This month's column skips the dreaded sequel for last month's (not much to columnize about me liking Jurassic World, other than summing up lots of hyperboles and superlatives, which makes for a dull read) and instead targets another very predictable topic, that jolly show called Game of Thrones, which had yet again drawn to a season close. Column: We Know Nothing, Jon Snow
We've arrived at that time in the series we knew would come sooner rather than later. Book readers no longer can say with certainty what's to come for the majority of story lines. The series has caught up with the various narratives in the novels in most cases and has even well progressed beyond them in some. Not to mention many of them have also been changed to such an extent they little resemble their literary counterparts. Only a few of the characters' stories are still behind, and a bunch of them involve people we haven't even met yet, and may not ever meet on the show. So what does that mean for the relationship between those who have read all the novels, and those who solely stick to the series? For one thing, the latter party doesn't need to worry so strongly about dodging spoilers, which also means the former can once more open their mouths in public without fear of someone socking a fist in them. It makes for a better balance between both types of fans, now that they all know who, when and what we're talking about and nobody knows for a certainty what's going to happen next (except for Mr. Martin, I should hope). The interchange of theories will now evolve along more equal lines, since both parties know as much, or more aptly speaking, as little.
Of course, book readers still know about the other possibilities certain characters could have had, as they had them in the book, and may take a hint or two from those, though there are no longer any guarantees. The only spoiler threat left for avid viewers/non readers now involves the new characters, like the already announced Randyll Tarly, Septon Meribald and Euron Greyjoy. However, of these characters the only one whose story line from the novel is left mostly intact is that last name. The other two in the books already appeared much earlier in situations the show can't duplicate anymore, because the narrative of the characters they supported has moved well beyond their original point, requiring novel settings for their appearance, which means there's little tangible left to spoil about them. So even though book readers may know their Randyll Tarly, Septon Meribald and Euron Greyjoy from the book, they won't know the new incarnations of these characters and as such anything they think they can spoil about them needs to be taken with a grain of salt (or in Greyjoy's case, salt wives).
Book readers and viewers no long need to be at odds, nor do they need to avoid one another socially. Instead, they can embrace in the shared knowledge that nobody knows what's coming any more on their beloved show. So let's go out and celebrate that new equality which formerly could be called adversity. Anyone feel like hosting a lavish feast in some great Lord's hall with lots of wine and song? If not, you've certainly learned your lessons from watching this show.
Lots'o tease indeed. No big action showing Bond what he does best (bedding ladies, recklessly driving vehicles and violently offing baddies), just setting the tone and atmosphere and providing hints at the bigger plot without offering explicit explanations as to the how and why. If this teaser was a summary of the final product (unlikely, but you never know), you'd definitely know Sam Mendes returned to the director's chair, after the equally introvert and slower paced (but all the same very good) Skyfall. Nevertheless, the sense of an upcoming big confrontation is felt throughout this preview. British Intelligence up against a criminal rival of equal strength and proportions led by the always infectiously nefarious Christoph Waltz, there's gotta be blood. More major characters up for the block then? I doubt that, as most of them have just been introduced in the previous installment. There's definitely a side character or two eligible for being sacrificed for some emotional conflict. Or maybe Mendes will surprise us all again and kill off Bond himself. So the studio can move on with Idris Elba in Daniel Craig's place, seeing as those perpetual rumours circling the web just won't die. After all, dead or not, James Bond always returns, in whatever guise.
The same can be said for Max Rockatansky. Though he definitely returns less often than 007, as he's now at four films in 36 years as opposed to 24 in 52 years. But in many ways, this franchise is very similar to the James Bond movies. You've got a tenacious, lethal and handsome protagonist that doesn't necessarily have to be played by one single actor, stuck in a world full of ever ongoing violent political intrigue (just over cruder resources, like water and fuel) providing explosive action with gun fights and car chases and what have you. And he, too, occasionally gets laid (just not nearly as frequently). The new trailer again makes Fury Road appear like an epic film, though finally a bit more plot is added to the many fabulous shots of chase and fight scenes in beautiful desert vistas. That plot does bear a bit of a resemblance to The Road Warrior, it's hard to deny. But that was kinda to be expected. After all, reintroducing the character and his environment with a new main star after 25 years does lean towards the makings of a reboot. So story wise, I don't expect too many surprises on a narrative level. But hey, it beats a fullblown remake. At least enough variation is offered to make the movie feel fresh and new enough for the fans as well. I just hope the same can be said for the two sequels Mr. Hardy already signed up for. I've already seen him do the Thunderdome thing - you know the drill; two men enter, one man leaves - with Batman, after all.
This appears less fresh and new. But this of course is a total remake. Of a fairly classic genre film that has since spawned its fair share of inspirations, sequels and rip-offs. Which begs the question what this new Poltergeist movie has to often, other than its recognizable franchise name which the studio no doubt hopes will be enough to convince audiences to pay for it in theatres. Going by this trailer, I'll skip this remake. I just don't see anything worth my while that I haven't seen before. The plot of a family being haunted by ghosts up to no good has scared itself to death at this point. There have been good variations on the theme (The Conjuring springs to mind as the most recent example), but a much larger number of shitty versions plagues the horror genre. I'm surprised to see good actors like Sam Rockwell and Jared Harris jumping on board of this remake though. Were they in need of money, did they have time on their hands, or is there just more to this remake than meets the eye? I don't know, and I'm not likely to find out upon this film's release. I don't usually dabble in horror remakes, I find the whole concept just too scary.
Here's another scary thing, a second Walking Dead series. First and foremost, it must be said that I love the currently running show. It's utterly compelling television exploring the human condition under the toughest of circumstances, rife with all manner of grizzly ghouls out for human flesh and exciting action scenes to match. But what is the need for a second show? I can only imagine it offering more of the same concept. The only thing that makes it stand out against the original show is the time frame, which explores the infection from the get-go. And I'm not sure whether I'm too keen on the revelation of that mystery, as it proved simply irrelevant in the current series. We really don't need to know why the world has gone to hell, as The Walking Dead is all about showing how people react to that fact of life (or better, death). As far as I'm concerned, the cause of the infection can remain a mystery indefinitely, we're simply not encouraged to want to know, plus its revelation wouldn't add to the story, more likely just take away from it. Fans can come up with all manner of funky theories as to the how and why of the situation, but when it has aired on theories, that's that over with. Other than that, Fear the Walking Dead (I do kinda like that title) is likely to follow an all too similar scenario of plot lines as its concurrent show features. Which means it will be fun and thrilling to watch at best, just not nearly as inspired or innovative. But maybe I'm just entirely wrong and the show proves as catchy and exciting as its predecessor. After all, AMC pulled the same stunt with Breaking Bad, and I hear Better Call Saul turned out to withstand most initial skepticism. Here's to hoping...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's been a busy week, which left me no choice but to neglect my blog unfortunately. In the meantime, the news kept flowing on MovieScene, which has caused me falling behind in commenting on it. Let's try and catch up a bit.
Coolest trailer first. Obviously Game of Thrones. I doubt everyone who was already superstoked for the new season will experience that anticipation much more strongly after watching this trailer, since the tension has already mounted to nigh unbearable levels. But as expected, the new trailer looks splendid. Remaining fan favorites present: check. Quotable one-liners: check. Expensive FX shots of new locations and assorted vistas: check. New plot developments as opposed to the books: check. There's definitely going to be many a surprise for those who have already read the books, now that the series is rapidly catching up with them. There's a few shots of such scenes found in this trailer. I better spoil things for people who didn't read the novels while I still can. Personally, I just hope the series won't spoil the fun of the remaining books too much, as it's obvious by now this show will be finished much sooner than the original source material will. Nevertheless, HBO, bring it on!
Despite being involved in a sex scandal and busy directing another X-film, Bryan Singer is already planning his next project. It's gonna be adapting a Robert Heinlein novel. Let's hope this is going to honour the source material a bit more than most Heinlein based films, as there's only one of them that apparently really does so, and by now it's 65 years old (FYI, it's the classic Destination Moon). Many Sci-Fi buffs will still look back on Paul Verhoeven's attempt, Starship Troopers, with dismay, even though in many respects it turned out a pretty good film regardless (as long as you like satirical social commentary in your science fiction, and who doesn't?). So far, things don't seem too encouraging on staying faithful: the name has already been changed from the poetic The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to the rather generic (but likely sexier and easier to sell to general audiences) Uprising. I can live with that change. Not having read the book, I can probably live with more of them, as long as the final result still proves to be a good movie. I like the notion of a penal colony on the Moon rebelling against overlords from the Mother Planet, which is basically what the general premise is. So as long as they keep that bit in, things can't be too bad, eh?
Here's another Sci-Fi project for you. This one does less to me. I like Amy Adams fine, but my tolerance for Jeremy Renner has its limits. The plot also doesn't sound all that appealing to my ears: it has elements of V and Contact, and going on the available plot synopsis, not enough to really set it strongly apart. That leaves the director to get me interested, and Denis Villeneuve at least does that, even though I still have to see any of his work (I know, shame on me). The French-Canadian director's oeuvre isn't particularly long, but so far all his feature length films have won critical acclaim. Prisoners for one looked like a generic thirteen-a-dozen thriller judging from the trailer, but from what I've heard from critics and audiences alike, it turned out an unexpected gem against all odds. Plus, they wouldn't just hire anyone to do Blade Runner 2, but they hired him. (Personally, I have no desire to see a Blade Runner 2 get made at all, but that's beside the point.) So apparently, at least there will be some talent sitting in the director's chair. And then you learn the writer of the piece was responsible for Final Destination 5 and the failed reboot/prequel to The Thing, and a wholly skeptical attitude towards this project returns full force.
Another major motion picture franchise being re-developed to fit the small screen? That happens a lot lately. What's up with that?! Apparently the franchise has run its course on the silver screen and now the studio is looking for other venues for its appearance to make it cough up more dough. Aside from developing a spin-off of sorts at the same time (the all-female one, remember?). And stating 'they're still looking at the notion of more sequels', which is more or less saying there's not gonna be any for the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the concept of action stars coming together to make for an explosive team-up might work on telly. Are there enough TV action veterans available though. Sure there are! Plenty of shows to pick your oldies but goldies from. The A-Team, Knight Rider, Miami Vice, Quantum Leap or Battlestar Galactica, to name but a few. No doubt many an old and overly muscled actor from any of these shows is yearning for a chance to relive past glory and cash in on it at the same time. Of course, the appeal of such television (ex-)stars is probably not as great to audiences as it is for movie (ex-)stars, but hey, who cares, it's only television, right? Someone better inform the execs behind this project that these days, television is where all the high-class action is found, so if you want to make a worn-out concept like this work on the small screen, you better come up with some damn intriguing elements to ensure your viewers will stick with you. A gripping and compelling story, solid acting, captivating stunts, etc. Too bad not so much of these were present in the Expendables movies...
Ah crap, this looks like any contemporary generic PG-13 Hollywood blockbuster. I liked it better when we didn't really have much of a clue as to what it would be about, but now much of the initial mystery is lifted. I had hoped for something a little more ingenious from Brad Bird. But apparently, he too can't think of anything more than a teen prodigy saving a/the world because he/she is oh so fucking special. Paired with all the crazy and outlandish visual FX a outrageously giant budget can buy. And a superstar to draw in additional audiences (in this case, it's George Clooney). Oh well, expectations weren't high. It's a Disney flick based on a theme park ride, how often do those work? Only on Pirates of the Caribbean, if I recall, and even then only once for realsies (the sequels were okay, but not nearly as catchy). I doubt this will prove as succesful a film, nor spawn four sequels. There doesn't as yet seem room for the quirky humour and truly wondrously exotic locales found on PotC that really pulled audiences in. Please let me be proven wrong in my obnoxious pre-release scepticism, but from the looks of it and full well knowing cynical old me and bland old Hollywood blockbusters, that's not likely to happen, today or tomorrow.
Bring it on! If Season 2 is anywhere near as creepy and offbeat as Season 1, I'm game. The trailer sure indicates the eerie, Gothic mood of the show remains unchanged. It's just the characters that get mixed up in new plot twists which causes the major change in pace. From the looks of it, Eva Green's Vanessa Ives takes centrestage again. I don't mind, as Green is a very appreciable actress, though I do think a little more attention to some of the other characters would have been and remains most welcome. It would have made the revelation about Josh Hartnett's character a little easier to digest, since it now came mostly out of the blue, though I reckon Season 2 will definitely address matters more on that front. But hey, anything involving supernatural characters in Victorian London very much piques my interest. If the second season proves half as intriguing as the first, I won't complain.
I predicted this was gonna happen in my previous discussions of casting for this DC movie (look them up via the tags below, if you disbelieve me). Suicide Squad is an ensemble movie filled with colourful characters, and its ranks have been filled with some big A-list actors to portray them. Of course, egos were bound to come into conflict with one another over how much screentime their character featured and what the exact nature of their supervillain of choice ought to be sooner rather than later. And so Hardy is the first one out, as new sources (not mentioned in my article) claim was the result just because of creative differences over his character. I expected it to be Will Smith, so that at least is a little surprising to me. I would also have liked to see Hardy stay on board more than I would Smith, as I consider him to be the more interesting actor (since he's not yet a superstar, unlike Smith). However, I wouldn't be surprised to see more of the cast follow Hardy's example soon. I hope they won't, since the majority consists of solid actors who might do very well with the subject matter. But it's hard to deny director David Ayer might have bit off more than he could chew with a cast as loaded with impressive names as this one.
The big trick this first movie, about a bunch of rebellious illusionistsbreaking into banks, pulled out of its hat was introducing its franchise ambitions. Its ending sure revealed there was much more going on behind the scenes than at first believed. It proved quite an incredulous close which strongly required wanting to be fooled to accept it. Many audiences didn't, and therefore condemned the film's finale as a ridiculous and illogical cop-out. But the movie performed well enough in a summer of weak blockbusters, which makes the studio hopeful this franchise will spawn a few blockbuster installments of its own. At least they got a decent cast to make it happen. Most of the veterans from the first move are back for more magic shenanigans, while this first cast photo shows Daniel Radcliffe and Lizzy Caplan have been added to the cast. Decent additions for sure and at least one of them knows his way around the world of wand waving magic tricks. Otherwise, I remain skeptical about this project. It seems it's gonna go down the road of Ocean's Eleven, except with illusionists robbing banks rather than with gentlemen con artists pulling off casino heists. Which is fine for many audiences, but not my cup of tea.
Not overly fond of this notion. The X-Files was a good show, but its curse was it overstayed its welcome, continuing for two more season than felt obliged. Similarly, one movie was warranted at the peak of its popularity, but the second one was an exercise in redundancy, which barely even felt like connecting to the series proper. Why bother digging up such fossils? Well, money, obviously. As noted, the show was a smash success back in its days. There's still plenty of fans who crave their weekly dose of extraterrestrial and supernatural mystery. However, I think the majority would agree that this is basically just blatantly repeating past glory. Though I'm usually not high on reboots, I think it would be the wiser way to go in this franchise's case. Duchovny and Anderson have moved on, and I doubt they would feel much for anything other than a limited series, as Duchovny already suspected to be the case. Why not have a new duo of talented actors take over for them? If the new take on the show is indeed a limited series, that would be a great opportunity to have the torch be passed from the old cast to the next generation, while also testing the waters and see whether The X-Files premise still connect to modern day audiences who are more used to an ungoing narrative rather than old fashioned episodic storytelling. However, a limited series can't address the mythology of the original show much, since that was basically concluded, nor does it have much opportunity to introduce a mythology of its own if there's only gonna be a handful of episodes. I bet we'll see a miniseries at first, which tells a rounded story but keeps options open for a follow-up regular running series which stars main characters other than Mulder and Scully. No mystery that's probably the safest way to go, and I want to believe Fox feels the same.
I won't discuss this particular preview much here, simply because I can't. I have yet to catch up with The Walking Dead Season 4 and the first half of Season 5. So I have no idea what tragic events preceded this trailer. It's the downside of living in the Golden Age of Television: there's too much good series to go round and not enough time to watch them all. I'm not following TWD as closely and obsessively as some other shows, though I hope to return to the zombie apocalypse soon. But until that time, I try to stay away from any information regarding the show, so as to avoid potential spoilers. Fortunately this 30-second teaser didn't show too much, and what it did reveal, I missed to such an extent that I don't feel spoilered. Thankfully, since this is often an unfortunate side effect of the job of posting news about movies and TV.
Age of Ultron definitely promises to be a darker movie than the much more lighthearted and cheerful first Marvel ensemble movie that preceded it. Makes sense, in this universe of ramifications and consequences. The general audience probably hasn't kept close track of events as much as the legions of fans have (myself included), but the current state of affairs in the MCU is no cause for more playful superhero shenanigans. Serious stuff has gone down, you know. S.H.I.E.L.D. is in shambles, HYDRA has its tentacles firmly in place wherever there are power bases of mankind to be found, Loki secretly rules Asgard and Iron Man has lost most of his fortune, respect and technology. And then there's those various Avengers we haven't heard from for the least three years, not to mention several new names in their roster to shake things up. Obviously, these people have a lot on their plate and Joss Whedon has no intention of making things too easy for them. The shit is going to hit the fan and previously mounted tensions will erupt. From the look of things, Iron Man will have to take the blow of most of it, after his plan of creating artificial peacekeepers goes horribly awry and the rest of the team has to clean up his mess. However, as per the comic book lore, it seems the team will have to worry about their unpredictable and uncontrollable comrade the Hulk the most. Whatever the outcome, the team will be shaken up severely and it's conceivable that for every new member introduced, a veteran will step down. And we wouldn't have it any other way, since such dramatic results make the MCU the ever interesting place that is.
This project has been in the works for many years, though it can't be said a lot of actual work was done on it. I'm not surprised it still will happen one day though. This movie has a definite high concept but is obscure enough for the general audience not to be aware of its status as a remake. And it has some clear franchise potential, allowing the main character to escape from other places once he's out of New York in any number of follow-ups. I'm glad originator John Carpenter is involved to some extent, though I know full well 'executive producer' and 'creative influence' can mean any number of things, many of which are not as involving as they sound. I'm pretty sure this remake isn't going to be anywhere near as gritty and grimy as its predecessor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio notched the rating down from R to PG-13, so as to reach a wider audience for that franchise they're aiming for. Too bad, but I can live with it. I'm more interested in how this new dystopian future of theirs is going to play out. The bleak future from the original's 1997 has come and gone and it happily proved not to be as bad as advertized. Nevertheless, there's ample social anxieties in the present to capitalize on and I hope Carpenter will utilize his 'creative influence' steadily enough to ensure this new future is gonna be dirty and rotten but still a heck of a lot of over-the-top fun, as it proved in 1981.
Ignoring the trailer for The Messengers, which looks like typically ludicrous Christian Apocalyptic drivel, I have to ask what's up with the current trend of making the naturally abject notion of a walking cannibal corpse a thing to be romanced and sexualized? I can understand how that works for those other undead in popular fiction, the vampires, since they're normally not in a state of decomposition and generally use their powers of hypnotism to sexually lure their victims in for their blood, which can result in a lot of sultry sex. But a rotting body hellbent on devouring brains simply ought not to be sexy, which clearly doesn't stop folks from fantasizing about it and making TV shows out of it. I gotta say, with the right blend of relative humour the concept can work, as was evidenced in the fairly hilarious Warm Bodies. Can it work over a prolonged period of time rather than a two hour movie though? iZombie will have to prove it can. I gotta say, the female protagonist sure does look cute despite being dead. The zombies in this show clearly aren't as far gone physically as the majority of their cinematic brethren. Then again, the trailer suggests the main zombie is a bit of an anomaly, as she also has kept her ability to reason. That makes the whole zombie element of the show seem a lot less alarming. Her ongoing drive for consuming human flesh apparently isn't as strongly developed, as a job at the coroner suffices to keep that necessary flow of brains coming. Or there are much more people killed in town than ought to be usual, perhaps. I hope the struggle for humanity in the deteriorating zombie brain is gonna be handled as consistently and convincingly as the skeptic would demand, rather than the show quickly devolving into a buddy cop routine or an all-out romantic comedy, as the trailer also indicates could very well be the case.
Few surprises here. It seems ripping on Michael Bay's movies - though often justified - is simply the socially expected and obligatory rather than the objective thing to do. As usual, the GRAF makes little secret of her disdain for the movies and actors she disses (though most of them deservedly so). When you list a title as 'Age of Ex-stink-tion', you can't be said to refrain from any emotional bias. I guess that just comes with an Award foundation that doesn't treat the movies it nominates, or itself for that matter, any serious. Maybe a more objective and refined sort of Worst Movies award foundation is in order to properly serve as a balance for the Oscar circus. Not that the likes of Michael Bay would care much: this particular object of movie mockery doesn't worry in the least about any damage to his reputation the Razzies may cause, considering his ongoing success at the boxoffice still has made him filthy rich and powerful in Tinsel Town. However, I would like to see some Razzie nominations that don't include Bay, Adam Sandler or Jennifer Aniston for a change. I guess the new category of Razzie Redeemers at least is a step in the right direction of the GRAF preventing making too strongly a mockery of itself.
And I'll also take a shot at predicting the winners:
Worst Movie: Transformers 4: Age of Extinction
Worst Actor: Adam Sandler / Blended
Worst Actress: Cameron Diaz / The Other Woman en Sex Tape Worst Supporting Actress: Nicola Peltz / Transformers: Age of Extinction
Worst Supporting Actor: Kelsey Grammer / Expendables 3, Legends of Oz, Think Like a Man Too en Transformers: Age of Extinction Worst Director: Michael Bay / Transformers: Age of Extinction
Worst Screen Combo:Transformers: Age of Extinction Worst Script: Transformers: Age of Extinction / Ehren Kruger
Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel: Annie
RAZZIE REDEEMER AWARD: Ben Affleck (from GIGLI to ARGO and GONE GIRL)
This is some mouthwatering concept art. Clearly the product of someone who harbours great love for the Alien movies, especially the first (and finest) few installments. However, it's obvious this is more of a fanboy having a ball for his own pleasure than a workable first attempt at another Xenomorph infested film. It clearly has designs to directly follow Aliens, considering the presence of Michael Biehn (who ingloriously died in the first few minutes of its successor, Alien 3). The fact that the mythos has since been watered down by two more sequels, a prequel and two spin-offs, plus taking into account the age of both Biehn and Sigourney Weaver (not to mention the likely possibility both actors would not really be interested in doing another one), doesn't make for good chances of making a movie out of these doodles, no matter their fabulous look. A graphic novel of course is not an impossible option, so who knows what the future holds? Probably nothing in this regard, as Blomkamp has stated he did this mostly for fun and has since moved on working on real projects. Too bad, but maybe it's for the good. Let's face(hug) it: this imagery mostly hearkens back to the success of the first two films by applying iconic imagery and actors from those films. But applying them to what? No story is presented, nor even a medium in which it might otherwise be told. These images are completely empty of context, except for the love Blomkamp and us Alien fans bring to it ourselves. The first teaser for Star Wars: The Force Awakens comes to mind, which uses an all too similar tactic without delivering the necessary context of a narrative. At least in this Alien case, we'll never have to lament the fact that such great artistry was used for such a disappointing final product, which I continue to consider a very likely scenario for that upcoming Star Wars flick. Yet still, if there's ever gonna be another Alien movie (and I mean an Alien movie proper, not the upcoming Prometheus 2), Blomkamp would be my first choice for the directing chair.
As for directing, Sly Stallone is doing that in 2015. And acting. And writing and producing too. He sure is keeping himself busy. Too bad there's so little original projects involved, it's mostly him building on his past glories of Rocky and Rambo. At least with Creed, he's acknowledging his age by playing a mentor figure rather than an actual price fighter. Not so with the fifth Rambo movie, which is basically Stallone blowing off steam on camera and making money at the same time. To show he's keeping things up to date, this time he'll singlehandedly wipe out a whole Mexican drug cartel. If only that sort of thing would happen in the real world. The only one out of these three projects currently in the works that gets me the least bit excited is the one that seems to be most original. Then again, there's ample biopics about mobster bosses already, so it's hardly a unique concept. I doubt Scarpa could ever turn out as memorable as the likes of The Untouchables, Scarface or American Gangster. Doesn't really matter if it doesn't though. You just do your thing, Sly.
Also not a wholly original concept is a team of detectives investigating crimes that involve superpowered individuals. Remember The 4400 for example? Heck, even Agents of S.H.IE.L.D. often dabbles in that particular premise. Of course, the notion of setting it in a world where superhumans are a fairly everyday occurrence is more innovative, as is introducing an ex-superhuman as a cop character. That does make for some interesting novel story possibilites, and I hope Powers will utilize them to maximum effect. The cast sure helps, too. Casting Sharlto Copley is like striking gold, and I'm also happy to see Noah Taylor again. However, it's Michelle Forbes in a silly, sexy superheroine outfit that gets me most excited (in dual fashion, I must admit). The new TV division of the PlayStation Network seems to have a solid first show on their hands. Hopefully they didn't opt for this project simply because it's based on a comic book series about superpeople and those are currently hot. That sort of thinking is currently killing their mother company Sony's Spider-Man franchise, because they don't know how to proceed handling the character but because of his strong brand name they exploit him all the same. You need something more than just a popular character to win the audience over, preferably including a good story that keeps spectators hungry for more. Powers could have that in spades, and might very well deliver proof that there is still talent to be found amongst Sony's ranks where comic book adaptations and superhumans are involved. Or so we can only hope at this point.
Looks like it aspires to be quite the cinematic spectacle. But will it be? I have severe doubts. The theatrically forced acting that has ever plagued the Dutch school of actors sure doesn't lend itself to this sort of film. The dialogue just feels as wooden as the ships the main characters are sailing on. Also, the FX are not on par with their British and American counterparts. They just don't seem real, but have an awkward level of artificiality to them. At the same time they recall a sense of stylized unreality, reminiscent of the paintings of the Dutch Golden Age, but I think that's just a result of the limitations of the budget rather than a conscious choice on the director's part. And speaking of director Roel Reinรฉ, at least his acquantaince with helming action movies on a limited budget (though not with the finer entries of the genre, considering titles as Death Race 2 and 3 and The Scorpion King 3)) seems suited for the big battles taking place in the film. So far the same can't be said for his directing actors, which is not a good thing considering the stellar cast of this epic. At least they got Tywin Lannister Charles Dance in there, who can act his way out of any scrape. Hopefully the Dutch actors will take a note or two from him. I hope there is a national audience for this picture, even though there certainly didn't seem to be for a very similarly themed movie like Kenau, which flopped only last year. Like Michiel de Ruyter, it was released off-season, which makes me question why this expensive historical epic underwent the same fate. January just isn't a good time to release big productions like this one. I want to be enthusiastic about this movie, as I love historical drama and this particular period hasn't been covered as thoroughly as it should have, but so far my scepticism rules supreme.
I'm much more excited about this one though. The Brits get better production values and acting on the small screen out of a lower budget (per minute, that is) than the Dutch do in theaters. The first season of Penny Dreadful proved a delightfully eerie and subversive portrayal of the rich Victorian age and a fabulous new conceptualization of famous literary characters. Even though the pairing of the likes of Frankenstein, Dracula and Dorian Gray at first sounded like a poor repetition of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, this series proved a far superior narrative. So far at least, as the story is far from finished yet and they can still muck it up in many ways. Whether that will be the case is not something you can determine from this teaser, which shows far too little of the upcoming plot progression (dammit!). In fact, it hardly shows anything we didn't know already. Of course, that's the usual stuff of teasers, creating awareness with showing as little footage as possible, to make people hungry for the trailer, which in itself makes them want to watch the series itself. Considering I was already aching for more when the credits of Season 1's final episode rolled, the teaser's job was already done.
This trailer, however, fails to get me excited for the final product. It feels like I have seen the whole film already. Of course, this fault is a result of the limitations of the movie's plot, as it doesn't seem to have much of that at all. Mobster boss' ex gets locked in her apartment and must fight off numerous assassins to stay alive, that's basically all she wrote. Unless there's some major plot twists at play that are not revealed in this trailer, this is one of those films you watch only for the action. It takes a pretty accomplished action director to get the most out of a small set like this though, and if the trailer is any indication, Everly's director may not be up to the task. I don't see any particularly innovative cinematography or editing here, just bland shots of people taking bullets. Nor are the characters colourful enough to keep the attention fixed. This film feels like a far cry from a similar vehicle like The Raid, though clearly inspired by that recent superior action film. Hopefully the trailer proves a misdirect and the final film has more to offer than suggested here, otherwise Everly might soon end up in the same bargain bin as Death Race 3 or The Scorpion King 3.
What with all the reviews and such, it took me a while to get around to posting new news (aside from that little item yesterday, but that wasn't news to my mind, it was a gift from the gods), but then, last week wasn't particularly noteworthy in that regard. Here's the entire crop of the previous week:
This show is starting to look increasingly epic. Just the way I like my historical drama on telly. Of course, with a modern twist here and there: I doubt any naked sword fights took place during Polo's actual visit, but I'm not complaining. It appears Netflix has a solid first entry into the historical epic on its hands with Marco Polo, likely to rival HBO's quality programs - Deadwood, Rome, Boardwalk Empire - that dabble in the same genre with such notable success. The only thing that bothers me somewhat is the overuse of spoken English. More actual Chinese (and/or Italian for that matter) would have been appreciated to add to the levels of authenticity (especially when actors from those parts are cast), but that goes for any similar show produced in the English language by rival networks, too. Otherwise, this is definitely a series to look forward to.
I'm less impressed by this one. The twisty crime thriller has kinda become a staple in recent years, most of these copying Tarantino's flicks. Son of a Gun apparently does not, judging from this trailer, but otherwise hardly appears innovative. Except maybe for its status as an Australian entry into the genre, can't recall too many of those. Casting Ewan McGregor as a bad guy - with beard, like some sleazy Obi-Wan Kenobi - is a more inspired move though, as he's not often seen in such a capacity, almost playing against type. But the notion of this top dog criminal taking a youngster under his wing for his own shady purposes rather than for his new buddy's benefits is hardly the stuff of novelty, nor is the secret agenda the teenager cherishes to get out on top himself against all odds. I'm reminded of the French film Un Prophete, for example, which featured a very similar story line, minus all the action. I guess there's only so much you can do with prisons and break-outs in whatever country. It's just the way you spice things up that makea any difference.
It had to happen sooner rather than later. With all the dystopian movies currently hitting Hollywood's primary audience where it counts the most - their wallets - it's no surprise the granddaddy of all imperfect society stories is slated for a reprise. The Hunger Games, Divergent, The Maze Runner, they all took a page or two from Orwell's (in)famous reflections on ruthless governments absolutely controlling their populace. There's also a lot of sexual material present to appeal to the audience's hormones. Problem is, the original 1984 is a much more adult story, centered around adult protagonists. I doubt the studio will change that core aspect of the story to appeal to the spectators currently gobbling up dystopian fare en masse, nor do I think a serious director like Paul Greengrass would let them. However, just the notion of a society where everybody is under total control of the government's watchful eyes might bring to mind to more mature audiences who don't know jack-squat about Orwell's visionary writings the similar young adult flicks that are doing big business at the boxoffice at the moment. They might turn it down just on its dystopian qualities, ranking it as just another Hunger Games copycat (what do people know, eh?). Or the subject matter might just be too dismally bleak for them, which it just happens to be (nor should that be tampered with). However, I hope adult and younger audiences alike give it a chance, as this particular story remains as urgent thematically as it was at its inception in the late Forties.
Janis Joplin is something I know jack-squat of, admittedly. Popular musicians, be they from the Sixties or from more contemporary times, just have never particuarly held my interest. Too busy with watching movies to care about music, I suppose. I only knew Joplin died of an overdose (had to learn it from Austin Powers, I'll have you know). I wouldn't ever recognize her songs. I do know Amy Adams is a fine actress though, so that at least is one thing this biopic about the ill-fated songstress has going for it. I also know director Jean-Marc Vallee has a knack for historical drama, which the story of Joplin's life (and more so, her death) can be called after fifty years. So the motion picture adaptation of Joplin's life and times at least seems to be in good, Academy Award nominated hands, I'd say.
Get out your handkerchiefs, everybody! This video is quite a tearfest. It seems to have been made as much for the fans of both Middle-Earth franchises as for the people involved in making them. We're treated to footage from all six films, most of it fondly remembered, other bits eagerly anticipated. We also get to see a lot of folks hugging each other on set, bringing to mind those good times for those lucky few who helped bring the two trilogies to life. Over all of it Billy Boyd's singing is heard. I don't find the music or lyrics nearly as moving as the imagery, I must confess. The text isn't that much different from the likes of Into the West or May It Be, which graced two our of three Lord of the Rings movies, nor does the melody sound that much different or inspired to my ears. Nevertheless, the message is clear: this is indeed a goodbye, as we're on the threshold of the last (Peter Jackson) directed Tolkien adaptation, and that's a bittersweet thought indeed. Of course, remakes of both projects are bound to occur some time in the future, but for now, it's a sad thought that it will finally end here. It's been a great journey though, one that will forever be cherished for decades to come by the generations that grew up with it. So, from the bottom of my heart: thank you, Peter Jackson and the entire cast and crew of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies!
The situation remains unchanged. I have time to post news on MovieScene on a (more or less) daily basis, but the same cannot be said for my blog. Of course, you can question the validity of commenting on (old) news on a blog with only six followers to begin with, but my obsessive-compulsive mind won't let me do so. So I continue to struggle on this quest to catch up with myself, seemingly doomed from its inception. Whatever. I ain't the giving-up type.
Yup, that's a teaser alright. It offers only a glimpse into the story of this movie, focusing on the pin as a means of interdimensional(?) travel. We'll have to fill in the rest for ourselves, including the (intellectual) nature of the relationship between the young girl and the middle-aged inventor. It's Disney, so it will be pretty harmless on the surface no doubt. Then again, there already is a theme of juvenile delinquency present here, and I'm curious as to how far this will be taken. It's probably an 'unlikely heroine' case, where the world simply isn't ready for the misunderstood protagonist, while the oddbal inventor, also undoubtedly a social outcast, proves not all grown-ups are like that. And so they bond and have wonderful adventures in a weird and wacky wonderland beyond the reach of us ordinary mortals who pay to witness them. Not much of a 'wow' factor as of yet: as this is a teaser and most of the many expensive and complex VFX shots are still a work in progress, we have to make do with only a shot or two. Unless you consider a field of wheat a spectacular sight.
Well, duh! Seydoux, to my mind, is the quintessential type of actress to assume the mantle of the Bondgirl: sultry, sexy, undeniably talented, a hint of sexual danger behind her eyes and a succinctly European attitude. I am not surprised she's up for a part in Bond 24. I considered it only a matter of time. Just remember how well she performed in a similar genre movie like Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. I do find it interesting that her part was originally intended to be filled by a Scandinavian actress. Of course she is enough of a chameleon to play a Northern-European broad, I even have faith in her ability to pull off the accent convincingly (which is not an attribute I normally credit persons of a French descent with). It just seems a shame for all the Scandinavian actresses who didn't make the cut because Seydoux beat them to it. Could it be another example of Americans generalizing all European nationalities as interchangeable (as us Europeans often tend to do with Americans from different states)? I doubt that, considering the diversity in nationalities from the people behind this picture. The director for example is British, as is most of the main cast. And the director of photography is a Dutchman. There's a little bit of pride in me for that, I'll admit. As I feel for Mademoiselle Seydoux, who happens to be the granddaughter of my highest ranking international boss. So yeah, her intense performance in La Vie d'Adele was quite an eye-opener for me, and if you have seen that film (which you should have) you bloody well know what I'm referring to. That's not gonna happen in Bond 24, I'm sure.
I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea. The LEGO Batman character seemed to work fine bouncing off of other characters in witty repartees, but could the arrogant superhero toy actually carry his own movie? And would that be a smart move, considering a new version of the Dark Knight in the flesh is currently also developed, played by an actor many consider to be wrongly cast? It appears to be a case of bad timing and it may backfire on Warner/DC. Or maybe the exact opposite will happen, because both takes on the same character are so stupendously different (at least, we assume they will be at this point). However, I'm quite convinced the sequel to The LEGO Movie should take precedence over this spin-off and ought to star the brick version of the Caped Crusader as a side character yet again, to see whether the joke's still funny then. There's something gratuitous to famous characters, real or fictional, being LEGO-ized. It's simply an easy gag, has been for decades (remember this one, from the days LEGO movie tie-ins were still a spanking new phenomenon?). Even now that we learned to get used to LEGO making brick versions of many a major movie franchise, those minifigure versions of the real deals are not supposed to be the stuff of major motion pictures themselves. I guess it's up to LEGO Batman to prove whether that sentiment still holds true, or whether LEGO itself has finally been widely socially accepted as an 'artificial actor' playing different characters itself, even performing roles that have been and still are played many times before.
Hardly a novel subject nor a novel approach. The 'reluctant buddy' team-up could definitely be called a staple this day and age, especially when one is gruff, rude and experienced (and male) and the other is young, rash and ideologically motivated (though not always necessarily female). The black/white motif is age-old as well. As for series based around the premise of superpowered individuals and their place in society, if any, we've also seen our fair share of those (The 4400, Heroes, Alphas). Gritty, grounded in reality, both room for cynicism aimed at and hope for the general human condition, check, check, check. Likely to be cancelled after a season or two, definite check. So what would make us watch this show? I like the casting choice of Sharlto Copley, he's not the most obvious actor for the part. Though he's best known for his comedic touch, he too often dabbles in distressing real-world scenarios mixed with a fantastic element (e.g. District 9). Plus, he has done grimy, dislikable characters before (e.g. Elysium, nevermind his overacting). So his involvement is a big pro. But is it enough to beat all the apparent cons? That remains to be seen.
Did two reports on the deluge of Hobbit posters in my previous post, don't really feel the need to get repetitive here. Especially since these four new posters are equally dull as their predecessors, and don't do justice to the epicness that is in store for us (supposedly). I like the characters and the actors portraying them, but I don't need their sweat, blood and tears so in-my-face. Unlike the trailers, these posters don't get me pumped for this final Middle-Earth movie.
Sure, considering all the fabulous quality series currently on television, let's explore franchises that failed to find an audience on the big screen for regurgitating on the small screen. Then again, there has proven to be a definite audience for the Resident Evil films, as the sixth is currently in pre-production. None of them are serious blockbuster movies though, they all carry a B-movie stigma. They're totally the stuff of guilty pleasure and everybody knows it; they don't have good FX, good stories or good acting, but the fanbase keeps watching nonetheless. Probably because of all the hot women involved, like star Milla Jovovich. I doubt the series' budget could afford her though, which means there's one less succesful ingredient present in the series. They can find another 'hawt' action babe of course, but the audience needs time to get to appreciate her kicking ass. And poor Mortal Instruments doesn't even have the hot chick element in its favour, but since it's aimed at teenage girls, a few hot guys will suffice. Apparently demon slaying Jamie Campbell Bower didn't fit that bill, since the movie flopped so bad (though there were many other reasons for that, too). I think this franchise has a better chance at finding a new life on telly though, considering there's plenty of source material from the books to mine, plus most people obviously never bothered watching the film, so it might feel more 'new' than it actually is. And the young adult genre is still going strong at the movies, so maybe there's still a chance the failed flicks among them find an audience on television after all. So we can "look forward" to series based on the likes of Beautiful Creatures and The Host as well, possibly. Yay...
Wow, those are some bland posters. Just the faces of some of the protagonists, that's all we have to work with. Rather disappointing, as this is the last Hobbit movie, if not the final Middle-Earth movie (ever?), so you would think they'd go out with as much of a bang as the movie itself (though I may be assuming a little too much here, I doubt this trilogy will end on a boring note). We already know what the characters look like, so we would have liked to have seen a bit more of the environment they inhabit. A grand and elaborate banner (think the Bayeux Tapestry, but its Tolkien equivalent) was released last month that did a far better job of promoting the movie, capturing our imagination and firing our desire to see this film than this dull posters would ever do. The advertising art for both predecessors too looked much more appealing by comparison. Guess the promotional execs think it's all a matter of the little things. Assumptions from the characters' facial expressions are all we are left with, which is a pointless guessing game for those who have read the book. Why does Gandalf look so disheveled? What's up with Galadriel's determined gaze? And is Bilbo finally going to go berserk with that little sword of his? We'll have to watch the movie to find out. But then, we were planning to do so anyway, and these posters at the very least won't discourage us from doing so.
Finally, a new Pixar movie that's not a sequel! I'm not entirely sold on the concept though. It's intriguing, but hardly novel. However, Pixar usually tends to make such outlandish premises work just fine, and I'm hoping post-Brave Pixar won't do any different. You won't get any clear indication of the story just from watching this teaser, which only hints at the overall story (not that much info on that has been released so far, anyway). Not to mention it does a solid but sentimental job referencing all the Pixar greats - and some less great, too - we remember oh so fondly. This teaser is playing mostly on the past emotions of pleasure we experienced watching all the company's classics, as well as stimulating a strong emotion not characterized in the film: curiosity. But there's also plenty of room left for doubt, make no mistake. Which begs the issue, how come there's only five emotions in the girl's head? What happened to the rest of them? A philosophical debate about the nature of emotions and the way they rule our mind seems to be in short order. Though it's likely Pixar still has some surprises left on Inside Out's plot and the questions this teaser throws in our path about the logic of it all.
Well, at least they got the logo right. That's straight off the comic books' covers, that is. Though the usual subtitle 'The Man Without Fear' is absent, but this works equally well. A return to the comics' greatness (on-again/off-again, honestly) is sure in order after the Ben Affleck version, which showed little of that. Currently, New York Comic-Con is in full swing and so far the Daredevil panel was by far the most fascinating occurrence. The concept art looked pretty neat, the first released pictures gave some pretty sweet glimpses, except maybe for the titular character's costume. Though I have a sense it's not the final piece, but more like Daredevil's initial stab at a costume (รก la Spider-Man's ludicrous wrestling attire in Sam Raimi's first movie). It would be a bit of a downer if this series' superhero ran around with a black handkerchief for a mask for the whole show. I guess Marvel has to find ways to cut the budget somewhere...
And one reason the studio has to do just that involves the exorbitant pay cheques demanded by its star performers these days. Robert Downey Jr. is by far the most expensive of the lot of them, as his salary for Iron Man 3 amounted to no less than 50 million (!) dollars, reportedly. So small wonder Marvel is looking for way to dodge such excessive costs on future projects. One way to get rid of Downey Jr. would be to quit making Iron Man films. The man is still contractually obliged to assume the character's mantle for two more Avengers flicks, but they could end it there by using those films to find a narrative way to replace him with another character to fill his iron shoes. It's not like that sort of thing isn't constantly happening in the source material. Remember Thor is currently a female in the comics? Which would only entice audiences more strongly to find out what the heck is going on. Of course, that would mean spectators will have to get used to an Iron Man without Tony Stark (no way they are gonna recast that character, considering how beloved Downey Jr.'s take on him is). I have no qualms with that. The Marvel Universe is so much larger than just one popular guy, and the movies have still barely scratched the surface. I'm all for a new Iron Character if it saves Marvel from bankruptcy so they can keep on making highly enjoyable superhero movies. I doubt we're going to see an Iron Man 4 with Robert Downey Jr. in the starring role again (and he himself apparently doubts it very much as well, considering his conflicted reponses to the 50 million dollar question), and if that be the case, I don't mind. There's various ways to deal with that in compelling storytelling (in fact, the matter has already been explored in both Iron Man 2 and 3), and I have confidence that the House of Ideas will pull it off once more. Iron Woman sounds like a wonderful notion, so bring it on!
Boy, am I glad that is over and done with. And not because it was so dismally bad as some would have you believe, though the finale did leave a lot to be desired. But so did the rest of the season, so at least there is some inner consistency. There's a lot to be said against this last season in terms of story, but there were still several plot lines and especially characters I continued to enjoy and appreciate. And in that case, True Blood at least can boast a genuine ending, unlike most other shows that suffer increasing deteriorating ratings and heavy fan critique. The greatest thing about this finale is that it does indeed feel quite final and the show was permitted a decent send-off in that regard, rather than face cancellation and leave us all in the dark as happened to so many shows (and a lot of them deserved better). We can now all close the Sookie Stackhouse chapter of our lives peacefully, as to my mind any show should be ended. Of course, there were a few story threads that didn't feel wholly resolved and more of those that I felt should have been handled entirely different, but there's few shows that even get to this point without screwing a thing or two up. Only two recent examples of shows that were granted a final farewell sprung to mind, Breaking Bad and Spartacus. Admittedly, both of those ended on a superior note, but they were much more coherent in their quality throughout their run, while True Blood from the get-go tended to meander between well executed plot threads and those less so, featuring both wonderfully charismatic characters and their barely watchable counterparts. We'll have to make do without both, from now on. No more Maenad orgies, conniving witch covens and endless droning about who Sookie will jump into bed with this time, but also no more shrewd vampire politics, stupendously supernatural situations and Eric Northman. Not every blood type variety of Tru-Blood proved as delectable, but I still regret having to return to strictly human beverages again after seven years.
