De Tien Beste Films van 2016

Hoewel 2016 niet zo sterk was als 2015 - echte levensveranderende titels bleven achterwege - viel er tussen al het overhypede Hollywoodspektakel en het bescheidener werk in de filmhuizen toch voldoende te genieten om van een geslaagd bioscoopjaar te spreken. Mijn persoonlijk record aan bioscoopbezoeken ging ruimschoots aan diggelen met maar liefst 102 gangen naar de bios 'voor de lol' en 32 persvoorstellingen, waardoor ik met enige zekerheid durf te zeggen dat ik al het belangrijkste, niet te missen materiaal daadwerkelijk ook niet heb gemist. Deze tien titels - en de re-release van de onsterfelijke klassieker Once Upon a Time in the West, die als heruitbreng helaas achterwege moet blijven - bleven me het meest bij en kan ik iedereen met een beetje interesse in bewegend beeld van harte aanbevelen.

10: The Wailing (Hong-jin Na, Zuid-Korea)

Hoewel in eigen land niet eens zo bijster populair, viert Koreaanse horror onder genreliefhebbers wereldwijd al jaren triomfen. Spijtig genoeg blijft de meeste titels een Nederlandse release bespaard, maar The Wailing vormt een aangename uitzondering. Na's bizarre cocktail van politiekolder, Westerse religie, Oosterse mystiek en nagelbijtende suspense houdt de kijker in een relaas over gruwelijke moorden, duivelse verschijningen en vaderlijke zorg 156 minuten lang in een constante staat van verrassing.

9: Hell or High Water (David Mackenzie, VS)

De teloorgang van het platteland door de economische misère levert deze bijzonder puike neo-Western op, waarin een goede vader en zijn minder goede criminele broer het heft in eigen handen nemen en terugnemen wat het hunne is. Gevatte dialogen met aanstekelijke humor en fraaie landschapsvista's enerzijds, anderzijds stof tot nadenken en de vraag aan wiens kant we moeten staan, die van de wanhopige boeven of de plichtsgetrouwe maar vuilbekkende dienders die hen moeten opsporen? Geen daadwerkelijke desperado's hier, wat garant staat voor een onontkomelijk dramatische ontknoping.

8: The Revenant (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, VS)

Ook dit overblijfsel uit 2015 mag een neo-Western genoemd worden, maar is vooral een schokkend wraakepos. Leonardo DiCaprio acteerde zichzelf dan eindelijk naar die lang verdiende Oscar als een voor dood achtergelaten pionier die zich in de barre winter omstreeks 1820 tegen alle natuurwetenschappen in in leven weet te houden door pure wraakzucht jegens de man die zijn zoon doodde. Schitterende locatiefotografie, innovatieve cameravoering en acteerprestaties die nog lang bijblijven maken de worsteling met de wildernis buiten en binnenin de mens tot een zinderende helletocht.

7: Zootropolis / Zootopia (Byron Howard & Rich Moore, VS)

Disney's meest politieke tekenfilm tot dusverre maakt voor de verandering nou eens verhaaltechnisch effectief gebruik van het concept van 'sprekende 'beestjes' om ons een ingenieuze parabel over verontrustende ontwikkelingen in onze dagelijkse maatschappij voor te schotelen. In een wereld vol dieren proberen schimmige krachten de burgerij op te splitsen door middel van irrationele angst. Een dapper konijn en een slinkse vos moeten een onwaarschijnlijk bondgenootschap aangaan om de ineenstorting van de samenleving te voorkomen. Intrigerende politieke parallellen en legio geslaagde woordgrapjes voor de ouders, visueel spektakel, leuke liedjes en fijne personages voor de koters.

6: Kubo and the Two Strings (Travis Knight, VS)

Toch zou die Oscar voor Beste Animatie heel goed aan Zootropolis' neus voorbij kunnen gaan, ten faveure van Kubo and the Two Strings. Kubo heeft wellicht niet zo'n geraffineerd ideologisch verhaal, maar de stop motion animatie is wonderschoon, van het allerhoogste niveau wat studio Laika tot nu toe heeft geproduceerd. Het verhaal over een kleine jongen met magische gaven die een boze geest moet uitbannen met behulp van de in een aap en een strijdkever gereïncarneerde zielen van diens ouders, is geworteld in de beste mythische tradities, Japans of westers.

5: Arrival (Denis Villeneuve, VS)

Villeneuve bewijst opnieuw zijn creatieve genie in dit fascinerende, nadenkende verhaal over een buitenaardse aankomst. Wanneer intimiderende ruimteschapen op Aarde arriveren, dreigt de mensheid haar eigen wereld in paniek in brand te steken. Slechts een poging tot wederzijds begrip leidt tot het afwentelen van de ondergang, in dit naar Hollywoodmaatstaven diepzinnige wetenschapsdrama dat het niet van bombastisch spektakel maar van enerverende expositie en een wetenschappelijk gefundeerd plot moet hebben. Een plottwist á la Interstellar, maar dan minder ridicuul, ligt in het verschiet en zal niet allen kunnen behagen, maar Villeneuve komt er ruimschoots mee weg.

4: Deadpool (Tim Miller, VS)

Wie de superheldenrage in Hollywood na een dik decennium onderhand wel zat is, mag zich laven aan deze subversieve anti-held, die zijn heroïsche tegenhangers met aanstekelijk succes op de hak neemt. De onderbroekenlol en het expliciete geweld is wellicht niet voor iedereen even aangenaam, maar Deadpool weet een groot aantal demografieën te verenigen in zijn bizarre hoedanigheid als schunnige superheldenromkom. Ryan Reynolds rekent bovendien fenomenaal af met de fouten uit zijn verleden in deze herschepping van de 'Merc with a Mouth', tot grote vreugde van zowel Marvel-fanboys als het algemene publiek.

3: Toni Erdmann (Maren Ade, Duitsland)

Voor aangrijpender humor met een herkenbaar alledaags hart moeten we dit jaar echter in Duitsland zijn. Ondanks de imposante speelduur van 162 minuten laat Toni Erdmann ons geen moment onberoerd in zowel tragiek als hilariteit in de queeste van een vader diens volwassen dochter nieuwe levenslust te schenken. Die raakte ze kwijt aan het grijze bedrijfsleven, dus infiltreert hij in deze genadeloze wereld met niets meer dan een pruik en valse tanden om haar terug te veroveren. Fantastisch optreden op alle fronten van Peter Simonischek als de titelfiguur. Terechte kans op Oscar voor Beste Buitenlandse Film.

2: The Red Turtle (Michael Dudok de Wit, Frankrijk/Japan)

Die nominatie zou echter ook heel goed kunnen passen bij The Red Turtle, het onwaarschijnlijke maar bijzonder ontroerende cinematisch kind van Nederlandse, Franse en Japanse origine. Minimalistische maar emotierijke animatie en dito dialogen in dit verhaal over de worsteling van een schipbreukeling om zich op een eenzaam eiland in leven te houden, en hoe een mysterieuze rode schildpad hem doet berusten in zijn lot. Zakdoeken mee voor deze weergaloos fraaie contemplatie over een menselijk leven.

1: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Gareth Edwards, VS)

Ondanks alle emotionele pracht en praal van de voorgaande titels kan een geek als ik echter niet anders dan volledig meegaan in de monumentale triomf van Rogue One. Hoewel doorspekt met (heerlijke!) nostalgische verwijzingen naar het roemruchte verleden, blijkt de film toch een eigen kloppend hart te kennen als oorlogsfilm met opmerkelijk duistere diepgang. Deze beste film uit de reeks - feitelijk niet eens echt in de reeks! - sinds Return of the Jedi is zowel de ultieme knipoog naar het verleden als de belofte voor de toekomst dat goede Star Wars films onder de doctrine van Disney nog steeds tot de mogelijkheden behoren.

Today's Review: Inside Out

Look at little me turning Pixar's Inside Out inside out! Or as much as you can in a general review of under a thousands words in length.

Inside Out - recensie

This may be a turning point for Pixar. The naysayers who wrote off the studio ever since Disney took over often seemed right in their sweeping generalizations that Pixar's truly creative days of imaginary wonder where done. Sequels, that's what was in store for the audience ad nauseam. It worked well on Toy Story 3, few will deny. Not so much on Cars 2 though, or even Monsters University. So a new original project was definitely desperately needed to show Pixar has lost none of its dreaming potency, and this is it. Inside Out is as emotional and beautiful, not to mention innovative and soulful an animated movie as they come, and especially as they used to come in this company's own case.

It's not as perfect as the likes of Wall-E or Toy Story 3, I'll have you know, since it has some little flaws. Like Monsters, Inc. and Up, that makes it a classic Peter Docter movie. Those films, too, featured the occasional emotional highs that went coupled with some whimsical additions that had a bit of a trouble fitting in the whole. It was especially vexing in the case of Up, where the movie just never got as powerful as it proved to be in its first act. Inside Out equally knows a few moments where the magic diminishes, most notably when it concerns the elaborate logistics of the brain (though personally I found the forgotten imaginary friend rather an obnoxious sort as well, though I appreciated the notion). Docter has learned something from Up's experience though, saving the emotional climax for the end of the film. And it packs quite a punch, as Docter delivers his message that it's okay to be sad. Quite a rebellious act, since the movie still flies the banner of the Mouse House which usually tells us the exact opposite. While still an undeniably happy end, it's unlikely anybody will restrain their tears. As Docter says they shouldn't.

So is this a definite comeback for Pixar? The list of upcoming projects still consists mostly of sequels, with the only original tale for the foreseeable future presented by The Good Dinosaur. I'm more than a bit skeptical about that one, judging from the first teaser and its overly retro dinosaurs parading through near photo-real landscapes. I doubt an Inside Out 2 is out of the question, considering the film is doing fine at the boxoffice. Still, I like to think the naysayers remain in the wrong, and there's still a few tears of joy to be spilled over Pixar's films in the next few years.

And otherwise we'll still have the shorts preceding the main events. Hopefully they'll be as delightful as Inside Out's Lava, which also gets those eyes wet and thus perfectly warms us up for the main course to follow.

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: slow week

Getting back on track by offering all the news of last week up at once. Wasn't much of it anyway.

Eerste poster nieuwe 007 Spectre

My, doesn't Daniel Craig look like a manly man on the first one-sheet for the 24th 007 film? His eyes never seemed more blue. That alone should win over the womenfolk en masse. Plot details are few, but that matters little when it comes to a huge beloved franchise like this. It's James Bond, people know what ingredients to expect. This poster guarantees they'll get some of it, namely a tough protagonist and plenty of (gun) action. And likely the usual obnoxious product placement ads interspersed throughout the film, as his gun and watch seem ready for that. The general image suffices for the marketing campaign up to this point. The most important thing is the name getting the chance to nestle itself into the collective consciousness, building awareness for the impending movie well in advance. It's hard to miss on this poster. Even though for those more strongly interested than the general audience, it's still unclear whether it's 'Spectre' or 'SPECTRE'. But details on that and the actual story can wait until the promotional campaign kicks into higher gear, when trailers start pouring in. For now, suffice to know that, as always, James Bond will return. And so will Craig.

Nieuwe casting Disney's Beauty and the Beast

Even though we may be, Disney sure isn't done remaking its entire library of animated features into live-action films. We've only just had Cinderella, but at least three more projects are in the works, including this one, Beauty and the Beast. After all, it's a tale as old as time, so who cares there have been dozens of versions of this story already? The expensive and visually lavish French film was released just over a year ago, but casting on the next iteration is already in full swing. And some of the casting is certainly spot-on. Luke Evans as the arrogant hunter Gaston is a golden choice. Kevin Kline and Emma Thompson are always good reliably British choices. I'm more on the fence over the titular characters, as played by Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, respectively. Also very British, perhaps too much so to play supposedly French characters. Watson undeniably is a beauty, but I've got a hard time picturing the dashing, gentlemanly Stevens in any beastly form. It's gonna require a lot of make-up to hide those positive features of his. And how about the chemistry between both? So far, Watson has never played one on one with another actor for a whole movie, she's always done threesomes or group jobs (no, not of that kind!). She did well enough playing off multiple characters, but didn't often convince me on a smaller, more personal scale. Guess it's up to Beauty and the Beast to show me otherwise.

Pilot Let the Right One In in de maak

Another movie up for a television series, and what an odd choice it is. Apparently Let the Right One In has some staying power and enough of a franchise potential in the mids of execs in the TV industry. Despite being limited to one original Swedish film and its lacklusterly received American remake. I haven't seen the Scandinavian original. but I did see the US take on it and found it to be surprisingly strong for an American remake. Either they simply just got it right for a change, or the Swedish film must be exceptionally good. But a TV show based on this premise? I can't imagine it running longer than a single season. Boy befriends ancient vampire who looks like little girl. She helps him defend himself against bullies, he aids her in acquiring blood. Plus a little murder mystery on the side, but that's all there is to it. If they want to make a show out of it, even a short series of like six episodes, they still need to add a lot of details and new story elements to stretch it out. And apparently, considering the high praise for the original film, the story doesn't really need it. That combination of facts doesn't bode well for this project. But hey, I've heard of worse recently announced TV shows based on films, both good and bad ones. And since we're living in the Golden Age of Television, we can afford a badly adapted series or two. Enough good stuff to pick from. It just kinda sucks for the Swedes if their hit movie was among the poorly conceived shows out there.

Eerste trailer The Transporter Refueled

A change of main actor notwithstanding, the Transporter just continues raging on the big screen as ever. It never got to be a major franchise despite spawning two sequels, but it seems the Luc Besson studios are endeavouring to change that, having learned from surprise boxoffice successes like the Taken series and Lucy how the game works. Wouldn't be the first time an action packed movie series featuring fast cars and hot dames which everybody considered burned out after the third installment, suddenly picked up speed with its fourth entry. Remember Fast and Furious? However, that series benefited from the return of its hottest stars against the odds, and Transported Refueled does not. Jason Statham just departed after three films and left the steering wheel to Ed Skrein. What do we know him from? Playing bit parts in a bunch of action movies, but he's most notably known as the creepy Daario Naharis from Game of Thrones, before the hot Daario Naharis (Michiel Huisman) took over our collective notion as to what Daario Naharis should look, sound and be played like. So the appeal of the new Transporter flick isn't likely to come from the main star. Hopefully the fast-packed action, cool vehicles and scantily clad girls prove enough to entice audiences and ensure the F&F like future the producers no doubt envision. Fat chance.

Gainsbourg in Independence Day 2

Yes, ID4 2 is still a go and the cast is getting bigger by the week, whether we care to see a second film or not (most of us don't). Big European name Charlotte Gainsbourg - from those creepy sexually charged Lars von Trier movies like Nymphomaniac and Antichrist, that freak out American audiences so nicely - has joined the fight against the next invasion of evil alien grasshoppers. We have no idea what character she'll play as of yet. My hope is she'll play the French president who leads the heroic main assault against the sinister extraterrestrials in a fighter jet by herself. Not gonna happen. If she performs duty as a government leader at all, it's probably one desperately needing American assistance to combat the legions of evil, as these things go in Hollywood blockbusters. Maybe she won't play someone in office at all though, that might just be my imagination running wild. Face it, if the script calls for a strong female European political leader, anyone in their right mind would immediately cast Sidse Babett Knudsen, who would personally kick some serious alien butt. Given her recent repertoire, it's not inconceivable Gainsbourg will play the stripper girlfriend of the black pilot instead. Though maybe she's too old for that, and the black pilot they cast too young. Did Jeff Goldblum's character finally found a wife then? So many options, and not all of them as flattering to Gainsbourg's considerable talents, as you can see. It doesn't matter really. If not by Gainsbourg, alien ass will be kicked by someone else for sure. Because that's what ID4 2 will definitely be about.

Downton Abbey stopt

And some sad news to conclude this week. All good things must come to an end, including this one. I have yet to catch up with the previous two seasons of this delightful show, though I've heard they're not as good as what came before. I'm still sorry to see the Crawley family leave the air, regardless. Downton Abbey proved about as high class a show as British telly can deliver. Fabulous tale of sweeping change in both the higher and lower echelons of society in the first half of the 20th Century, proving both sides are utterly compelling and relatable in their dealings to stay afloat. Not to mention the strong assembled talent, always good for terrific performances. Usually quality English shows prove to last only a season or two, so we should consider ourselves fortunate it lasted as long as it did. At least Downton Abbey gets a chance to be wrapped up properly. A fine series like this deserved a fate better than cancellation, even those who ended up disliking it shouldn't deny as much. Oh well, as I stated before and we all know, the whole 'Golden Age of Television' thing. Plenty to watch. Let's merrily move on.

Today's Review: Cinderella

Finally, another review up!

Cinderella review

Okay, so this movie serves us a most oldfashioned fairy tale imaginable and displays a shockingly conservative view on the role of women. Nobody will deny it. But if you can swallow that, it's indeed quite as magical a movie experience as it aims to be (and not even in obnoxious 3D, for a change!). I don't think the studio is excusing reverting to old social values, it just acknowledges a classic tale without feeling the need to utterly change it by updating it to appease a modern audience. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as this movie proves much more enjoyable than similar recent rehashes of old glory like Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland, which were quite bland and forgetful despite making the female protagonists tough and independent. Both qualities are sorely lacking in the victimized Cinderella, I admit. But this movie seems to say 'Oh, the heck with it! Let's embrace such ridiculously backward gender patterns for a change and acknowledge our true classics as they used to be, not as they should be today!' If Disney meant to say explicitly that women are either weak willed victims or total bitches with this movie, you honestly think grand dames of cinema like Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter, let alone promising new faces like Lily James, Holliday Grainger or Sophie McShera, would voluntarily have signed up for this slap in the face of their sex? I think they just recognized the obviously outdated romantic plot for what it was and decided to run with it just to enjoy getting a chance to play such outrageous roles, so seldom seen today. And for the better, since if they occurred more often, that would indeed be suspicious and uncalled for. But it's not wrong to indulge in reactionary storytelling every once in a while, to appreciate just how much female roles have changed since the days these types of women were seen everywhere on the big screen.

Plus, the movie is at least a little modern in other regards. There's a black guy playing the captain of the royal guard in a court full of white folk. And him and the prince certainly seem like close chums. That wouldn't have happened in the original animated classic for sure. What a long way we've come!

Today's Review: Big Hero 6

Told you there was more where that came from?:

Big Hero 6 - recensie

Well, this movie was totally fun! But I cannot say in all honesty it was any bit original. Much of the story and character development felt formulaic, but that never got in the way of the fun to be had. Especially since it was the Marvel formula. Heck, at times the movie nigh made fun of its own narrative make-up - best example: when the nerdy character exclaims 'ooh, it's an origin story!' - but I doubt much of the audience would care they might have seen most of this stuff before. Especially the target audience of kids won't mind, inexperienced with the inspirational material as they likely are. Interestingly enough, despite being a (successfully Disneyfied) Marvel adaptation adhering to a typical plot routine, the characters differ an awful lot from their comic book counterparts. In fact, the excessively cute articial Baymax, the character that singlehandedly raised this film from a three-star flick to a four-star sensation, looks nothing like the dragonlike droid from the original source. Major characters like Sunfire and Silver Samurai are missing, since Disney doesn't own the rights to those (they're presently part of Fox's X-universe). Thankfully, we're getting a new one in their place, namely the fictional city of San Fransokyo, which immediately suggests the uncanny mix of American and Japanese animation styles present throughout and makes for a wonderful looking backdrop for these characters to have their little adventure in.

But above all else, Baymax makes this movie work. The apparently minimalistically but on closer look brilliantly animated character provides the beating heart of the movie, as a healthcare robot created by the protagonist's deceased older brother, who finds himself ever more transformed into a heavily armoured battlebot by the main character out for revenge, until the emotionless but caring robot reminds him there's more to life than abusing your talents for mindless anger. Plus, he makes for 80 percent of the jokes and they all work. And that's even despite his hilarious attempts at catching a football from the trailer didn't make in into the final cut. Don't expect to be surprised by Big Hero 6, but like Baymax and his ball, just roll with the robot for good times' sake.

Today's News: a lot of stuff to round up January

The second half of the week yielded quite a bit of little news items:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158768/eerste_trailer_child_44

Looks like a fairly solid thriller with a cast to match. Too bad it's already been done - Citizen X, remember? - and thus isn't a particularly original project, even though this time it's based on a book about the historical murders rather than the historical murders themselves. Those ridiculously heavy Russian accents also don't help. Do audiences really need such reminders in dialogue to remember the story is set in Russia? You'd think the set-up, names and uniforms alone would do the trick. Other than that, this film looks like a decent thriller flick. Considering the current strained relationship of most Western countries with Putin's Russia, you cannot help but wonder whether this is an appropriate time to release a film about a psychopath running rampant in the Rodina aided by a corrupt system of bureaucrats defending an ideology that doesn't always have the best interest of its subjects at heart. I can imagine there will be some complaints from Russian citizens about the contents of this film, whether the film proves to be of good quality or not (probably more so in the case of the former, since then it will receive more attention). Since The Interview didn't spark WW III, maybe this will, though that's undoubtedly giving it too much credit in advance.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158748/fox_maakt_x-men_serie

Once again Marvel leads and the rest follows. Now that the House of Ideas is firmly getting its grasp on the small screen, expanding its Cinematic Universe on telly too, other studios are eager to do the same. And so Fox plans an X-Men series accordingly. I don't mind, as the conventions of television offer a much broader narrative perspective on the vast X-realm with its many hundreds of characters, in a way the movies could only touch upon. Makes you wonder why they haven't tried this before (and I don't mean like the various animated series). Of course, a conservative studio like Fox likely needed someone more innovative to indicate it can be done successfully, which Marvel has now shown with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Since public interest in anything Marvel is at an all-time high, it seems the right time to produce an X-show. In fact, they better hurry before the popularity of the franchise goes into decline, which is an option I don't exclude, now that Channing Tatum is set to take over the reigns from Hugh Jackman as the leading X-protagonist (shifting the focus more from Wolverine to Gambit), a prospect I'm not looking forward to. I do hope there'll be room for a new creative route, rather than copying the style of the movies. The X-universe is a deliciously diverse place (as befits its message of peace and tolerance to those who are different), so it would behoove the series to reflect that fact and explore any X-citing angle imaginable.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158769/disney_wil_pratt_als_indiana_jones

Is it me, or is Chris Pratt everywhere these days? There's not a movie project goes by that doesn't at least once features his name attached, or so it seems. Sure, Pratt looks like a really likeable guy and he made a fine Star-Lord. But does that warrant the thought of 'Oh hey, we need a leading man for this project, let's ask Pratt because he's so darn kewl' all the time? Apparently that's the default casting thought going around Hollywood these days. Sure, put Pratt in Jurassic World. Go ahead and stick him in Indiana Jones. Just make sure the rest of those films looks as dashing and charming. As for recasting Harrison Ford, it was only a matter of time. I always imagined Indiana Jones a lot like James Bond. You can have him be played by any number of actors, as long as the movies continue to incite that same level of adventure and excitement as they always do. In Indy's case, I'm not one of those unrealistic and conservative types that sticks to the original ad infinitum, even though he was the most iconic in that role. I'm willing to allow other actors in that persona. But not Shia LaBeouf, please. Better ask Chris Pratt whether he feels up to it. Oh I forgot, they're already doing that...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158799/eerste_trailer_ted_2

Okay, so the jokes in this trailer mostly revolve around bodily excrements and random popcultural references, as is usual in Hollywood comedy nowadays. Bear with me (pun, yes). Do I detect a plot that may very well be too intelligent and too philosophical for a film like this? The question of sentience, what makes a human being a human being and the limitations human beings themselves arrogantly set as to what constitutes life that should be allowed to have the same rights as ourselves, that sort of thing. There's some definite 'Measure of a Man' level story opportunities involved here! And of course, none of it will matter much, as it will just prove interspersed between a flatulence joke here and a cameo by the guy who used to be Flash Gordon there. Still, I can't help but give Seth MacFarlane credit for at least trying. I bet 'The Measure of a Man' ranks among his favorite episodes of Trek. And I also bet this movie is gonna be your totally average run-of-the-mill raunchy comedy, the type you've forgotten the day after you watched it.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158809/eerste_trailer_madame_bovary

Unlike this film which, too, is mostly about sex but doesn't touch upon it in a comedic fashion. Madame Bovary is one of the most scandalous works of literature to come out of the 19th-Century. However, for a contemporary audience that watches too much HBO, it'll be hard to make it as impactful as once this story was. Sexual shenanigans outside of holy matrimony are an everyday occurrence in the dramatic arts now and are not likely to shock anyone. So what relevant meaning is there for today's audience? Probably not anything novel. Doesn't stop a decent collection of both seasoned and young actors from practizing their craft in a wonderful fashion, complete with rustic landscape shots and lavish period costumes. That sort of thing at least never gets old. And if the characters decide to ditch said costumes while fooling around in said rustic landscapes, if not shocked or flabbergasted at such audacity, we'll still be intrigued some.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158812/franco_verfilmt_steinbeck_

James Franco by comparison is one of those actors who effortlessly seems to switch between raunchy comedies and serious drama. Or between acting and directing, for that matter. Hot off starring in The Interview, he's ready to direct a John Steinbeck novel, dazzling us with his versatility, if we hadn't become used to it already by now. I applaud such diversity, as well as Franco's taste in casting. He seems to have caught quite a few talented names for this latest project of his (and Selena Gomez, too). Even though he's been directing all kinds of stuff for a while now, I haven't yet had the pleasure of checking any of it out. Whether this will just add to that pile of unseen (by me) titles, time will tell. It's not like I ever read a John Steinbeck novel. But you can wake me for a performance by Ed Harris or Bryan Cranston any time (though preferably not when I'm asleep).

Today's Double News: ascending inside out

Time is often against me, and so it proved this second half of the week. This is all the news I could muster:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158313/nieuwe_trailer_inside_out

This is getting somewhere, conceptually. Though there's still a lot of questions to be answered. I had a tough time visualizing how this whole interplay between the voices and the characters they control would work. I guess I got my answer. It does seem a somewhat static concept though. Are these voices really gonna stay confined to being simple talking heads in a conference room playing off each other as they suggest the actions of their subject? That has a tendency to get boring. I assume it's gonna be more visually interesting that that, somehow. I like the little details, like each set of voices taking on the characteristics (moustache, glasses, hairstyle and the like) of their host. I do believe limiting the voices to a set of five does sell the human psyche a bit short, but at least it makes for coherent storytelling, not plagued by an abundance of different emotional characters. Would have made more sense if some other emotions popped up in the minds of other characters, as everybody has some more strongly developed emotions defining their personality. Maybe that will still be the case, but we just don't see it from this trailer (which is basically more a clip of the film than an actual trailer, it must be noted). For now, the concept still isn't worked out as much to get me really excited about this film, but at least it proves intriguing and - as far as I'm aware - inspired.These days, that's as much as you could hope for in a Pixar movie.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158314/nieuwe_posters_jupiter_ascending

Yay, character posters! No big budget Hollywood flick's promotional campaign would be complete without them. Typical set-up of archetypal characters here. You've got your lead, a female for a change; her love-interest; the villain; and the wiser, older gentleman whose services will mostly consist of providing expositionary dialogue, to help both the protagonist and the audience get acquainted with this new world. Interesting to see Sean Bean is by now considered old and wise enough to play the part of the latter. But hey, any excuse to get him (and an excruciating death scene on his part) in your film is well worth the effort. I still wish the leading couple would have seen different casting, as the acting of neither Kunis nor Tatum appeals to me. But hey, it's not about their acting (or about me, sadly), it's about their popularity with the audience, and both stars are undeniably hot at the moment in that regard. I won't deny that despite the dull leads, this movie has very much peaked my interest. Even though in many ways it seems like it's copying Dune a bit too much, the notion of humanity being just a resource of vastly superior extraterrestrial life to exploit at will is a nice change of pace. Though no doubt the plot will devolve into the typical 'chosen one' routine of old. The set-up may prove fascinating (and the visual effects, too, naturally), the execution likely less so. Oh well, we didn't expect the ingenuity of the original Matrix come again from the Wachowskis, now did we?

Today's News: dumb dinosaurs and jungle automata

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156944/pixars_good_dinosaur_opnieuw_aangepast

I have a bad feeling about this one. And not just because there's talking dinosaurs present, though that's never a good sign (eh, WWD3D?). The Good Dinosaur has been reported to feature its fair share of production difficulties, and now it appears the whole thing needed to be started largely from scratch, even though the majority of the voice acting had already been recorded. Of course, major restructuring of Pixar films is part of their routine by now. Toy Story, too, had to be started all over again, and few will argue that final result didn't work out as well as the first concept would have done. Then again, the last Pixar movie to experience severe production diffulcties was Brave, and that finished film wasn't among Pixar's best efforts. It really can go both ways. Of course Lithgow says it's gonna be even better than before, but that's not a very reliable statement; he's not likely to say the opposite before the movie has hit theaters. Actors and other assorted crewmen always come clean about disappointing work after the audience has had to experience their failures for themselves. Replacing the original director, who did the wonderful Up, by someone who thus far has only directed a single Pixar short by comparison, doesn't bode well. But then, there's talking dinosaurs in here, so for me the project was going awry from the get-go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156960/blanchett_en_bale_in_jungle_book_origins

The Jungle Book war is on! You'd think Disney's The Jungle Book would have an edge, with a grand cast including the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Ben Kingsley and Bill Murray, but Warner's Jungle Book: Origins, too, has assembled a stellar cast to stay in the competition. Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch?! Suck on that, Disney! Considering both movies deal with the same subject matter in a very similar way, combining live-action with digital animals, and now both include a top-notch cast of seasoned and popular voice actors, the question is which of the pair has the edge. I think I'll have to say it's Warner's Origins, based on their choice of director. Andy Serkis just has much more experience with both animals and motion capture, and that's key. He understands the technology, plus he understands the biology. Jon Favreau, who directs Disney's take on the story, doesn't have the amount of experience with the natural world Serkis does. Also, Serkis has a whole extra year getting things right and working out the technical aspects. Not to mention he gets to see the competitor beat him to theaters so he can witness its pitfalls and carefully avoid them to make for a superior film. Time is not on Favreau's side. However, he has the directing experience, as this is Serkis' true feature film directing debut (not counting his job as Second Unit Director on the Hobbit movies). I guess both movies are relatively even matched. It sure as heck won't be a matter of casting in both cases.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156923/eerste_posters_dumb_and_dumber_to

Oh wow, a mindless Hollywood comedy making fun of another film in its promotional campaign. Like that's never been done. I gotta say, this choice of poster post-modernism is a no-brainer (pun, duh!). And considering the general reception of Lucy (despite its financial success) by both critics and audience - both parties agreed it made little sense and was utterly devoid of logic - I think the similarities won't end there. But maybe that's just because I care naught for Dumb and Dumber To and don't have any particularly positive hopes for this one. I didn't see the original, which by now is twenty fucking years old, so I won't bother with this excessively late and therefore unwarranted sequel. At least it's safe to say only the marketing campaign will rip off other Hollywood films, unlike most brainless Hollywood comedies whose sole plot seems to be based around that single notion.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156959/eerste_trailer_automata

I think it's safe to say everybody's first reaction to this trailer will be 'I, Robot much?' Both from a plot perspective and from a design point of view the similarities between both pictures are remarkable. Even though Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' are standard fare in many Sci-Fi works in film and literature these days, this movie seems to take more than a few pages from Asimov. The trailer also hints there's many a character trait Will Smith's and Antonio Banderas' characters from both movies share. Can't say Banderas looks much like an insurance fraud investigator, though in the future, who knows what changes to their image they made? Still, I'm intrigued. It's a Spanish/American co-production starring an international cast and helmed by a relatively rookie Spanish director, so it's bound to be something other than your average Hollywood action flick, which is basically what I, Robot was, though it was a good one at that. The trailer suggests these robots are evolving more or less on their own accord rather than because of outside interference in their programming, which is also an appealing notion bound to raise some juicy existential questions if adequately explored. Other than that I remain on the fence for this one. You just can't judge a film like this based on a single trailer, they're too deceiving. I won't be programmed by a trailer to believe a movie is something when there's a good chance the final product will prove to turn out to be something else entirely.

Today's News: trailers and voice actors revealed

The latest batch of news reports I penned for MS over the past few days is here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156748/nieuwe_trailer_the_maze_runner

Another young adult hit novel gets the silver screen treatment with The Maze Runner. I admit the premise is intriguing, though more than a little similar to that of The Hunger Games. Visually there's a lot of opportunity here, though I'm not so sure about story and characters. There's your typical bunch of angsty teenagers thrown into a dangerous situation together, and none of the young actors portraying them stand out. Not even that kid whom I was so glad to see viciously killed off in the most recent episode of Game of Thrones. There's no Jennifer Lawrence to be found here, nor as it would appear  a grand cast of older supporting character actors. So what remains is the hope of a thrilling tale of mystery, suspense and teen violence (likely an average one at that) paired with the usual obnoxious hype surrounding this latest of so many horror/dystopian flick aimed at an audience at young adults. Remember, for every one of those that spawns into a successful franchise, three of them do not. And financial success of the lucky ones notwithstanding, those of singular impressive quality number in even lesser quantities.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156777/eerste_trailer_disneys_into_the_woods

Another trailer for a movie that hopes to captivate audiences without offering anything substantially new, is this one for Disney's live-action fantasy musical Into the Woods. Based on the Sondheim play, which I had never heard of, as is usual for Sondheim plays until someone bothers to make a motion picture adaptation out of them, it seems to be a mash-up of various fairy tales paired with a rather everyday message of parental responsibility, love and cooperation. The look seems identical to most other Hollywood family fantasy flicks of today, taking a note from Tim Burton but sugar coating it quite a bit. There's a definite Snow White and the Huntsmen/Oz the Great and Powerful/Maleficent look to the piece, which isn't a good thing per se. Good cast though; Meryl Streep as a wicked witch and Johnny Depp as a giant, what's not to like? Maybe their singing. Then again, Depp has proven to possess some vocal talents in Sweeney Todd, and Streep for Mamma Mia, so in their cases I worry naught. However, the trailer fails to get me geared up towards seeing this film. Kinda seems like a been-there-done-that type of film. Or maybe it's just the ominous sense of Holiday season dread it instills upon me. That period of the year is no fun if you happen to work in a movie theater and that mood kinda fouls the experience for me, even months prior.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156790/bill_murray_doet_stem_baloo_in_jungle_book

Another feeling of repetition forces itself onto me in the case of this new incarnation of Jungle Book Disney is currently producing. You'd think the truly classic Disney classics withstand the test of time so much Disney could just re-release them in every conceivable medium ad nauseam, instead of creating a very expensive reboot. Maybe the taste of those films has gone sour due to all their unnecessary and unpopular sequels the studio felt like releasing for the home video market. Whether there is a need for it or not, at least Disney seems to get the voice cast just right, featuring some very notable and strong actors in roles that seem right up their alley. Bill Murray as Baloo the Bear seems an open door in that regard. Murray has made a habit of playing characters reminiscent of the bear due to their carefree way of life and irresponsible sense of handling things. Nevertheless, no matter the great ensemble of actors brought together, I'm more intrigued by the other Jungle Book movie currently in production, the one studio Warner is making with Andy Serkis as its director. Could be a lot different since it needs to carefully distinguish itself from the Disney versions. And the question remains whether Serkis is as skilled as a director as he is an actor. You can't mo-cap directing after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156789/marvel_onthult_thanos

To round things up, there's a little bit of Marvel news. After all, these days no news update of mine comes without it, so why should this one be any different? Marvel has seen fit to reveal what Thanos looks like for those who couldn't bother to wait to see him for themselves in Guardians of the Galaxy. I could have of course, but my job is to spread the word on tidbits like these, so I did just that and ruined the surprise for myself. What does he look like? Well, Thanos looks like... Thanos. There's hardly any change to his appearance in the comic books. He bears little resemblance to Josh Brolin, who has voiced him in this film and will in the ones to come. Whether Brolin also did some motion capture performance for the character, like Mark Ruffalo did for the Hulk, I don't know, though I doubt he did, considering how brief Thanos' role in this movie supposedly is. Right now, I'm more curious what the actor made him sound like. But for that, I really advice people to go and watch the movie instead of spoiling themselves online.

Today's Triple News: Fantastic Frozen Sex and where to find it on tape

One does not simply post news on MovieScene and walk away from it:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154803/eerste_trailer_sex_tape_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154770/frozen_meest_winstgevende_animatiefilm_ooit

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154757/fantastic_beasts_and_where_to_find_them_wordt_trilogie

I gotta say, that trailer made me chuckle. That doesn't mean the movie will, as this is basically a thirteen-a-dozen raunchy studio comedy aimed at a predominantly adolescent audience, revolving about sexual (mis)conduct to get the public titillated in advance. There have been many similar movies over the last few years - among them Sex Drive, No Strings Attached, A Good Old-Fashioned Orgy, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Hall Pass and We're the Millers, though all took a hint from American Pie (which itself hearkened back to material from the Eighties like Porky's, so it's not all a new phenomenon) - and very few of them proved even the slightest bit memorable. As always, the best jokes appear to be in the trailer and once you've seen that, there's little reason to go watch the actual movie. Sex Tape's trailer is running long just under three minutes, so don't be annoyed if you watch it first and the movie second and find there's little surprises left in the film. Or perhaps that's just overly cynical. After all, the cast list mentions Jack Black and Jolene Blalock (T'Pol!) and neither of them is featured in this preview. Maybe they're just bit parts, maybe the trailer does keep some stuff from the final movie from our prying eyes. I reckon Sex Tape is just gonna be an average sexy Hollywood comedy that makes you forget your woes for two hours and remember you have any woes as soon as the lights turn on, because none of the movie sticks to mind for very long. And it's plausible it will do very well at the box office because there's conveniently no other comedies scheduled for that time of the year. Which means we can "look forward" to a second Sex Tape in two or three years time. Just as is the case with the previous movie from this director and his two main stars, Bad Teacher, which turns out to get a sequel nobody asked for. Considering sex sells, expect a trilogy soon.

What also sells (segue!) is delightfully animated family entertainment, and Disney is back on top in that game. Pixar, under the Mouse House's wings, is continuously letting us down creatively, forced to focus on unneccessary sequels, so now the new Walt Disney Studios Animation department can fill that inspirational gap by exploring new ideas and fresh avenues. Or basically doing what Disney always did best, cannibalizing a classic fairy tale of sorts and Disneyfying the heck out of it (though in a bit more modern fashion these days, as it happens to be the 21st century). It's an age old routine that proves as effective and lucrative today as it did before, as Frozen shows. Beating Toy Story 3 from the top spot, there's your new Highest Grossing Animated Movie of All Time. For now, as such records have a tendency to be broken every odd year lately. Blame the studio's increasing insistence on 3D to raise admission costs (again). Or admit Frozen was simply a good movie, a welcome reprieve from Pixar's last few letdowns. And don't be alarmed if you see a Frozen 2 popping up somewhere in the next few years: you don't honestly think Disney can let this success slide without milking more money out of it by pushing sequels on us?

Speaking of milking (another seque! I'm on a roll here!), Harry Potter is over and done with but there's still more dough to be made from the brand name, so let the spinning-off commence! Studio Warner has J.K. Rowling's permission to do so, and even her assistance in fact, as she will pen the screenplay for the first installment of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Even though it remains to be seen whether a coherent story line as gripping as the Potter proper stories can be distilled from what was basically a fun little exploration of the Potterverse that was never intended to be made into a major motion picture, the studio is moving ahead on a trilogy of films. A cautious studio would start with a single movie and see how that works out, but as the blockbuster studio system is increasingly relying on tentpole franchises - and their various spin-offs - to keep itself going, caution isn't something they feel they can afford. So now we'll see whether a Potter movie can do without the actual Potter element, by revealing magic and monsters are enough to keep us going to theaters, or whether it was the life and times of the Boy-Who-Lived himself  that proved the quintessential compelling ingredient of the franchise, not to be omitted so easily on second attempts. If "her" movie fails, this trilogy could come crashing down like a house of cards, so Rowling will have a tough job working her magic a second time.

Today's News: Serkis goes ape again with all sorts of animals

Some older news I posted some days back:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154599/andy_serkis_regisseert_jungle_book

He knows animals - apes mostly, but he's also adept at understanding emaciated Hobbit junkies - and he knows directing. Of course Serkis makes perfect sense to direct The Jungle Book. Granted, he is still a bit green (get it?) for a director, but the fabulous river barrel chase in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, largely from his hand, showed he has some necessary skills at least. I doubt he will be any less of a capable director than Jon Favreau, who's currently adapting the same story for a different studio. That's Serkis' biggest problem right there: the redundancy of doing a different Jungle Book film shortly after Disney produces one. Considering the classic 1967 animated version already makes people think of Disney first when they hear the term 'Jungle Book', that's tough competition to begin with. Serkis will have to work hard to make his own attempt stand out, but if he uses his animal knowledge to good avail, there's a chance for a different approach for starters. I doubt Favreau understands the animal kingdom as much as Andy does; as his resumé shows, he's more into technology based material, like Iron Man, Cowboys & Aliens and the new TV-show Revolution. Favreau's version will more likely focus on the struggle of (a) man to stay alive in an all-natural environment without the aid of his own species. Idris Elba is doing the voice of the tiger in that one, so Serkis had better bring in the big guns to outdo that. How about having some great actor of our time not only providing a voice, but having him mo-cap the bejesus out of that villainous feline too? After all, thanks to Peter Jackson, Serkis knows his high-class fancy movie making technology too.

Today's Triple News: sequels, fairy tales and super heroes

New news keeps pouring in on a daily basis, faster than I can discuss it here. Doesn't stop me from trying though:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154509/sofia_coppola_regisseert_mogelijk_the_little_mermaid_

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154508/disney_maakt_cars_3_en_incredibles_2

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154488/mangold_terug_voor_wolverine_2

People who think Coppola might not be suited for directing a fairy tale are overlooking the fact that the basic contents of The Little Mermaid are much like some of Coppola's earlier work, they're just packaged differently. Stories about teenage girls living in a fantasy world all their own and trying to have things their way which backfires on them doesn't sound so different thematicaly from the likes of The Bling Ring, Marie Antoinette or The Virgin Suicides to my mind. They just appear dissimilar on the surface. That said, the notion of doing a "kid-friendly" family film is probably what deters most people who prefer to see Coppola tackling more (young) adult oriented material, as she hasn't done a project like this yet. However, that's not to say she is not capable of making such a movie. Let's face it: Coppola's career as a director of feature length films spans nearly two decades but has only spawned five movies in total. That's not enough of an output to judge a director's capacities on, it's only an indication of what type of films he/she is particularly drawn to. As I have stated before, directors need change, and I'd say here's a chance for Coppola to prove her directorial versatility. She has two young kids of her own, for crying out loud; why wouldn't she be interested in a fun movie for the whole family, that still allows her to incorporate her signature themes to some extent? Even though I'm personally not all that stoked for this project - which definitely has something to do with the fact the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is the first movie I ever saw in theaters, and the second too - I think the studio might just have made the perfect choice with Coppola.

Speaking of Disney, they're steering Pixar, formerly known for their sublime creativity, into a rampant case of suffering severe sequelitis. Currently, the studio is working on only a single original project, The Good Dinosaur, which was already put on hold for a whole year. Other than that, it's all sequels for the next few years: Planes 2, an alleged Toy Story 4, Finding Dory, Cars 3, The Incredibles 2. People used to praise Pixar for doing something new every time, while their competitor DreamWorks was maligned for milking itself dry completely. They won't be doing that anymore, as by now the situation seems to have reversed entirely. It appears Disney decides to play it safe by counting on established multi-billion dollar franchises instead of letting original ideas take precedence. And if those sequels weren't enough, there's a few more 3D re-releases slated too, making the studio more money by pushing the same stuff on us again, just at higher admission prices. That said, I prefer a re-release, so we can all enjoy those classic Pixar movies again before they're totally spoiled by their unneccessary and undesirable sequels. However, Pixar proved with Toy Story 2 and 3 that they can do justice to the originals be making sequels that manage to actually surpass the quality of their predecessors, but ever since Cars 2 and the terribly uninspired spin-off Planes - at a point when Disney had taken over the company - the odds of that happening again are not in our favour. Let's hope The Good Dinosaur will at least live up to its name.

And the X-universe just keeps on Xpanding cinematically (see what I did there?). Ever since the mind boggling success of Marvel's The Avengers, rival studios that own a piece of the Marvel Universe have taken a hint as to how they ought to approach handling their properties to achieve similar success. Unlike Sony, which only manages a single big name and its various supporting characters, Fox has the luck of owning a big name tentpole franchise, X-Men,  that consists of a lot more characters and therefore a lot more possibilities for sequels, spin-offs and such, making for an easily growing cinematic legacy. Apparently the 'Avengers approach' is already applied in full swing with X-Men: Days of Future Past, a storyline which will continue into X-Men: Apocalypse (2016), the latter of which might actually deal with the infamous Age of Apocalypse mirror universe, or else with a variation on the established cinematic X-routine. Days of Future Past might end with its broken time line fixed or not, and still able to pave the way for coherently branching off into multiple temporal directions. X-Force (2016 or 2017) for eXample will certainly pick up where Apocalypse left off, as it deals with Apocalypse's primary nemesis Cable and his merry band of young mutant acolytes, but it can still take place alongside the regular X-storyline that we last saw in last year's The Wolverine, either being interwoven with characters we already know, in various possible iterations (future/present/alternate universe) no less. And now The Wolverine is getting a sequel too (2017/2018?), which most likely will continue on the events of Days of Future Past - as those were already foreshadowed in its mid-credits bonus scene - but could skip over Apocalypse altogether, while still relating to X-Force in a minor capacity. And if things aren't complicated enough by all these Xses being thrown around, Fox still has to think of how on Earth they're going to incorporate their other Marvel franchise, the Fantastic Four, into all this too, as they have stated to be their intention. Because of all the time travelling and alternate reality possibilities, directors working on this corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe might face a tougher job that those who work on Marvel's own, which is served more straightforwardly on a narrative level. James Mangold might just have his job cut out for him. Or he may ignore Days of Future Past, Apocalypse and X-Force completely and just have The Wolverine 2 follow his previous movie directly, focusing only on its titular character. For Sony, such a reliance on a single character is kind of a curse, but for Mangold it just might be a luXury.

Today's Mini(?)-Review: Frozen

Frozen: ****/*****, or 8/10

Say what you will about conservative Disney, there is some form of modernization in progress in that studio. You might even label it a feminist wave of sorts. Frozen marks Disney's first feature length animated film (co-)directed by a woman and only the second whose screenplay was written by such a creature. Not counting Pixar, since then it would have to contend with Brave, a movie where the girl power backfired, as did the quality of the piece as a whole. And while Frozen largely stays within the trite-and-true boundaries we've come to expect from Disney's fairy tale movies, including princesses, charming princes, faraway lands, comedic (animal) sidekicks and plenty of catchy songs, enough of such regularly exploited material is directionally changed to make the film feel as fresh and cool as the imagery the title inspires. Jennifer Lee's directorial debut introduces not one, but two beautiful young princesses, Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) and her younger sister Anna (Kristen Bell), heirs to the kingdom of Arendelle. Both are kind, independent and energetic spirits, but the older girl carries a terrible secret: she's basically a mutant with the power to control ice and snow, except she doesn't control it at all, since her fear to wield it controls her instead. She has cause to be afraid of her powers, as she nearly killed Anna at play as a child. Her parents tried to keep her out of harm's way by largely keeping her confined to her chambers, much to the dismay of her sister, who had her injury and memory of the incident erased by a nice wizard troll (this is a work of fantasy, need I say more?). After the death of their parents and the coming-of-age of the elder sister, a coronation takes place where Elsa is crowned queen and where Anna – hilariously – meets her apparent groom-to-be, the latter event uterly disrupting the former as Elsa unwittingly gets pushed so far she sparks an endless winter that covers the entire kingdom in frost. Fleeing the palace to built her own on a high mountain precipice where she finally starts to accept her powers in her moments of isolation, Anna is determined to bring back her sister and get her to undo her unintentional damage to the realm, which leaves her land vulnerable to the shady ambition of certain visiting foreign dignitaries. Accompanied by a simple but reliable young backwoods man named Kristoff, his carrot obsessed reindeer Sven and a wacky living snowman named Olaf, Anna sets out on a tough voyage to reunite with her wayward sister and bring summer back to Arendelle. And, in typical Disney fashion, to discover True Love in the process. But not in the usual sense of old.

Frozen proves a worthy successor to the similarly themed, equally wonderful Tangled (2010), which also re-established Disney's formidable talent to craft charming, adventurous and romantic fantasy films for all ages after over a decade of creative drought, as well as updating its female characters to the 21^st century, a time in which the main focus of a woman is no longer a man to marry (but also not excluding the possibility as not to upset the traditionalists in the audience). Frozen introduces two solid female characters who care first and foremost about eachother, though one of them does not allow herself to show said fact. Both women are sizzling with recognizable character flaws and strengths, familiar emotional family conflict and the talent to burst into song, so despite their ultimately antagonistic nature (though the traditional 'good versus bad' set-up is carefully avoided in their strained relationship), you root for them and their sibling affection both to survive against all odds. Simultaneously, while the sterotypical good looking prince to wed is not an image to be discarded, it develops into quite another direction than is usual, and the expected notion of cheesy True Love messages doesn't end up covering the usual sexual connection between boy and girl. The voice cast delivers impeccable acting and shares an audible chemistry, standout performances including a hilarious Scandinavian tradesman (jå!) and Olaf, the token sidekick, who is not nearly as irritating as he could have been and actually warms everybody's heart with his simple but unattainable desire. Similarly enjoyable are the clan of stone trolls, Kristoff's surrogate family, a group of Smurfesque creatures with the ability to succesfully camouflage themselves as rocks, and who unfortunately don't nearly have as much screen time or background exploration as we would have liked. And if you're afraid the reindeer talks (since animals with the ability to speak are an oft dreaded Disney staple still), fear not: his master does so for him to witty, almost self-reflective results. The songs are a welcome return to tradition; though for a moment at the start of the film they seem to comprise most of the dialogue, better balance to the music is applied later on. Apart from pleasing the aural senses, Frozen offers a delightful visual feast as well with its wondrous winter landscapes and ever present snow motifs, but considering the darkness of many scenes coupled with the obligatory 3D effect, not all the imagery ends up looking as amazing as it could have been. However, many of the 3D shots in the lighter scenes hit their mark, especially those involving snow and icicles, so seeing the 2D version instead isn't wholly recommended either.

In a time where Pixar is increasingly going down the drain creatively because of its lack of inspiration and its current focus on prequels and sequels, a thoroughly wonderful and ideologically original pure Disney film like Frozen is a welcome sight. Even the coolest minds and the coldest hearts will find it hard not to melt due to this film's built-in warmth, and with the dominant motif of snow and ice, Frozen proves to be a perfect Holiday movie for old and young alike.

Today's News: Indy crosses over to the Dark Side

Another newsflash I posted on MS the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152235/disney_verwerft_rechten_indiana_jones

No real surprise here, since we knew Disney had acquired the rights to all Lucasfilm properties when they took over the company. The exact nature of their influence was unknown until now though. It's interesting Disney made a deal that also works in Paramount's favor, instead of taking it all for itself. This probably has something to do with the fact that Disney won't actually be producing any new Indiana Jones films, but will merely stick to distributing and marketing. So that means Paramount will have to do the hard work which makes Disney all the big bucks, in which case the latter studio will have to cut the former some slack financially if they're to stay on equal terms.

But will this mean the production of Indiana Jones 5, which has been rumoured to be in development for five years now, will soon kick into full gear? Definitely. As we've noticed in the case of Star Wars, Lucasfilm's other major franchise, Disney proved all too eager to start exploiting it pronto. It seems we'll be getting no less than six(!) new Star Wars movies over the next decade, so I'm betting at least one Indy movie is a given and the studio will be announcing a release date soon, as they did with Star Wars Episode VII (as long as J.J. Abrams stays away from this project I'm cool with that!). But will Harrison Ford star as the titular archeologist again? In all honesty, I hope not. Though I agree he's the ultimate and original Indy, I've always envisioned the Indiana Jones persona to be similarly adaptable as, say, the James Bond character. People no doubt viewed the change in actor when Sean Connery quit the 007 role as sacrilege too at first, but some of the following Bond actors proved equally up to the task. Why would the same not be possible in the case of Indy? Do we really need to drag poor old Harrison into this every time? Credibility was already stretched in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in that regard. At the same time, I don't recall so many fans complaining about The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. To my mind, as long as the story, action and fun is well written and perfectly executed, Indiana Jones will survive the departure of Ford just fine. My only fear is that Shia LaBeouf will don the fedora and whip next, and that certainly is not a delightful prospect...

Today's News: Dark Lord of the Sith is coming to the small screen

Here's a bit more news from everybody's favorite Dutch movie news website:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150995/darth_vader_tv-films_mogelijk_in_de_planning

Disney sure means business with the Star Wars franchise (as it always does when it smells the sweet scent of delicious money). Although they've cancelled a few projects, including the Clone Wars TV-series and the almost finished dark and gritty video game Star Wars 1313, the number of projects slated for release in the next few years far exceeds those left behind in number. Of course you can moan about the overly kiddie-oriented angle and therefore dubious quality of many of these - Phineas & Ferb Star Wars special? A new show on Disney XD? No thanks, says the adult enthusiast! - and many of them seem like blatant cash-grabs, but at least the franchise is exploring new territory now. Whether that will result in worthwhile material, especially for the old fanbase who had just about accepted the franchise's apparent creative demise, is to be decided in later years. But it's hard to deny some of these projects sound intriguing. Of course there's Episode VII, which in that regard will dominate fan speculation until its release, but 'Darth Vader Themed TV Specials' is also guaranteed to pique interest. Basically because it could mean anything at this point. A miniseries that delves deeper into the narrative gap between Episodes III and IV, a few 'made for TV' movies (animated or live-action), documentaries on the cultural impact of this iconic face of interstellar darkness and corruption, guest appearances on currently running shows on the Disney Channel: the sky is the limit. The whole term 'Darth Vader Themed TV Specials' is simply too vague to make heads or tails of it for now, the most noteworthy thing about it at this point being the multiple form. So not a single 'special', but at least two (unless it's a spelling error; you never know). Darth Vader is one of the most instantly recognizable, memorable and popular villains ever created for the big screen, so there's no doubt a tale or two more to tell about him (whether we want to hear it or not). Just what that tale is and how it fits into the franchise so far (Extended Universe or otherwise) has yet to be determined. It's safe to say we won't be able to fully decide what to make of it until summer next year. Which actually isn't that far off at all, so I wouldn't count on anything too spectacular.