Posts tonen met het label Joss Whedon. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Joss Whedon. Alle posts tonen

maandag 22 juli 2013

Today's News: Hot off Comic-Con 2013



A double portion of news today from MS, but Comic-Con tends to have that effect everywhere on the Internet:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148730/avengers_2_gaat_avengers_age_of_ultron_heten

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148731/nieuwe_trailer_the_hunger_games_catching_fire




So we have a new trailer for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Avengers 2 got itself a name and hence, a lot more speculation for the fans to endure for the next few years. The former news is the least intriguing, since this trailer would have been released around this time of big summer blockbuster movies anyway, to get people excited about the upcoming big winter movies. It's a good new trailer, with more emphasis on character and emotion than on story and action like the teaser featured. It's agreeable to see Catching Fire won't ignore such pivotal aspects, even if they lead towards a major Twilight-y love triangle - you know, the type with one girl and two boys, and nobody seems to opt for a simple threesome - we can't care less about. The notion of another Hunger Games with Katniss as the star seems redundant, but is a vital strategy for the regime to kill off the champions of the resistance against its regime, and of course this time it won't be just teenagers killing each other, as they have rebellious plans of their own. Blatant recycling of plot elements seems absent for now. And with a stellar cast like this (Philip Seymour Hoffman!) this is still a sequel to look forward to, despite all the teeny aspects.




Naturally it's the second installment of The Avengers, fortunately still directed and written by Joss Whedon, that we can look forward to even more. We'll have to wait a while longer for it, but we still have ample Marvel movies leading up to it (though it seems Ant-Man will now follow this finale of Phase 2 instead of precede it, thus paving the way for Marvel's Phase 3). But with 50 years of Marvel Universe history there is plenty to think on as details slowly dripple in. One such detail, a major one in fact, is the official title, which now has been revealed to be Avengers: Age of Ultron. It leaves no mistake who the villain of the piece will be: the genocidal, haywire android Ultron, originally built by Henry "Hank" Pym (Ant-Man/Yellowjacket/Giant Man/wife beater). In this post for MovieScene I suggested Pym will most likely be established in Avengers 2 via his connection to Ultron, and afterwards fully fleshed out in his own Ant-Man flick, but time has already caught up with that, as it has now been confirmed Pym will not be present in Avengers: Age of Ultron at all. Whedon has stated the origin of Ultron will be explored via other means, the most obvious idea being Tony Stark will create the misantropic machine instead while assembling new Iron Man suits (after his last single adventure he needs some after all). This remains to be seen no doubt. Maybe Whedon will surprise us, as he has done before in the past (he's a fairly talented writer after all). The other big question now is whether Ultron will be portrayed by a guy in a suit - he is rather anthropomorphic so it's not inconceivable - or whether he will be a fully computer generated character with the voice work done by some incredible actor. My best bet? Get Andy Serkis to perform his usual mo-cap magic. You can't go wrong with that route.

But where's Thanos in all this? Great idea, Whedon, getting us all worked up on a villain-to-end-all-villains and then seemingly ignoring him! Or could he be in Guardians of the Galaxy after all...?

zondag 26 mei 2013

Today's News: Studios engage in Marvel Civil War

Here's a hot item of mine that just got posted on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147404/marvel_en_fox_vechten_om_quicksilver

It had to happen sooner rather than later, considering how much money studios make over superhero movies, especially the Marvel kind. Since the rights to various franchises and characters lie with various studios, a few characters would surely cause difficulty in terms of copyright, and now they have. The characters in point are none other than my favorite sibling superhumans, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. Starting off as mutant terrorists and enemies of the X-Men, they soon quit a life of wreaking havoc among humankind and turned towards protecting it as full members of the illustrious Avengers (which still made them enemies of the X-Men at times). So now the question is, where do they best fit in?



Of course, if they are to be done justice and stay true to their comic book origin, they are the children of Magneto first and mutants foremost. So that would mean they would best begin with appearing in the X-Men franchise, but so far, they've been completely ignored despite their father having appeared four times before, as has his Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants. Apparently Fox saw little appeal to their presence, until Joss Whedon announced his plans to incorporate them in The Avengers 2 last month, at which point Fox catapulted them (or at least the male half of the pair) without advance notice in their latest X-travaganza, Days of Future Past. It really feels that was done solely to create further friction between Fox and Marvel/Disney, since there were no signs at all of their appearance in the movie before Whedon's announcement, nor were they featured in the original comic book story line (and neither was Magneto, but his Brotherhood at least was, run by femme fatale Mystique, who is in the film as I reported here last week). Whedon however has no plans of dropping his two beloved mutant Avenger members, nor should he, since they fit better in there, judging from their long run as Avengers in that line of comic books, which far exceeded the number of issues they served as nemeses to their fellow mutant do-gooders.

Of course, it seemed unlikely from the inception of their appearance in Whedon's next film that they would be featured as Magneto's kids, or mutants at all. That's really X-Men territory. So far there has been no word on mutants at all in the true Marvel Cinematic Universe, and maybe it's better if it stays that way, since it might become hopelessly convoluted for the general audience and so far the established MCU is extensive enough to last us a decade of movies and TV-series. Whedon will have to prove creative with these characters, which in his case I don't mind at all. I heard rumours he intends to render them Inhumans; a good solution considering they are the next best thing to mutants and they haven't been used yet, plus Quicksilver has had plenty of dealings with them considering he married one and sired a daughter with her. Plus, it would give Whedon a chance to return the favour to Fox and give them the finger, since the Inhumans have usually been used as antagonists to the Fantastic Four, a franchise still under Fox's control. If mutants are denied to the true MCU, Marvel might as well steal the Inhumans from Fox. You get some, you lose some.




My favorite solution to this whole mess? A super crossover between both studios' superheroes springs to mind, but I realize full well that's much harder to pull off on film than it is on comic book paper. So many characters played by so many stars, yet still retaining a lot of action and preferably a decent story too? Fat chance. So why not do what the comic books did: create separate universes that are so alike but leave ample room for explaining away all the inconsistencies. Fox started this whole comic book movie rage back in 2000 with X-Men, let they be the genuine Marvel-616 Universe. And let Marvel's Cinematic Universe be what in terms of feel and style it has always seemed to aspire to be, the Ultimate Marvel Universe. Comic book fans would surely appreciate such a crafty solution, though I know it would still cause confusion among regular audiences who simply are not aware of the intricacies of the Marvel Universe or the copyright issues surrounding the various Marvel movies. These are basically the same audiences who wonder when Batman will appear in The Avengers, the type of people I still have to explain why Spider-Man wasn't in the X-Men films, the folks who'll never know the difference between Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel. They don't get it anyway, all they have to do is sit back and hope for a good entertaining superhero flick. That's not so much to ask and not so hard to deliver, Cinematic Universes and superhero legal battles aside. Let the fans worry and wonder about all that nerd stuff, and just enjoy whatever the studios throw at you without pondering about crossovers and such. Marvel/Disney and Fox, all I ask is that you Make Mine Marvel. You did a pretty good job at that so far.


zaterdag 28 april 2012

Assembly complete!



The Avengers: Rating ****/*****, or 8/10

When it comes to superhero movies (or just movies in general), Hollywood is rarely thinking more than a few years forward these days. When a superhero movie fails in some regard, the general decision is to either ignore it for a few years or reboot it, so as to give the franchise a fresh start (which almost always neccessitates to tell the character's origin story all over again). Recent examples to the latter include the Spider-Man and X-Men series, which after a successful initial run went in the opposite direction when failure – either to make sufficient money or to please the audience – was somehow involved. 20th Century-Fox studio executives therefore issued a semi-prequel for X-Men last year (the surprisingly fun X-Men: First Class) which both retold and contradicted its predecessors, while Spider-Man will return in a wholly new form next month after the disappointment that was Spider-Man 3. The former case showed that sometimes a new direction can spawn good results, while the latter has still to prove whether Sony Pictures' decision to simply abandon the former trilogy completely in favour of a new team of cast and crew retelling an already often told story was a good choice, when The Amazing Spider-Man hits theatres in June.


However, Marvel Studios, formerly in cooperation with Paramount, but now under control of the Walt Disney Pictures, does things differently, and shows some impressive long-term thinking for the various superhero characters they still own the movie rights to. Their strategy was simple, but effective: introduce various single characters in their own movies, then put them all together in one giant über-blockbuster the likes the audience has naught seen before. Of course, this planning proved cost-effective, since the public's interest in every character could be tested first with each film, before throwing them all in the same mix, which also gave the studio the opportunity to weed out any characters that proved disappointing at the box-office, as well as keeping open the option for sequels only to the films of certain superheroes that did prove popular, without pinning the hopes solely to the results of their group effort. And so in the last few years, we were treated to various very different superhero flicks: Iron Man (immediately proving to be the most enduring character of the bunch), The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Every one of these films contained various scenes and hints at the others and to the final Avengers product, so the studio could slowly but surely build up momentum, making the audience ever more interested and hyped for just what was in store for them. And now, after having waited and been teased for over four years, the Marvel Universe is fleshed out far more than would ever have been possible without this careful planning, due to the success of all these movies, resulting finally in the superhero-spectacle-to-end-all-superhero-spectacles, The Avengers.

And story wise, the best bit is we don't have to sit through all the characters' origin stories again, since that has all been done for us already, so we can just see the heroes we're already familiar with teaming up against a common foe. Warning: spoilers ahead! This foe, logically chosen, is of course Thor's semi-brother Loki (a wonderfully creepy and vile Tom Hiddleston), the only one of the characters' enemies to pack enough of a punch on a large scale to be a true menace to all mankind. After having fallen from the realm of Asgard, this bad guy disappeared out of the picture for a while, returning with a vengeance by teaming up with a mysterious alien race, hellbent on conquering Earth via the use of the Tesseract (a source of great energy first introduced in Captain America's private cinematic venture). This device has been in the hands of the S.H.I.E.L.D. secret service since the Thor movie, but Loki manages to infiltrate the research base and steal it, along with the minds of various base personnel, including their super archery agent Hawkeye (an agitated Jeremy Renner, so far only briefly spotted in Thor), much to the chagrin of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, charismatic and ready for combat as always) and his other top agent Black Widow (beautiful bad girl Scarlett Johansson, who was previously seen watching Iron Man's ass in Iron Man 2), who had a personal relationship with Hawkeye. Realizing a nemesis has appeared that threatens the whole world, Fury re-recruits the various superhuman characters we've seen before. And thus Dr. Bruce Banner (newcomer Mark Ruffalo, taking over from Edward Norton and doing a good job at it, portraying the troubled doctor with both sympathy and irony) is tracked down in India, both for his knowledge as a brilliant scientist and his anger managemant problems that occassionally transform him into a huge green monster on a rampage called Hulk (never angrier); Steve Rogers is pulled out of his quiet life in Brooklyn to fight in yet another world war as Captain America, despite having been trapped in ice since 1945 and still adjusting to the strange new world of the early 21st century; rich playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr., once again with his energetic flair and nonchalance that made him so popular in his previous two films, but no drinking problems this time) is tempted into joining the team so his Iron Man armour can be made responsible use of for a change; and even Thor returns from the realm of the Nordic gods in search for his brother, who he still cares about, just to find the guy has gotten bad enough to warrant the wrath of his hammer. With the players now all on the board, they set out to defeat Loki and save the planet (and Hawkeye) from enslavement/destruction by the evil aliens, resulting in many an epic battle scene, each more grandiose and large scaled than the ones that came before.



Of course, action alone is not enough these days (eh, Battleship? Wrath of the Titans?), we need to care for these characters. It really helps having gotten to know most of them and their various traits and motivations already in their own entries into cinema, so little additional exposition is required. But the big question remained: how well do these characters play together? Do they have the necessary chemistry? The answer, thankfully, is positive. Despite the abundance of star power here assembled (how many Academy Award winners and nominees again?), all the actors are fully into this large group effort and none of them get in each other's way or display so much as hints of appropriating the movie for their own ego. The same can be said for their characters, though the plot does call for Hawkeye to be underexposed so we still don't know much about him (but at least we know enough), while the first Hulk transformation takes place well into the second hour of the film, and until that time Dr. Banner seems more aound for the techno babble, something which plays off very well against inventor Tony Stark as a fellow scientist, as well as to the simple grunt Captain America, who has no idea what both great minds are talking about.

As this scene illustrates, the strength of the characters is the way they complement each other: Tony Stark is the inventor, the loud mouth with the great ego, Banner the scientist who needs to restrain his ego, Steve Rogers is the soldier who follows Fury's orders but does a grand job himself leading the team into battle, Black Widow is the spy who offers both incredible martial arts prowess and infiltration techniques plus the obligatory feminine empowerment, while Thor offers knowledge of a mystical realm beyond comprehension of any of his team mates but necessary to defeat the villain, plus he adds the personal drama to the group since this villain happens to be his (adopted) brother. Iron Man represents technology (and a lot of money, which can also come in handy), Thor stands for supernatural power, Black Widow (and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye) offers intelligence and bodily flexibility, Captain America brings the leadership and combat experience, while the Hulk supplies the necessary raw power. And so we watch the team perform in action together, including great moments like the Captain and Iron Man fighting back to back, playing off each other's strengths like using Cap's shield to deflect Iron Man's rays to take out rows of bad guys, while Thor and the Hulk try to outdo each other in brute strength, the latter winning, when all enemies have been vanquished, by still knocking out his friend to show him just who has the bigger set of muscles.



It's safe to say it's not the action but the characters that make the movie work. Which is not surpring considering Joss Whedon has been placed into the director's chair: if anyone knows about characters, it's him, which he has proven on the small screen with his excellent ensemble casts in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and was once again shown to be the case in the recent fabulous horror pastiche The Cabin in the Woods, which he co-wrote. And Whedon being Whedon, we get his trademark humour thrown in for free. None of this huge display of comic book power in audiovisual form would do as well without some much needed levity, telling us we shouldn't take all of this too seriously, which only increases the film's overall sense of fun. Moments of great suspense are interwoven seemlessly with superbly timed jokes, submitted by all characters, even the antagonists. By mixing humour, action and drama alike, while all the way making us root for every heroic character, Whedon proves he's well up to the task of tackling such a monumental undertaking, despite his limit experience as a motion picture director (the fantastic Serenity so far was his only foray into cinematic directorial duty, but already proved just what the guy was capable of).

Which is not to say The Avengers is without flaws, but fortunately they are but few. The role of Loki's alien henchmen and their specific identity and origins remain underexplained, making them little more than cannon fodder. Visually they look fine (as does the whole film) but they lack a soul and clearly exposed motivations other than being just mere minions. Hawkeye's lack of a character set-up was already mentioned above, while the same can be said for Nick Fury, the man who assembles this team of heroes: we've seen him in almost all of the previous separate films, pulling strings and initiating the formation of the Avengers ever since the end credits of Iron Man first ended, but we still know little about the man himself. Sure, he's in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. but just who does this organisation really answer to? This film shows him communicating with “the council” (whatever that is), a group of poorly lit, shady, nameless characters on monitors, but just who these people are and why Fury adheres to their commands remains secretive, so the audience too isn't sure what to make of Fury himself. This does add some mystery to this already mysterious man, but also feels like the writers either didn't really know or didn't care enough to explain it better. However, we may still get our answers, a Nick Fury film has already been acknowledged to be produced soon.

Fortunately for the general public, the good stuff in The Avengers far outweighs the not so good, and we are treated to 142 minutes of utter fun as we see great characters (possibly soo to be iconic) teaming up for equally great action, great comedy and great visuals, the latter ranging from enormous flying aircraft carriers to a devastated New York swarming with serpentine alien attack ships being taken down by Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Marvel Studios can sit back and relax: their four year gamble has payed off, made them billions of dollars (this movie alone is gonna break records for sure), garnered much acclaim from critics and fans alike, and paved the way for many more entries into this cinematic Marvel Universe, so we can enjoy Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and of course The Avengers 2 in the next couple of years, with other related Marvel projects also to have been confirmed to tie in to this quickly expanding canon. After the steadily rising levels of success witnessed so far, culminating in the world wide nerdgasm that is The Avengers, we can do nothing but look forward to more Marvels, hopefully for decades to come. Preferably with Whedon involved, but we'll take them without if needs be.


And watch the trailer here:


And the Avengers' troubles have only just begun... be sure to stick around for the mid-credits scene to find out why! Or simply watch the picture below for the identity of their new archenemy.


woensdag 25 april 2012

How to make a surprisingly good horror movie


1: Make good use of effectively creepy locations
Why change a winning formula? If a place is frightening, there's nothing that can be helped so you might as well use it to its full potential. Dark, shadowy places are preferred by far. The more isolated and backwards, the better, since there's little help for your poor protagonists in distress, and they have to make do with each other and their wits (if any) to survive their ordeal. This also creates opportunities to add some emotional dynamics for your group of characters, since tensions and personal issues between them will rise, meaning the danger can come from both inside and outside the group. A good example of an ever sinister location in this genre would be a spooky forest equipped with a minimum of human civilization, where the main cast can be pitted against their antagonists in peace and quiet with zero outside interference.


2: Create archetype characters
Assuming you use more than one protagonist (which the majority of horror movies does), make sure they're different enough from one another. There's little point in having five different characters if they all behave the same. Be sure to cast both male and female actors if the script allows for it. Make them dissimilar enough in nature so they each bring their own voice and input to whatever perilous situation they find themselves in. They all should have different traits to distinguish them from each other, making them react diversely to the dangers they'll face. You can have a nerd, a slut, a brave heroine, a coward, etc., but be sure they compliment each other. Make them mostly likeable (again, if your script calls for this) so we can root for them, even though we know we will see them killed off in horrible manners (that's why it's a horror film after all), which means their unavoidable deaths will have meaning. Most of all, make them archetypes, not stereotypes. It's a fine line, but it can make all the difference between a good horror flick and a bad one.


3: Apply postmodern context, surprise your audience
Let's face it: by now the horror genre has seen it all. So why not use that to your advantage? Don't insult your audience's intelligence by assuming you're the first one to come up with certain ideas, since that will very likely work aversely. Present your ideas knowing your viewers will be familiar with them and play with this notion to surprise them where ever you can. Don't be afraid to openly refer to other entries in the horror genre, it has been proven a trite and true ingredient of successful horror by now. Make use of established genre conventions, no matter how often they've seen to be applied before, and then turn them on their head so your audience will be utterly shocked. Of course there's the risk your viewers might not go with it if you surprise them in too bizarrely a fashion, but that's a risk you should be willing to take. In fact, if the risk pays off, your audience will thank you for having dared to take such chances.

4: Add some humour, but not too much
Don't cater only to the darker emotions like shock and disgust, but also lighten up the mood at times by adding some fun. It can take the audience off guard, playing with their expectations of what comes next, so the following shocks hit their mark hard. Don't overdo it though, unless you set out to make a comedy more than an actually scary film. Certain characters naturally lend themselves more to laughs than others (this includes the antagonists), but don't make the humour depend on any single character to avoid JarJarisms: nobody likes a single sidekick providing all the jokes and ruining the overall mood (those are the types of people we like to see brutally killed off the first), so you better distribute it somewhat evenly among your cast of characters. And don't be afraid to use some naughty language, a horror movie should aim at a more restricted rating anyway.

5: Be sure your movie is still scary enough
If you deliberately make a horror movie, the audience will expect frightening and/or sickening moments (or at least attempts at such), otherwise you're cheating your viewers. So make sure to add a sufficient amount of moments of unease, disgust or shock to your motion picture. A neatly crafted balance between gore and suspense is always preferred, but you can pick one over the other if it seems appropriate. Don't overdo it of course, horror movies shouldn't rely solely on dirty scenes filled with blood and guts, such moments should not drive the film, but be driven themselves by the overall plot. However, if you have good ideas to make your movie even more eerie, show no more restraint then needed.


6: End on a downer if it works in your film's favour
Some of the best horror movies end on a very downbeat ending, a closure devoid of hope or happiness for your characters (if any are still alive of course). When it makes the movie even stronger plot wise or shock the audience that much more, don't hesitate to use such endings. It usually also garners a fair amount of critical acclaim and that's never a bad thing, considering a lot of critics feel biased against horror movies that seem all too typical on first sight.


When all of these points have been adhered too successfully, this results in:



The Cabin in the Woods
Rating: ****/*****, or 9/10

Why not write an actual review of this film, you might ask? I could have done that, but The Cabin in the Woods is so loaded with plot twists it couldn't have been written without spoilers all over it, which would give away much of the movie's brilliant plot, and I so much want you to check out the movie instead of just reading a synopsis. Even for people who are not at all into horror, the way this film turns established horror conventions topsy-turvy makes it worth a watch, if you have the stomach for some occasional blood and gore. It proves yet again writer/producer Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly/Serenity and this week's newly released 'superhero spectacle to end all superhero spectacles' The Avengers) is at the very top of his game and fully deserves the large fanbase he has spawned over the last decades. As for director Drew Goddard, he redeems himself for those few bad episodes of Lost he wrote (though it must be stated he also wrote some good ones) and he turns out to be a very capable director with great love for the horror genre (something which was already evident to a lesser extent in Cloverfield which he also directed). Together Whedon and Goddard have produced one of the finest entries into the horror genre in decades, which hopefully won't be insatiably copied, sequeled/prequeled, remade or rebooted like too many of the scary movies it references.


And watch the trailer here (though it's bound to create wrong impressions, since, despite the titles claiming differently, this trailer seems fairly standard. But then, no trailer could ever do this film's plot justice without giving too much away):

zaterdag 4 februari 2012

Serenity




Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Tweede strijd van verliezer Whedon bewijst zijn gelijk

Menigeen zal de naam Firefly weinig zeggen. Het was de titel van een zeer geslaagde televisieserie die Joss Whedon, de man achter het zeer succesvolle Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in 2002 produceerde voor Fox-TV. Helaas bleek de serie geen lang leven beschoren aangezien Fox er al na vijftien afleveringen de stekker uit trok. Een grove inschattingsfout, want aan de kwaliteit van deze sciencefiction-serie lag het niet, wat vervolgens bewezen werd toen Firefly op DVD alsnog een culthit werd. Whedon zwoer dat hij het er niet bij zou laten en dat hij Firefly op de één of andere manier een nieuw onderdak zou geven. Hij hield zijn woord, want hij komt nu met een bioscoopfilm aanzetten, getiteld Serenity, ditmaal geproduceerd door Universal. En ondanks de verhuizing naar zowel een nieuwe studio als het witte doek, heeft hij het oude, hoge niveau van de serie weten te behouden, wat resulteert in een flitsende actiefilm vol met frisse ideeën en aanstekelijk intrigerende personages.

De film opent met een korte introductie die de kijker niet meer dan noodzakelijk meegeeft om de stand van zaken in dit universum te begrijpen. Ergens in de verre toekomst heeft de mensheid de Aarde verlaten en zich in een ander zonnestelsel gevestigd waar vele werelden gekoloniseerd zijn. Een aantal werelden heeft zich succesvol verenigd in een Alliantie, terwijl de rest nog ruige grensgebieden zijn waar orde en tucht ver te zoeken is. In een poging deze planeten beschaving bij te brengen brak er een verschrikkelijke oorlog uit die de Alliantie glansrijk won. Echter, Serenity is een ode aan de loser, en toont zodoende de lotgevallen van een samengeraapte bemanning op een vervallen vrachtschip genaamd 'Serenity': het zootje ongeregeld zijn diegenen die de oorlog verloren maar weigeren zich aan te passen aan de norm van civilisatie en daarom tegendraads hun eigen koers bepalen. Een passende parallel met de serie zelf, die ook verloor, maar dankzij de rebelse Whedon toch een tweede kans krijgt.



Onder leiding van kapitein Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion, als een jonge Harrison Ford in Star Wars) probeert het gezelschap aan boord van 'Serenity' het hoofd boven water te houden, hetzij door eerlijke klussen als vrachtvervoer, hetzij door bankroof en andere criminaliteit. De bemanning vormt een bont gezelschap bestaande uit onder andere een dommekracht, een priester, een hoer en de jonge dokter Simon (Sean Maher) met diens psychisch begaafde zusje River (de als actrice al even begaafde Summer Glau): allen mensen die eigenlijk niets gemeen hebben, maar desondanks samen weten te werken zonder daarvoor in een keurslijf te moeten worden geplaatst zoals de Alliantie het liever ziet.

Maar dit vrije, wetteloze bestaan wordt niet zonder een slag of stoot geleverd: Simon en River zijn op de vlucht voor de Alliantie, die gruwelijke experimenten op het meisje heeft uitgevoerd, waarbij ze informatie heeft opgedaan die een grote bedreiging vormt voor het geloof in de autoriteit van de heersende macht. Een rücksichtslose agent (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amistad) – met een beangstigende balans tussen rede en brute agressie, evenals de Alliantie zelf – wordt erop uit gestuurd om River terug te halen, waarbij grof geweld niet geschuwd wordt. 'Serenity', nu tot doelwit van het militaire apparaat van de Alliantie bestempeld, moet bovendien ook nog uit handen zien te blijven van de gruwelijke Reavers, een groep ruimtekannibalen die al moordend planeten plundert.

Ziehier de premisse van één van de meest originele en onderhoudende sciencefictionfilms van de laatste jaren. Als een geslaagde mix tussen sciencefiction en het Western-genre vormt Serenity een uniek mengsel van genre-conventies, en levert daarnaast zinderende actie en bovenal doeltreffende karakterontwikkeling. Want hoewel de film een hoeveelheid spetterende actiescènes bevat en de visuele effecten zich makkelijk kunnen meten met menig recente blockbuster, draait de film volledig om de personages. In Firefly bestond de bemanning uit negen personages en allen zijn terug voor de bioscoopversie, waarbij ze niet allemaal evenveel in beeld komen maar toch voldoende ontwikkeld worden om de sympathie van het publiek te krijgen: een hele opgave voor een speelfilm die in twee uur een even rijke wereld moet weergeven als een TV-serie van vijftien afleveringen. Maar de film slaagt met vlag en wimpel en weet ervoor te zorgen dat we niet alleen om alle personages gaan geven, maar ook een behoorlijke dosis spektakel en humor achter de kiezen krijgen.


Bovendien heeft Whedon Serenity toegankelijk weten te maken voor mensen die niet bekend zijn met diens voorganger, zonder te blijven steken in een overdaad aan uitleg over wat er voorheen met de personages is gebeurd en waar de serie überhaupt over ging. Gezien het aantal onafgehandelde plotlijnen die de TV-serie liet liggen mag dat best een prestatie genoemd worden. Hierdoor behelst Serenity een succesvol vervolg dat de trouwe schare fans evenveel zal behagen als Firefly dat deed, terwijl het voor de leek een geslaagde eerste kennismaking met Whedons universum vormt.

Uiteraard is dit laatste ook Whedons doel: hoe meer mensen Serenity zullen waarderen, des te groter is de kans dat Firefly een langer tweede leven is beschoren. We helpen het hem hopen, want het hoge niveau van deze film toont aan dat Whedon nog lang niet klaar is met dit universum. Firefly verdient beter dan opnieuw te worden vergeten, maar het is aan het publiek om dat definitief te bewijzen.