Posts tonen met het label Josh Brolin. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Josh Brolin. Alle posts tonen
zondag 1 juni 2014
Today's News: we have a Thanos but when will we see him?
One of MS's latest scoops was posted there by my reliable self:
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155978/josh_brolin_speelt_marvelschurk_thanos
The biggest revelation in this bit of news is not that Marvel has enticed yet another powerhouse actor to play a major villain role (and in terms of baddies, they don't come much bigger than this one!), but more so the fact that we still won't see him in this, his next "appearance". The message is clearly that Brolin, for now, will be limited to voice acting Thanos in Guardians of the Galaxy only. Of course they didn't cast him solely for his voice talents, evident as they may be, but with plans to make more overt use of his acting capabilities for later projects. Just when we will get to see those remains unclear. Certainly not in Ant-Man. Likely not in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, where Earth's Mightiest Heroes already have bad guys Ultron and Baron Von Strucker to contend with. They may tease him in the post- or midcredits stingers in that film, but, as was the case with the first Avengers film, it will reamin limited to a teaser so not much will be shown of him. Other future Marvel projects are still a bit sketchy thus far. Thanos doesn't seem the stuff of Captain America 3 or Dr. Strange. My money is on The Avengers 3 at the soonest, and that won't be until 2018 at the least. Gives Brolin a lot of time to prepare for the role, while Marvel is allowed the opportunity to make the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy coherently join forces to fight this cosmic evil together. At least, it sure seems like that is the studio's intention, as they're teasing him in both their respective movies, and if Guardians of the Galaxy turns out to appeal to the audience, that's the type of überteam-up the fans will be aching for.
As for Brolin, he's solid actor, capable of playing a wide range of characters, in projects as diverse in range and scope as The Goonies and Planet Terror to No Country for Old Men and Milk. So I have no doubt he can do this splendidly. I'm more concerned with how they're gonna pull him off other than by Brolin's acting. No doubt the voice will be changed, probably lowered in volume, to accomodate the expectations that come with such a heavy, bulky and larger-than-life extraterrestrial character. As for his physical appearance, I'm quite convinced it's gonna be CGI. If I'm not mistaken, he already was a digital character in The Avengers, and we only got to see the side of his face in that one. Motion capture seems the way to go, giving Brolin more to do and exploiting his talents to their fullest. They would be building on Guardians' character Groot in a technical aspect, who is similarly brought to life by Vin Diesel supplying both voice and bodily motions. Not to mention Marvel's expertise on doing the Hulk, who's very similar in terms of body proportions to Thanos. But all of this is speculation and conjecture at this point and will remain so for quite a few years longer. Let's just wait what Thanos sounds like first. We'll get to know him bit by bit at this rate, before the big final reveal, whenever that may occur.
zaterdag 14 december 2013
Today's News: a dame to kill for teases us
Another poster I posted on MS the other day:
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152398/eerste_poster_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for
This is about as teasery as a teaser poster can get. You got all the basics you need to titillate the audience about your movie, but next to nothing on what the film itself is about except for those few clues the title provides. There's a captivating visual image to raise the spectator's curiosity, in this case a stylized pair of red lips with cigarette smoke emanating from them against a bleak, dark rainy background. Then there's a title, a long list of cast names (both big shot names and some of less established actors, as well as returning actors and new additions in this sequel's case), a director's credit, or two in this movie's case, and a release date so audiences know when to expect this film to arrive in theaters (subject to change of course: as this movie saw its fair share of pre-production delays, this current release date may also not be wholly safe just yet). What will this movie be about, a viewer not familiar with the previous installment may wonder? Though an ominous lady will be present in a shady town where hardboiled men will fall under her dangrous spell, there's nothing more to go on except for the mental imagery of sin, lust, passion, death and betrayal this particular picture evokes. And since those were more or less the exact ingredients of the first film, this teaser poster seems to have gotten it all right.
zaterdag 19 oktober 2013
Today's Double News: Brolin's life turns Jurassic, Vaughn's life is cancelled
Another double dip of news posted by yours truly on MovieScene:
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150987/josh_brolin_mogelijk_in_jurassic_world
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150986/vince_vaughns_term_life_gecancelled
This is the way of things in the industry: for every project that gets greenlit (even after twelve years of friggin' pre-production hell! Heartless dino-hating bastards!), several more get turned down, sometimes even while already well underway, though such a situation is more exceptional since copious amounts of money have already been spent and publicity has covered the project in question so there is some general awareness around. Let's explore what might have went wrong with Term Life.
It seems an interesting project, sure to find some kind of audience (though probably not as major as the studio had hoped for). It has a fairly solid plot which guarantees an appealing mixture of drama, action and humor. It's a graphic novel/comic book adaptation, which is all the rage these last few years (and that rage hasn't quite yet died down). However, Image Comics, though a well renowned and established company in the world of paper media (responsible for, among others, Todd McFarlane's Spawn, Michael Turner's Witchblade and The Darkness by Ennis & Silvestri), doesn't come with a brand name that screams 'hype', unlike its major competitors Marvel and DC. There's one problem for ya. Here's another: Vince Vaughn. Vaughn has done almost nothing but comedy (and not always good comedy at that) for over a decade. So could he be a compelling enough actor to also take care of the dramatic, emotional side of this story, as well as make a convincing action hero? Though he has dabbled in such elements of acting before in films as diverse as Into the Wild, Psycho (the remake, obviously) and The Lost World: Jurassic Park (which spawned no less than three action figures in his likeness; see my Jurassic Park Toy Review Archive for more details on that), his talents in both department remain limited, while most spectators can only see him as a comedic actor because of the overwhelming portion of said genre in his resumé, which would make it harder for the general - target - audience to accept him in a role like this. It seems the real talent would have been delivered by young actress Hailee Steinfeld, Oscar-nominated for True Grit. In this case the trouble is that film is basically the only stand-out title in her career, promising as it may be, but short as it yet is. True, she will soon be seen in the big budget Sci-Fi action flick Ender's Game, but as that feature has not yet been released it's too soon to pin a studio's hopes on Steinfeld just for that one. Term Life is no True Grit, so Steinfeld's participation also is not a guarantee for success. Nor is the intended direction by Peter Billingsley, whose curriculum vitae in that particular function also is far from impressive. His only feature of note in this regard is Couples Retreat, a comedy starring Vince Vaughn (and not one of his better ones), which brings us full circle to the matter of comedy versus other human emotions present in Term Life.
Overall, there's many variables and risks present in Term Life a new studio executive would not have been comfortable with, sadly making it an easy target for premature cancellation to save a few bucks that can then be spend on sure-to-deliver blockbuster projects. In Universal's case, one of them being... Jurassic World! Josh Brolin's apparent soon-to-be-payed salary has to come from somewhere. And Brolin is an intriguing choice for JW. He has done similar genre projects before to great success in terms of his acting (Planet Terror, Hollow Man), while also having been a star in completely different types of film the likes of No Country for Old Men and Milk. His name brings audience recognition, Oscar-nominated past performances that transcend genre and an acting job that is sure to satiate execs' expectations. Every risk you have in Term Life is absent in his persona. Do I agree with cancelling Term Life? Not per se, but if its "insurance money" is pumped into Jurassic World's undoubtedly stellar budget, I'm all for it. All's fair in Love, War and Jurassic Park. Plus, Vaughn has already been involved in one of those, so now it's Brolin's turn.
zondag 24 maart 2013
Movies gone by: when will it end...
Here's
some more mini-reviews of movies I failed to review before due to
technical difficulties. Meanwhile, I still see more films every week
so it's piling up fast. Hopefully, I can still find time to finish
this catching-up and get back to regular reviewing. Next week will be
busy for me though (regular work, press viewing, dentist appointment,
shipping out many parcels full of sold Jurassic Park figures,
etc.), so that remains to be seen. Fingers crossed, no promises.
Hyde
Park on Hudson: ***/*****, or 6/10.
The
historic first visit of English royalty to the United States in 1939
immortalized on film, seen through the eyes of President Roosevelt's
distant cousin Margaret (played by Laura Linney), with whom he had an
uneasy semi-secret affair. Equally uneasy is the first meeting
between Mr. President (a formidable Bill Murray) and the King and
Queen of Britain (a sympathetic and convincingly 'just crowned'
Samuel West and Olivia Colman), the latter pair being completely
uncomfortable with the American way of life, but in need of winning
over the American public to support the Brits in the apparently
unavoidable upcoming war with Germany. The ultimate message: they're
all normal human beings with their own failings and strengths so why
not be friends? Putting human faces on historical characters of such
stature is what this film does best, resulting in both hilarious
confrontations – my favorite: the King waving at American farmers
in the distance for lack of other people to wave at, only to be
completely ignored – and genuinely compelling emotional moments,
but it's also a weakness: these people behave all too human, thus
making for a fair share of dull moments that compromise the film's
progress as the characters engage in routine human behavior. The plot
regarding FDR and his hidden mistress also gets in the way as it
gears towards a predictable clash between both personalities over the
exact nature of their affiliation that lacks full audience
engagement. Overall, this is a real 'hit and miss' movie, but the
thrill of seeing historical characters bicker and argue about whether
or not to eat hot dogs due to their political nature demands at least
one watch. My ex-history teacher, who was sitting in the audience
when I was running the film at the local arthouse theatre, seemed to
agree with this assessment: glad to know I learned some things from
him back in my high school days.
Life
of Pi: ****/*****, or 8/10.
Grand
tale of survival, man “versus” beast, the importance of hope and
the personal nature of religious beliefs, which won Ang Lee the 'Best
Director' Academy Award. A man from India named Pi (Irrfan Khan)
tells his life's tale: growing up in a zoo, ultimately moving the
whole animal circus to America as a boy, only to lose everything
(including his family) in a tropical storm at sea. Stranded on a life
boat, the young man (now played by Suraj Sharma) has to contend with
the only other survivor, an adult tiger named Richard Parker (created
by a fabulous mix between CGI and the real deal, the two blending in
so seemlessly that few people can tell the difference: a VFX Oscar
well earned!). Stuck with each other for months on end on the ocean
desert, Pi recalls their various encounters, the good, the bad and
the bizarre, with the message that no matter how bleak things seem,
there's always something to enjoy about the circumstances life has in
store for you. Lee serves this viewpoint from an atypical religious
angle that celebrates the good in religion by allowing Pi to take the
best elements of various religious belief systems and appropriating
it to form his own feel-good personal religion. The surprising result
(for hardcore atheists like myself at least) is that, despite the
fact Pi opens his story with the line 'I will tell you a story that
will make you believe in God', the movie is never to be considered a
pamphlet to convert anyone to any organized faith, but a call for
total individualist religious freedom, to belief in whatever you want
to belief to make the world work better for yourself. And so, despite
having lost his family at sea and having to take care not to be eaten
every day, Pi cannot help but marvel at life's grandeur, as he
witnesses splendid sights seen by few, including a whale feasting on
phosphorescent plankton at night, a carnivorous island populated only
by meercats and eventual mutual survival for Richard and himself
against all odds. As is expected from Ang Lee, such a colourful tale
comes with his typical ingeniously rich visual imagery, leading to
many breathtaking and haunting shots ('Best Cinematography' too),
made all the more effective by its grandiose use of 3D technology:
hence, watching this film in 2D is like listening to music with your
ears closed.
Period
crime flick set in late Fourties' Los Angeles, loosely based on
historical events. When the city suffers under the regime of ruthless
crime boss Mickey Cohen (unusual but effective role for Sean Penn),
who rules through intimidation and corruption, a few clean cops form
an equally uncompromising (i.e., violent) 'gangster squad' to rid the
town of Cohen and his consorts by any means necessary. Under the
command of Josh Brolin, these badgeless law enforcers hit Cohen as
hard as they can in any which way they can think of, showing no mercy
at all. An all-out war between both parties is the predictable
result, while a rather forced love relationship is established
between cop Ryan Gosling and Cohen's mistress Emma Stone, to
complicate matters romantically (and needlessly too). All in all, a
solid action flick devoid of surprises, but delivering everything you
would expect (which is both meant positively and negatively).
Originally scheduled to be released a good six months earlier, a
shootout scene in a movie theater needed to be altered due to the
Aurora 'Dark Knight Rises' incident: some footage of the
original scene can still be found in trailers all over the Internet
though. The most interesting thing about this film is the fact it's a
direct prequel to the far superior period thriller/'film noir' LA
Confidential (1997), which details what happened after Cohen's
historical downfall and outmatches Gangster Squad in almost
every respect (except for the explicit violence).
Django
Unchained: ****/*****, or 8/10.
Hailed
as 'Tarantino's latest masterpiece' well in advance of its actual
release, this movie reaffirms Tarantino excels in taking an
established film genre and dipping it in his usual sauce of violence,
a catching soundtrack and memorable oneliners. Though it's safe to
say the man ought to resort to other tactics soon before it backfires
on him, it cannot be denied Django Unchained is a great,
thoroughly entertaining film. Chronicling the rise to freedom of
former slave Django (a stern Jamie Foxx) by the grace of bounty
hunter Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz, who won his second Oscar by
repeating himself for a Tarantino film, except playing a good guy
this time around), the movie witnesses Django, striking a deal with
the man, becoming his sidekick as the two track down his wife
Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who is now in the service of the
wealthy southern slaver Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio, both
surprisingly charming and wickedly discomforting). Figuring out an
elaborate scheme to get his wife back, Django soon finds out more
violent solutions are in order to reach his goal. The no-no word
'nigger' can be heard a whopping 107 times, to the acknowledgment of
its historical use but to the predictable shock of conservative
America: accordingly, action figures of characters from this film
were promptly taken off shelves to avoid controversy in stores, but
the ridiculous debate about the use of such sensitivewords rages on.
Apparently quality television shows like Deadwood get away
with it, but a much anticipated flick like this gets marred in
political debate for applying the same tactics. A wonderfully
intertextual neo-western, the film is laced with references to past
westerns, both the undying classics and the more obscure fare, as is
Tarantino's forte. The (this time hidden) movie babbling fortunately
doesn't get in the way of plot and character development, as it did
in Death Proof and tended to do in Inglourious Basterds.
Tarantino gets away with his proven routine again, for now: it would
be nice to see him tackle something wholly new for a change though.
Labels:
ang lee,
bill murray,
django unchained,
gangster squad,
history,
hyde park on hudson,
Josh Brolin,
life of pi,
neo-western,
oscars,
Quentin Tarantino,
religion,
sean penn,
tiger,
violence
woensdag 30 mei 2012
Back in black... with vengeance
Men in Black 3: rating:
****/*****, or 8/10
In the
midst of all the super hero action bombarding our cinemas this
summer, you'd almost forget there's more to comic book movie
adaptations than just superhumans epically fighting each other.
However, just because super heroes are doing extremely well at the
box-office, doesn't mean the Hollywood studios have given up on other
type of comic book movies, especially when reinterpreting such comics
for the big screen did very well financially for them in the past.
Therefore, after “only” ten years of neglect, the Men in Black
are finally back to once again protect us against the worst scum of
the universe. Their last film turned out to be one of the worst
sequels in recent history, almost ruining the franchise as a whole
due to bad writing, bad chemistry between the lead actors and most of
all, embarrasingly bad jokes, so this time their mission is to prove
to the audience once again why we do want to watch their secret
missions guarding us against extra-terrestrial violence. Fortunately,
and surprisingly after a decade of inactivity, they succeed, making
us fondly remember the first film and largely forgetting the debacle
that was their second adventure.
Warning!
Here be spoilers! Unlike the previous films, Men in Black 3
does not open in medias res during one of the coolest secret
government agency's missions, or even on this planet, but instead
witnesses a pretty nifty prison break on the moon's maximum security
prison for dangerous aliens. It makes sense extra-terrestrial inmates
are indeed locked up extra Terra, but apparently it would have
been a more sensible move not to hire inapt, thick-headed, overweight
human guards to handle security, as they all get viciously killed
off, some in rather gruesome PG-13 ways, courtesy of the film's
central bad guy, the one-armed Boris the Animal (thanks to the FX
team an effectively scary and grotesque Jemaine Clement), who after
reclaiming his freedom sets off to kill Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones).
Mean while, to show a decent amount of time has passed between this
film and the dismal previous MIB installment, we are re-introduced to
Agents K and J (Will Smith), working closely together as partners,
instead of one learning the intricacies of the job from the other
like before. They're still not fully connecting emotionally, K being
grumpy and cynical, while J is overly energetic and possesses a
seemingly more complete range of human emotions, but such differences
are only a good thing for the audience, since it makes the characters
complete each other and play off one another perfectly, exactly as
was the case in the first film, but was so painfully lacking in the
second. And so the excellent chemistry between Jones and Smith is the
best thing to return, as well as the most surprising considering it
was absent last time, plus the two actors haven't worked together for
a decade, but undoubtedly rediscovered their ability to bounce back
witty dialogue and bizarrely funny gags between them with the help of
a script that actually contained witty dialogue and bizarrely funny
gags. It's a good thing the pair found each other again, since the
relationship between them is the driving factor in Men in Black
3's plot line.
After spectacularly raiding a Chinese/alien restaurant for selling illegal extra-terrestrial animals as food, which also is used to remind the viewer just how well K and J work together on cases like these, K receives word Boris has broken out of jail, puzzling J as to what the deal is between them and K of course withholding information from him since it's not his damn business. Next day, J returns to the office only to find K missing and none of their colleagues remembering their top agents ever working together. Turns out Boris travelled back in time to successfully murder K and change history, so his people, the Boglodites, a dangerous parasitic race of aliens scouring planet after planet and killing all life in the process, can conquer Earth in the present after all, instead of being doomed to extinction thanks to K foiling their evil schemes in the past. With the invasion starting, J has no choice but to time-jump after Boris to 1969 in order to save his partner, and the future of planet Earth. Introducing time travel into a franchise that never seemed to revolve around it previously is often a bad sign (I can think of a TV show that did pretty good until messing with time proved to be the first stage in its undoing, as well as a beloved Sci-Fi franchise which got completely reset/screwed over because time travel offered just such an irresistibly easy cop-out solution), but in the case of Men in Black 3, it's more like an added bonus, since it opens up the possibility for having J and a younger K (now played by Josh Brolin) teaming up to save the future, making their relationship feel fresh, familiar and funny all at once.
Brolin proves to be the perfect casting
choice for the role of replacing Jones for most of the movie, having
skillfully copied his accent, mannerisms and natural charm, and thus
pulling off this less experienced but more human K both fully
convincingly and compellingly. Plus, Smith and Brolin prove as good a
combination of acting and action talent as Smith and Jones did, while
keeping the existing levels of humour and character compatibility
intact. Thanks to Brolin, who also cleverly uses this opportunity to
remind us why he's often called one of the most acclaimed American
actors at this moment, we don't miss Jones for a second, because
we're totally buying he is Jones. Also, because of the now minimal
age difference between the two characters, K and J are finally on a
believably equal level, both of them knowing things the other does
not and actually sharing them, instead of the much older K supplying
all the knowledge, and J most of the resulting action, while the
former keeps important stuff to himself for the latter (and the
audience) to figure out.
Aside
from reinvigorating the K & J relationship, the plot also
utilizes the chance for laughs offered by the fish-out-of-water
element of a guy from the present visiting the odd world of the past,
though it does not make as much use of this opportunity as one would
have expected, appropriating the date of July 1969 mostly for plot
reasons because of the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon, which does not
allow the film to linger too much on other, more cultural events of
the same era which would have made for great comedic moments.
Fortunately the jokes that do jump at this occasion work well,
incuding older incarnations of MIB technology being of elephantine
proportions compared to Smith's pocket size equipment, or Andy Warhol
revealed to be a MIB agent who's tired of his own visual art and
requesting to be allowed to fake his own death to get away from it.
Most of the best temporally related jokes though are claimed by the
alien Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg in a hilarious role), a survivor of
the previous Boglodite act of genocide who offers the Men in Black a
device to protect Earth from the imminent invasion, and, as a
five-dimensional entity in disguise (i.e., a silly hat), can foresee
any and all possible futures, making him ramble on and on about the
various possible outcomes and the unlikeliest random elements
effecting them.
Armed
with Griffin's plethora of foreshadowings, K and J set out to deploy
his device (by attaching it to the Apollo 11 so it can create a
safety net around the planet) and defeat Boris, of which there are
now two, the one from the present (that is, 1969) and the one from
the future (don't worry, the time travel does not lead to overly
complicated situations but remains fairly straightforward, which also
works only in the movie's favour). The existence of two Borises
simultaneously, both of them hating the other for what they perceive
to be their weaknesses, could also have used more fleshing out,
making the threat feel more real since future Boris knows exactly
what will transpire and could steer past Boris away from his own
mistakes, while both MIB agents are not fully aware of the precise
order of happenings due to Griffin's mental incoherence; the plot
however, fails to fully capitalize on this chance and has each Boris
fighting a single MIB agent alone. At least the plot delivers some
stunning action scenes on top of a missile launch tower to make up
for this oversight, which is also deployed to make some good use of
the 3-D effects (yes, this summer blockbuster too is released in
3-D), though it's the time-jump scenes that provide the most
impressive displays of depth.
Overall,
Men in Black 3 offers everything Men in Black 2 did
not, the most important thing being the status of a worthy successor
to the (still superior) first installment in this franchise, despite
containing some minor plot imperfections. Director Barry Sonnenfeld,
responsible for all three films, redeems himself for his previous
failure, while Smith and Jones prove they can still work together to
great results if aided by a good script. Brolin only adds more depth
to their existing relationship by exploring it in more detail and
straying away from the previously used master-apprentice dynamic
between both characters. And at the same time, we get more aliens
(new species, but also some old fan favorites including the obnoxious
worm guys), more cool gadgets (like the much advertized gyro bikes)
and a lot of new jokes, most of them actually funny this time around.
Now, if we could only time-jump and erase Men in Black 2 from
history somehow, this franchise would have a much better overall
track record...
And now
back to superhumans epically fighting each other.
And
watch the trailer here:
Labels:
action,
aliens,
Barry Sonnenfeld,
comedy,
conspiracy,
government agency,
J,
Josh Brolin,
K,
men in black,
men in black 3,
MIB,
MIB3,
science fiction,
Tommy Lee Jones,
Will Smith
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)










