Today's Review: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

It's been a while, but I finally wrote another review for FilmTotaal. And this time, for a particularly big blockbuster movie, my first for this movie site:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - recensie

FilmTotaal is the biggest movie website in the Netherlands (no, really!), and in its case, users actually respond to critics' reviews. Often not in the most gentle manner, as there's quite a few trolls and/or generally loudmouth, obnoxious people haunting the site. Reviewers posting their opinion of overhyped blockbuster films like this one usually know they can expect to be firmly hated upon. However, for BvS, I gotta say there's only a few posts illustrating strong disagreement - to put it mildly - with what I wrote about the film. In fact, it seems the majority of users agrees with me: BvS is rather a disappointment. Not entirely bad (it still looks great and there's some good performances and lovely action, you know), but definitely a letdown.

Maybe the cause of its shortcomings is its director, Zack Snyder. He's been known to favour heavy topics surrounding flawed, traumatized characters living in unpleasant worlds filled with violent death. Even though he usually flavours said realms with a visually appealing, grandiose style of filming and fabulous artistry and dressing. Man of Steel, the movie to kick off this new DC Cinematic Universe which is meant to deliver some heavy competition at Marvel's doorstep, fit that bill perfectly, making the generally colorful and optimistic Superman a brooding alien refugee given near omnipotent power over his new neighbours, the human race. I liked Man of Steel. It made this God like character that much more identifiable by focusing on his lacks rather than his strengths. In its many philosophical moments, Man of Steel felt less like a superhero movie and more like a character study of a God living among man and contemplating his relationship with those who in all respects are so obviously inferior to him. Of course, that relationship is still explored in BvS, as the world now needs to cope with the existence of this powerful presence, a potential saviour to man. However, another type of hero has already been active for decades, it turns out.

For in BvS, the DC universe is supposed to be up and running for decades already. No starting from scratch here, as was the case for Marvel. For every character introduced, there is a long backstory that is teased, which in many cases frustrates more than it intrigues. Ben Affleck's Batman has been fighting crime for twenty years, and it has only made him darker. Crime has not been reduced, while his war on bad guys preying on the everyman has cost him dearly. No wonder he's grown so angry he's not averse to maiming and even killing criminals left and right. The Batman we've grown accustomed to was never a true killer, but Snyder's Caped Crusader has no such moral qualms anymore. And now there's this all powerful extraterrestrial policing the planet. A being Batman holds responsible for the invasion that laid waste to Metropolis and cost him employees and real estate. Affleck does a fine job portraying the sombre, disillusioned vigilante, but it cannot be denied that his explicit aim of killing Superman, who has since amply demonstrated he's on the side of justice, just feels wholly unjustified.

Meanwhile, as if the lethal rivalry between both tormented good guys was't enough to fill a two hour movie, Snyder introduces a younger version of classic villain Lex Luthor to pester them both. This evil tycoon, too, is haunted by a trauma involving his father, which is not enough to fully explain his demonic machinations in this film. What's more, Jesse Eisenberg's performance in the role is devoid of the 'wow' factor we would have hoped for. Applying a typical neurotic hyperactivity, Eisenberg is basically playing a nefarious version of his own Mark Zuckerberg. It doesn't make for a convincing baddie. Nor does Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman leave a lasting impression, which is also due to a lack of screen time (though 151 minutes certainly makes for a long piece already). Again, a shady past is implied but not explored. And so she leaves us confused by her transformation from uncaring socialite to warrior princess fighting for good.

Of course, with a subtitle like 'Dawn of Justice', adding more spice to your duo of core characters for a broader context is expected. So we also get this evil genius and a strong female heroine. But wait, says BvS, there's much more yet. A number of other super heroes is teased. But for ow, we simply cannot care. Worse, the still fairly investing story line of the titular protagonists is hindered by awkward attempts to set up bigger things to come, including an Apocalyptic nightmare of Batman wherein he's plagued by visions of a ruined world ruled by Superman (including insect warriors, I kid you not). Succeeded by a scene in which that same Batman is confronted with a temporal vortex and a warning from the future to stop someone doing something, totally out of the blue. Pointless material, as we already knew Batman was out for Superman's blood and this doesn't motivate him any more. Despite all the useless interruptions provided by DC's self-advertisement for coming attractions (to which we simply are not attracted), it's amazing we still at least care about the two iconic superheroes battling each other.

And their fight proves quite spectacular. Brutal, despite a lack of blood (PG-13 rating and all). But oh so dark and serious. Even Nolan's Dark Knight films, also not particularly light, optimistic fare, never lost sight of the need for a bit of humour and witticism. But Snyder tells such a gritty tale, there's simply no space left for those elements. Unfortunately, after the epic Batman/Superman throwdown, he however feels there is space left for another half an hour of three good guys battling an ugly digital monster. But this climax never feels near as climactic as the fight we expected to see and at least felt somewhat gratifying. As is usual for his approach, Snyder goes over the top much further than we would like him to have gone. Maybe he's not fully to blame for BvS' many shortcomings, a fair bit of it can likely be chalked up to DC interference for setting up the future. But that future does involve Snyder to a great extent, as he's already working on Justice League. We better hope he takes the failures of BvS to heart and lightens up a bit. There's gotta be more to the DC universe than angry heroes beating each other up...

Today's News: Joker visits mass

This week's news, second batch:

Eerste trailer Black Mass

Another weirdo on Johnny Depp's resumé. But this one proves less amiable than the likes of Willy Wonka, the Mad Hatter or Jack Sparrow. This is as creepy a psychopath as they come. It's not the first time Depp plays a notorious criminal - his take on John Dillinger in Public Enemies springs to mind, not to mention singing serial killer Sweeney Todd - but this isn't a charming rogue, this is a sinister killer with a clear talent and love for ruthless violence. A fact well illustrated by the dinner scene running through this trailer. It's hardly the first time a crime boss character intimidates an underling on film by questioning his loyalty after confiding him with whimsical information, but Depp plays it eerily enough to make you forget that feeling of déja vu. I'm quite convinced Black Mass will prove an effective, chilling mob thriller, mostly thanks to Depp's penchant for playing offbeat, quirky characters, the murderous sort or otherwise.

Eerste trailers The Visit

I'm not so sure this creepy film will hit all the right notes though. Maybe it has something to do with the abyss of flops M. Night Shyamalan is sliding ever more deeply in, though I'm still willing to cut the director of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable some slack. The Visit at least appears a return to form of sorts, after engaging in more otherworldy fare with The Last Airbender and After Earth, which proved a bad call. It's horror that established the name M. Night, so maybe it's horror that puts him back on track. That said, it's stated that this is supposedly a 'horror comedy', which isn't something I would quickly discern from these trailers, which seem to focus mostly on the horrific aspect. Then again, the notion of two old people terrorizing their grandkids in the manner illustrated in these trailers does emit an undeniable feeling of absurdity. I would have felt better if The Visit was a full bred horror film, preferably one that didn't overutilize the home video/social media filming format. Even though Shyamalan hasn't made use of that before (at least not for a full movie), it feels he's a little late to that party, considering how often it has been applied in recent years, particularly in the horror genre. For now I'll refrain from getting my hopes up too much for Shyamalan's potential comeback, but I won't be so quick to denounce him as a directorial quack as most other people are. After all, I'm one of those rare folks that actually liked The Village.

Jared Leto's Joker onthuld

A different kind of Joker, as was to be expected. Heath Ledger's take on the Prince of Chaos is not easily outdone, so Leto and Ayer probably didn't bother to try. Sensible move. So the look has changed, to something resembling a Goth rocker. Tattoos are the Joker's new bodily statement of choice. That said, it's obvious the madness remains and it is likely played up a notch. Since the upcoming DC movies stick closer to the source material of the comics, it's not wrong to make the Joker resemble his comic book counterpart a bit more. Aside from the tattoos, which I've never known the Joker to carry (but then, as a Marvelite I'm not much into DC lore anyway). But hey, I doubt Leto is running around topless for the entire duration of Suicide Squad. Say what you will about the Joker, he always dresses smartly, or what goes for smart dressing in his dubious philosophy. This picture is obviously just a publicity shot to get people talking about this new incarnation of Batman's prime nemesis. It's very likely the final look will still differ from what's illustrated here, though now we at least know in what direction we can expect the character to go in a visual (non)sense. And hey, maybe the Joker's just having a laugh here knowing Batman won't appear in this film to demolish the rest of his teeth.

Today's Column: anybody want a Dark Claw movie?

This month's column went up early. Superheroes again. They keep me talking it appears.

Disney, koop DC alsjeblieft!

Of course the tone of this piece is meant somewhat sarcastically. Sure, I'd love to see a Dark Claw movie or any other feature related to the wonderful Amalgam universe, but it's definitely not gonna happen. Ever. And I don't think all movie studios owning superhero copyrights joining together, either out of their own volition or because they're bought up by a larger corporation, would be a preferable solution. One studio owning all the superhero franchises isn't a monopoly we would want. Say what you will about various studios owning various pieces of the various superhero universe puzzles, it guarantees some diversity. If Marvel hadn't sold the rights to Spider-Man and similar large, popular and well known properties, we likely wouldn't have gotten Iron Man, Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy, and seeing as how well that turned out, that clearly would have been a great loss. Now that Spider-Man has returned to Marvel's fold, we have yet to see whether he's not gonna reap too much of other characters' glory, even though the fact Marvel is still working on titles like Captain Marvel, Inhumans and Black Panther is reassuring to some extent, as they seemingly mean to keep the diversity flowing.

But what about the fanboys' dreams of 'interpublisher' crossovers between characters belonging not only to rival studios, but also to rival publishers? They'll stay dreams. I doubt that would change even if a major player like Disney managed to buy the rights to the DC characters after all. Which certainly isn't inconceivable, considering the various properties they bought up in recent years. It often feels with all these companies buying companies, you'll one day end up with one humongously big fat supercompany on top, controlling every franchise. Maybe that'll be Disney in the not too distant future (they don't own the business genius of Scrooge McDuck for nothing, you know). But seeing as how they have yet to do crossovers between Indiana Jones and Marvel, or between more similar brands like the Muppets and Disney's own iconic characters, I doubt they'd go so far as to do a DC/Marvel crossover, let alone Amalgam. (Then again, there already is a comic book which serves as a crossover between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, courtesy of Harrison Ford's presence in both of them.) But if it ever happened, would it be good? An Amalgam adaptation, maybe. It's hard to mess up a fabulous hybrid notion like Dark Claw. A giant crossover between the Avengers and the Justice League? No way, far too many characters and their assorted baggage to make for a sensible plot line. Only the hungriest fanboys would understand it completely, but general audiences couldn't make heads or tails of it all. Let's see whether DC knows how to join its own characters together with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice first. Not to mention it has yet to be determined whether Marvel can pull a similar trick with having more than one group share the screen, as will be the case when the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy join forces in Avengers: Infinity War Parts I & II.

And otherwise, let's just keep dreaming about these little fanboy fantasies of ours. I'm still dreaming of the release of more than only two Dark Claw comics...

Today's News: Jurassic's wonder posters

It was a good week for Jurassic imagery, but not so much for the production of Wonder Woman.

Nieuwe poster Jurassic World

Wederom nieuwe poster Jurassic World

That's what I'm talking about! Less logo (awesome and iconic though it may be) and more striking visuals to entice folks from visiting the new park. Two down, one more to go, and the second trailer just around the corner. Even though the creature is wholly incorrect from a scientific viewpoint, I cannot help but drool over the Mosasaurus one-sheet. The thought of a giant marine reptile - not a dinosaur, as the studio would like you to think - in a tank is such a simple concept, but it totally works. I feel as excited as the little boy on the poster beholding this critter. The shark, less so, I imagine. From what I hear from the script going round, these fish have to be cloned to serve as the Mosasaur's food, since they're on the endangered species list. A fun little side notion with little to no plot consequences, but also a delightful little inside look at the awkward logistics of a dinosaur theme park. The I-Rex poster serves as a decent reminder of the whole man versus nature dichotomy, basically the franchise's philosophical routine. I like the set-up, though if it was applied to hide the appearance of the Indominus Rex, it's a wasted effort, considering the merchandise and I-Rex action figures are already available in many stores around the globe. Of course, the general audience may not be aware of that fact (yet), but it's also not very courteous to misdirect them into thinking the I-Rex is as large as suggested on this poster, as it actually isn't judging from the trailers. But hey, it's a fantasy creature, so some artistic license are allowed, not to mention copyright is installed on the creature's name and likeness. So what's on the third poster? It's gotta be the T-Rex. I guess many fans will still feel it needs to reassert its dominance as the Tyrant Lizard King after JP III, even though that's a moniker bestowed on it by man rather than by nature. Obviously the T-Rex is gonna kill the I-Rex in some spectacular climactic battle, as it doesn't take kindly to people cloning rival superpredators. So it does deserve a poster of its own, and tomorrow we may find out whether JW's plot and promotional campaign are that predictable. But it's gonna be awesome regardless.

Regisseuse Wonder Woman stapt op

And then there's this less predictable story. Sucks too, as I considered Michelle MacLaren the finest choice to direct Wonder Woman, if a female director is obligatory. Someone who helped make The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones to be as great as these shows are would have been a damn fine asset to this picture. But of course, the studio had to screw it up by restricting her input over the story. The usual creative differences ensued, and the best choice departed the project. So who did they pick as her replacement? Patty Jenkins of all people. Ironic to say the least, considering she herself walked off the set of Thor: The Dark World a few years ago because of the same creative differences. Who's to say Jenkins will know any greater liberty directing for DC than she did for Marvel? Then again, she likely knew this when she signed up for WW, so maybe she has finally grown to accept the restrictions placed on the creative input of directors picked for these pieces of the larger superhero cinematic universe puzzles. Man or woman, when working for Marvel or DC, a director must know his or her place, subject to the whim of the studio. No room for emancipation here.

Today's News: late, as usual

Didn't have time to post updates last week, so once again I'm behind on that. The price I pay for keeping busy, and I pay it gladly.

Kinberg en Blomkamp produceren The Leviathan

We are probably witnessing the rise of another gifted director here. Blomkamp is giving a capable talent the same chance he himself was once given by Peter Jackson, based on the similar tactic of making a short film to entice others to buy into the outlandish concept. And a rather ambitious concept it is. In just a few lines of text, space travel, exotic alien life, epic man-versus-nature battles and slave labour is introduced, and then the trailer itself hasn't even started yet. So please, make this film about people forced to hunt space whales. I just hope Robinson is on the side of the unfortunate creatures, as I absolutely do not consider actual whaling a noble endeavour. But then, if 'involuntary labour' is needed to harvest the 'exotic matter' from the animals in question, the whalers definitely aren't the good guys. At this point, a studio has already picked up the rights, and it's 20th Century Fox. Will they deliver the obviously large budget Robinson requires to make his picture? They have a bad track record when it comes to appreciating awesome science fiction concepts, so they definitely wouldn't have been my first pick. But hey, Robinson surely won't complain, since he has finally succeeded at snagging a studio and producers to make his movie. Speaking of which, there's a few similarities between this Leviathan and Don Lawrence's Storm, the latter which I always hoped would make it into a movie some day. Maybe Leviathan will still my need for a Storm flick, or maybe it only proves that if you sell your Sci-Fi concept the way Robinson did, you can eventually usher your dream into theaters after all.

Eerste teaser Mission: Impossible 5

I thought Tom Cruise had by now established the fact there are no impossible missions anymore, but apparently, I was wrong. So another totally outrageous mission is concocted to make Cruise once again play the Hollywood superstar. You know, the type that sees his name stamped on promotional material in a bigger format than the movie's actual title. The all-American hero that travels the globe to all manner of exotic locales the common American has never heard of (like Moscow or London), all the while kicking bad guys' butts, bedding insanely hot dames and shouting silly oneliners at every opportunity. Cruise still can't get enough of it. I for one, care little, but then I never did from the get-go. This time Cruise and his team hunt down a shady organization much like their own, their insidious doppelgänger as it were. Isn't that also the plot of the new 007 flick, Spectre? And isn't James Bond a more sophisticated and better loved take on Tom Cruise's character for that matter? Seems like we're hitting another one of those circumstances where two movies sharing an awfully similar concept see release with only a short interval between them (think A Bug's Life/Antz or Deep Impact/Armageddon). I know what team I'm betting for and it's not this one.

Eerste foto Jesse Eisenberg als Lex Luthor

That picture freaks me out. What a sinister mug shot, the face of an evil, evil man no doubt. Not so long ago it had curly hair and was applied to the role of far more likeable characters. But now that dear little neurotic guy from the likes of Zombieland and To Rome with Love is playing the big leagues as a major villain based on comic book material. Eisenberg's Luthor will soon be seen harrassing various superheroes throughout the DC Cinematic Universe, starting with both Superman and Batman (a single hero won't do, of course). He'll basically be DC's answer to Tom Hiddleston's and Marvel's Loki, which is definitely a tough act to follow. As a megalomaniac captain of industry, Eisenberg will play the second next grandiose thing to a crazed Norse God. He'll probably do just fine, but I still won't care as much, considering I really am on Marvel's side. I've always considered DC's characters a little too larger than life, less easy to identify with as a regular guy. You'd think I'd find a megalomaniac captain of industry more easy to digest than a crazed Norse God than, but apparently it doesn't work that way. Just goes to show what a particular geek I am in my tastes. Well sorry. Mr. Eisenberg.

Matt Smith hoofdrolspeler in Harry Potter spin-off

Speaking of my particular tastes, Dr. Who isn't one of them. I never really could get into it. So I've never seen Matt Smith in action, but if he's playing Dr. Who, then he must be the British sort, which means he'd do nicely in the Potterverse. Even though we're not talking Harry Potter here, casting an American in the lead role would be an act of blasphemy, as I'm sure Mrs. Rowling has made quite clear to the producers of the upcoming spin-off Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Plus, Matt Smith might make a nice change from Benedict Cumberbatch, who these days is considered the quintessential Englishman to cast in any rol pertaining to Brittania, good characters or bad. So yeah, throw Smith a bone and cast him as Newt Scamander. I'm sure he could effortlessly switch between silly aliens and robots to equally silly magical shenanigans and monstrous entities. 'Silly' not prohibiting a wonderful sense of adventure and enjoyment of course. Just serving a very British kind.

Sony verschuift reboot Smurfen

Another particularly European sense of adventure and enjoyment is found on the pages of Belgium's comic industry. And this one unfortunately has suffered from ruthless Americanization in recent years. Both Smurfs movies were strong examples of how not to adapt beloved comics (or cartoons for that matter) for modern Western audiences. Trading in a medieval European setting for contemporary New York was both insulting and painful to behold. So even though the American presence behind the cameras remains, a totally new kind of direction for this blue little franchise is nothing short of a good thing. Going fully animated also meets my approval, as it will prohibit actors not up to the task from sharing the screen with the delightful creatures we really care to see. Heck, if Gargamel wasn't such a recognizable foil to the Smurfs, I'd say go and make an all-Smurf movie without any human (or feline) characters, one hearkening back to the classic stories of old (as the director claims is his intention). I'm all for adapting the Smurführer story, though I think that one might be a little too controversial for Hollywood's taste. Same goes for the one about the disease spreading primitive Black Smurfs. Nevertheless, both of these concepts would make for movies ten times more compelling than the dreck released this past decade. I'm hopeful the studio means to honor their statement of indeed taking the Smurfs back to their roots and completely ignoring said damage, but I know better than to get my hopes up too high. At this time, my hope has reached a level of about three apples high. If the people behind this movie have any inkling what that means, it's an indication they're indeed on the right path.

Today's News: Aquaman won't settle for a Razzie

The slow week continues with only minor bits of news, in anticipation of the big Oscar bang no doubt:

Catan gaat bioscopen koloniseren

I've heard worse ideas for adaptations of games, board or video. Though most of either still fail to deliver decent movies, it's hard to deny. But at least Settlers of Catan seems to have more cinematic ingredients from which a proper movie can be distilled than the likes of Ouija or Tetris. You've got an enticing historical look, the potential of a sweeping plot of heroism and rivalry against insurmountable odds and the force of nature, plus dramatic elements like knights and bandits to spice things up a little. And of course, there's somewhat of a franchise potential, too. If the movie does become a success, there's the likes of expansion sets (Seafarers) or variations on the theme (Prehistory, or even more outlandish takes like Starfarers) to explore. And these days, every studio is aching to find franchises. Settlers of Catan might prove to become a solid movie. I just hope they don't throw in a silly random element that might alienate audiences from the original premise of the beloved game itself. Remember the response when Battleship felt the need to include aliens in the plot? I'd say Settlers of Catan has enough material going for it to do without such extra obstacles.

Jason Momoa's Aquaman onthuld

Now that shows like The Big Bang Theory have made a little too much fun of DC's King of the Seven Seas usual appearance and abilities, it comes as no surprise Aquaman needed a different, tougher look to overcome such popcultural bias. Casting Jason Momoa was a right choice in that regard, since you wouldn't want to get into a conflict with him about his style of dressing, it might be bad for your health. So no orange shirt, no green pants, and no riding sea beasts as a mode of transportation. You get a darker, grittier Aquaman, a regal appearance that screams 'don't screw with me!'. Basically it ends up looking like Khal Drogo with a Poseidonic motif, trident and fishy scales and all. It works I suppose, though it's not particularly coulourful or inspired. As for the meaning of the mysterious tagline 'Unite the Seven', beats me. I'm not into DC's comics enough to care to unravel its intentions. I'm a Marvel guy. I'll wait and see what exactly Momoa's Aquaman will be up to when he does his thing in theaters.

Winnaars Razzies bekendgemaakt

It appears the Razzies have found a new filmmaker to victimize. Though Michael Bay still won his fair share of awards, as is usual, it was Kirk Cameron that took most of the beating for his apparently dismal Saving Christmas, which was fortunately spared a Dutch release. I've never heard of the movie or the actor behind it, but when I see this flick on IMDb's Bottom Top 100 on the number 1 spot with a rating of 1.5, I get the picture. Okay, so there might be some hating hype surrounding the project that I don't know the details of. I'm not into Christmas themed films anyway, so I'll refrain from checking this one out. I've seen enough of these Razzie nominated movies for one year. I had to sit through both TMNT and the latest Trannies flick, which was quite enough of a borefest for me. Other than that, there's no real surprises among the winners here. Obviously Ben Affleck redeemed himself in the eyes of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation, as he has already done so in the eyes of everybody else. Who knows, maybe Kirk Cameron will do the same some day, as the Razzies find somebody new to pick on.

Today's News: lots of little news items

Plenty of news this week, but nothing really major. The usual atmosphere in January.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158650/trailer_penny_dreadful_seizoen_2

Bring it on! If Season 2 is anywhere near as creepy and offbeat as Season 1, I'm game. The trailer sure indicates the eerie, Gothic mood of the show remains unchanged. It's just the characters that get mixed up in new plot twists which causes the major change in pace. From the looks of it, Eva Green's Vanessa Ives takes centrestage again. I don't mind, as Green is a very appreciable actress, though I do think a little more attention to some of the other characters would have been and remains most welcome. It would have made the revelation about Josh Hartnett's character a little easier to digest, since it now came mostly out of the blue, though I reckon Season 2 will definitely address matters more on that front. But hey, anything involving supernatural characters in Victorian London very much piques my interest. If the second season proves half as intriguing as the first, I won't complain.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158651/tom_hardy_verlaat_suicide_squad

I predicted this was gonna happen in my previous discussions of casting for this DC movie (look them up via the tags below, if you disbelieve me). Suicide Squad is an ensemble movie filled with colourful characters, and its ranks have been filled with some big A-list actors to portray them. Of course, egos were bound to come into conflict with one another over how much screentime their character featured and what the exact nature of their supervillain of choice ought to be sooner rather than later. And so Hardy is the first one out, as new sources (not mentioned in my article) claim was the result just because of creative differences over his character. I expected it to be Will Smith, so that at least is a little surprising to me. I would also have liked to see Hardy stay on board more than I would Smith, as I consider him to be the more interesting actor (since he's not yet a superstar, unlike Smith). However, I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the cast follow Hardy's example soon. I hope they won't, since the majority consists of solid actors who might do very well with the subject matter. But it's hard to deny director David Ayer might have bit off more than he could chew with a cast as loaded with impressive names as this one.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158664/eerste_foto_cast_now_you_see_me_2

The big trick this first movie, about a bunch of rebellious illusionistsbreaking into banks, pulled out of its hat was introducing its franchise ambitions. Its ending sure revealed there was much more going on behind the scenes than at first believed. It proved quite an incredulous close which strongly required wanting to be fooled to accept it. Many audiences didn't, and therefore condemned the film's finale as a ridiculous and illogical cop-out. But the movie performed well enough in a summer of weak blockbusters, which makes the studio hopeful this franchise will spawn a few blockbuster installments of its own. At least they got a decent cast to make it happen. Most of the veterans from the first move are back for more magic shenanigans, while this first cast photo shows Daniel Radcliffe and Lizzy Caplan have been added to the cast. Decent additions for sure and at least one of them knows his way around the world of wand waving magic tricks. Otherwise, I remain skeptical about this project. It seems it's gonna go down the road of Ocean's Eleven, except with illusionists robbing banks rather than with gentlemen con artists pulling off casino heists. Which is fine for many audiences, but not my cup of tea.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158666/fox_wil_meer_x-files_

Not overly fond of this notion. The X-Files was a good show, but its curse was it overstayed its welcome, continuing for two more season than felt obliged. Similarly, one movie was warranted at the peak of its popularity, but the second one was an exercise in redundancy, which barely even felt like connecting to the series proper. Why bother digging up such fossils? Well, money, obviously. As noted, the show was a smash success back in its days. There's still plenty of fans who crave their weekly dose of extraterrestrial and supernatural mystery. However, I think the majority would agree that this is basically just blatantly repeating past glory. Though I'm usually not high on reboots, I think it would be the wiser way to go in this franchise's case. Duchovny and Anderson have moved on, and I doubt they would feel much for anything other than a limited series, as Duchovny already suspected to be the case. Why not have a new duo of talented actors take over for them? If the new take on the show is indeed a limited series, that would be a great opportunity to have the torch be passed from the old cast to the next generation, while also testing the waters and see whether The X-Files premise still connect to modern day audiences who are more used to an ungoing narrative rather than old fashioned episodic storytelling. However, a limited series can't address the mythology of the original show much, since that was basically concluded, nor does it have much opportunity to introduce a mythology of its own if there's only gonna be a handful of episodes. I bet we'll see a miniseries at first, which tells a rounded story but keeps options open for a follow-up regular running series which stars main characters other than Mulder and Scully. No mystery that's probably the safest way to go, and I want to believe Fox feels the same.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158696/nieuwe_promo_the_walking_dead_seizoen_52

I won't discuss this particular preview much here, simply because I can't. I have yet to catch up with The Walking Dead Season 4 and the first half of Season 5. So I have no idea what tragic events preceded this trailer. It's the downside of living in the Golden Age of Television: there's too much good series to go round and not enough time to watch them all. I'm not following TWD as closely and obsessively as some other shows, though I hope to return to the zombie apocalypse soon. But until that time, I try to stay away from any information regarding the show, so as to avoid potential spoilers. Fortunately this 30-second teaser didn't show too much, and what it did reveal, I missed to such an extent that I don't feel spoilered. Thankfully, since this is often an unfortunate side effect of the job of posting news about movies and TV.

Today's News: not a very busy week for news

The end of the year is nigh, the slow flow of news is a telling sign of that. Good thing too, since I got plenty of work to do in these last few weeks of 2014.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158349/vijf_regisseurs_op_shortlist_star_trek_3

Well, that's just nice! Five eligible directors and the one I trust most to save Star Trek from going down the drain immediately says he's not interested. A damn shame, since intelligent Sci-Fi is exactly what Trek is in dire need of to once again differentiate it from the action oriented likes of Star Wars, and intelligent Sci-Fi is just Duncan Jones' forte. Justin Lin and Daniel Espinosa are mostly mindless action directors (no offense, guys!), so not the types Trek needs. I haven't seen The Imitation Game (yet), nor have I sampled any of Morten Tyldum's domestic fare, so I can't speak of his suitability for Trek 3. Considering his first overseas film stars Benedict Cumberbatch, who previously played a character I so do not want to see again in the next Trek film, I'm inclined not to give Tyldum the benefit of the doubt, though I agree that is rather narrow minded of me. That leaves Rupert Wyatt. His Rise of the Planet of the Apes indicated a compatibility with smarter science fiction, but once again, his oeuvre isn't particularly elaborate and I don't feel like judging a director's capacities for Trek on just the one film. Duncan Jones was just what the franchise needed, in my mind. Very disappointing to know he won't be involved. And if such bad news isn't enough of a downer, the news reached the Internet this week that Paramount is eager to incorporate witty sidekick characters á la Rocket & Groot into the next film because of the success of Guardians of the Galaxy. Which once again goes to show that studio execs, at least the ones working at this studio, only follow what's hot and trending, rather than appreciate 50 years of Trek history that did pretty well without such blatant attempts to make the franchise resemble other popular properties. I truly fear for the future of Trek, it increasingly doesn't seem to have one that's worthy of the lore that came before...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158377/viola_davis_gecast_in_suicide_squad

Wow, Suicide Squad really seems to have a thing for casting Oscar nominees. Guess DC's strategy to differentiate itself from Marvel is to cast mostly actors with past Oscar buzz. The majority of the main Marvel actors are well suited at what they do, but, with a few exceptions, Oscar material they are not. Director David Ayer seems to have his job cut out for him managing all this movie's talent and the unavoidable egos that come with it. I'm glad they casted Davis rather than Oprah Winfrey. That latter choice just seemed to much like the stuff of 'silly Internet rumour', even if Winfrey is serious about a solid action career. Davis is known to excel at heavily dramatic roles, but has co-starred in plenty of action movies that don't take themselves overly seriously. Suicide Squad definitely falls into that category and so does the role of Amanda Waller, the government liaison tasked with overseeing all the villainous egos in the Squad itself. Seems like she and Ayer have that much in common, hopefully they'll be able to teach each other a thing or two.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158395/nieuwe_poster_marvels_agent_carter

Hayley Atwell is also one of those actresses who's in all regards skilled at her job, but not someone likely to get nabbed for an Academy Award anytime soon. Especially in her return to the small screen for Agent Carter (maybe she'll win an Emmy though, you never know). So far, I like what I've seen of this new show, and I always like seeing Hayley anyway. Nevertheless, with this series the Marvel Universe once again emphasizes its spy stuff, something which I feel it's overdoing. We already have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. running and that titular organization, though it took a blow recently on the big screen, is still very active in the Marvel movies as well. Now we get a show which spends a lot of its time exploring the origins of S.H.I.E.L.D. Too much espionage for my taste. Granted, the Marvel Universe is not just about superhumans, but it is hard to deny that's its most appealing aspect, so I would call for more superheroes and less shady spy organizations. Of course, with five upcoming Netflix series dealing with that subject, the future looks bright enough in that regard. And at least Agent Carter has the charming historical Fourties period to distinguish itself from the later S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans. So it's not just all repetition of the same thing, just variation.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158406/nieuwe_beelden_daredevil

Speaking of those upcoming Marvel titles, here's a closer look at one. After Agent Carter, Daredevil is the next Marvel series planned for 2015. And this one is a bit more super, though much more grounded in reality than his contemporaries on the big screen. He's not fighting aliens or gods, just busting criminal asses on the streets of New York. Something a bit more relatable. His outfit also isn't nearly as fancy as we're used to from superheroes. However, word is ths suit above is just an initial garment, and not the familiar final red garb, which will make its appearance later. Hopefully they'll manage to find a careful balance between fancy and gritty, the way the 2003 movie just didn't. At least Charlie Cox, like Atwell, is one of those reliable actors you can fully trust to make things work, without his demanding an Oscar in return.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158403/nieuwe_trailer_american_sniper

Bradley Cooper, however, does have his eyes fixed on an Academy Award. And he's also a part of the Marvel Universe, though not as visible as most (he's responsible for that funny raccoon from that recent space movie, remember?). Third time may prove the charm, having been snubbed for an Oscar twice already, but clearly taking a precise aim for one again in Clint Eastwood's American Sniper. Eastwood being a sort of Oscar magnet also helps his cause no doubt. Seems both director and star made a strong dramatic movie, if the trailer is to be believed. Very American too, and not just in regards to the title. Eastwood is not one to sugarcoat his country, and it apears American Sniper will make no secrets of the negative effects of American actions abroad against those citizens taking said actions. Nor will it need to defend itself from showcasing such actions, as the need for them is not without cause. Or maybe the trailer is dead wrong and the film is actually a ideologically black & white patriottic puff piece, who knows. Hopefully the movie will do this fine trailer justice.

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: a threesome of trailers with a bit of casting

Time is always against me, so it has taken me a bit longer than I had hoped to get going with posting news again, though admittedly, there wasn't that much of it anyway this week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157929/eerste_trailer_iron_sky_2

Das ist ja spitze, toll und hübsch! I absolutely adored the first Iron Sky (Nazis on the moon, can't go wrong with that notion!) and though I didn't think its ending allowed for a sequel - it's a bit of a downer, you know - I'm pleasantly surprised to see the writers, total fanboys as they are, came up with a neat new direction for the franchise. Nazi lizard people riding dinosaurs! Apparently, things only get crazier and I'm loving it. You can't ask for a better trailer to convince people to put money in your project (as it still is in no way sure whether the budget necessary for The Coming Race will be reached). If this trailer doesn't pull folks over, they must really hate Nazis. Or dinosaurs. In all honesty, I must hesitantly admit I haven't donated (yet)... What with the Holidays and all types of social events like birthdays and marriages just around the corner, this isn't a particularly convenient time for me to part with more dough. But that doesn't mean I won't contribute to the cause financially at some later date, when it's more opportune. I'm not a hypocrit. I support national-socialist reptilians taking over the planet! I sincerely want this movie to get made, I really do! So if you people reading this have some cash to spare, you know what to do with it.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157928/jared_leto_in_dcs_suicide_squad

Jared Leto as the Joker? It's not the first name that springs to mind when asked who I could see in that role. However, neither was Heath Ledger's initially (heck, no!) and that sure turned out alright. I happen to know Leto is perfectly capable of portraying a wide range of emotions and characters, and I've also seem him unpredictably unstable before ('twas in Lord of War, I'll have you know). So I'm willing to cut him some slack, particularly with an Oscar for a serious role under his belt (again, a Heath Ledger type situation: hopefully Leto has learned to stay way from drugs via Ledger's example, and his own in Requiem for a Dream). The question is more whether I think it's a good idea to introduce the new DC Cinematic Universe take on the Joker in the baddies ensemble flick Suicide Squad, rather than in the next Batman flick, as most people would have expected. I don't actually, but I understand DC doesn't want to wait that long to get audiences reacquainted with an iconic villain like this, as the next Batman film proper isn't scheduled for release until at least 2019. Plus, doing the unexpected thing always has been the Joker's forte.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157949/eerste_trailer_testament_of_youth

Looks rather bland and predictable, to be honest. But then, what more can be added to everything that has already been said and seen about World War I? It was a bloody mess that never should have happened and a dark mark on humanity's track record, period. Of course, personal perspectives (be they from notable historical characters or common souls) could still be worthy of our attention. This one, from an early feminist point of view, doesn't seem particularly inspired. Similar stories have been addressed ample times. Atonement for example, or some plot lines in Downton Abbey. Of course, the need to warn us against the horrors of war remains, as does underscoring the notion that women are equal to men. I'm sure Testament of Youth will strongly remind us of both factors, though judging from the trailer - which you never ought to do, but usually can't be helped anyway - not without sitting through a good two hours of bland melodrama first. Good cast though (particular the female roles), I'll give 'em that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157970/eerste_teaser_insurgent

Also doesn't exactly get me stoked, this teaser for Insurgent. The film already has the issue going against it that its predecessor, Divergent, didn't exactly agree with me. Of course, it did with the millions of paying teenage girls - I'm none of these three categories - who happily devoured both novel and motion picture, so I doubt the future of Insurgent looks in the slightest bit troubled on my account. But still, this isn't exactly an adequate teaser by most standards. It feels more like a fragment from a scene from the film, randomly picked and stripped of all context and emotional investment that should make us give a damn. Just seeing Shailene Woodley hallucinating about her mom (if that's what's going on, since I can't tell, nor do I care at this point) isn't enough to pull me or many others apart from the fanbase in. I guess I'm really just more of a Hunger Games guy anyway, though I hate taking sides between popular franchises aimed predominantly at young adults. Though naturally I'm always very much in favour of taking the sides of good films over bad ones, and I wish more teenage girls would share that sentiment.

Today's News: business as usual

It's been a slow second half of the week for posting movie news. Good thing too, it won't cause me to get behind again:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157681/nieuwe_john_carter_in_de_planning

I had hoped for this, so I'm glad the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs isn't letting a second John Carter of Mars movie gestate for another 70 years. I was really disappointed Disney's John Carter flopped so hard at the boxoffice. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a damn fun movie with great visuals and it had solid franchise potential. Maybe I liked it more than I should, but subject material like this - strange aliens, exotic alien worlds, sexy alien chicks, etc. - really is my cup of tea, always has been. Granted, the movie made its fair share of mistakes both in terms of development, narrative and marketing, but in my mind it truly deserved a better fate. And so ERB, Inc. thinks, too. The original books were groundbreaking, swashbuckling rollercoasters of adventure novels that have endured for many decades, so there must still be an audience for them somewhere. No harm in trying again, starting from scratch, maybe not spending such excessive amounts of money on them this time. I'm really hopeful the company can find a new partner, a studio that still feels there's room for old fashioned Sci-Fi adventures like these. At least this time they know what not to do to make it work. Though it would make sense for both the estate and the studio to wait a little longer, after Jupiter Ascending and Star Wars Episode VII have hit theaters, so they can see whether there's still an audience for grandiose space opera in the ERB tradition.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157701/nieuwe_trailer_the_woman_in_black_2

Seems like more of the same. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the first Woman in Black was quite a decent horror flick with its wonderfully creepy and moody period look. Trading in a late Victorian style for a WW II era visual look is not a bad thing. From a story point of view, it makes sense as to why people would allow kids to visit that horribly haunted house again. It seems a better place for children to be than a bombed-out London, any regular parent would think. City folks don't believe in countryside ghost stories after all. And not having Daniel Radcliffe as the protagonist is probably a good notion too. His post-Potter presence in the previous part tended to overshadow the movie as having its own identity. The Woman in Black is still commonly referred to as 'that spooky film featuring Harry Potter', and I don't think that does it any justice at all. Then again, the second installment stars Potter's Narcissa Malfoy, for those who weren't aware. Hopefully it doesn't mean the movie will soon be acknowledged as 'that spooky movie starring Draco's mum'. That is, if Angel of Death turns out as decent a scary movie (or more so) as its predecessor. Otherwise, I couldn't really care less anyway.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157700/_bale_speelt_steve_jobs_in_boyles_biopic

Another Steve Jobs biopic? There was one in theaters only a year ago. Than one, however, didn't win much favour with audience or critics with its rather bland and straightforward approach. Nor are its director and main star (Ashton Kutcher, if you recall) considered such bankable talents as Christian Bale and Danny Boyle. So yeah, why not make another? There's still plenty to tell about so inspiring and innovative a man, no doubt. Plus, there's better storytellers available, and Boyle sure is an intriguing choice. I don't mind Bale, though he tends to go a little too far in his acting, reminding you that you're not watching the character he plays, but that you're seeing Bale doing his extreme thing again. The script is in the capable hands of Aaron Sorkin, who seems to be in danger of being typecast as the screenwriter for penning biopics about important folks in the digital industry for hugely talented directors (he also did The Social Network, after all). You think we'll get multiple Bill Gates motion pictures when that Microsoft man logs out of this life? If so, Sorkin is likely to be Hollywood's go-to guy to pen a script about Gates' life.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157709/jesse_eisenberg_in_dcs_suicide_squad

Hopefully poor Jesse Eisenberg fully realized what he got himself into before signing on as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Considering DC's overly ambitious plans for its own cinematic universe - clearly copying Marvel's designs, but still - it would be natural for a bad guy of Luthor's stature to appear in multiple DC movies soon. Luthor, after all, has his greedy conniving arms wrapped aroud a lot of shady businesses in the DC comics, and has had them there for decades. The movie version is expected to be just as busy controlling an evil empire, one that's not restricted to simply plaguing his nemesis Superman, but many of his fellow heroes as well. Right now the most apt comparable character available in the Marvel Cinematic Universe villain would be Loki, who also started out the archenemy of one but soon demanded a bigger piece of the superhero pie. Luthor is likely to do the same. Nevertheless, his skills would make him more of an evil Nick Fury, controlling strings of a lot of other baddies behind the scenes, as Fury does with good guys (or what he considers to be such, at least). In this case, it seems he's the guy responsible for forming the supervillain team called Suicide Squad, soon to give the Justice League a hard time. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and thus Eisenberg, make regular appearances, both minor and major, in many upcoming DC movies. And I'm sure Eisenberg won't particularly mind, it just keeps him occupied while the pay checks keep coming in at a steady flow.

Today's Triple News: Dawn of Superman's Odyssey

News! News! We got news here!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156430/eerste_foto_superman_in_batman_v_superman

We already got a small tease of Ben Affleck's Batman (with Batmobile!) for DC's upcoming superhero extravaganza, now it's the Man of Steel's turn. Good timing, as fanboys were about done nitpicking over every conceivable little detail of that one released picture, so now they can drool over another one for a month or so. There's little to go on here though, as the only really bit of news it contains is that Superman (Henry Cavill again) will visit Gotham City. A likely event, considering the title Batman v Superman (Dawn of Justice, etc.). Of course, you can argue that Batman might have traveled to Metropolis (which he still may), but Superman is the once who's faster than a speeding bullet which allows him to travel the globe in the blink of an eye so it's easier (and proably less strainful on the budget) for him to do so. Otherwise, not that much of note here. The Superman costume has scarcely changed from the previous movie. Gotham looks a bit bleaker and more Gothic in appearance than it did in Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but that was to be expected, as this movie would turn more to the pages of the comics in an attempt to set itself apart stylistically from those exquisite films, as well as from the sunnier, brighter city of Metropolis with which it will share the screen. The big question this picture hints at first and foremost is one of a story nature: what is Superman doing in Gotham? Once again turning to the title (as there's little else to go on at present), the most in you-face answer is he'll be getting into fisticuffs with Batman. Next question then is, why will they fight? And that leads to more questions, and so on and so on. Which ensures fans will have plenty of material to debate until the next photo is released. Good thing too, as they still need to wait two more years for the definitive answers.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156416/stalingrad_regisseur_maakt_odyssee

Interesting director's choice in this politically tense day and age. Art adheres not to the borders of man, especially when loads of money are involved. Will it be good art though (if there even is such a thing)? Bondarchuk's epic love story Stalingrad met with rather mixed reviews, though its accoloades include highest grossing film in Russia and first non-American film shot in IMAX 3D, thanks to its impressive visual effects which thoroughly suit that format. So, strong box office results for prior work, innovative international use of technology and experience with big budget spectacle, coupled with a chance to win favours with the Russian industry, all come with Bondarchuk, which are enough reasons to sway studio executives to hire him. In terms of story, the Odyssey has proven itself to hold up for several milennia, so it can survive this latest attempt no doubt. As for the execution, the visual side seems secure as far as the budget allows. As for the character side, therein lies the greatest challenge. I would suggest casting a solid, capable actor in the title role (as the movie is called Odysseus), and his name is Sean Bean. His take on Odysseus was one of Troy's redeeming features and I would love to see some more of that. Then again, it might not be such a good idea for Bondarchuk to suggest his film is a sequel to Troy, which it's not intended to be. Even though I get the feeling that final product was right up his alley in terms of directorial execution, as it was maligned for much the same reasons Stalingrad was (except for the absence of Orlando Bloom's poor acting skills).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156428/trio_korte_films_slaat_brug_tussen_apes_films

I was already stoked for Dawn of the PotA (first few reviews are fortunately showered in praise!), so these three short films (collectively titled Before the Dawn) miss their mark in convincing me to go see a film I was already convinced to go see. Considering they are rather short on apes - silhouettes and sound effects is all we get - I don't think anybody watching them that didn't know another PotA film was coming feels the sudden urge to get in line for admission tickets. Their primary purpose seems to assure confused folks that missed the connection between both films have something to fall back on to enlighten them as what caused the abrupt and expansive change in status quo for both apes and humans. However, as is the case with any good viral marketing, this backstory can be missed when considering the movies proper. The information provided here serves as a decent background that does not need to be seen specifically to enjoy the motion picture experience. Nevertheless, they do add a little bit of sense and character to the rebooted Apes universe as a whole, even though the quality of these three films varies. The idea of staging the demise of human society over different time periods since the outbreak of the devastating simian flu plague is infective (obvious pun there, sorry). The first film is easily the weakest, just a quick piece intended to be emotionally charged but ending up rather dull. The second one spices things up considerably by comparison, showing just how seriously everyday life has changed in a brief timespan, while also introducing a new threat to the survivors that was absent from the first short but is of course what we'll all go and pay to see with most anticipation (apes, I mean). The third film, which is longer than the other two combined and therefore might be accused of having an unfair advantage to hook us in the most, is the most chilling, disturbing and dramatic of the trio. Which is a mean feat, considering it deals with an object more than it does with people, be they human or primates. It's a very imaginative and subtle yet effective way to show how much one side has deteriorated while another has risen, with both sides ending up in an existential state of balance. I doubt any of the characters introduced here, human or artificial, will end up playing a substantial role - more than a cameo, that is - in the upcoming theatrical movie proper, but they don't need to. Before the Dawn is just a neat and helpful bit of background story but if you don't know it's out there, it's not likely to diminish your viewing experiece of the movie it serves.

Today's News aplenty

Guess who's behind on commenting on his own posted bits of news this weekend?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156239/nieuwe_batman_mogelijk_in_2019

It would have made more sense to give a major character his own solo debut before throwing him in the mix with others, as Marvel did so successfully on The Avengers. However, Warner/DC are in a tremendous hurry. The superhero movie fad has been going on for over a decade now, the novelty will wear off and audiences will grow tired of all these superheroes saving the day ad nauseam soon. It's not unlikely we have already witnessed the height of the superhero silver screen craze by now. However, Marvel has shown its rivals the light and the financial rewards to be reaped, so a competing über-superhero blockbuster from that other major comic book publisher is in short order. And considering the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, plus the popularity of the Batman character in general for the last 70 years, it's safe to say audiences know the Caped Crusader well enough not to be in need of an origin story once again. Batman may really not need another introduction for a change. Let him meet Superman first and see how that works out for the both of them, and worry about retelling this particular take on the character later on. Of course, it's likely his background will be touched upon in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, though probably not in so much detail. I'm sure it can be skipped for a film or two, as Justice League too is scheduled to beat The Batman, as is the solo film's dull working title, to theaters. It may actually be good for the character's air of mystique to keep his origins in the dark for a while longer than anticipated by the general audience. And since the Dark Knight trilogy turned out so well, we can still enjoy it to the fullest for a few more years before the mantle is passed to another director, another actor and another universe for Bats to play in.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156258/rian_johnson_regisseur_star_wars_episode_viii

The hunt for talented young directors to shape Disney's Star Wars universe continues! Not that I consider J.J. Abrams either young (age: 48) or talented (mucking up Lost, sacking Star Trek). But his co-directors Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) and Josh Trank (Chronicle) sure fit that description. And Rian Johnson does too. His episodes of Breaking Bad were amongst the best of the entire series' run and proves he understands compelling characters and drama just fine, while Looper was simply a good watch (not flawless, but still a noteworthy Sci-Fi flick). Apparently Disney thinks the world of him, as he's not only directing Episode VIII, but also writing both that one and its successor, Episode IX. I bet there's a juicy, shocking cliffhanger involved that warrants the involvement of the same writer to make things run more smoothly from a plot point of view. So that makes five(!) Star Wars films currently being prepped, the greatest activity ever on the franchise. How much anticipation can the fans survive? And how much harder will the blow to them be if these films do not live up to the hype which is rapidly reaching insane levels? As all major film studios are, Disney is unmistakably in a hurry to capitalize on what it has. I hope it works out for everybody, studio and devotees alike. Fortunately, after the disappointment Star Wars' own creative father wrought on the franchise in the previous decade, most fans will know not to live in hope to much. But ever more of such promising names attached, the chances continue to rise we will be getting at least one good Star Wars movie in the near future.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156259/laatste_trailer_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_online

As for Planet of the Apes, that franchise already experienced a successful reboot with Rise of the PotA. So far the trailers indicate the level of quality is maintained for its successor, Dawn of the PotA. Thanks to this latest trailer I'm even more stoked for this movie than I already was. Okay, so the image of a chimp riding a horse while firing twin guns is a bit on the side of campy excess, all else seems solid enough. You've got intriguing characters, a fascinating post-apocalyptic state of affairs, excellent visual effects and some damn fine actors (Andy Serkis! Gary Oldman!) to make it all come alive. And things are not too black and white, as there's villains and heroes on both sides and there's something to be said for everybody's motivations. Of course we root for the formerly oppressed apes, but thanks to the virus that wiped out most of humanity, the stakes have been balanced to such an extent that the humans are not much beter off, which makes them sympathetic underdogs in a clever role reversal. There's room for that gray area between man and beast to be explored, the trailer suggests, even though much of the movie obviously consists of acts of violence committed by both parties. And unlike in the original movies, the lines between the three species of apes - chimpanzee, orang-utan and gorilla, if you recall - are not so clearly delineated as before, so there is opportunity to make use of those differences too. It's not as simple as chimps good, gorillas bad, as in the Seventies. Nor is it apes good, humans bad, as was the case for most of the previous movie. As the trailer shows, and hopefully the film itself will too, everybody is still all too human and peace is our only option for mutual survival.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156264/sinister_regisseur_schrijft_outer_limits

Derrickson sure is getting busy lately. He still has to finish another horror flick, he's busy prepping Doctor Strange for Marvel, and now he's tackling The Outer Limits inbetween. I hope he does it justice, as his remake of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still didn't prove him to be a science fiction genius. The choice to base an entire movie off a single episode also is no cause for optimism, especially if it's a feeble one (no offense to Harlan Ellison). I question the choice to adapt this TV-show to the big screen, since the latter just doesn't fit its format all too well. The same can be said for its friendly competitor, The Twilight Zone. Anthologies are beter served in weekly succession on the small screen where viewers can grasp the concepts more easily than they can if they encounter them in theaters only every three years. After all, if a movie proves to be received well by its audience, it will expect a direct sequel in terms of story, rather than an entirely different story altogether. Imagine if I, Robot was the first Outer Limits movie and the sequel wouldn't deal with robots at all: would that have sat well with spectators? It just so happens that that particular tale was first used in the original TV series before Will Smith made it his own star vehicle in 2004. If there was no Will Smith in its successor, people might have been ended up disappointed. The only other workable solution is to fit multiple short stories into a single movie, as done in the Eighties' Twilight Zone movie, not to great effects despite the involvement of several notable directors for each segment (including Steven Spielberg). To me, the silver screen just doesn't seem to be suited to unrelated short stories packaged under the same title. Theatrical limits are just a little too far beyond the outer limits the show handles.

Today's Triple News: magic Aquaman of the galaxy

There's news, and then there's more news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156134/meer_character_posters_voor_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Got a mail from my editor at a quarter to midnight. Marvel posted the last two character posters online and he though I should finish what I started by posting them on MovieScene. I couldn't agree more, even though I was about to go to bed instead (that'll teach me not to check my e-mail at so late an hour!). All part of the job, even though it's only a voluntary position. This pair of posters continues the eye catching colourful, flashy and distinctly space opera vibe carrying trend the earlier two (of Rocket & Groot and Gamora, if you recall) started. Drax ominously has his back turned to us, amply revealing his daggers, while enemy warships approach in the distance. It obviously isn't the most inspired piece of advertising (compare the final poster for The Chronicles of Riddick for instance), but it looks decent enough and adequately showcases his muscles and (to my mind, lousy) war paint. In Star-Lord's case, battle has commenced and he's resorted to using his futuristic double ray gun in the heat of battle, his ship flying in the background. Am I glad Drax already is the muscleman on this film, so we don't get to see a topless pin-up of the protagonist in an attempt to cater to the female demographic too obscenely. Of course the obligatory shirtless scene will follow somewhere in the course of the movie, as it's all part of the Hollywood strategy to draw girl audiences to what is otherwise (unjustly) considered a largely male attracting movie experience. At least the trailers indicate Gamora can't keep her shirt on all the time either. They better keep that bit in to ensure a sexually equal atmosphere.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156165/game_of_thrones_schrijver_pent_magic

If you've done one fantasy gig you can do another. I bet that's what Hollywood was thinking in this scenario. Of course, there's an epic difference between Game of Thrones and this upcoming Magic: The Gathering movie. One's based on a series of books, the other on a roleplaying card game. One is better suited for television, while the other gets the silver screen treatment. One has conquered the hearts and minds of a global audience, while the other still needs to prove it can attract bigger audiences than just its loyal fanbase, shedding its 'nerd' stigma. The latter starts with a good writer, and at least Cogman has proven himself just that on Game of Thrones. Still, his resumé is more or less confined to those writing credits only, so he can't be called the most experienced of screen writers. You'd think he'd feel like doing something other than fantasy for a change, but apparently he prefers to stay in that comfort zone, even though this is a wholly different kind of fantasy (or so I think, since I don't know jack squat about the Magic card game; are there any cards with depictions of twincest or overtly gruesome dismemberment?). Or maybe he's just not comfortable or interested yet in expanding his so far genre restricted mindset. Could be for the best, since there's still a fair bit of writing on Game of Thrones to finish and we wouldn't want him to be distracted by the real world too much.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156168/jason_momoa_mogelijk_aquaman

Someone who has seemingly already finished on Game of Thrones - he's not the only one - is Jason Momoa. Khal Drogo has been dead for three seasons now, so Momoa has moved on, and as it appears, in the right direction career wise. His involvement with some DC project or other has been the stuff of whispers and speculations for seven months now and it's doubtful he can maintain claiming ignorance for much longer. Is he gonna be Aquaman? That seems most likely, though other characters have been suggested too. Momoa certainly doesn't look like Aquaman, but in this digital age that is not much of an obstacle to speak off. Bradler Cooper doesn't look like Rocket Raccoon after all. I'm sure an expert make-up job alone would suffice to mask any dissimilarities with what fanboys perceive to be the 'good look' for Aquaman. I'm more worried about the many character set-ups that are currently slated to appear in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (such a unnecessarily lengthy title!). If I'm not mistaken, this now makes three additional super heroes in a movie that largely revolves around two others. And then there's still the supervillain(s) to contend with. Already feels like an overly padded and crowded movie, which unfortunately is a prevailing tendency in contemporary comic book adaptations, done by studios driven by grandiose ideas of universe building. Several recent Marvel movies suffered in terms of quality due to these tactics, and as DC is in haste trying to keep up with its rival, the same mistakes appear to be made in the process. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to take a note from Game of Thrones when the number of characters becomes too large to manage properly? Though it would be a bit unfair to Momoa if he suffered a similarly untimely demise once more.