movie isn't your best bet. The man is a Hollywood superstar, they tend to demand attention too strongly to cope well with sharing the screen. Especially with actors that aren't in their salary class, as these other cast members simply aren't. Will Smith kinda has a bad reputation in this department since Wild Wild West (if set rumours are to be trusted, that is). Whether he'll readily accept having his face covered continuously in the role of Deadshot also remains to be seen. Of course, you can argue that The Avengers does a pretty good job joining various superstars together for a big epic project, but let's not forget most of them were made that famous because of the work they did previously for Marvel, well aware that they needed to reign in their temperaments in a joint venture soon enough. Their own movies more or less prepared them for that mission, as most of them followed the same strategy of becoming superstars and thus shared the necessary common ground. This is not the case for Suicide Squad, as most of these characters are totally new to the big screen and so they haven't been prepped in their own titles for the audience and neither have the people playing them. They get thrown in the mix together from the get-go instead, and it just very much remains the question on whether they have any affinity with the role at all, whether the audience accepts them in these parts and whether joining these characters and actors together is a good idea. Which brings me to the second issue: the Joker. Like Will Smith is a huge A-lister thrown in with a bunch of actors of a lesser profile (no offense, gang, but that's just the situation), the Joker is a villain much more iconic than the rest of them, especially after the well remembered terrific performance by Heath Ledger not so long ago. Is it really a smart move to introduce a new take on this character, one that is supposed to be around for at least a decade, in an ensemble movie like this, rather than setting him up in the more traditional way, as Batman's most recognizable antagonist in the Caped Crusader's own film? (An argument that can be made for the new incarnation of the Dark Knight himself just as easily, it must be noted.) Probably so. But then, the Joker doesn't adhere to logic like that, he's much too erratic to care. We'll just have to wait and see how this works out. At least the majority of the casting seems pretty nifty. It'll be very interesting to see what Jared Leto brings to the role of the Joker. And he even has his girlfriend Harley Quinn by his side this time. The more madness, the merrier.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158196/extra_opnamen_avengers_2_in_januari

Speaking of the Avengers, they just got some leeway to improve their sequel's scope just that much more. From the looks of it, it's not just the action scenes that get a bit more jibe, but also the characters, including a few we might not have expected to partake in this giant superhero flick. Both Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston have been revealed to be present in Age of Ultron. That is surprising, considering the story line mostly seemed to center around Tony Stark and his invention, the rogue robot Ultron, running rampant. A little HYDRA espionage plot spilling over from the Cap movies was also already known to be injected through the addition of Baron Von Strucker to the cast. So is there room for some Norse gods? Apparently Marvel is making room. Since more Loki is never a bad thing when Hiddleston plays the part, I'm certainly not complaining. I'm not counting on major scenes of divine exposition though. Probably just some hints at the bigger Thor picture to indicate that while the Avengers get into the usual mischief on Earth, trouble is still brewing in the background on Asgard to plague Thor in his next solo feature (aptly subtitled Ragnarok). Seems that universe building Marvel so excelled at in Phase 1 is now seemlessly flowing into Phase 3.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158220/source_code_krijgt_vervolg

More of Source Code I'm less positive about. Its whole take on time travel and temporal loops was already nothing new to me thanks to the likes of Star Trek, The X-Files and The Twilight Zone. Though it was still a fresh take on the notion and resulted in an enjoyable and intelligent movie, more of the same would spark a similar feeling of repetition I don't exactly welcome. Of course they can introduce a new main character and director - as they'll have to, since it strongly appears both Jake Gyllenhaal and Duncan Jones are not inclined to be involved, and I can't blame them - but even when tweaking the concept, there's only so much you can do with it. This announced sequel just has 'blatant cash grab' written all over it. Of course, that is hardly a novel thing in Hollywood. It's endless cycle of rehasing and reimaging concepts and franchises that once proved lucrative is quite similarly stuck into an ever revolving loop that knows no end. It's just that in this case, the audience is the poor subject that develops a gnawing, relentless sense of déja vu, the feeling of having experienced it all before. As they have.

Today's News: machines in revolt and intellectual theft

The week has picked up some speed in terms of notable news items:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157772/marvel_maakt_inhumans_en_captain_marvel

Yes, there was more news to report on, since Marvel saw fit to wash away al our questions on their projects for the next five years in a deluge of news, and I didn't post it all at once to keep people from getting overdosed on superheroes. So here's a sort of follow-up on what I posted earlier this week, though I will of course refrain from getting repetitive. I'm not gonna drone on about Marvel Studios' first female solo film as others have, since that is beginning to get old news, as both DC and Sony are developing female superheroine flicks of their own. I've known women can make capable superheroes ever since I started reading comics 20 years ago. So I consider Captain Marvel - who I've noticed isn't named Ms. Marvel, as in most of her comic book history, since that would likely be too sexist - in no way to be more worthy of anticipation that the other Marvel properties in development. The only thing that puzzles me is Marvel's apparent decision to have her team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy rather than the Avengers. I guess there's room for only one captain on Marvels primary superhero team, and having two of them, both blond and strong, might confuse audiences needlessly, even though one of them features boobs.

Still, I'm more curious to see what Marvel plans on doing with the Inhumans. Making a movie based on this superpowered human subspecies which has mostly featured as side characters in other franchise's series (and often not as good guys, too) seems like an odd choice. I guess Marvel still feels the need to include a team of misunderstood, villified outsiders the world hates and fears into their line-up, and since they don't own the rights to the X-Men any more, they decided to make do with this eclectic bunch of characters. Ideologically speaking, it's good to know Marvel still embraces the notion of taking a stand for people other than ourselves, teaching us that despite our often explosive differences we are all still only human and we should learn to live together rather than aim to kill those whose otherness scares us. I'm not sure the Inhumans are the best way to tackle said issues though, considering their aggressive history (which will undoubtedly undergo major rewriting to fit the bill more properly). Unlike the X-Men, they opt for selfimposed isolation rather than acceptance. They didn't move their entire civilization to the moon for nothing. Maybe they feel threatened by Richard Branson's attempt at commercializing space, which could end up in rampant, undesirable lunar tourism (though at the current rate his rockets keep exploding, that doesn't seem to be much cause for alarm). And if they get fed up with humanity somehow, will the Inhumans leave the moon and wreak havoc on Earth to preserve their genetic purity? I've already seen that movie, it's called Iron Sky (and I loved it, mind you!). I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Marvel intends to do with these people.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157824/extra_materiaal_avengers_age_of_ultron_online

But wait, there's more Marvel to go around. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still running, remember? And to keep people interested in a show that isn't drawing spectators in such a huge capacity as Marvel would like, they planned to air the first Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer during this week's episode. The Internet hindered those plans though, so the trailer premiered online a week earlier than originally planned. Didn't stop Marvel from keeping their word and air the trailer again on telly this week. It's the same preview, except for a short but highly enjoyable opening scene, which does a grand job reminding us why we like the Avengers as a group so much. They have a great interplay together, a wonderful group dynamic that just screams for Joss Whedon's talents writing for such groups, which is one of his more famous and respected trademarks. This particular segment also pays hommage to the comics though, in which similar scenes of hammerlifting have played out a few times before, and the results in terms of good humour are none the lesser on screen. I could probably watch a whole movie about the Avengers getting together just hanging out and idling their time, rather than getting serious when another interchangeable villain threatens the world or stuff. Particularly when Whedon writes it. Scenes like these suffice of course, as it's an equally great thing to see the Avengers gearing up for action together.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157774/eerste_trailer_netflix_serie_marco_polo

'Game of Thrones in ancient China', is basically what this series keeps being hyped up as. Not a bad comparison, as the situation Polo encountered in the Far East very much was a game of thrones. However, despite the sex and political intrigue, which thanks to the popularity of shows like Game of Thrones is starting to become a staple of television - which I don't mind at all - that's where most comparions between both shows end. Except for the whole medieval background with swordplay, horse riding and such of course. However, you'll find no supernatural creatures plotting the downfall of man in the background. Despite the cultural affinity of the Chinese for dragons, there's none to be seen in this series (which only saves on the undoubtedly already expensive VFX budget). A few attempts at sorcery are probably interspersed throughout here and there, but I bet Netflix won't go so far as to call up creepy demons from their actresses' naughty bits. The show doesn't need all that, as actual history is fantastic enough in this case, and the Chinese are plenty exotic all by themselves. If you want to compare shows, Marco Polo has more in common with the likes of Rome and Deadwood. Both also shows from HBO, it must be noted, since that network simply wrote the book on the subject matter of explicit sex and intrigue cable shows excel at revealing today. But considering Netflix's own repertoire with series á la House of Cards, I bet they have little trouble transporting such a rich narrative atmosphere to a period setting, even though the latter is still mostly unfamiliar terrain to them. And I look forward to seeing the result.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157785/eerste_trailers_ex_machina

I cannot say I'm as impressed by this trailer. It looks like rather standard Sci-Fi, but gives off the vibe of pretending to be more than that. If it is, I'm not seeing it. It appears to question the age-old demarcation between man and machine, the line where the latter becomes the former. That's about as old a science fiction concept as they come, though it still tends to fascinate. Using the guise of a beautiful woman to make it more easily acceptable for the audience to get drawn into the debate is also a hardly novel approach. Crafting a robot into the image of a sexual alluring and desirable female has been done to death ever since Metropolis in 1927. However, naming the robot in question Ava is less of an everyday occurrence. Yet Ex Machina has the dubious honour to share that aspect with The Machine, a movie with a suspiciously similar premise (and title, even), which only was released last year... So as they ask in New Jersey, 'what's up with that?!'. Intellectual theft, divine intervention or just a veeery coincidental coincidence mayhaps? I dunno, but it doesn't help getting me pumped for this movie, nor does the prospect of a writer turning director. In this case it's Alex Garland. Sure, he wrote a few good movies (including some science fiction titles, like Sunshine), but that doesn't mean he's a capable director. I haven't yet forgotten how a fine Director of Photography landed the director's chair for that godawful Transcendence, which also shares more than a few story beats with Ex Machina (though in that case it's 'man becoming an A.I.' rather than 'man building an A.I.'). Nor am I looking forward to the writer of J.J. Abrams' Trek fuck-ups directing what's set to be the third Trek fuck-up in a row, because Abrams is too busy fucking up (?) Star Wars. Just stick to your own trade, let directors direct. And let writers write. But don't let them write the same as other writers and get away with it. If that's indeed what's happening here.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157784/eerste_posters_insurgent

Here's another derivative little thing for you. Divergent is basically the next Hunger Games, except the new Hunger Games movie is actually the next Hunger Games. Nobody can deny there's many similarities between both stories. Doesn't mean Insurgent should also 'be inspired' visually by its rival. These new posters bear a fairly striking resemblance to some of the character posters released a few months back for Mockingjay - Part 1. Except they feature lesser actors, and less guns too (lesser budget, no doubt). Ripping off another movie's marketing campaign doesn't help setting you apart from that film. But my guess is a strong independent identity isn't Insurgent's goal. They're hitching a ride on the Hunger Games' success by enticing the same audience with the same sort of subject matter. The Hunger Games is making huge sums of money, so of course the producers don't feel bad leeching off that franchise by letting the audience know they offer a similar product. They're basically shouting 'if you enjoy the Hunger Games, check out this franchise while waiting for the next installment!'. It worked on Divergent, and it is likely to work for Insurgent as well. Doesn't make either of them better movies though. Or more original ones for that matter. The only thing Insurgent seems to have that Mockingjay - Part 1 does not, is a 3D release. And that doesn't get me more excited in the least. But then, I'm not the target audience. Impatient teenage girls who like The Hunger Games are. And considering Divergent made a lot of money as well, I suppose there's lots of those.

It's raining news, hallelujah!

Comic-Con made sure there was plenty of news to post this last week. Here's some of my more recent contributions to MovieScene's ever growing archives:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156694/comic-con_laatste_concept_art_posters_avengers_2_

I already commented on these Avengers: Age of Ultron concept art posters before, so I'll skip that for these latest one-sheet releases, which finally complete the whole picture (see above). There's not much to say about these Hulk and Thor posters, as they add little of novelty value to the project as a whole. Save for the colour of the Hulk's pants maybe, which has finally traded in the dark blue of the previous movie for the iconic pink everybody associates with the character.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156693/comic-con_gunn_terug_voor_regie_guardians_of_the_galaxy_2

This too comes as little of a surprise considering the overwhelmingly positive feedback in prerelease and press showings for the Guardians' first adventure, set to debut worldwide in two weeks. Of course it will remain to be seen whether enough audiences will connect with this oddball intergalactic team of rogues to make Marvel the big bucks as the studio is now preparing for. However, since there's little else of consequence released in theaters this upcoming month, I think it's guaranteed this next entry in Marvel's Phase 2 will do tremendously well at the box office. Which only works in director James Gunn's favour. At this moment, Marvel will stick to directors who have proven their worth and can smoothly work with the studio without creative issues, considering the woes which have befallen Ant-Man's production of late after its director resigned, which continues to have serious ramifications for the project. Stability is now Marvel's prime concern, and when that aspect is paired with profit there's no reason why a capable director shouldn't be rehired to make the second installment turn out as good, if not better, than its predecessor. So go, Gunn!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156718/comic-con_toekomstige_tegenstanders_godzilla_bekend

It seems Gareth Edwards also aims for stability when it comes to his blockbuster success, the rebooted Godzilla. Fans praised the first film's take on the titular character, but proved less enthusiastic when it came to his antagonists, a pair of mutated prehistoric giant bugs invented solely for this film. They did their job serving as cannon fodder for the King of Monsters though, but now it's time to raise the bar. And what better way to do so than by also rebooting his classic gallery of adversaries? General audiences won't mind whatever creature gets hammered by the Big G (or the occasional vice versa), as long as they get enough bang for their bucks. If there's one thing Edwards showed with his first Godzilla feature, it's that he too is an avid fan of the original Japanese films. So it comes as little surprise that he opts to reintroduce everybody's favorite Godzilla enemies: the mythical giant bug Mothra, the humongous Pterodactyl Rodan (both characters got their own movies too back in the days) and last but not least, Gojira's prima nemesis, the three headed armoured space dragon King Ghidorah. Hopefully Edwards won't play all his cards all at once, but distributes the dose of retro monsters a bit evenly for the already announced pair of sequels, so as to prevent Kaiju overkill in Godzilla 2. As superhero movies have showed of late, there's such a thing as too many cool characters in a single film making a mess of the story. Of course, the Godzilla movies are all about characters making a mess of things while the story is subservient to such rampage, but it can't hurt to save your strongest assets for later.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156717/comic-con_kong_wederom_king

And with the renewed interest in giant monsters comes word that Hollywood doesn't mean to keep that other royal creature dead for long. King Kong too will soon be seen again on the big screen where he belongs, but not in another remake. Which is a good thing, as the last one was produced less than a decade ago and proved to be quite a memorable rehash compared to most of them, so there wouldn't be a need to retell that classic Beauty and the Beast tale just yet. So it seems a prequel is the route the studio chooses, which is also not the most exciting notion to my mind. Do we need to know how Kong became King of Skull Island? It kinda seems a given: it's survival of the fittest and Kong fits that description best, killing every sinister subject that defies his will. There doesn't seem to be much more to it. Of course you can introduce another group of people stumbling on the island and exploring its monster infested interior, getting into conflict with the giant gorilla. Heck, you could even throw another pretty girl into the mix. The result would be predictable though, as we all know how Kong came to his eventual demise, and we never cared as much about the human characters' plight as we did about the ape's. Even though I loved the various incarnations of Skull Island (as I'm a big sucker for monster movies), this project makes me hesitant. That said, it's produced by the same studio - not Peter Jackson's - as the current Godzilla franchise is. Do I smell a potential crossover here?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156733/comic-con_trailer_the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies

Speaking of Peter Jackson, he too has a little franchise in the works, and it is coming to an end. A dramatic and emotionally charged end, the new trailer would seem to indicate. Not to mention epic. Needless to say this trailer got me super stoked for the final Hobbit film, which I already was to begin with (yay, Hollywood hype effectively working its magic for five more months!). Parallells with that other closing chapter of a Middle-Earth movie trilogy were bound to be drawn, and the trailer capitalizes on that sentiment by adding just another link with PJ's Lord of the Rings films in the shape of Pippin's tearjerking Home is Behind song playing over the imagery. It's a nice touch, though it hammers the point home harder than might be wise. Nevertheless, what's to dislike in this trailer? Big battles, a giant dragon (bound to be killed off in the first 20 minutes of the film due to the way the book is adapted, but still), all kinds of intriguing cultures and creatures clashing and a top cast bringing it all to life. As I'm not a Tolkien purist, I won't complain about some of the additions the writers made to the story, like that car chase over ice. Keeps some surprises to the whole if you already read the book. But what do we have to look forward to when it's all over? When Lord of the Rings ended, we had The Hobbit still to come (though that took nine effing years!). But could this truly be the end of our cinematic adventures in Middle-Earth? What do we do with ourselves then?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156732/comic-con_tarantino_bevestigt_tweede_poging_hateful_eight

I knew it! You don't brisquely cancel a whole movie, pre-production already in progress, just because someone leaks a script. Screenplays get leaked online all the time. When any movie hits theaters, few people lack the chance to get to look the whole story up on the Internet if they so choose. Which most folks don't, because they want to see it in theaters anyway. When Tarantino first scrapped the project, he stated he might publish it in book form. That would have been the true waste, as we already have a downloadable written version of this story online thanks to that leak. But in Tarantino's case, it's the filmed version we want. Why read that book if the alternative is another one of his expertly written motion pictures starring a great cast determined to make it work? So it was a given Tarantino would decide to make that film sooner rather than later after all. Which makes me wonder whether his whole tantrum about the affair, or even the affair itself, wasn't just some big publicity stunt to create public awareness and interest for The Hateful Eight. Maybe it was just a hateful Tarantino getting in the right mood to direct the project.

Today's Triple News: Comic-Con comes but once a year

With Comic-Con currently in progression, there's bits of news to post online almost every minute. Of course, not everything is breaking news, and I can't post it all by myself. But I post whatever I can whenever I can, like these few bits of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156653/eerste_fotos_en_poster_derde_hobbit

Now that's a damn spectacular teaser poster! While many teaser posters tend to take a rather minimalist (though often inventive) approach to get audiences aware of the impending arrival of the movie in question, this one goes straight for one of the highlights in the movie. It can afford too, since the scene in question, though of major importance and containing some hefty spoilers for those who haven't read the books, takes place early in the movie, with most of the story, including the titular battle, following in its wake. It doesn't give away the outcome of this particular fight - Bard the Bowman versus the humongous dragon Smaug - but makes the inquisitive viewer, especially those who have seen both previous installments, want to see how it ends. Of course, it would seem unlikely Bard stands a chance, but there's been enough small bits of information feeded to audiences in The Desolation of Smaug to let us know even this giant dragon is not wholly invincible. In the meantime, Lake Town burns, just as Smaug promised. That will have consequences, naturally. And that's when the story of this third Hobbit movie really kicks into gear. So expect another three-hour epic fantasy flick in typical Peter Jackson style, laced with neat-o effects and some lovely acting interspersed throughout. As for the first two stills also released here, they aren't nearly as eye catching, but examination of the characters suggests shifting alliances, which might cause them to contain more story information than this poster. It's just not brought in as exciting a manner.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156651/anthony_hopkins_in_hbos_westworld

Another major A-list actor has been added to HBO's repertoire. I'm not talking about Evan Rachel Wood, though I don't mean to negatively critique her fine abilities to act. But hey, she already was an HBO alum thanks to her role in True Blood as a spoiled and childish vampire queen. But Hopkins, one of the greatest and most distinguished British actors ever, a 'Sir' nonetheless... you can't get much better than that for any role, be it on TV or on the big screen. Ten years ago, nobody would have believed someone of such stature would ever bother doing TV. It signifies just how much television has changed in respect as a medium. TV is where the best writing and the best acting is found nowadays, few people will disagree. Hopkins sure wouldn't, considering the praise he put into a letter to Bryan Cranston, telling him how thoroughly impressed he was by his performance on Breaking Bad and admiring the series high quality overall. It seems Hopkins himself caught the television bug as well afterwards. Good for us, as grand actors are never a bad thing in any medium, plus it might balance J.J. Abrams' input on HBO's Westworld. Hopkins is playing a bad guy, something he does even better than anything else he plays (cannibal or otherwise). Wood however gets to play a sympathetic character, and an abused artificial one at that. I am hesitant about the love plot written in for her, but at least it adds a dynamic not seen in the original Westworld, a good but dated Sci-Fi movie in itself. The stakes just got raised for HBO. Fortunately there's money to spare soon, now that both True Blood and Boardwalk Empire are coming to an end. All good things must be replaced by other good things after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156689/comic-con_meer_concept_art_voor_avengers_2

No Comic-Con without a comic book movie, preferably one from Marvel. They call this 'concept art', but from the looks of it, all the concepts found in this poster had already been accepted into the movie as a whole. As we have seen in the various behind-the-scenes stills and official photos for Avengers: Age of Ultron, all the Avengers seen on this eight panel picture look almost exactly as they will in the film. With the possible exception of the Vision, as this is the first glimpse of that character we're offered. They stuck close to his looks in the comics, it would appear, though at this angle it's hard to say for sure. The overall shape and colour scheme sure seem to fit. By comparison, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch don't look nearly as trite-but-true to their comic book counterparts, though that's done to make them feel a little more realistic. This Quicksilver looks a heck of a lot different from the one seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past so as to minimize confusion between both incarnations. It's gonna be a hard act to outrun the previous take on Quicksilver, though the presence of his sister (and her eventual husband, artificial and all) will surely be helpful in that regard. As is the suggestion this poster gives this Quicksilver will be much more involved into the superhero action, fighting nasty robots and such. The X-Men Quicksilver just bailed out on that one and let his fellow mutants handle those Sentinels all by themselves...

Today's veritable cascade of news

 

So much news, so little time to comment on it all here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156573/lionsgate_maakt_film_over_boston_marathon_aanslag

A typical post 9/11 tale of inspirational courage and the folly of terrorism, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with that, just a fairly predictable event. We've seen movies like these before, and we'll witness them again after each attack on everyday America. I must say, they wasted no time on this one. The Boston Marathon bombing occurred just over a year ago and a movie is already in the works. Can you imagine how quickly the novel it was based on was written and released. By comparison, movies dealing with 9/11 took a lot longer to arrive in theaters, with the best known examples, United 93 and World Trade Center, both being released in 2006. That's a five year gap right there. No offense to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, but 9/11 was naturally a much more shocking and emotionally costly experience for the majority of the American population. Maybe Americans have since gotten used to this sort of thing - which nobody should, of course - and thus need less time to personally deal with the shock of the aftermath of such atrocities. Or maybe Hollywood just takes less time to capitalize on homeland terrorist attacks. For no matter how respectfully and sensitively they handle the subject matter, it's honestly not all about spreading the word of hope when movies like these get made. Money remains ever an objective.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156575/brochure_jurassic_world_onthult_nieuw_park

Here I go again, spoiling a much anticipated movie for myself by posting new news about it online. Comes with the territory, I won't deny. I'd be pretty lousy at my job as a news editor (voluntary though it may be) if I skipped out on certain bits of news just because I don't want to know about them myself. Especially if they seemingly give away much of the plot of a movie many are anxious to see. Which appears to be just what this bit of marketing for Jurassic World is doing. You've got a list of dinosaurs that could - though not necessarily will - make an appearance, as well as various locations and set-ups that will be seen throughout the movie as the prehistoric inmates chase their human snacks around. And you have the final confirmation of Isla Nublar as the place where it all goes down, as such firmly establishing a link to the first Jurassic Park movie. It's now up to the fans to speculate what areas and species will and won't make it into the final product. I think it's safe to say Metriacanthosaurus won't make an appearance... again, as its existence was also hinted at in the original 1993 movie when Nedry stole its embryo: I'd say this is just a neat little nod to the original film on the writers' part. Similarly, Baryonyx and Suchomimus look so much alike, at least one of them won't make the cut (or maybe both, as each of them also looks a lot like JP III's Spinosaurus). The only species nobody can deny will be used in the final film is Mosasaurus, as the brochure also reveals it has its own underwater observatory, which is just too cool a notion not to make use of. Plus, marine reptiles is something none of the previous movies utilized, so it would make for an action scene the like of which has not been seen before. Of course you can complain about the logistics of acquiring Mosasaur DNA, which I won't (as I know a way they could have gotten hold of that, do you?). Compared to this Jurassic World Lagoon, it's likely we won't be seeing the Aviary, as that concept was already made use of in Jurassic Park III, which would make it repetitive in this scenario. This also makes it less likely we'll be seeing either Pteranodon or Dimorphodon. What we will be seeing is T-Rex, that's a given. Maybe eating rich tourists on the 18-hole golf course, that might be fun. For everything this brochure spoils about the movie, there's an equal amount of information that is left out. For one thing, the genetically enhanced theme park monster super predator - the 'Diabolus Rex', as it was called in previous rumours - discussed by director Colin Trevorrow on earlier occasions is not mentioned here. It's likely they try to keep that a secret for as long as they can, at least to those who have missed the director's notes of two months past. And where's our good ol' pals the Velociraptors in all this?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156583/eerste_fotos_ultron_voor_avengers_2

And there's another spoiler for you: the look of the titular villain in the second Avengers installment. Though, if you're a fan of the Marvel comics, it is not that much of a spoiler, as the cinematic Ultron apparently doesn't differ much from the one seen on paper since 1968. More surface detail has been added, making him kinda look like a Michael Bay Decepticon, though most anthropomorphic killer robots tend to look like that, but otherwise he appears to be similar in shape and size to his comic counterpart. Unless he's holding four additional arms or something behind Cap and Iron Man's back, but let's not run rampant in speculation about what we don't get to see based on just this one preview. For in Ultron's case, we'll have to make do with just this single picture for now (nevermind his minions in the background). A few more official movie stills were simultaneously released in this issue of Entertainment Weekly, but they contain little new noteworthy information. We already knew what Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - the second one on the big screen, and admittedly it's gonna be hard to make us forget Evan Peters' fabulous take on the character in X-Men: Days of Future Past - looked like. We didn't know Don Cheadle was in the film though, likely not only replacing his role as Jim Rhodes, but also as his armoured alter ego War Machine. That's another Avenger to add to the mix, making for a confirmed total of ten. Coupled with at least two baddies (Ultron and Baron Von Strucker) and the continuing S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans of Nick Fury, it looks like this is gonna be another crowded superhero epic. But in an ensemble movie, that is to be expected. As long as this movie delivers the same amount of fun as the previous flick did, I can live with some characters taking a backseat. I'm more concerned of weaving the story of Von Strucker's HYDRA plots, which involves the Maximoff twins, seemlessly together with the otherwise apparently unrelated story about Tony Stark designing a robot to assume his mantle of Iron Man, with that thought seriously backfiring on both him and humanity. Which in itself is a fairly natural flow from the events in Iron Man 3 and adequately alters Ultron's origins, as there's no Hank Pym around in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as of yet to design the genocidal android, as happened in the comics. I think the writers turned that story in the right direction though, as it now makes sense following on from Iron Man 3. And so far it looks like they're not gonna mess up Ultron as they did the Mandarin. Thankfully!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156585/nieuwe_poster_sin_city_2

Good new poster, keeping in touch in terms of style with its predecessors the way we like. Art is not the issue here, connecting the stories is. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is both a prequel and a sequel to the original 2005 movie. On the one hand it tells the story behind Dwight's facial alteration, which precedes his story line in Sin City, where his character was played by Clive Owen as opposed to Josh Brolin, pictured above. On the other, it deals with Nancy's quest for vengeance after Hartigan's demise. As you can see from above, Nancy already took a few hits killing her way to the corrupt top levels to expose the Roarke empire's crimes. At the same time, Hartigan is also seen on the poster, despite his death previously. Judging from what little we saw in the trailer, he's a spectre of his former self, plaguing Nancy's mental health. Marv (Mickey Rourke) is back as well, even though he too failed to live through the events of the previous movie, hinting he'll be part of Dwight's back story, or possibly his own. How to make narrative sense of this all? It seems tough, and as a result I think this movie will serve better as a compendium piece to the first movie than as a standalone film (sucks for new audiences). But hey, as long as the visual flair is as stunning as before and there's plenty of pretty dames and tough men doing some sinning, eh? Let's hope that will be enough. Remember a not so positively received little movie called The Spirit that seemed to think the same thing? You probably don't, nor should you.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156609/derde_deel_the_ring_aangekondigd

Do we really need this? Do we really want this? 'No' on both fronts, but does Hollywood really care what we think if there's the possibility of making a little bit more money out of the franchise? There's another 'no' for you. Besides, the Japanese original Ringu had three sequels, so we're still two behind. It's been nearly ten years since the last activity on the American Ring franchise, so it seems overly late for a sequel or a prequel. A reboot seemed more obvious, though I'm glad they didn't opt for that (though they still might). I would have been more glad if they spend their money and effort elsewhere altogether on something more imaginative, but sadly, studio executives always fail to ask me for my opinion first. So far, this has all the makings of a studio cash cow as opposed to an honest attempt of making a worthwhile successor (or predecessor, in terms of story) to the previous two movies. I'd be very surprised if we'll end up seeing Naomi Watts reprise her role for this one. Though that is probably why it's gonna be a prequel, so she won't have to. Smart thinking.

Today's Double News: Hercules ain't part of the Avengers yet here

Must post more news, must post more news!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154668/eerste_trailer_dwayne_johnsons_hercules

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154639/nieuwe_setbeelden_avengers_age_of_ultron

This Hercules is more like it. All kinds of monsters and supernatural elements present, just as the original Greek myth offered aplenty. It's amazing there hasn't yet been a Hercules/Herakles movie to do those elements of the story justice. You wish Ray Harryhausen had made a movie about the demi-god in his time. It seems this is the closest we will ever get, even though the central part of the story isn't about the Twelve Labours (so I wouldn't hope for too much solid monster action just yet). Instead, it's about Herc playing a merc and fighting a tyrant to save a kingdom. That sounds a little bit too much like The Scorpion King (The Rock's breakthrough in the film business), which in itself was doing a derivative job of the Eighties' Conan the Barbarian franchise. In fact, apart from the monsters and the instantly recognizable "brand name" Hercules, there's very little here that seems to set this story apart from Scorp. Oh well, at least it looks to be a fun action flick, with a good cast. And sorry Dwayne, I'm not referring to you. I'm talking about established GBAs (Grand British Actors) like John Hurt and Ian McShane. Plus less grand but still very British actors like Peter Mullan, Joseph Fiennes and Rufus Sewell. Why is it that action flicks like these always have to rely on Britain's top talent to carry the acting, while the Americans only show off their muscles? Acting your way out of a CGI heavy film like this, now that's a real Labour!

And we got our first glimpses of several new highly anticipated Marvel characters as photos from the Italian set of Avengers: Age of Ultron leaked. First off, there's Magneto's kids siblings Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. It seems this Quickie retained his familiar thunder bolt patterned costume while the one from X-Men: Days of Future Past keeps his ties to the Mutant Master of Magnetism. Scarlet however looks little like her top model outfit sporting equivalent from the comics (too bad really!), or even her Ultimate Universe counterpart (unlike Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, also present on these pics). It seems they made up a girlie costume appropriate for her intended age for this movie. However, her hexing moves are straight out of the comics, so there's at least some tribute to those at least. I wonder how they're gonna explain these kids' powers if they're not allowed to call them mutants. Was Quicksilver bitten by a radioactive/genetically engineered roadrunner perhaps? As for Scarlet Witch, how do you probably explain altering the laws of probability by using spells in a scientifically sound manner? Last but not least, we may have our first glimpse of the titular nemesis, the maniacal robot Ultron. Or at least, we see a guy wearing some sort of armour which kinda resembles Ultron. Otherwise, there's little robot-ey to the suit. I reckon this is a stand-in giving the kids something to work with on set. Or some Italian fan who ran onto set after avoiding the heavy set security. This has yet to be confirmed by Marvel.

Today's Double News: Baron Von Strucker's walk of shame

Two recent newsflashes on MS, courtesy of myself:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153128/eerste_trailer_walk_of_shame

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153094/nieuwe_schurk_avengers_age_of_ultron_gecast

*Sigh* Here I go again, getting al emotionally invested in what appears to be a fairly average American comedy starring all the usual suspects. That means, I admit I laughed at this trailer. Not the 'ROFLMAO' type of laughter, but definitely a mild case of smirky giggling in the private confines of my own home where I could not be judged by others for this short loss of self-control. Walk of Shame has some potential, but then, a lot of similar comedies did these past few years and very few of them did not succumb to poor, predictable endings plagued by re-establishing overly conservative ideological social patterns, despite making us suspect they opted for a different route at the start of the film by suggesting a rebellious attitude (We're The Millers, anyone?). Iwould wager coin on the assumption that after her ordeal is over, Banks gets hitched with James Marsden and chooses a generic romantic entanglement over embarking on the busy, prestigious life of a successful career girl (it's usually one or the other, never both). Surprises don't seem in store for us on this one, but there's no great shame (see what I did there?) in saying the trailer looks to deliver two hours of mindless enjoyment regardless.

What was surprising this week was the revelation that the Avengers will face a second villain in their next joined venture, Age of Ultron. As if the likes of a homicidal robot hellbent on the annihilation of the human race wasn't enough of a threat, Earth's Mightiest Heroes must now also face an all too human (more or less) nemesis with ties to Captain America's past as a WW II hero. Former Nazi officer and current Hydra overlord Baron Wolfgang von Strucker has the dubious honor of playing second fiddle to James Spader's maniacal mechanical man, though how the two relate to one another in the context of the plot - if at all - remains to be seen. Considering their goals and personal drives, an alliance between the pair seems unlikely. Kretschmann's ability to make for a worthy adversary is a given though. The noted German actor with his surprisingly durable and flexible Hollywood career has been one of my favorite actors on the European continent since playing the badass Captain Englehorn in Peter Jackson's King Kong. Maybe he'll succeed in making the good Baron an interesting baddie for a change, since I found him to be a rather dull character in the comics. Who needs another ex-Nazi leading Hydra if you already have the formidable Red Skull for that job? Though I would still pick Hugo Weaving (who played that particular character on Captain America: The First Avenger) over Kretschmann every (other) day, I'm positive the latter actor will cause the Avengers quite some grief for our viewing pleasure.

Today's News: another Avenger down?

Another short MS scoop:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150570/elizabeth_olsen_in_avengers_age_of_ultron

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Elizabeth Olsen's other work (according to her resumé on IMDb, there hasn't actually been that much of it anyway). She seems a bit too young for the role of Scarlet Witch, but I reckon the hex casting female Avenger is supposed to be of a lesser age than we´re used to in this film. After all, she's a year older than Aaron Taylor-Johnson who's playing her twin brother Quicksilver, so at least that´s consistent. I'm just glad they kept the pair together as they ought to be, instead of splitting them up, as is allegedly the case in X-Men: Days of Future Past, where Quicks is present but Scarlet is not (shenanigans!). From what I've heard of Olsen, she's a capable young actress, and so I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (not that she needs mine or anybody else's of course). It'll be fascinating to see how Whedon and the writers are gonna incorporate brother and sister into Age of Ultron without referring to their mutant nature. I trust Whedon to honour the source material while being resourceful enough to work his way around such copyright issues. And I hope he'll write some kick-ass sibling dialogue (see what I did there?) between the two of them, since providing characters with credible and catchy phrases is what he does best. Nevermind the superspeed running and probability curses being thrown around, that's all secondary really.