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: scorched by interview

Only two bits of news? Slow start of the week apparently.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157292/nieuwe_trailer_the_interview

So North-Korea is pissed off... at this? Only goes to show rude humour isn't that country's forte. You gotta put things into a relative perspective. Nobody is meant to take this seriously as anti-North Korean propaganda, it's too overtly rude and silly for that. It's not like the protagonists are the token Western good guys (far from it!), nor is the CIA portrayed in the most flattering light. Of course, the question is whether a similar approach taken to a movie about North Koreans plotting an assassination on President Obama would be equally funny (that is, if you think this trailer actually provides some successful jokes, which is all a matter of taste). How many North Korean movies make their way to the rest of the world for that matter? I wouldn't be surprised if there's plenty a movie with a similar theme in circulation in that part of the world already, we just don't hear anything about it. And I bet humour isn't their prime ingredient. Totalitarian states are by their very nature not particularly amusing. It would suit North Korea's own interests to stop making a fuss about this film, which only boosts attendance worldwide since everybody now wants to see for themselves what is ticking off Kim Jong-un so badly. I don't recall the Blessed Leader being so angry about another recent American movie which involves North Korea, the notable Red Dawn. In that much more seriously toned film, the American homeland is invaded in force by the stalinist state, which leaves a couple of heroic rebels (teenagers, for the most part, too) to wage guerilla war against the evil aggressor. Now that's what I call propaganda, but few people are even talking about that movie and most that do condemn it for its questionable political motives. The Interview, however, is just rude comedy. Of course, that doesn't mean 'anything goes' in the genre, but it does imply the audience should not take anything seriously, humourless dystopian agents with their own shady agenda included.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157313/vervolg_maze_runner_aangekondigd

Speaking of dystopias, those are always a blast in the pictures. The Maze Runner has shown not to be an exception in that regard, as it's doing quite well at the (North-American) boxoffice (it has yet to be released in most "foreign" territories). So the inevitable Hollywood conclusion is a sequel is warranted. And the word is we'll be getting one. Only one? Yes. Unlike with most contemporary sequel strategies, Fox is taking a somewhat more cautious approach to things by taking things one step at a time. I can only call that responsible planning. These days, studios tend to plan ahead several sequels and spino-offs over a decade before their predecessor has even properly hit theaters yet, and in many cases, that backfires on them financially (John Carter), or on us as an audience creatively (The Amazing Spider-Man 2). Still, studios don't seem to dare risk losing their momentum and so they inform audiences of their commitment to the franchise they hope to build by revealing too early what's in store. Same thing is currently happening with the suspiciously similarly themed Divergent, which already has three more movies lined up since it did well enough at the boxoffice (though certainly not as stellar as the superior equally suspiciously similarly themed The Hunger Games). Not so on The Maze Runner, which also has two books left to adapt, but there is as yet no word on filming the third (which I reckon their soon will be). So for now, only one sequel in progress. Release date: in less that a year's time. That soon?! Uh-oh, they better start running! Yes, that was a pun and a predictable one, but so is the fact movies dealing with teenagers stuck in a nasty dystopian future continue to sit well with their target audience of young adults. But that audience is growing up fast. Mark my words: that third movie will soon be up for an adaptation too, and it's undoubtedly split into two parts. Like I said, there is an momentum to consider and it may expire. And what's more, there's the potential of lots of money.

Today's News: a journey of crime bosses, authors and dictators

Always another bit of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156891/eerste_trailer_laatste_seizoen_boardwalk_empire

I'm currently watching my merry way through the fourth season of this magnificent quality show, so I can't say too much on the story hints in this trailer for Season 5, other than to utter my surprise as to which characters still live and which don't. Of course I got myself spoilered to some extent in this context too, but that comes with the territory. Whatever has caused Boardwalk Empire's all too early demise, it's not the writing, the acting or the look. Most of those elements approach flawlessness in my opinion. Maybe it doesn't connect with regular viewers because their expectations on what basically constitutes a gangster show get in the way, as the series tries to avoid such roads most travelled. Some would say there's too much talk and emotion and too little action. Agreed, but it's only for the better, since the moments the shit does hit the fan the shock is felt all the harder. I have no reason to believe Season 5 will show any decline in the greatness of the show and I'm confident the series will go out with an appropriate bang. I am a little concerned about the applied time frame though. Seasons 1 through 4 all took place in a rough five year time span (1920-1924), but this final season jumps forward to 1931. It indicates the writers had a destination for the main characters they still intend to reach by speeding things up, forced by the impending end to the series. This kinda echoes what happened to another great historical show on HBO's resumé, Rome, where a similar process took place as the show was finalized quicker than anticipated. Though the gaps of time in that show also felt a little disconcerting narratively, it didn't hurt the quality of the show much. I hope the same can be said of Boardwalk Empire in hindsight, as the show deserves a proper send-off.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156889/game_of_thrones_actrice_wordt_mary_shelley

Good for you, Sophie! About time the very capable younger actors of the Game of Thrones cast got some recognition resulting in other jobs. And this sounds like a very interesting job at that. The story of how Frankenstein: or, the Modern Prometheus came to be is almost as legendary as the story the book tells itself. Writing such an iconic novel at such a young age was as much an accomplishment then as it is now, I reckon. A wonderful period drama can be construed around the tale of the Shelleys and their trip through Europe that inspired the influential Gothic horror novel, which itself has been adapted to the big screen so often (though never again as compelling as the 1931 Boris Karloff version was). Since Turner already has the necessary experience dressing in fancy period costumes and dealing with all kinds of messed up characters in the role she inhibits, the part sure seems right for her. Hopefully her portrayal as Mary Shelley will prove just as strong and watchable as her work as Lady Sansa.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156911/schrijvers_the_conjuring_pennen_twee_journeys

Speaking of classic novels, at the moment I'm also working my way through Jules Verne's most celebrated works. What rollercoasters of adventure yarns they prove to be! There's a reason they have been turned into movies throughout the history of the cinema, starting in its earliest days (Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902), for example). Small wonder Hollywood continues to be interested in additional retellings. It worked well enough for them with Journeys 1 and 2 (Journey to the Center of the Earth and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, respectively). Though the first film didn't see as wide a release due to the relatively small number of movie theaters equipped with 3D technology, Journey 2 proved quite the boxoffice smash, possibly also because of the involvement of Dwayne Johnson (who replaced Brendan Fraser as the adult male lead). And so the studio is eager to see more Journeys and Johnson reprising his role. I gotta say, I'm not against more sequels based off the delightful works of Verne, as these movies in many ways incorporate the catchy adventurous spirit of his novels (though admittedly not their attempts at scientific uplifting). I just wish they weren't so kids oriented by making a teenager the protagonist (though letting two horror writers pen the script sure is a step in the right direction!). Then again, Josh Hutcherson is only playing a teenager, as he's currently 22 years of age. However, following his and Johnson's merry romps is still a far cry from experiencing the fascinating exploits of intrepid scientists, as is the case in the source material. Plus, two more sequels back to back feels a little excessive. Even if they do deal with From the Earth to the Moon and Around the Moon both, that two-book story can easily be condensed into one film, as the entire first novel deals with preparing to get the protagonists off-world. I bet Hutcherson and Johnson reach our beloved satellite a lot faster by comparison. Or maybe they won't go to the moon at all, but will end up stuck in a balloon for five weeks. Still plenty of Verne stories left after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156900/rogen__francos_the_interview_digitaal_aangepast

If Sony didn't want to piss off North-Korea they shouldn't have made this movie in the first place. Seems a little late and a little pointless to make cuts now, as the damage is done. The premise alone guaranteed an angry response from everybody's favourite Stalinist nation. I can't imagine it never occurred to studio execs that the Great Leader and his minions might take offense by a film that deals with his assassination at American hands. It would of course have been great if the North-Korean response would have been as silly as the movie itself appears will be, by stating they would have preferred Kim being killed by Will Ferrell instead of Seth Rogen or something. However, I doubt humour is in the North-Korean dictionary, if indeed there are any other words in it than Kim (oh my, what an incorrigible Western white racist I am!). Anyway, Sony seeks to keep all mockery of the beloved dictator to an appropriate minimum. I doubt it will do them any good, but I hope two different cuts will be available so we can appreciate the differences. I'm pretty sure neither version will be allowed on the North-Korean market though.

Spider-Man 3

Rating: **/*****, or 5/10

Overdaad schaadt het webhoofd

Tot zover ging het goed: Sam Raimi regisseerde in 2002 het uitstekende Spider-Man, een film die wereldwijd kassa's kraakte en een drijvende kracht was in de herwonnen populariteit van de superheldenfilm. Vervolgens herhaalde hij het kunstje met het al even sterke Spider-Man 2 die het zo mogelijk nog beter deed en Raimi's status als topregisseur in Hollywood bevestigde. Raimi kan nu dus doen en laten wat hij wil, wat in het geval van het nieuwste deel in de reeks, Spider-Man 3, niet positief uitpakt. Hij besloot zich als schrijver op te stellen, terwijl dat bij de vorige delen aan meer ervaren scriptschrijvers werd uitbesteed. En het script is nou juist het grootste probleem van Spider-Man 3: het laat ernstig te wensen over.

Spider-Man 3 pakt de draad op waar Spider-Man 2 eindigde, en vervolgt de plotlijnen die in de voorganger achtergelaten werden. Peter Parker (als vanouds Tobey Maguire, die uitstekend een nerd kan spelen, maar een minder geslaagde Spidey neerzet) heeft zijn geheime identiteit onthuld aan het meisje van zijn dromen, Mary Jane (de nog steeds vrij irritante Kirsten Dunst). Het gaat hem nu eindelijk voor de wind, omdat hij de balans tussen zijn eigen leven en dat van zijn alter ego heeft weten te vinden en Spider-Man bovendien steeds populairder wordt, ondanks de aanhoudende pesterijen van krantenbaas Jameson (de nog immer schmierende J.K. Simmons die tot komische noot van de eerste orde is gereduceerd). Peter meent dat het tijd wordt Mary Jane ten huwelijk te vragen, maar is zo druk met het voor superheld spelen dat hij niet doorheeft dat zijn vriendin een ernstige dip in haar carrière doormaakt en Spidey's roem met lede ogen aanziet. Bovendien heeft hij het nog niet kunnen uitpraten met zijn beste vriend Harry Osborn (een overtuigend getergde James Franco) die hem verdenkt van de dood van diens vader, zich nu ook bewust van Peters geheime identiteit. Met het wapenarsenaal van zijn papa, superschurk Green Goblin, zint Harry op wraak.

Er speelt dus al genoeg om zowel Peter als Spider-Man twee uur bezig te houden, maar blijkbaar vond Raimi het niet voldoende het hier bij te laten. Daarom komt hij nu op de proppen met maar liefst twee nieuwe superschurken, beide met hun eigen persoonlijke relaties jegens Peter Parker. (Waarom elke booswicht zowel een band met Peter als met Spidey moet hebben is onduidelijk, aangezien dat in de comics nooit nodig was.) Ten eerste is er Sandman (een ruige maar eigenlijk goedhartige en wanhopige Thomas Haden Church), een ontsnapte crimineel die bij een wetenschappelijk experiment per ongeluk getransformeerd wordt in een uit zand bestaand en daardoor ongrijpbaar wezen. Het blijkt dat hij verantwoordelijk was voor de dood van Peters oom, waardoor Spider-Man, gedreven door wraakzucht, geobsedeerd wordt hem uit te schakelen. Ten tweede voert de film een buitenaardse klomp slijm op die een symbiotische relatie met Peter aangaat, wat Spider-Man extra kracht geeft, maar Peter vervreemdt van zijn naasten. In een poging zich van het creatuur te ontdoen bindt het zich aan een fotograaf (een compleet verkeerd gekozen Topher Grace) die vervalste compromitterende foto's van het webhoofd maakte maar door Peter ontmaskerd werd, wat het monster Venom oplevert, dat Spider-Man bruut wil vermoorden.

Zoveel plotlijnen in slechts 133 minuten, dat kon gewoon niet goed gaan... en ondanks Raimi's kundige regie in de voorgaande delen slaat hij hier de plank volledig mis, waardoor het een warboel vanjewelste wordt. Terwijl hij erin slaagt de geschiedenis van de nieuwe superschurken en hun verhoudingen tegenover ons aller favoriete muurkruiper begrijpbaar genoeg uit de doeken te doen, toont de film zijn zwakte vooral in het melodrama tussen Peter en Mary Jane, waarbij Harry en nieuwe meid Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard) toegevoegd worden om een vierhoeksrelatie te vormen die nooit echt emotioneel meelevend wordt en meer irritatie dan intrigerende karakterontwikkeling oplevert. Bovendien haalt het relationeel gezwets dikwijls flink de vaart uit de film, aangezien de actiescènes, hoe gelikt en visueel prikkelend ook, nogal sporadisch over de film verdeeld zijn.

Nog storender is de humor, of beter gezegd, de poging tot humor. Waar Raimi zowel Spider-Man als Spider-Man 2 overgoot met een liefdevol, dun sausje humor, wordt Spider-Man 3 er bij vlagen in gedoopt, doordrenkt en uitgeperst, wat niet alleen overdadig uitgesponnen flauwe grappen oplevert, maar ook de ernst van de problemen tussen Peter en zijn vrienden bagatelliseert en sterk contrasteert met enkele tragische scènes die de film bevat. Het dieptepunt vormen de scènes waarin Peter, onder invloed van de buitenaardse symbiont tot stereotypische 'emo' verworden, zijn vrienden teistert en tussendoor op straat danst wijzend naar alle leuke meisjes die langslopen. En dat minutenlang. Het had misschien een paar seconden grappig kunnen zijn, nu is het slechts pijnlijk beschamend, maar kennelijk dacht Raimi daar anders over.

Gelukkig weet Raimi nog wel overtuigende actiescènes neer te kunnen zetten. Ze zijn minder voorhanden dan de lengte van de film doet vermoeden, en vooral in het midden van Spider-Man 3 dringt de vraag zich op waar ze toch blijven, maar wanneer ze eenmaal losbarsten doen ze dat ook goed en blijkt Raimi's talent ze dynamisch en enerverend te kunnen leveren. Als één van de duurste films ooit gemaakt is het niet verwonderlijk dat de (digitale) trukendoos hier wagenwijd open is gezet, wat prima spektakel oplevert dat tenminste tijdelijk de vele gebreken van Spider-Man 3 weet te compenseren. De lange eindstrijd, waarin Spidey en Harry op epische wijze de booswichten bevechten, vormt een heerlijke kers op een verder nogal bedorven taart.

Aan alle goede dingen komt een einde, is de eerste gedachte bij het zien van Spider-Man 3. Hoewel de film gemaakt is met grotendeels dezelfde spelers, zowel voor als achter de camera, wordt de kwaliteit van de uitstekende eerste twee delen niet gehaald. Dat is extra jammer als men bedenkt dat regisseur Sam Raimi tot zover een speelse stijl hanteerde die sterk deed denken aan de luchtige stijl die ook de comics kenmerkte, maar die hier steeds te ver wordt doorgevoerd en zodoende geen doel treft. Het resulteert in een overdaad aan romantisch melodrama dat flink de vaart uit de film haalt, flauwe grappen die totaal niet passen in de bij vlagen ernstige toon van het verhaal, en een rommelig geheel van plotlijnen omtrent het trio schurken dat wordt opgevoerd om de webslinger het leven zuur te maken. Er is domweg teveel aan de hand in Spider-Man 3, het zit elkaar maar in de weg waardoor weinig geslaagd uit de verf komt. Meer is in dit geval absoluut minder.