2015: Het beste en het slechtste in de bioscoop

Het jaar zit er min of meer op, dus is het tijd voor de gebruikelijke lijstjes. Welke films die dit jaar het licht in het donker vormden kan ik iedereen aanbevelen, en welke moet een ieder absoluut zien te vermijden? Hieronder de links naar de lijstjes zoals ik die heb ingediend bij mijn voormalige werkgever, MovieScene.nl, en mijn huidige, FilmTotaal.nl, gevolgd door mijn wat uitgebreidere originele tekst.

MovieScene: Beste Films 2015

MovieScene: Slechtste Films 2015

FilmTotaal Top 10


Top 10 Beste Films


1. Jurassic World

Nou nou, wie had dat aan zien komen voor een JP fanaat als ik... Objectief gezien natuurlijk niet de beste, maar over Jurassic ben ik nooit objectief geweest en iedereen mag het weten. Ondanks die paar tekortkomingen (rennen in hoge hakken en zo) die ik domweg negeer, bleek het een emotioneel weerzien (vier keer, veel te weinig eigenlijk) met een oude vriend die ik veel te lang heb moeten missen (veertien lange, onafzienbare jaren). Een werkend park en hordes dino's is precies wat ik wilde hebben en precies wat ik kreeg. Welcome to Jurassic World! In de negen titels hierna volgt die gewraakte objectiviteit.

2. Mad Max: Fury Road

George Millers krankzinnige comeback naar de gekkigheid die hem eind jaren zeventig op de kaart zette blijkt zowel voor fans van het eerste uur als de nieuwe generatie een volslagen surrealistische en hyperactieve hellevaart. 'Over the top' krijgt een geheel nieuwe invulling en het publiek de beste actiefilm in jaren. 'What a film, what a lovely film!'


3. The Martian

Sir Ridley weet science in space na Nolans bombastische en wetenschappelijk absurde Interstellar weer interessant te krijgen met een zowel intiem als episch drama. Louter topacteurs en Mars zag er nog nooit zo prachtig maar toch zo vervaarlijk uit. Plus de beste Lord of the Rings verwijzing ooit.


4. Ex Machina

Dit fenomenaal gespeelde drama kruipt onder je huid en zet de verhoudingen met je techologische gadgets weer op scherp. Machines zijn zowel verleidelijk als beangstigend in deze intelligente maar constant onheilszwangere Sci-Fi thriller. Oscars voor de hele main cast alstublieft!

5. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

De hype was zoals verwacht een tikkeltje extreem, maar toch bleek TFA een geslaagde nieuwe Star Wars film die ons de teleurstellende prequels deed vergeten. Hoewel het verhaal bij vlagen een herbewerking van ouder materiaal leek, wist zowel de oude als de nieuwe cast te overtuigen. Het geheel werd met zoveel liefde door overduidelijke medefans geleverd dat het onmogelijk was er niet in mee te gaan. Toch zal ik meneer Abrams de begane misstappen bij die andere space opera franchise, Star Trek, niet vergeven.


6. Inside Out

Wie dacht dat Pixar tussen alle sequels door geen tijd meer had voor innovatieve ideeën bleek zich schromelijk te vergissen. De geest van Pixar leeft als nooit tevoren in deze Pixarfilm over de geest. Wederom een tranentrekker voor het hele gezin van de bovenste plank.


7. Sicario

In de 'war on drugs' is het recht de grootste verliezer, stelt pessimist Denis Villeneuve. Dankzij dit zenuwslopende drama moeten we hem gelijk geven. Intense spanning, fantastische acteurs en een luguber einde dat nog een tijdje na blijft galmen, alles wat we gewend zijn van onze favoriete Canadese zwartkijker.


8. Ant-Man

Na de teleurstelling van Avengers: Age of Ultron waren we wel toe aan iets heel anders, iets kleiners. We kregen het letterlijk in deze superheldenkomedie met een hart van goud. Ondanks het opstappen van Edgar Wright blijft zijn stempel qua komische opzet en energieke montage goddank herkenbaar behouden.

9. Er Ist Wieder Da

Lachen om Hitler, mag dat? Ja hoor, maar de boodschap dat de komst van een nieuwe Führer met even onfrisse opvattingen als de oude dichterbij is dan we wellicht zouden denken, gaat niet aan de kijker voorbij. Hilarisch maar confronterend tegelijk.


10. The Walk

Robert Zemeckis' ode aan doorzettende durfals kent een simpel plotje maar wordt met bijzonder veel vaart en enthousiasme verteld. Maar het is de techniek die deze bioscoopervaring compleet maakt. De derde dimensie wordt zelden met zoveel effect geleverd. Mensen met hoogtevrees kunnen wellicht beter thuis blijven. Jammer genoeg zal deze film in de thuisbios lang zo'n indruk niet maken.


Troep zat er helaas ook genoeg tussen dit jaar...

Top 5 Slechtste Films


1: Vacation

Wat vroeger werkte, werkt nu vast ook wel, dachten de Hollywoodbonzen. Dus gaan we weer met de Griswalds op vakantie in de wetenschap dat alles fout zal gaan. Inclusief de grappen, want de humor is wel heel erg onleuk. Hoeveel lichaamssapgrappen kunnen er doodslaan in één klucht? En waarom moet alles sowieso terugvoeren op fysieke en seksuele onzekerheden in deze zeperd? Als alleen de auto nog een beetje op de lachspieren werkt, weet je dat het goed fout is gegaan.

2: Fantastic Four

Au... De slechtste Marvelbewerking tot nu toe. Wat ging er mis? Zo te zien alles, want werkelijk niks deugt aan dit fantastische viertal. Wie dacht dat de FF in 2005 al op hun bek gingen: het kan dus nog flink veel erger. Schrap dat vervolg a.u.b.!


3: The Green Inferno

Eli Roths kannibalenfilm met wel heel weinig kannibalisme, die veel te lang de tijd neemt om de irritante hoofdpersonen richting de kookpot te sturen waar we ze het liefste zien. Daar is een woord voor: saai.


4: Knock Knock

Eli Roth (alweer) imiteert Funny Games maar dan met twee wulpse maar vervelende jongedames. Dat pakt opvallend preuts uit en wordt nooit eng of confronterend. Wel slaapverwekkend.


5: Fifty Shades of Grey

Ik besef me dat ik de doelgroep niet ben, maar ik krijg het niet warm van al dit kitscherige gedweep met zweepjes. Wat mij betreft de saaiste seksscènes van 2015 in de minst opwindende erotische thriller. 


2015 werd van tevoren al geacht een jubeljaar voor de industrie te zijn met het aangekondigde overweldigende filmaanbod. Hoewel de kassa's naar verwacht behoorlijk vaak en hard rinkelden (geloof me, ik heb het gevoeld!), viel het inhoudelijk beschouwd toch een tikkeltje tegen. De hype overheerste, maar werd meestal niet echt waargemaakt. Blockbusters die alles mee leken te hebben vielen tegen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Spectre), voor elke heropgezochte klassieke reeks die onze gunst verwierf (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Mad Max) viel er een andere vies tegen (Terminator, Vacation, Fantastic Four) en het aantal verrassingen vanuit het onafhankelijke/arthousecircuit was ook niet overdadig hoog. Wat dat laatste betreft moet ik eigenlijk mijn mond houden, want als deze lijstjes iets duidelijk maken is het dat ik het dit jaar veel te mainstream heb gehouden en te weinig aandacht heb geschonken aan de rest. Uiteraard heb ik er in mijn taak als recensent wel een aantal mee kunnen pikken, maar tijdgebrek heeft mij desondanks genoopt er te veel links te laten liggen. Daarin ligt dan gelijk een goed voornemen voor 2016... Minder hype, meer de grenzen opzoeken.

Today's News: Star Wars and superheroes galore

Good start of the week, though maybe lacking in diversity.

Nieuwe foto's Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I still hate to admit it, but I'm getting more and more optimistic about this new Star Wars film. Though I'll never forgive J.J. Abrams for what he did to Star Trek, it does seem increasingly more evident that his mentality in just right for the competition. Or maybe he just knows how to utilize the classic trilogy's well remembered and much beloved aesthetics to get the fans hoping he's doing the right thing. After all, in terms of plot and characters we still know next to nothing. It just looks grand. But since Star Wars was always better known for its fabulous looks rather than its complex storytelling, all things considered he seems to be doing more right than wrong thus far. And thanks to these wonderful pictures, we know just a little bit more than we did before their release. Adam Driver is playing a baddie on the Imperial side. I doubt anyone would have thought differently, but at least that's now confirmed. It's safe to say less fans would have guessed Lupita Nyong'o is playing a digitally enhanced space pirate, though these pics dont tell us what she looks like just yet. The expected visual effects work aside, the best thing about this photoshoot is how clearly it shows J.J. is also using a lot of practical effects, another thing most will fondly remember from the Old Trilogy and lament the lack of in Lucas' own Prequel Trilogy. The bizarre menagerie of exotic aliens and droids, as well as the elaborate sets for strange new worlds, look nothing if not spectacular. But whether it will all be put to good use...? We won't know until December 18.

Freeman gecast in Captain America 3

I didn't see that coming. Such a British actor in such an American blockbuster, but basically it's a terrific presence in a kick-ass series of films, so it's by no means a bad match. But who will Bilbo Freeman play? I honestly haven't a clue. What I've read from the plot suggests this particular version of Civil War isn't limited to US soil, but is played out on the global level. So Freeman could be portraying some representative from another nation, likely the United Kingdom. But that's just rampant speculation on my part. Though I have a tough time seeing him play a superhero character (which isn't something I would actually have issue with), he may surprise us all again and prove to be doing just that. Captain Britain perhaps? Considering how few different nationalities are found among the current line-up of Marvel Cinematic superheroes, it wouldn't hurt the story to introduce a few that are not from the USA. Even though that might make for an overly crowded film. But hey, so far the only non-Americans on the Avengers rostar are the Russian Black Widow, the Asgardian Thor and (spoilers!) now Scarlet Witch from that fictional Eastern European country. Sure, Civil War introduces the Wakandan Black Panther, but that's still not many characters to make for a worldwide event. Of course, it's the actions of the superheroes on foreign soil that makes things global and politically delicate and therein likely lies the rub which will soon involve Martin Freeman's character.

Beoogde regisseurs voor Spider-Man bekend

Can't say any of these names sound particularly appealing to me for directing Spider-Man. I get that they all directed films involving teenagers and comedy which is an important market and demographic for Hollywood, but to just give them the lead of a very expensive superhero flick? Let's hand the reigns of Spider-Man to the guy who made Pitch Perfect? That doesn't sound like the smartest line of thinking to me. Marc Webb directed a film similar to those on the resumé of these guys, (500) Days of Summer, prior to helming both Amazing Spider-Man films. Look at how well that turned out... rebooting the character (again!) less than five years later. Not that I blame Webb for the lackluster quality of both films, which is mostly to blame on aggressive involvement from a studio without a sense of direction for the future. But this time I would go for someone more snazzy, more experienced with this sort of subject matter, even though teens and comedy are definitely parts of the mix. How about Edgar Wright? He's done teenagers and superheroes before, and he's apparently not doing anything since he left Ant-Man. Sounds like a prime choice!

Nieuwe poster Ant-Man

Speaking of Ant-Man, here's his new poster. Looks good, but the formula for these posters is now a given. Hero(es) on the foreground, faces of supporting cast and a bit of setting in the background. And there you have it. And in this case, it doesn't look as visually striking or intriguing as with, say, Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor: The Dark World. It will do the job, sure, but this poster lacks the inspiration of the teaser poster, which was basically all white with a tiny Ant-Man in the middle. That was daring and fun. This is a routine job. Let's hope the movie is not.

Today's News: A threesome of trailers

Trailer! Trailer! Anyone want a trailer?

Tweede teaser Star Wars: The Force Awakens

With every little bit of info released, the hype for this film is building. Though so far scepticism reigned supreme in my case, I cannot help but now feel a rising level of optimism as well, against my better judgment. There's only so much iconic imagery of the original Star Wars movies against the backdrop of an intriguing new setting you can give a guy before he breaks. That shot of the downed Star Destroyer just looked too cool to ignore. The first teaser lacked such sweeping images, but now that the release date is approaching, successively splendid shots will be revealed. Still, I'm not too high on some other old cards being played. An aged Han Solo doesn't get me nearly as excited, even though I love(d?) the character. It's just exemplary of the rehasing of old glory that's currently driving Hollywood, usually to lackluster results. Whether it will work for Star Wars is very much the question. At least Ford is still a capable actor we can take serious, but what of the likes of Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill, who've made a career making fun - lovingly, but still - of their characters of old? That's the good thing about Chewbacca or R2-D2, they don't really rely on the people inside them to convince us. So for the moment, I revel more in the visual effects than in the acting, but that's a Star Wars staple anyway. The old stuff aside, what to make of the elements new to the Star Wars series? A mysterious chrome Stormtrooper, a beach ball Droid, novel characters and locations we need to learn to love (or not)... There's still plenty that can go wrong, but I can't help but feel there are definitely things going right.

Eerste trailer Scream: The TV Series

You gotta admit, this trailer is quick to make the statement most people will when they see it: 'you can't do a slasher as a TV series'. Doesn't stop this show from trying though. Being selfreflexive is of course one of the trademarks of the Scream series of movies, so it's good see this quality wasn't lost on the producers. But it's going to take spectators a little more than that to convince them to bother to watch this show. In all other respects, it doesn't seem to have much going for it, at least nothing the movies didn't show. Teens, murders, humour, that sort of thing. On the big screen, it worked well enough to spawn three sequels over the years, but on a TV show, even for a single season, you risk getting repetitive pretty darn soon. Unless the series still has cards to play this trailer doesn't reveal. Even if it does, as we are currently living in the Golden Age of Television, we have plenty of excellent programs to pick from, and I doubt many would opt for a slasher series based on a worn out series of movies. Unless it's raining very often and hard outside on those dreary afternoons.

Nieuwe teaser trailer Ant-Man

Posted above is the actual trailer for Marvel's latest flick, rather than the teaser mentioned in my article. At the moment of posting, I didn't take the different time zones State side into account, so the full trailer wasn't released the next day, but rather a few hours later, making my bit of news redundant even sooner than I had anticipated. But then, redundancy is the key term for teasers of trailers anyway. Other than the true Internet nerds who will end up seeing the movie in theaters anyway, nobody will really bother to watch such teasers, certainly not the paying "general audience" as it has come to be known as. In my mind, there really is little point to crafting trailers into events of their own in this manner, as trailers are a means to an end rather than the end itself, which is the final film. Where will this madness end? Teasers for teasers for teasers for trailers for movies? I'm making a stand to put a stop to this. Give me a teaser, then a trailer or three and then release the damn film. Release a bunch TV spots too, if needs be, but nothing more in the audiovisual department. As for this full lenth trailer for Ant-Man, as is the case for Star Wars I'm progressively liking what I see. It's always a hard blow when one of your favorite directors - Edgar Wright, in this scenario - departs a project, but in this case, the successor took a hint or two in terms of humour, resulting in at least one hilarious Wrightian gag (you'll know it when you see it). Hopefully the final film will echo more Wright, though I wouldn't expect the new director to ignore his own personality entirely, that would be unfair to him. And even if there's little more Wright to discern, it's a Marvel film, how bad can it be? *cough*IronMan3*cough*

Today's News: a threesome of trailers

The first trailers for 2015 are in!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158543/eerste_trailer_ant-man

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158536/eerste_poster_ant-man

2015's first big trailer of course had to come from Marvel Studios. The ant-icipation for Ant-Man is slowly building, now that most fanboys have had time to get over Edgar Wright's departure. Seems Ant-Man as a project is still doing alright and traces of its original director's touch remain to be felt. The trailer sure hints at Wrightian humour, quirkiness and the necessity not to take this subject too seriously, which is reflected on the rather silly but appropriate minimalist teaser poster. Other than that, it appears a fairly thirteen-a-dozen superhero flick, with distinct overtones of a heist movie. The notion of the villain being equipped with the same powers as the hero is hardly a novel approach for Marvel, when the likes of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are taken into account. I guess any really new ideas that ought to set Ant-Man apart from his fellow superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have to spring from his questionable personality and his resulting status as a former delinquent. None of the other superheroes have had a criminal record thus far. Of course, we have seen flawed characters, Tony Stark's being a prime example (being an arms merchant sadly doesn't come with a criminal record). Ant-Man's strength may lie in introducing a very unheroic hero, the kind that comes home after saving the world and abuses his spouse (as per the comics). I doubt Marvel has the balls to go as far as the hilarious Irredeemable Ant-Man character on the big screen - also because that persona is a whole other character, just with the same name and powers - but there's still ample opportunity for shying away from the superhero routine here by making the titular figure a recnognizable all-too human human being. And otherwise, we'll have to make do with his talking to ants to spice things up a little.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158525/nieuwe_trailer_peanuts

This really isn't my thing. Peanuts never intrigued me much as a kid, nor does it do better in my adult years. This trailer, too, just seems to appeal too much to kids, feeling rather childish throughout, without containing any gags that would win over more mature audiences. The style of animation appears hardly enticing and not on par with contemporary animated films, though that may have something to do with the selfimposed limitations set by the producers to acknowledge the supposedly iconic style of the original comic book strips. I have to give the creators of this film credit for honoring the original work at least, rather than going all-out and making it look nothing like the Peanuts everybody knows. Maybe I'm just biased against this film because I'm a cat person.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158545/nieuwe_trailer_the_lazarus_effect

Zero fascination for this film results from watching this trailer, either. There just doesn't appear to be anything new to this premise, other than that it combines the age-old Frankenstein routine of 'don't play God and resurrect the dead just because you can' with a sort of demonic horror element where the scientists in error are picked off by some ghostly apparition one by one. The PG-13 rating also won't help, since it won't allow the movie to go for particular strong moments of scare. Heck, Frankenweenie looks more scary and original than this bloodless B-flick! You wonder why the studio thought it would be a good idea to waste a budget on this film, or why decent actors like Mark Duplass, Olivia Wilde and Evan Peters would bother performing in this one. Maybe there's just more than meets the eye here, and the trailer tells us it's one thing while the actual product turns out to be quite another. I very much doubt that though. I don't think I'll wake up for this one.

Today's Triple News: it's a Marvelous world

Here's a few more news flashes, all Marvel related (coincidence, or a sign Marvel/Disney is slowly but surely taking over the world):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156092/eerste_character_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Character posters! Always fun! Attractive pieces of marketing and usually very collectible in the long run. Not often very imaginative though (all they need to do is display a character after all, without giving too much plot away), and this one proves little different. It does what it needs to do, showcasing a dynamic pose of an intriguing pair of characters in this case, designed to entice the audience to go see the movie to learn what their deal is. We're talking about a talking tree and dito armoured raccoon, so I suppose there's quite a deal to be talked about here. Otherwise this poster leaves little clues as to the movie itself. You can wonder about the affiliation of the two different types of star fighters in the background, but that would be a bit too nerdy even for me. This is one fine piece of advertising, but it doesn't make me want to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy movie any more than I already did. The new Gamora poster however... check back later for more on that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156083/ant-man_vindt_nieuwe_regisseur

Sick and tired about all the Ant-Man buzz of late? So was Marvel I guess, and that's why they finally settled on a director. The job goes to Peyton Reed, reponsible for such noted classics like Bring It On and Yes Man. That's a joke of course, as those are not at all memorable movies. Decent enough fare for gloomy Sunday afternoons perhaps, but not something people will talk about in twenty years time. Nevertheless, if the whole departure debacle of Edgar Wright on this project showed, Marvel does not want visionary directors for their films. They want stooges that know how to direct a decent film but also know when not to interfere with studio planning, especially when it concerns long term universe building the like Marvel is currently engaging in. Wright likely did not fit in as much as Marvel at first had hoped, having too much ideas of his own that might not have sat well with the studio (came you blame the guy, he worked for nigh a decade developing this project!). Wright just isn't a gun-for-hire as much as all his potential successors, including Reed, are. They all have a background in directing contemporary basic comedies, but none of them share Wright's distinctly British finesse, or in fact, any sign of true character. However, they do know how to follow studio orders no doubt, as is the case with the majority of the Marvel directors thus far. Louis Leterrier, Jon Favreau (before he got too big for Marvel after having done two Iron Man movies, at which point he was replaced), Shane Black, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston, the Russo Brothers... all capable directors, but none of them fan faves because of their originality, likable offbeat approach or signature style, unlike Wright. The only exception to the rule seems to be Joss Whedon, but who knows for how much longer? I'm also a little disturbed by Marvel's tendency to actively search for a comedy director only for Ant-Man. Does a movie about a shrinking superhero talking to ants have to be a comedy per se? After all, this is a man with a very serious and dark side to him. He beats his wife for crying out loud! Please don't let that comedic element dominate the others. The last thing we need is the Avengers' very own Jar Jar Binks.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156114/vincent_donofrio_gecast_als_daredevils_doodsvijand

What we do need is an enemy that gives the devil his due. In the case of the Daredevil comics, that has always been Kingpin. Sure, the stupendously obese mobster plagued Spider-Man on many occasions, but he was not his most recognizable or memorable villain (I'd say that would be Doctor Octopus, like or not). Daredevil himself may not be as recognizable or memorable a superhero as Spidey, but most people that don't know him from the source material will know him from the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, where he was also confronted with the might of the Kingpin of Crime, then played by the late (and surprisingly, African-American) Michael Clarke Duncan, who proved more fun to watch in that role than Aflleck as the titular character. This time a white guy has been casted (casting another black man would probably have invited accusations of racism, not wholly unfounded) and it's Vincent D'Onofrio. He's shown he knows how to pull off comic book baddies, if you recall the hideous Edgar (the bug) in Men In Black. Of course, Kingpin is a whole different animal. Decidedly human, supremely intelligent but utterly ruthless, cold and calculating, shadowy, out for monetary gain but still not adverse to taking over the world in a fashion... that's all Kingpin. Fortunately D'Onofrio has done enough episodes of Law & Order to know the workings of those on the opposite side of the law through and through. A fine bit of casting if you ask me, less likely to stir fan feelings in both directions than casting a Brit as an American superhero.

News, news and news some more!

Nothing can stop this constant flow of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155834/jessica_chastain_mogelijk_hoofdrolspeler_true_detective_seizoen_2

Fits right in with the current trend of highly respected and multiple award winning Hollywood actors to accept television roles, something which used to be "beneath their stature". The times have changed though. Television now is where all the critical acclaim goes, as it is also the place where the most interesting characters and stories, and thus the most challenging assignments for actors, are found. HBO sorta started the rise of contemporary quality television at the opening of this century, so it's not surprising to find the most high profile actors starring in their shows. Jessica Chastain would be a fine addition to the ranks of Steve Buscemi, Anna Paquin, Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey, the latter pair preceding her on doing True Detective. As this is an anthology show, they're out as their story is about done (or so I've heard, as I have yet to see the show: too much good telly, too little time to spare), and there's room for a new story and fresh blood accordingly. Making it female-centered is not a bad idea to differentiate the next season from its predecessor; in my mind there's not so (good) many female detective shows as there ought to be anyway. As for the Brad Pitt rumour, I'm inclined to think that stays a rumour. Yes, TV is attracting bigger and bigger names ever more, but there's still a vast difference between solid actors and huge movie stars. The latter category is not something I soon expect to see exploring the wonders of working on television. For one thing they're too short on time, even for a 'ten episode a season' show like this, plus they would be downright inaffordable. Playing challenging parts aside, the money motive still rules supreme. Movie stars tend to do the same thing over and over again, as that is their niche, what the audience expects from them. But no doubt this routine too will witness a major paradigm shift one day (aren't we all bored by Tom Cruise's one-note career for example?). Just not this soon I reckon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155838/batman_vs_superman_krijgt_officiele_titel

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Such a long title, feeling the need to set up both Supes, Bats and the Justice League. The good thing about Batman vs. Superman was its catchiness, which was helped by its fairly short title. Just look at The Avengers: title says it all in two words (you could even do without 'the', in theory). Adding the Dawn of Justice bit might give audiences that are not as much in the know a clue as to what's in store for them in future years, though it also kinda spoils the fun for those who weren't yet aware of Warner's plans for their DC Cinematic Universe. As the new title indicates, the common Internet name for this project was successful enough not to really change it, merely to add to it. Except for the rather useless ditching of the 's' - the loose 'v' looks silly - it's still the same. It also reveals what many fans already anticipated, namely that the Man of Steel and the Caped Crusader indeed will go head to head with each other. As is the common tactic in superhero stories, you can't get to fully appreciate your fellow vigilante without fighting them first. Do you think both characters will beat up Wonder Woman when they meet her in this film too? There always seems to be this sexist line of chivalry that is not to be crossed when it comes to the interaction between male and female superheroes, even when it's common knowledge the women are as strong, brave and intelligent as the men. As for the logo of this film, the Man of Steel logo has hardly changed as the film also serves as a sequel to last year's Superman reboot. However, the Batman logo needed a bit of a makeover to differentiate it from the Dark Knight movies' iconic look. The slick, pointy, sharp edged bat logo of the last decade is now replaced by a more rounded variation where the various appendages aren't as pronounced as usual. It kinda looks fat by comparison. Altogether, this logo kinda reminds me of one of those perverts in the park that flashes his genitals when he opens his raincoat, except this is a superhero revealing another superhero under his wings. There's an occasion to insert sexual innuendo here, but people have been doing that ever since these two heroes wearing their underpants over their leotards first hooked up in the comics. So I'll just leave it at that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155854/nieuwe_posters_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for

Character posters, who would have expected that? It's a traditional marketing recipe for films like these, one that the previous Sin City film also exploited to great avail. Considering the size of this film's cast, I doubt the studio will stick to only these five one-sheets. Nor should they, since these are rather awesome me thinks. They honour the source material by their comic book style and sensibilities and they make you want to check out what the rest of the cast looks like when 'SinCitied'. Of course we already know what they look like when it comes to the returning characters (four of those here, though one played by a new actor), but it's the newcomers we are most curious about. Or the sexy dames. You didn't think they wouldn't make a saucy poster of Jessica Alba again, did you? The previous poster showcasing her stage talents was soon elevated to the early 21st Century's equivalent of the infamous Raquel Welch poster from the Sixties. Of course the novelty has worn off by now, so I don't think this second attempt will turn out just as iconic in Alba's case. Maybe the titular 'dame to kill for' will outdo her in this regard? Expect Eva Green's Ava Lord to be featured on a similarly sizzling poster all too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155866/edgar_wright_stopt_als_regisseur_ant-man

Wow, this is quite a downer... Ant-Man was practically Wright's pet project. He stood up for the character even when nobody else, the studio included, saw any potential in it. Apparently, the studio no longer stood up for him, citing the age-old 'creative differences' routine as the cause of the director's dismissal. Spokespersons for both parties have stated they parted amiably, but I have a hard time believing that. Wright invested nigh a decade of work in this film and actual shooting was already underway. Being sacked at that point in production would hurt anybody tremendously. I really hope studio and director can still make amends of some sort, as I love Wright's work and I would have very much liked to see his take on a Marvel character, any of them. If not Wright, then his writing partner Joe Cornish is probably the best way to go, as he has displayed a very similar style of directing in his feature debut, which is still the only movie directing credit on his resumé. It's not unheard of for Hollywood to hire new talent based on only a single previous directing job though, even one of very low budget by the standards of the majors.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155869/gareth_edwards_regisseert_star_wars_spin-off_en_godzilla_2

Case in point: Gareth Edwards. He went from shooting a guerilla Sci-Fi/horror/action flick on a shoestring budget to directing a Star Wars film in only five years. Of course, it was his affinity with monsters that got him there via Godzilla, and he's also not done yet with the Big G. Not surprisingly, considering his reboot of the King of Monsters is smashing box office records everywhere as easily as a guy in a rubber suit smashes cardboard cityscapes in the original Japanese Gojira films. It's very gracious of studio Legendary to allow Edwards to do Star Wars first and their Godzilla sequel second, even though they're no doubt anxious to get underway, considering how well Godzilla is currently doing. Apparently, that mystic, near deified quality Star Wars once carried over all other Hollywood films still hasn't worn off completely. Few studios would dare interfere with the production schedules of the joined corporate powers of Disney and Lucasfilm, or the plans they harbour for their directors. I hope Edwards knows what he's getting himself into, as he's still rather new to the Hollywood game. It would be a damn shame to see him losing the Star Wars gig in a similar way Wright stepped down from doing Ant-Man. I'd hate to see J.J. Abrams take over that project as well.

Today's Double News: Lilly and Oldman antsy for blockbuster roles

Here's a few more news items I wrote for MS late last week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153611/evangeline_lilly_mogelijk_te_zien_in_ant-man

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153613/gary_oldman_benaderd_voor_star_wars_episode_vii

Casting rumours abound these days where major tentpole movie franchises are concerned. Basically any news rolling off the Star Wars Episode VII bandwagon concerns casting, while the process of getting new faces aboard the next batch of Marvel movies (Ant-Man and Avengers: Age of Ultron both) also continues on its merry path. I can't say I've been very happy with what I've heard about  Episode VII casting so far. Digging up old fossils like Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill, and even Harrison Ford, seems like leeching off the success of the old trilogy instead of paying hommage to those classic films. We don't need to be constantly reminded of the good ol' days of past glory when Star Wars was still honestly good by adding these folks back into the mix, even if it's just mere cameos, which I heard is not the case. Those movies were timeless, but the actors are not. That's the good thing about R2-D2, you don't care who plays him since you don't see the guy in the suit, but that doesn't work for actors whose faces you do see. You can patch them up digitally all you want, but even if they do look like they did thirty years ago, what's the point if you can just come up with new characters to keep things flowing instead of getting stuck in the past. I can understand Abrams' emotional attachment to the old characters, I feel it too, but I would much rather see the story focusing on all new characters, even offspring of those we know, than regurgitate the same old same old ad infinitum. That said, Gary Oldman is a step in the right direction. I have no idea what he'll be playing (nobody does after all), but I've never been disappointed by his performances so far. Of course he can still turn it down, which I doubt he will even though he didn't seem all that eager to talk about it (but that's probably due to doing a tiresome press tour combined with an solemn oath of secrecy about anything Episode VII). Other, less concrete, rumours I also found appealing: good solid actors like Hugo Weaving and Michael Fassbender are certainly most welcome. I just hope they don't give the main role to some kid who can't act if his life depended on it, dragging the overall acting quality through the mud again, as happened on the prequel trilogy. Come to think of it, with the occasional exception, even though we came to love many of these characters, grand acting rarely had anything to do with that (but Episode III's acting was especially feeble, almost taking you out of the movie). Considering Abram's lackluster repertoire, I doubt that's gonna change anytime soon.

Same can be said for Marvel movies, where fun characters and witty dialogue also are not in need of top actors to make for entertaining fare. Evangeline Lilly is a decent enough actress but nothing major, so in many ways she fits right in. And as is the case with Oldman, the question is which character will be hers. I'm hesitant about the rumours of giving Henry Pym a daughter when he never had one in the comics, since Marvel Studios has stuck to comic book lore for the most part so far. However, an emotional bridge between old Dr. Pym (Michael Douglas) and the younger Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) in the shape of a mutual close acquaintaince seems like a good thing to have in terms of building a story around passing the mantle from one Ant-Man to the next. Of course, you don't need a daughter for Pym to do that, but it does make for more personal drama. Even though I like to see the character of Wasp, Pym's long time wife/ex-wife and fellow Avenger, in some shape or another, I doubt the movie will have Lilly's Wasp married to Douglas' old Ant-Man, nor do I see Marvel screwing around with its own legacy by changing such fairly iconic character relationships from their fifty years of Marvel history by suddenly pairing her with Rudd's second Ant-Man. That said, stranger things have happened. Heck, maybe Lilly's will play someone else entirely and all these rumours were just introduced to keep us guessing. That's also an often employed strategy in the casting process of these major blockbuster movies: keep the audience intrigued by telling them about (or even only suggesting) the involvement of top actors without conveying who they're set to play, so all the nerds will start shouting names and options regarding who they could be playing, without any actual clues. And that always means someone's going to get disappointed. But that doesn't mean such actors and actresses won't play interesting characters after all. Even if they're acting isn't on par with the dialogue, action or otherwise simple good fun these movies provide.

Today's News: Marvel's Phase 2 sneak peek

Here's a news flash for ya:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145974/eerste_beelden_marvel_phase_2

As a comic book lover, I'm obviously very excited about these, though my enthusiasm for Guardians of the Galaxy remains restrained, considering I never really got into that cosmic stuff and none of these characters honestly appeal to me (especially Rocket Raccoon, which I think is just a lame JarJarBinksian concept). Plus, it just seems so out of whack with the rest of the current Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's good to see Marvel isn't afraid to explore other avenues from its 70+ years of comic books run than just the regular superhero stuff though, but I have yet to be convinced.
Thor: The Dark World looks pretty decent, as I expected it to be after Thor's first foray onto the big screen which turned out so well. Nice to know Natalie Portman is still onboard despite her near falling out with the studio over the departure of the original (female) director. Little vexation regarding Captain America: The Winter Soldier either, even though I understand this overly patriottic super soldier isn't everybody's cup of tea. I'm not all that high on the Falcon being a participant, though considering his long history with Cap (the pair shared a comic book series for a long time) his presence is far from surprising. His look is pretty slick (definitely Ultimate Universe inspired, which I can appreciate), but he remains a guy with metal wings on his back, which isn't a really fancy ability to say the last. Plus, his appearance in this particular Marvel movie might spell doom for an eventual (and quite often foretold) presence of the Vulture in a future Spider-Man movie. In the latter's case, again, not much of a loss for moviegoers.
Ant-Man: now that's something I look forward to! A tough nut to crack, considering his rather awkward powers: getting small, growing tall and communicating with ants. However, also a deeply flawed though brilliant personality (depending on which particular Ant-Man they will use, since there have been multiple over the years) with a plethora of human traits making him that much more identifiable. Wife beating, voyeurist activities, having people eaten by army ants: all in a day's work for the not quite so heroic Ant-Man! Coupled with capable, witty and stylistically intriguing director Edgar Wright (of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim v.s. the World fame), this might very well turn out to be the most delectable and off-beat character of the bunch. It could also suck bug balls big time of course, but let's keep a little optimism here, Wright certainly deserves it.

Make Mine Marvel Phase 2! Iron Man 3 gets to kick it off in three weeks, The Avengers 2 will finish it in a few more years (2015 probably).