Today's Review: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

It's been a while, but I finally wrote another review for FilmTotaal. And this time, for a particularly big blockbuster movie, my first for this movie site:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - recensie

FilmTotaal is the biggest movie website in the Netherlands (no, really!), and in its case, users actually respond to critics' reviews. Often not in the most gentle manner, as there's quite a few trolls and/or generally loudmouth, obnoxious people haunting the site. Reviewers posting their opinion of overhyped blockbuster films like this one usually know they can expect to be firmly hated upon. However, for BvS, I gotta say there's only a few posts illustrating strong disagreement - to put it mildly - with what I wrote about the film. In fact, it seems the majority of users agrees with me: BvS is rather a disappointment. Not entirely bad (it still looks great and there's some good performances and lovely action, you know), but definitely a letdown.

Maybe the cause of its shortcomings is its director, Zack Snyder. He's been known to favour heavy topics surrounding flawed, traumatized characters living in unpleasant worlds filled with violent death. Even though he usually flavours said realms with a visually appealing, grandiose style of filming and fabulous artistry and dressing. Man of Steel, the movie to kick off this new DC Cinematic Universe which is meant to deliver some heavy competition at Marvel's doorstep, fit that bill perfectly, making the generally colorful and optimistic Superman a brooding alien refugee given near omnipotent power over his new neighbours, the human race. I liked Man of Steel. It made this God like character that much more identifiable by focusing on his lacks rather than his strengths. In its many philosophical moments, Man of Steel felt less like a superhero movie and more like a character study of a God living among man and contemplating his relationship with those who in all respects are so obviously inferior to him. Of course, that relationship is still explored in BvS, as the world now needs to cope with the existence of this powerful presence, a potential saviour to man. However, another type of hero has already been active for decades, it turns out.

For in BvS, the DC universe is supposed to be up and running for decades already. No starting from scratch here, as was the case for Marvel. For every character introduced, there is a long backstory that is teased, which in many cases frustrates more than it intrigues. Ben Affleck's Batman has been fighting crime for twenty years, and it has only made him darker. Crime has not been reduced, while his war on bad guys preying on the everyman has cost him dearly. No wonder he's grown so angry he's not averse to maiming and even killing criminals left and right. The Batman we've grown accustomed to was never a true killer, but Snyder's Caped Crusader has no such moral qualms anymore. And now there's this all powerful extraterrestrial policing the planet. A being Batman holds responsible for the invasion that laid waste to Metropolis and cost him employees and real estate. Affleck does a fine job portraying the sombre, disillusioned vigilante, but it cannot be denied that his explicit aim of killing Superman, who has since amply demonstrated he's on the side of justice, just feels wholly unjustified.

Meanwhile, as if the lethal rivalry between both tormented good guys was't enough to fill a two hour movie, Snyder introduces a younger version of classic villain Lex Luthor to pester them both. This evil tycoon, too, is haunted by a trauma involving his father, which is not enough to fully explain his demonic machinations in this film. What's more, Jesse Eisenberg's performance in the role is devoid of the 'wow' factor we would have hoped for. Applying a typical neurotic hyperactivity, Eisenberg is basically playing a nefarious version of his own Mark Zuckerberg. It doesn't make for a convincing baddie. Nor does Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman leave a lasting impression, which is also due to a lack of screen time (though 151 minutes certainly makes for a long piece already). Again, a shady past is implied but not explored. And so she leaves us confused by her transformation from uncaring socialite to warrior princess fighting for good.

Of course, with a subtitle like 'Dawn of Justice', adding more spice to your duo of core characters for a broader context is expected. So we also get this evil genius and a strong female heroine. But wait, says BvS, there's much more yet. A number of other super heroes is teased. But for ow, we simply cannot care. Worse, the still fairly investing story line of the titular protagonists is hindered by awkward attempts to set up bigger things to come, including an Apocalyptic nightmare of Batman wherein he's plagued by visions of a ruined world ruled by Superman (including insect warriors, I kid you not). Succeeded by a scene in which that same Batman is confronted with a temporal vortex and a warning from the future to stop someone doing something, totally out of the blue. Pointless material, as we already knew Batman was out for Superman's blood and this doesn't motivate him any more. Despite all the useless interruptions provided by DC's self-advertisement for coming attractions (to which we simply are not attracted), it's amazing we still at least care about the two iconic superheroes battling each other.

And their fight proves quite spectacular. Brutal, despite a lack of blood (PG-13 rating and all). But oh so dark and serious. Even Nolan's Dark Knight films, also not particularly light, optimistic fare, never lost sight of the need for a bit of humour and witticism. But Snyder tells such a gritty tale, there's simply no space left for those elements. Unfortunately, after the epic Batman/Superman throwdown, he however feels there is space left for another half an hour of three good guys battling an ugly digital monster. But this climax never feels near as climactic as the fight we expected to see and at least felt somewhat gratifying. As is usual for his approach, Snyder goes over the top much further than we would like him to have gone. Maybe he's not fully to blame for BvS' many shortcomings, a fair bit of it can likely be chalked up to DC interference for setting up the future. But that future does involve Snyder to a great extent, as he's already working on Justice League. We better hope he takes the failures of BvS to heart and lightens up a bit. There's gotta be more to the DC universe than angry heroes beating each other up...

Today's News: late, as usual

Didn't have time to post updates last week, so once again I'm behind on that. The price I pay for keeping busy, and I pay it gladly.

Kinberg en Blomkamp produceren The Leviathan

We are probably witnessing the rise of another gifted director here. Blomkamp is giving a capable talent the same chance he himself was once given by Peter Jackson, based on the similar tactic of making a short film to entice others to buy into the outlandish concept. And a rather ambitious concept it is. In just a few lines of text, space travel, exotic alien life, epic man-versus-nature battles and slave labour is introduced, and then the trailer itself hasn't even started yet. So please, make this film about people forced to hunt space whales. I just hope Robinson is on the side of the unfortunate creatures, as I absolutely do not consider actual whaling a noble endeavour. But then, if 'involuntary labour' is needed to harvest the 'exotic matter' from the animals in question, the whalers definitely aren't the good guys. At this point, a studio has already picked up the rights, and it's 20th Century Fox. Will they deliver the obviously large budget Robinson requires to make his picture? They have a bad track record when it comes to appreciating awesome science fiction concepts, so they definitely wouldn't have been my first pick. But hey, Robinson surely won't complain, since he has finally succeeded at snagging a studio and producers to make his movie. Speaking of which, there's a few similarities between this Leviathan and Don Lawrence's Storm, the latter which I always hoped would make it into a movie some day. Maybe Leviathan will still my need for a Storm flick, or maybe it only proves that if you sell your Sci-Fi concept the way Robinson did, you can eventually usher your dream into theaters after all.

Eerste teaser Mission: Impossible 5

I thought Tom Cruise had by now established the fact there are no impossible missions anymore, but apparently, I was wrong. So another totally outrageous mission is concocted to make Cruise once again play the Hollywood superstar. You know, the type that sees his name stamped on promotional material in a bigger format than the movie's actual title. The all-American hero that travels the globe to all manner of exotic locales the common American has never heard of (like Moscow or London), all the while kicking bad guys' butts, bedding insanely hot dames and shouting silly oneliners at every opportunity. Cruise still can't get enough of it. I for one, care little, but then I never did from the get-go. This time Cruise and his team hunt down a shady organization much like their own, their insidious doppelgänger as it were. Isn't that also the plot of the new 007 flick, Spectre? And isn't James Bond a more sophisticated and better loved take on Tom Cruise's character for that matter? Seems like we're hitting another one of those circumstances where two movies sharing an awfully similar concept see release with only a short interval between them (think A Bug's Life/Antz or Deep Impact/Armageddon). I know what team I'm betting for and it's not this one.

Eerste foto Jesse Eisenberg als Lex Luthor

That picture freaks me out. What a sinister mug shot, the face of an evil, evil man no doubt. Not so long ago it had curly hair and was applied to the role of far more likeable characters. But now that dear little neurotic guy from the likes of Zombieland and To Rome with Love is playing the big leagues as a major villain based on comic book material. Eisenberg's Luthor will soon be seen harrassing various superheroes throughout the DC Cinematic Universe, starting with both Superman and Batman (a single hero won't do, of course). He'll basically be DC's answer to Tom Hiddleston's and Marvel's Loki, which is definitely a tough act to follow. As a megalomaniac captain of industry, Eisenberg will play the second next grandiose thing to a crazed Norse God. He'll probably do just fine, but I still won't care as much, considering I really am on Marvel's side. I've always considered DC's characters a little too larger than life, less easy to identify with as a regular guy. You'd think I'd find a megalomaniac captain of industry more easy to digest than a crazed Norse God than, but apparently it doesn't work that way. Just goes to show what a particular geek I am in my tastes. Well sorry. Mr. Eisenberg.

Matt Smith hoofdrolspeler in Harry Potter spin-off

Speaking of my particular tastes, Dr. Who isn't one of them. I never really could get into it. So I've never seen Matt Smith in action, but if he's playing Dr. Who, then he must be the British sort, which means he'd do nicely in the Potterverse. Even though we're not talking Harry Potter here, casting an American in the lead role would be an act of blasphemy, as I'm sure Mrs. Rowling has made quite clear to the producers of the upcoming spin-off Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Plus, Matt Smith might make a nice change from Benedict Cumberbatch, who these days is considered the quintessential Englishman to cast in any rol pertaining to Brittania, good characters or bad. So yeah, throw Smith a bone and cast him as Newt Scamander. I'm sure he could effortlessly switch between silly aliens and robots to equally silly magical shenanigans and monstrous entities. 'Silly' not prohibiting a wonderful sense of adventure and enjoyment of course. Just serving a very British kind.

Sony verschuift reboot Smurfen

Another particularly European sense of adventure and enjoyment is found on the pages of Belgium's comic industry. And this one unfortunately has suffered from ruthless Americanization in recent years. Both Smurfs movies were strong examples of how not to adapt beloved comics (or cartoons for that matter) for modern Western audiences. Trading in a medieval European setting for contemporary New York was both insulting and painful to behold. So even though the American presence behind the cameras remains, a totally new kind of direction for this blue little franchise is nothing short of a good thing. Going fully animated also meets my approval, as it will prohibit actors not up to the task from sharing the screen with the delightful creatures we really care to see. Heck, if Gargamel wasn't such a recognizable foil to the Smurfs, I'd say go and make an all-Smurf movie without any human (or feline) characters, one hearkening back to the classic stories of old (as the director claims is his intention). I'm all for adapting the Smurführer story, though I think that one might be a little too controversial for Hollywood's taste. Same goes for the one about the disease spreading primitive Black Smurfs. Nevertheless, both of these concepts would make for movies ten times more compelling than the dreck released this past decade. I'm hopeful the studio means to honor their statement of indeed taking the Smurfs back to their roots and completely ignoring said damage, but I know better than to get my hopes up too high. At this time, my hope has reached a level of about three apples high. If the people behind this movie have any inkling what that means, it's an indication they're indeed on the right path.

Today's News: movies, chappies and junkies

There's been some neat news these past few days, and I got a chance to post my fair share:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157896/nieuwe_trailer_voor_the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies

A rather decent little trailer, says I. Seems Middle-Earth will go out with an appopriate bang, as did The Hobbit book to a lesser extent. Moderation surely isn't Peter Jackson's style, particularly if he knows he's not likely to show off like this again. Might as well go all-out one last time. Tolkien purists surely gave up on him right after An Unexpected Journey anyway. This precious trailer looks breathtaking and makes me water my mouth accordingly. However, I'm not the one who needs to be convinced to go see this movie, as I've been planning to do so for a few years now. I guess this trailer doesn't really need to be enticing anyway, as people who want to see the movie will see it anyway and people who don't, won't be pulled in any more by this preview, even if it does look awesome. This trailer definitely is for the fans, who live in the greatest of anticipation for one more month before the cinematic age of Middle-Earth comes crashing down. Unless they do find a way to decently adapt The Silmarillion for the big screen after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157867/eerste_trailer_minions

Then there's this trailer. There's a multitude of evil minions in Tolkien's stories, but none are as cute as these. You don't see Orcs getting a movie of their own. (Well, you do, but that's not what I mean.) But it's clear people enjoyed the shenanigans of Gru's little aides more than they did Gru's own sinister schemes, so a spin-off was required by the laws of Hollywood. It's still unclear whether Steve Carell's Gru is in the movie, as some sites claim he is while others deny as much. I think it likely this will serve as an origin story, showing how Gru and the Minions hooked up. Do we need to know that? Not really. I guess people just really like the Minions so much they want to see more of them than their creators originally intended. They're kinda like the Smurfs in that regard: they're small and there's many of them with various personalities, they have their own language, they're monochromatic, etc. If they're indeed a runaway success, will that mean we'll forget about Gru the same way the majority of the Smurfs reader are not aware of Johan and Pirrewiet? That would be a shame, as I think the Minions work best playing off Gru, who himself is an equally delightful character (the voice and nose alone crack me up). It's up to this Minions movie to determine whether the Minions have a staying power of their on, or whether we prefer Gru to be present as well.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157866/junkie_xl_werkt_mee_aan_soundtrack_batman_v_superman

As a fellow Dutchman it's of course expected of me to feel a sense of pride at Junkie XL's accomplishments. Well sure: good job, Mr. XL! Other than that this news doesn't evoke much emotional feelings in me other than gladness we'll be getting a good score for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (now if only we also got a good title...). Hans Zimmer's status as one of the world's leading movie soundtrack composers has long since been established. His tunes can be heard during my workouts on many an occasion (Gladiator is a particular favourite of mine). Junkie XL is just a bonus. His track record of Hollywood scores is still on the short side, but so far he has done well. I liked his score for 300: Rise of an Empire more than the one from its predecessor. Divergent's soundtrack is not nearly as memorable - can't remember a single accord of it for the life of me, to be honest - but at least it didn't leave as sour a taste as the rest of that film did. I like the notion of two composers sharing duties between superheroes' separate scores. It makes sense someone else trackles Batman for this film, as Zimmer already scored that character for the entire Dark Knight trilogy. Since this is a different Batman, a different theme is in order and so a different composer is a logical conclusion. Since we are talking about the same Superman as the one from Man of Steel however, it's only apt that Zimmer keeps scoring him. Big question now is: who's gonna score the inevitable combined superhero/Justice League theme? Zimmer, XL or somebody else entirely?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157879/eerste_trailer_chappie

Neill Blomkamp continues to dabble in socially pertinent science fiction flicks. It worked out great in District 9, a little less so with Elysium, but there's still more contemporary injustice to be commented upon. From the looks of the trailer, Chappie seems to deal with a 'nature versus nurture' debate: does an artificial intelligence become a criminal because he was "raised" in such an environment, or were there signs of bad behaviour in his personality from the get-go? Does he acknowledge good from evil to begin with, or are such notions beyond his understanding because of the limits in his programming? Is a life of crime considered a logical and reasonable existence under the situations according to the codes written within him? It'll be interesting to see what Blomkamp has to say on the matter, since things are never so black and white in his work. The gritty, down-to-earth look of his Sci-Fi remains catchy, especially in a story closer to home than one dealing with space stations and exoskeletons. This film definitely is worth keeping an eye on. It'll be fascinating to see a robot attempting a robbery for financial gain, rather than a bunch of them trying to take over the world for a change.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157895/titel_star_wars_episode_vii_onthuld

Meh... Damn silly title. I can understand it's not an Episode proper, considering the new studio, the new director and the new direction the franchise takes (but despite the very old cast members returning). But I still find Star Wars Episode VII to be a catchier title than Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The latter kinda sounds like a video game, a bastard child of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed or something. And is this title suggesting the actual Force was asleep during all the previous movies? Yeah, right! I guess J.J. Abrams is the 'Force' in question and he has awoken to make something new and exciting of the franchise (or so he thinks), rather than the dull generic crap he pushed on us with his dreadful Star Trek reboots, during which he was obviously too much asleep to give a crap. And please tell me that isn't the official logo for the movie. It looks like a cheap fan creation. Not that there aren't any fans who could have come up with better titles, of course. How about Star Wars Episode VII: The Empire Takes Over the Franchise?

Today's News: loads of it

The haul of news from the last week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157156/nieuwe_trailer_oorlogsfilm_fury_met_brad_pitt

Last trailer focused on the action, this one's more about the drama. Can't say it looks any better when given more substance. Rookie soldiers faced with the moral burdens of battle has been done since time immemorial. Same goes for small bands of soldiers stuck behind enemy lines on suicide missions (Saving Private Ryan is just the tip of the iceberg there, you know). Heck, even Brad Pitt has dabbled in that before with Inglourious Basterds. Big change here is that particular persona of his didn't seem to mind his hard times as much as this one, even though in terms of character there don't seem to be that many differences between Wardaddy and Lt. Aldo Raine. I really hope there's more to the movie that what the trailers are showing us. Though if we're comparing notes, that certainly was the case with Inglourious Basterds, which turned out to incorporate a whole lot more to the plot than just the bloody retributions exacted on Nazis we were promised (though that element surely was also retained, to a lesser extent). On the other thand, there's the example to the opposite, in which the trailer promised more than the actual film delivered, like on the recent forgetabble The Monuments Men. Let's just say this tank can still roll either way.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157184/23_jump_street_aangekondigd

As the end credits for 22 Jump Street revealed, there's at least twenty more scenarios for the franchise's protagonists to get involved in. Of course the studio feels like trying out at least one more considering the success of that sequel. Will it be one of the outrageous possibilities offered by those end titles? Probably not, most of them seem a little too farfetched for any "serious" comedy flick. Doesn't mean there aren't enough possibilities for infiltrations taking zany turns left. Not that I need to see them. I have learned long ago that the number of sequels to successful comedies worth our while is pretty low indeed. Blatant regurgitation is their usual motto, a point the first film, 21 Jump Street (see the numerical pattern here?), already made both hilariously and painfully clear when the angry black police captain gave his poignant and speech about law enforcement officials just recycling old ideas ad nauseam, which was the movie at its most self-aware note. And here we have the prove studio execs do the same. Like we needed any proof...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157183/eerste_fotos_batmobile_uit_batman_v_superman

I approve of this Batmobile. Not too realistic, not too unrealistic. Not too tacky, not too slick. Fits right into Zack Snyder's new DC-verse, while containing many a nod to past works, most notable Nolan's Tumbler design from the Dark Knight movies. The bat motif is not too obvious or overt, but definitely there. This basically is exactly the badass type of vehicle an angry billionaire would patrol the streets at night with to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, rather than doing drugs, banging scores of prostitutes and not giving a damn about the rest of the world because he is loaded, like real world billionaires prefer to do instead. Of course, we have yet to see it in action and discover its various funky gadgets - does it, too, feature a built-in escape vehicle and a self-destruct option, for example? - but in terms of looks and style this is right up Gotham's alleys. Good thing Hans Zimmer is still doing the music for the epic DC movies. Just add his stormy, percussive Dark Knight theme and this car is good to go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157209/eerste_trailer_serena

Why change a winning team, the casting director of Serena must have thought? Cooper & Lawrence together have been the stuff of Oscars so far, and this movie clearly shows Academy Award aspirations, if the trailer is any indication. However, this movie is not directed by David O'Russell. Guess we'll find out whether it was the director that got the best out of his actors on Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle both, or whether it may have been the material after all. Susanne Bier certainly isn't a stranger in terms of character, since her movies often border on character studies, which equally seems to be the case on Serena. The language barrier doesn't seem to be present, as this is hardly her first English spoken film. This trailer definitely reaffirms the third time remains the charm.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157208/robert_downey_jr_mogelijk_in_assassins_creed

I'm starting to get a sort of 'Johnny Depp vibe' whenever Robert Downey Jr.'s latest project is mentioned. As Depp revels in playing quirky oddball types, Downey Jr. now seems to stick predominantly to playing witty, scienctifically considerate charmers (e.g. Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark/Iron Man) when it comes to big budget Hollywood movies. He does that well, so the part of Leonardo da Vinci seems perfectly suited to him. However, as has been the case with Depp for quite a while, it's getting a routine, which may lead to typecasting (though I bet Downey Jr.'s hefty pay grade will halt such thoughts on studio execs' minds). Of course, there's many other types of characters Downey Jr. plays in smaller films in-between blockbusters (the Oscar buzzing The Judge would be a current example), but those are not the ones most audiences will get to see so they'll learn to appreciate the diversity inherent in his talent. Considering he's now the highest paid actor in Hollywood, it is interesting to see him accepting a sidekick part for a change. Unless Da Vinci is actually the assassin, which I have a hard time believing, though there is some logic to that notion. But then, I never played the games so what do I know? Don't have time for games, too busy watching and loving movies. Like those starring Downey Jr., for example.

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.

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 News: Warner and DC's relationship is getting serious at last

Not-quite-so-old news I posted on MS the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155487/warner_produceert_nog_negen_dc_stripverfilmingen

It's about time Warner and DC stepped up their game to compete with the various studios creating their own (Marvel) comic book universes. The alliance between the major movie studio and the big comic book publisher has seen its ups and downs in their joined ventures over the last decade, at least in terms of the quality of their product. Of course, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is the biggest up among them, making Batman connect to a large audience worldwide like never before, but let us not forget Superman Returns and Green Lantern failed to do the same and were largely forgotten soon after their theatrical run. With Man of Steel, they finally started on the right path. Or at least, the path that Marvel Studios/Disney took, which ended up working out so great for them financially that every other studio is going down the same route. Next order of business: the sequel to Man of Steel, already called Batman vs. Superman the world over, despite its official title still being a mystery (the name seems to stick quite successfully online, so there may not be much reason to change it anyway). And only last week, the word arrived that that movie will be followed by a Justice League film. Warner/DC seem to be in a bit of a hurry, introducing characters in a more rapid succession than Marvel did, culminating in their big super hero extravaganza after only two movies prior.

But now the announcement has been made that this is only the beginning, as the pair intends to produce nine (!) more movies based on DC properties together. However, it's unlikely all these movies will be part of the larger DC Cinematic Universe Warner/DC attempt to put together. The Sandman for example has little to no ties with the various super hero titles DC owns, and is a largely independent title under DC's alternate Vertigo imprint. The same holds true for some of the proposed upcoming projects, like Fables and 100 Bullets. However, The Metal Men and Shazam - the latter starring DC's Captain Marvel: probably a wise choice not to give the movie the name of the main character, considering it might confuse the audience needlessly - are definitely part of the superhero oriented corner of the DC realm and would make adequate candidates for crossovers with their better known (and more widely loved) brothers-in-arms, as they have done in the source material. It's good to know Warner/DC are also exploring less obvious corners of the DC-verse in search of exploitable properties, instead of focusing only on the superheroes, as the various studios that own pieces of Marvel seem to do. It's a brave move, as such movies might not prove as catchy as their fellows in tights fighting crime. It seems that of the nine projects, about half of them will take place in the soon-to-be DC Cinematic Universe, while the other half will witness the more fantasy and horror type stories. So with four or five pictures to follow in Justice League's footsteps, it seems Warner/DC are applying the same set-up Marvel does with its Phases. Expect project number ten to be Justice League 2 then. Or Batman vs. Superman some more.

Today's Double News: studio decisions regarding superheroes and a teddy bear

Another double bill of news today, because I didn't post one item yesterday for lack of time, again (insert shamefaced emoticon):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151830/ted_2_in_gevaar_vanwege_rechtenconflict

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151866/mogelijke_titels_batman_vs_superman_gelekt

In both cases we get a fascinating glimpse of how a studio plans its strategy for much anticipated blockbuster movies it has high hopes for (and in both cases I daresay the audience does too, though in one case more deservedly so than in the other). So Universal doesn't own the rights to Ted 2, apparently. No surprise really if you look at the Ted credits (on IMDb for example) and see that 'Universal presents' it only, which strongly hints at this major merely distributing (and marketing) the film which by itself was produced by a smaller company. This sort of thing happens all the time in the studio system. Big studios these days are mostly engaged in distribution and promotion of other studios' films rather than paying for production themselves. Not to say that distribution and promotion doesn't carry a risk financially too, considering how much money is being spend in those two departments today. If a movie flops, everyone loses money. Ted certainly didn't flop though, not by a longshot! It was quite surprisingly a runaway hit, earning over ten times as much as it cost (or at least, as much as its production cost: who's to say how much money was involved creating audience awareness?). Ted 2 will likely fare about as well if not better. So even though a final deal has not yet been struck between Universal and MRC, I would venture a guess the current release date won't change at all and the production is not in any jeopardy, despite what my overly sensational headline seemed to indicate (hey, I need attention just like every other human being!). In fact, Universal may have been attempting to force the issue by stating a release date in advance, so MRC can't allow itelf to lose face by not living up to this deadline (kind of a mean tactic, but nothing studios haven't done before). And why wouldn't the smaller company want to live up to it, considering how much money Ted 2 is likely to earn it and Uni both? Like any Hollywood studio would ever say no to the prospect of more precious shiny money!

As for Supes and Bats, it was known Batman vs. Superman wasn't a definitive title, just a temporary one. A temporary one that caught on though, as both fans and movie websites across the globe have embraced it vigorously. Nevertheless, considering this film is a sequel to Man of Steel (which also serves as a new set-up for the Caped Crusader and a possible new sub-franchise of his own), it's logical studio Warner Bros. would want to take advantage of the new and popular Man of Steel brand name, as opposed to the maybe too classic Superman name, by emphasizing the connection between that film and this one via the title. Of course, this title must also allow for room for the Batman character (whatever his exact moniker this time around), but if you don't use the term 'Superman' (as Man of Steel tried so hard to avoid for over two hours), why would you use 'Batman'? So you come up with more subtle titles, like this cascade of concocted credits illustrates, after they'd been exposed by alleged "secret" domain name registering. Like there's any room for secrets on the Internet... I wouldn't be surprised if Warner allowed these names to leak on purpose just to continue fueling the movie's hype, a process which will not conclude right up till the actual release of the piece. I'm not particularly fond of any of these proposed titles, I must admit. There's just something catchy and iconic about the title of 'Batman vs. Superman'. It says it all, doesn't it? Or are we being deceived, and will this movie not feature the two of them battling it out at all? Is it possible there's more truth to these Justice League rumours that are flying around the web than we thought there was, and other tentpole DC characters, like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, will also be of major importance? So many questions, but for now all of them are still being outstaged by the biggest one of them all: Batffleck, yay or nay?