Today's Triple News: Dawn of Superman's Odyssey

News! News! We got news here!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156430/eerste_foto_superman_in_batman_v_superman

We already got a small tease of Ben Affleck's Batman (with Batmobile!) for DC's upcoming superhero extravaganza, now it's the Man of Steel's turn. Good timing, as fanboys were about done nitpicking over every conceivable little detail of that one released picture, so now they can drool over another one for a month or so. There's little to go on here though, as the only really bit of news it contains is that Superman (Henry Cavill again) will visit Gotham City. A likely event, considering the title Batman v Superman (Dawn of Justice, etc.). Of course, you can argue that Batman might have traveled to Metropolis (which he still may), but Superman is the once who's faster than a speeding bullet which allows him to travel the globe in the blink of an eye so it's easier (and proably less strainful on the budget) for him to do so. Otherwise, not that much of note here. The Superman costume has scarcely changed from the previous movie. Gotham looks a bit bleaker and more Gothic in appearance than it did in Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but that was to be expected, as this movie would turn more to the pages of the comics in an attempt to set itself apart stylistically from those exquisite films, as well as from the sunnier, brighter city of Metropolis with which it will share the screen. The big question this picture hints at first and foremost is one of a story nature: what is Superman doing in Gotham? Once again turning to the title (as there's little else to go on at present), the most in you-face answer is he'll be getting into fisticuffs with Batman. Next question then is, why will they fight? And that leads to more questions, and so on and so on. Which ensures fans will have plenty of material to debate until the next photo is released. Good thing too, as they still need to wait two more years for the definitive answers.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156416/stalingrad_regisseur_maakt_odyssee

Interesting director's choice in this politically tense day and age. Art adheres not to the borders of man, especially when loads of money are involved. Will it be good art though (if there even is such a thing)? Bondarchuk's epic love story Stalingrad met with rather mixed reviews, though its accoloades include highest grossing film in Russia and first non-American film shot in IMAX 3D, thanks to its impressive visual effects which thoroughly suit that format. So, strong box office results for prior work, innovative international use of technology and experience with big budget spectacle, coupled with a chance to win favours with the Russian industry, all come with Bondarchuk, which are enough reasons to sway studio executives to hire him. In terms of story, the Odyssey has proven itself to hold up for several milennia, so it can survive this latest attempt no doubt. As for the execution, the visual side seems secure as far as the budget allows. As for the character side, therein lies the greatest challenge. I would suggest casting a solid, capable actor in the title role (as the movie is called Odysseus), and his name is Sean Bean. His take on Odysseus was one of Troy's redeeming features and I would love to see some more of that. Then again, it might not be such a good idea for Bondarchuk to suggest his film is a sequel to Troy, which it's not intended to be. Even though I get the feeling that final product was right up his alley in terms of directorial execution, as it was maligned for much the same reasons Stalingrad was (except for the absence of Orlando Bloom's poor acting skills).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156428/trio_korte_films_slaat_brug_tussen_apes_films

I was already stoked for Dawn of the PotA (first few reviews are fortunately showered in praise!), so these three short films (collectively titled Before the Dawn) miss their mark in convincing me to go see a film I was already convinced to go see. Considering they are rather short on apes - silhouettes and sound effects is all we get - I don't think anybody watching them that didn't know another PotA film was coming feels the sudden urge to get in line for admission tickets. Their primary purpose seems to assure confused folks that missed the connection between both films have something to fall back on to enlighten them as what caused the abrupt and expansive change in status quo for both apes and humans. However, as is the case with any good viral marketing, this backstory can be missed when considering the movies proper. The information provided here serves as a decent background that does not need to be seen specifically to enjoy the motion picture experience. Nevertheless, they do add a little bit of sense and character to the rebooted Apes universe as a whole, even though the quality of these three films varies. The idea of staging the demise of human society over different time periods since the outbreak of the devastating simian flu plague is infective (obvious pun there, sorry). The first film is easily the weakest, just a quick piece intended to be emotionally charged but ending up rather dull. The second one spices things up considerably by comparison, showing just how seriously everyday life has changed in a brief timespan, while also introducing a new threat to the survivors that was absent from the first short but is of course what we'll all go and pay to see with most anticipation (apes, I mean). The third film, which is longer than the other two combined and therefore might be accused of having an unfair advantage to hook us in the most, is the most chilling, disturbing and dramatic of the trio. Which is a mean feat, considering it deals with an object more than it does with people, be they human or primates. It's a very imaginative and subtle yet effective way to show how much one side has deteriorated while another has risen, with both sides ending up in an existential state of balance. I doubt any of the characters introduced here, human or artificial, will end up playing a substantial role - more than a cameo, that is - in the upcoming theatrical movie proper, but they don't need to. Before the Dawn is just a neat and helpful bit of background story but if you don't know it's out there, it's not likely to diminish your viewing experiece of the movie it serves.

Today's Double News: Divergent fanbase can go ape

Today's batch of fairly fresh movie news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155049/derde_deel_divergent_opgedeeld_in_twee_films

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155032/nieuwe_afbeeldingen_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is getting old. But the trick keeps working in studios' favour, so why not repeat it ad nauseam since the target audience doesn't seem to mind being milked? When it was first announced that the last Harry Potter book would get a double finale, I rejoiced, since I felt there was way too much material for a single movie. I felt that way about books 5 and 6 too though. After that, every successful franchise aimed predominantly at a young adult audience took a hint from this strategy. The trick was repeated with The Twilight Saga, which I - and many others - don't care as much for as for the adventures of said young wizard (basically, not at all) and that time, I experienced it as a nuisance, since all those bloody teenage girls made a mess of my movie theater twice in a row, obnoxiously screaming like such female groupies tend to do. Now The Hunger Games: Mockingjay will undergo the same treatment. I haven't read that book in its entirety, but when I picked it up in a book store and browsed through the last few pages to spoil myself on who died and who didn't, the volume wasn't any thicker than its predecessors, making me wonder whether splitting the movie in two would result in a decent pair of movie. Divergent (or better yet, Allegiant, as is the title of the third book in Veronica Roth's trilogy), same story really. As nobody will deny, it's simply a way for the studio to make more money out of a lucrative franchise, postponing the end as long as they can. Makes you wonder why they don't bother splitting the second novel either. It's barely begun pre-production, so there's still time to do so. I wouldn't have mind if the fifth and sixth Potter installments were comparably chopped up, considering how much material from the books was brisquely swept aside. Why not go that extra mile and give the second Divergent film (Insurgent) a similar treatment? Go fully episodic! Oh wait, that kind of storytelling is what television exists for... Considering TV these days has proven a vastly superior medium in terms of storytelling, it's no surprise Hollywood studios take a hint from its narrative make-up. It starts with splitting up movies in half, who knows, maybe it will end with the return of the Thirties' serials. That's what you get if you chop up stories that might not benefit from being overdone this way.
Then again, Peter Jackson has succeeded in making a threesome of three-hour movies out of a book that is even less imposing in size than the Divergent novels...

At least the Planet of the Apes franchise doesn't have to worry about similar issues, as its origin can be traced back to a book so small in size you're finished reading within an hour. Didn't stop Hollywood from basing five (!) movies off it, though most of it they made up for themselves. And now that the reboot series is in full swing, Pierre Boulle's little novel is ignored altogether, as the new movies base their story off the later entries in the original movie saga, which had little to do with the original story by the French author. Doesn't matter in terms of quality though, as the first movie in the reboot franchise proved quite a solid film, making us forget the dreadful Tim Burton remake of ten years earlier. So far, word on the sequel is equally positive. These freshly released stills indicate that the second movie too incorporates its fair share of story elements from the original movie series for its own purposes. And thanks to the wonders of CGI (and the mo-cap performances of Andy Serkis and others, lest we forget), the apes look more photorealistic than ever. Even when they're riding horses or wielding guns. Now that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is deep in the post-production phase and FX shots are finished on a daily basis, we can expect a deluge of similar pictures in the next few months, showing off just how much animators can convincingly do with their apes nowadays. And if it's true director Matt Reeves has succeeded in balancing story and effects as much as his predecessor on Rise of the POTA, this series too might make it to five films. Or more. There's no restrictions based on the literary source here, after all.

Today's News: Serkis goes ape again with all sorts of animals

Some older news I posted some days back:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154599/andy_serkis_regisseert_jungle_book

He knows animals - apes mostly, but he's also adept at understanding emaciated Hobbit junkies - and he knows directing. Of course Serkis makes perfect sense to direct The Jungle Book. Granted, he is still a bit green (get it?) for a director, but the fabulous river barrel chase in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, largely from his hand, showed he has some necessary skills at least. I doubt he will be any less of a capable director than Jon Favreau, who's currently adapting the same story for a different studio. That's Serkis' biggest problem right there: the redundancy of doing a different Jungle Book film shortly after Disney produces one. Considering the classic 1967 animated version already makes people think of Disney first when they hear the term 'Jungle Book', that's tough competition to begin with. Serkis will have to work hard to make his own attempt stand out, but if he uses his animal knowledge to good avail, there's a chance for a different approach for starters. I doubt Favreau understands the animal kingdom as much as Andy does; as his resumé shows, he's more into technology based material, like Iron Man, Cowboys & Aliens and the new TV-show Revolution. Favreau's version will more likely focus on the struggle of (a) man to stay alive in an all-natural environment without the aid of his own species. Idris Elba is doing the voice of the tiger in that one, so Serkis had better bring in the big guns to outdo that. How about having some great actor of our time not only providing a voice, but having him mo-cap the bejesus out of that villainous feline too? After all, thanks to Peter Jackson, Serkis knows his high-class fancy movie making technology too.

Today's Triple News: Scar-Jo transcends Tarzan

Three news flashes today, I've been busy!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153735/harry_potter_regisseur_neemt_herverfilming_tarzan_op_zich

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153733/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_transcendence

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153709/eerste_trailer_en_poster_voor_under_the_skin

Not much 'news' among all this news. Tarzan is one of those literary characters that has been made all the more iconic because of the movies, and has been remade, revamped, and reimagined over and over again, giving us a new take on the character every five years or so. In fact, the last version, a German produced animated 3D movie, only debuted this Christmas. But it's been a while since Hollywood did a live-action remake of the Lord of the Apes, and now is as good a time as any. Then again, the last Edgar Rice Burroughs character that got himself a major blockbuster film didn't do so well: remember John Carter? I loved it, but unfortunately most other people couldn't care less (bastards!). That said, this was JC's first movie (and sadly, quite probably his last...), while Tarzan has proved himself an enduring screen legend many times over, putting him into the same category as those other big instantly recognizable big name movie franchises that keep coming back, the likes of Godzilla, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula and King Kong. David Yates seems like the right man for the job, having directed four huge box office hits for Warner already (all Potter, so kind of a one-note big budget career, but still). The hunky Swedish vampire Alexander Skarsgard is set to star, no doubt the tallest and blondest actor to have played the character thus far. I hope Jane won't mistake him for a tree as she seeks a vine to swing with. And no doubt Tarzan's gorilla posse will be digital. In the wake of the success of the rebooted Planet of the Apes saga, more on-screen apes should have been expected.

Not exactly remakes, but still suspiciously familiar to movie buffs, is the subject material of both Under the Skin and Transcendence. The former introduces a hot woman looking for men to have sex with, actually being a succubus alien abusing mankind for her own sinister schemes. That screams Species, a lot. And the "plot twist" that she starts to understand and love humanity hearkens back to Species 2, where the former antagonist underwent a 180 degree objective shift and become loveable. Nevertheless, this looks much more esoteric and dreamy than those films, arguably executed to be the arthouse version of that story. Or something else entirely, as a lot of plot material for this film is still left vague. Maybe the trailer only reminds us of Species, while the actual film turns out a whole different animal entirely. No matter. Any film that gets Scarlett Johansson stark naked doing the nasty throughout sounds like it's worth a film nerd's while. And before you accuse me of being a pervert, let me remind you I'm only watching the stuff she chose to act in. I didn't make it.

The latter trailer - of Transcendence, for those readers with short term memory imperfections - features a human intelligence downloading himself into a supercomputer, after which his newfound power gets the best of him and mankind's fate soon hangs in the balance. Also a case of 'been there, done that, keeps being an interesting topic'. Avid Sci-Fi geeks will recognize most of the plot from various episodes of Star Trek, The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, but first and foremost to my mind came the seminal computer thriller Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970). That film involved a Cold War supercomputer based on the brain patterns of its creator, that linked with its Soviet counterpart and subsequently decided to end all human conflict by imposing its rule upon mankind. As is typical of the gloomy atmosphere of the late Sixties and the early Seventies (gotta love those dark downer endings!), it did not leave room for a happy end as ultimately, the computer triumphed and man basically became his bitch. I don't think Transcendence will have the balls to go that far. Though not devoid of addressing interesting notions on the increasingly fine line between man and machine, its otherwise looks like a standard Hollywood Sci-Fi action flick, complete with love interest (triangle, even?) and no doubt an ending that won't prove so depressing for the general audience that merely seeks diversive entertainment. That said, it looks like a very enjoyable standard Hollywood Sci-Fi action flick, one which I fully intend to see. After all, when movies fail to develop new ideas and resort to recycling those that came before, what else is a movie lover to do?

Today's Double News: apes and agents

Old news by now (I was busy these last few days I'll have you know), but since I wrote it I post it here today regardless:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152961/_rupert_friend_vervangt_paul_walker_als_agent_47

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152922/reeves_terug_voor_planet_of_the_apes_3

The signs of the impact of Paul Walker's demise continue to reveal themselves as recuperation is in order for a second project that he signed on for but obviously is unable to complete. In this case little actual work had been done on the film in question so the damage his death hath wrought is not nearly as severe as on Fast and Furious 7. And since it was a reboot with no ties to the previous incarnation of the cinematic Hitman legacy (in terms of casting at least), recasting was the most simple and cost-effective of solutions. One actor known for his expertise when it comes to action sequences replaces another as Rupert Friend has filled Walker's boots. No biggie, really? The general public probably won't realize or care about this switch when the movie 'hits' theatres (see what I did there?). Was another Hitman movie necessary or something the public was clamoring for? Not really, otherwise the studio would have made a sequel to the 2007 movie sooner. Since that movie wasn't received all that well and video game adaptations are still a much maligned phenomenon, I doubt this reboot will fare that much better at the boxoffice, but that doesn't stop the studio from trying its luck. Odd thing here is the fact the guy who wrote the previous film is also scripting the new one. He must have done something right if the studio doesn't bother with finding a different writer.

Speaking of people who are doing things right in terms of making movies (look at me, applying effective segues all of a sudden!), it seems Matt Reeves is one of them. Fox apparently liked what he made of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes so much they signed him on as director for a third film, six months prior to the release of his current project. So other than studio bosses, nobody has had the chance to deduce whether the current cut of Dawn is indeed any good, we'll just have to take it on good faith. Happens a lot in Hollywood these days, movies being geared up while their predecessors haven't even been finished yet, because the studio is convinced the movie is awesome, and so the finanical results will be. If Dawn proves a dud at the boxoffice (I personally doubt that, but the possibility is always lurking around the corner), you'll see the third movie will be swiftly scrapped despite ample dollars having been spent on it already. Also an increasingly common occurrence. Hollywood nowadays just doesn't dare risk losing the audience's attention if they got a good franchise going. Wait too long and the public might lose interest after all. Mindless consumers have no memory, they might as well say. It seems they instead opt for rushing sequels into production, in hopes that tactic pays off. Rise of the Planet of the Apes did better than expected, so the same could very well be true for Dawn (I sincerely hope so, since I too liked Rise). Reeves in my mind is a very capable director, so if the studio says he's making a good film out of Dawn, I'm inclined to believe it, even if it proves to be just a marketing tactic. You've got intelligent apes in a post-apocalyptic world fighting humans, so what are the odds of a screw-up here anyway? Okay, so the original concept wasn't explored so satisfactorily in the Seventies with Battle for the Planet of the Apes (I blame the mutant element of that film), but let's have a little faith here. So far every project featuring Andy Serkis donning a goofy mo-cap outfit has turned into a major success.

On a sidenote, something that doesn't seem to have been such a success (there I go again!) this week turned out to be a fabulous little show called Boardwalk Empire, which I thoroughly enjoyed as it happened. We'll get one more season to round things up and that's that. They better give the show a decent send-off, or I might go al(l) Capone on HBO (the witticisms continue). Fortunately we'll always have Game of Thrones. New teaser for the trailer was released this week, the actual piece will follow tommorrow. Hear me cheer!

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes

Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10

Third sequel to the original Planet of the Apes film from 1968. After the overall lighter tone from its predecessor Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), the franchise takes a much darker turn in this film, as we finally witness the origin of the apes and their hatred towards mankind. In the not too distant future (1991, so don't worry, it didn't happen), a mysterious disease has wiped out all cats and dogs, so apes are kept as replacements pets, but are soon found to be more suitable for slave labour and as such are ruthlessly exploited by their human overlords in a gritty dystopian setting. The son of former 'future apes' Zira and Cornelius, dubbed Caesar (played by Roddy McDowall, who previously performed Cornelius as well) by his human surrogate father (all too small part for Ricardo 'Khan' Montalban), finds himself without his protector who is viciously brutalized and killed by the human regime – it's not an all too happy future for humans either – after which he finds himself amongst his fellow simians and becomes their Messiah. Under Caesar's command, the apes rise in revolt and violence sweeps the nation as they fight for their freedom and start a conflict that will change the fate of the world. Easily the most controversial and most violent entry into the franchise, as the provocative display of abused and chained apes evokes haunting imagery of human slavery based on racial segregation, which is of course a parallel that has driven the continuing overall plot since the first film, but is most effectively fleshed out here. It is also painfully reminiscent of the race riots of the late sixties and early seventies, something the writers sure were aware of. Despite its convincing and intriguing social parallels, the fairly limited budget and resulting small scale look of the film hinder the impact of the story on a visual level for looking so cheap. Plus, the clear delineation between good apes and bad humans makes for pretty two-dimensional, oversimplified characterization. The plot was partially appropriated to great acclaim by the latest Planet of the Apes reboot, Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), thankfully resulting in grander imagery.

Starring: Roddy McDowall, Don Murray, Ricardo Montalban

Directed by J. Lee Thompson

USA: 20^th Century-Fox, 1972

Beneath the Planet of the Apes

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

Spooky and gritty sequel to the brilliant (and naturally better) Planet of the Apes (1968) continues directly where its predecessor left us. Taylor (Charlton Heston) roams the wastelands of what he now realizes is his own home planet of Earth in hopes of finding answers as to what caused the catastrophic downfall of man and the rise of apes. Meanwhile, his fellow astronaut Brent (James Franciscus) has begun a search for him and encounters some ape troubles of his own in the shape of a gorilla army hellbent on destroying all humans. A third party enters the playing field in the shape of the mutants, disfigured telepathic humans living in the underground remains of the city of New York, where they worship a doomsday bomb that can eradicate all life. Can Taylor and Brent stop them from using it against the vicious gorillas coming to wipe them out? A decent follow-up, expanding the known universe of this franchise intriguingly and containing some great visuals, but overall lacking in both action and plot. Heston is out of the picture for most of the film so Franciscus can take centre stage, but in all fairness, Taylor is just a much more interesting character than Brent. Also, not as much ape involvement as one would have hoped for. Hauntingly sinister ending though, exemplary for the dystopian and apocalyptic trend of seventies' Sci-Fi films.

Starring: Charlton Heston, James Franciscus, Maurice Evans

Directed by Ted Post

USA: 20^th Century-Fox, 1970

Battle for the Planet of the Apes

Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10

Fifth and final installment of the original Planet of the Apes saga. After a devastating war between mankind and apes has reduced much of the world to rubble, ape Messiah Caesar (Roddy McDowall) has created a small but peaceful community of apes and humans where he hopes the two parties will learn to set aside their differences and live in harmony, but he sees his plans foiled by the looming threat of a mutant invasion, as well as growing dissent among his own ranks instigated by the brutish gorilla general Aldo (Claude Akins). A final battle for supremacy follows, which unfortunately looks less than convincing, let alone impressive, due to obvious budget limitations, thus making this climax of the franchise feel a bit of a letdown. However, there's still plenty to enjoy in the fascinating ape/human interaction, as well as the intriguing multi-interpretable ending of the film which either shows the overall saga has come full circle, or the time travel element has slightly changed things positively for both humans and apes, resulting in a lasting peace. I tend to go for the latter, but everyone can decide for themselves what to make of this.

Starring:Roddy McDowall, Claude Akins, Natalie Trundy

Directed by J. Lee Thompson

USA: 20^th Century-Fox, 1973