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 Column: Crossovers and childhood dreams

September's column has arrived:

Column: Crossovers en kinderdromen

Oh boy, did I devour Batman versus Predator as a kid... Even though the subject matter was far more gory and gruesome than your typical Batman story and may not have been wholly suitable for a youngster my age. I think I turned out alright (I don't abide blood sports, for example). Of course, this wasn't your typical Batman story, since it was also a Predator story and those are usually the stuff of R-ratings. If they're not, they fall short of being a Predator story like the fans expect or desire them, which is one of the reasons no doubt the PG-13 rated movie Alien VS Predator was so lamented by the fanbase. But it does present another challenge when adapting crossovers: incompatibility. Batman is one of those characters which can suffer multiple age ratings, though the grittier, harder Dark Knight stories are usually received more fondly by the majority. But Predator, if done right, simply isn't suited for people under 16, or shouldn't be from a social viewpoint (like teenagers under 16 are not going to check out stuff the law says they can't, in the privacy of their own homes). Likewise, King Kong versus the Smurfs seems equally incompatible, though that's more because of the vastly different subject material rather than the age category. I put that in for a joke, but needless to say you can find some fan's home video depicting such a meeting on YouTube easily enough.

Fact is, crossovers are popular, and have always been so. Ancient Greek mythology already got that ball rolling by throwing several notable heroic characters together in the story of the Argonauts, like some Avengers of Classical Antiquity (and again in the Trojan War). Thanks to our contemporary Avengers, crossovers are a hot topic again, which even leads to rival studios teaming up (in itself a bit of a crossover) to bring the fans just the crossovers they want to see (I'm talking about you, new Marvel Spider-Man!). But crossovers are hardly a novel notion in the annals of film. Universal joining its iconic horror creatures together sounds more like they're remaking the likes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man rather than them mindlessly copying Marvel, though it's likely a bit of both. But this wave of crossover movies will die down soon enough, since crossover stories usually are far from world class material.

Most of them actually are total gimmicks, cashing in on people's own perceptions of chance encounters between notable characters from different walks of popular culture. Not much story is needed really, the idea of two (or more) characters meeting, often fighting, suffices to draw attention. Batman versus Predator got it right at least, but Batman/Aliens proved less stellar material. The original King Kong versus Godzilla was a total dud, a typical Japanese Kaiju movie in which Kong looked nothing like the giant gorilla previously smashing New York. Crossovers are always fascinating, but not many of them are truly good. They're not designed to be, nor do they need to be. The characters meet, the characters part ways again, usually never to meet again. In the meantime, money exchanges hands between audience and producers. That's all there is to it really. Or is Marvel going to change this? After all, the notion of a shared universe that can endure for a few decades is a new thing, at least. And the number of crossovers between that universe's characters keeps growing, but there needs to be more story meat to it to keep the audience from losing interest. Same thing for the upcoming DC Cinematic Universe. But it remains to be seen whether the same will hold true for the Universal Monsters, the iconic Kaiju creatures or other popular franchises thrown in the mix together. You'd kinda need a separate universe for those, to keep these crossovers outside of continuity if needs be. That's how they always did it in the comics, to explain away why superheroes of different companies didn't join forces/clash more often if they inhabited the same realm: they didn't actually, these crossovers took place in other universes, outside of established continuity. A handy loophole, one that Marvel and DC can't seriously utilize anymore at the movies because that might make them lose face. But it works well enough for the likes of Freddy VS Jason (an actual movie), Tarzan VS King Kong (an actual book), or Godzilla VS the Smurfs (pure fiction).

It needs to, to stop fans from contemplating the possibilities to severely. Because if the Fantastic Four once fought Godzilla, Godzilla squabbeled with King Kong, King Kong battled Tarzan, Tarzan fought Predator, Predator warred with Aliens, Aliens plagued Batman and Batman co-operated with Spider-Man, that would mean Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four share the same universe! Now if only I could fit the Smurfs in there somewhere...

Today's News: Joker visits mass

This week's news, second batch:

Eerste trailer Black Mass

Another weirdo on Johnny Depp's resumé. But this one proves less amiable than the likes of Willy Wonka, the Mad Hatter or Jack Sparrow. This is as creepy a psychopath as they come. It's not the first time Depp plays a notorious criminal - his take on John Dillinger in Public Enemies springs to mind, not to mention singing serial killer Sweeney Todd - but this isn't a charming rogue, this is a sinister killer with a clear talent and love for ruthless violence. A fact well illustrated by the dinner scene running through this trailer. It's hardly the first time a crime boss character intimidates an underling on film by questioning his loyalty after confiding him with whimsical information, but Depp plays it eerily enough to make you forget that feeling of déja vu. I'm quite convinced Black Mass will prove an effective, chilling mob thriller, mostly thanks to Depp's penchant for playing offbeat, quirky characters, the murderous sort or otherwise.

Eerste trailers The Visit

I'm not so sure this creepy film will hit all the right notes though. Maybe it has something to do with the abyss of flops M. Night Shyamalan is sliding ever more deeply in, though I'm still willing to cut the director of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable some slack. The Visit at least appears a return to form of sorts, after engaging in more otherworldy fare with The Last Airbender and After Earth, which proved a bad call. It's horror that established the name M. Night, so maybe it's horror that puts him back on track. That said, it's stated that this is supposedly a 'horror comedy', which isn't something I would quickly discern from these trailers, which seem to focus mostly on the horrific aspect. Then again, the notion of two old people terrorizing their grandkids in the manner illustrated in these trailers does emit an undeniable feeling of absurdity. I would have felt better if The Visit was a full bred horror film, preferably one that didn't overutilize the home video/social media filming format. Even though Shyamalan hasn't made use of that before (at least not for a full movie), it feels he's a little late to that party, considering how often it has been applied in recent years, particularly in the horror genre. For now I'll refrain from getting my hopes up too much for Shyamalan's potential comeback, but I won't be so quick to denounce him as a directorial quack as most other people are. After all, I'm one of those rare folks that actually liked The Village.

Jared Leto's Joker onthuld

A different kind of Joker, as was to be expected. Heath Ledger's take on the Prince of Chaos is not easily outdone, so Leto and Ayer probably didn't bother to try. Sensible move. So the look has changed, to something resembling a Goth rocker. Tattoos are the Joker's new bodily statement of choice. That said, it's obvious the madness remains and it is likely played up a notch. Since the upcoming DC movies stick closer to the source material of the comics, it's not wrong to make the Joker resemble his comic book counterpart a bit more. Aside from the tattoos, which I've never known the Joker to carry (but then, as a Marvelite I'm not much into DC lore anyway). But hey, I doubt Leto is running around topless for the entire duration of Suicide Squad. Say what you will about the Joker, he always dresses smartly, or what goes for smart dressing in his dubious philosophy. This picture is obviously just a publicity shot to get people talking about this new incarnation of Batman's prime nemesis. It's very likely the final look will still differ from what's illustrated here, though now we at least know in what direction we can expect the character to go in a visual (non)sense. And hey, maybe the Joker's just having a laugh here knowing Batman won't appear in this film to demolish the rest of his teeth.

Today's Column: anybody want a Dark Claw movie?

This month's column went up early. Superheroes again. They keep me talking it appears.

Disney, koop DC alsjeblieft!

Of course the tone of this piece is meant somewhat sarcastically. Sure, I'd love to see a Dark Claw movie or any other feature related to the wonderful Amalgam universe, but it's definitely not gonna happen. Ever. And I don't think all movie studios owning superhero copyrights joining together, either out of their own volition or because they're bought up by a larger corporation, would be a preferable solution. One studio owning all the superhero franchises isn't a monopoly we would want. Say what you will about various studios owning various pieces of the various superhero universe puzzles, it guarantees some diversity. If Marvel hadn't sold the rights to Spider-Man and similar large, popular and well known properties, we likely wouldn't have gotten Iron Man, Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy, and seeing as how well that turned out, that clearly would have been a great loss. Now that Spider-Man has returned to Marvel's fold, we have yet to see whether he's not gonna reap too much of other characters' glory, even though the fact Marvel is still working on titles like Captain Marvel, Inhumans and Black Panther is reassuring to some extent, as they seemingly mean to keep the diversity flowing.

But what about the fanboys' dreams of 'interpublisher' crossovers between characters belonging not only to rival studios, but also to rival publishers? They'll stay dreams. I doubt that would change even if a major player like Disney managed to buy the rights to the DC characters after all. Which certainly isn't inconceivable, considering the various properties they bought up in recent years. It often feels with all these companies buying companies, you'll one day end up with one humongously big fat supercompany on top, controlling every franchise. Maybe that'll be Disney in the not too distant future (they don't own the business genius of Scrooge McDuck for nothing, you know). But seeing as how they have yet to do crossovers between Indiana Jones and Marvel, or between more similar brands like the Muppets and Disney's own iconic characters, I doubt they'd go so far as to do a DC/Marvel crossover, let alone Amalgam. (Then again, there already is a comic book which serves as a crossover between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, courtesy of Harrison Ford's presence in both of them.) But if it ever happened, would it be good? An Amalgam adaptation, maybe. It's hard to mess up a fabulous hybrid notion like Dark Claw. A giant crossover between the Avengers and the Justice League? No way, far too many characters and their assorted baggage to make for a sensible plot line. Only the hungriest fanboys would understand it completely, but general audiences couldn't make heads or tails of it all. Let's see whether DC knows how to join its own characters together with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice first. Not to mention it has yet to be determined whether Marvel can pull a similar trick with having more than one group share the screen, as will be the case when the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy join forces in Avengers: Infinity War Parts I & II.

And otherwise, let's just keep dreaming about these little fanboy fantasies of ours. I'm still dreaming of the release of more than only two Dark Claw comics...

Today's News: a tidal wave of old news

The situation remains unchanged. I have time to post news on MovieScene on a (more or less) daily basis, but the same cannot be said for my blog. Of course, you can question the validity of commenting on (old) news on a blog with only six followers to begin with, but my obsessive-compulsive mind won't let me do so. So I continue to struggle on this quest to catch up with myself, seemingly doomed from its inception. Whatever. I ain't the giving-up type.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157521/eerste_teaser_tomorrowland

Yup, that's a teaser alright. It offers only a glimpse into the story of this movie, focusing on the pin as a means of interdimensional(?) travel. We'll have to fill in the rest for ourselves, including the (intellectual) nature of the relationship between the young girl and the middle-aged inventor. It's Disney, so it will be pretty harmless on the surface no doubt. Then again, there already is a theme of juvenile delinquency present here, and I'm curious as to how far this will be taken. It's probably an 'unlikely heroine' case, where the world simply isn't ready for the misunderstood protagonist, while the oddbal inventor, also undoubtedly a social outcast, proves not all grown-ups are like that. And so they bond and have wonderful adventures in a weird and wacky wonderland beyond the reach of us ordinary mortals who pay to witness them. Not much of a 'wow' factor as of yet: as this is a teaser and most of the many expensive and complex VFX shots are still a work in progress, we have to make do with only a shot or two. Unless you consider a field of wheat a spectacular sight.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157539/lea_seydoux_misschien_de_nieuwe_bondgirl

Well, duh! Seydoux, to my mind, is the quintessential type of actress to assume the mantle of the Bondgirl: sultry, sexy, undeniably talented, a hint of sexual danger behind her eyes and a succinctly European attitude. I am not surprised she's up for a part in Bond 24. I considered it only a matter of time. Just remember how well she performed in a similar genre movie like Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. I do find it interesting that her part was originally intended to be filled by a Scandinavian actress. Of course she is enough of a chameleon to play a Northern-European broad, I even have faith in her ability to pull off the accent convincingly (which is not an attribute I normally credit persons of a French descent with). It just seems a shame for all the Scandinavian actresses who didn't make the cut because Seydoux beat them to it. Could it be another example of Americans generalizing all European nationalities as interchangeable (as us Europeans often tend to do with Americans from different states)? I doubt that, considering the diversity in nationalities from the people behind this picture. The director for example is British, as is most of the main cast. And the director of photography is a Dutchman. There's a little bit of pride in me for that, I'll admit. As I feel for Mademoiselle Seydoux, who happens to be the granddaughter of my highest ranking international boss. So yeah, her intense performance in La Vie d'Adele was quite an eye-opener for me, and if you have seen that film (which you should have) you bloody well know what I'm referring to. That's not gonna happen in Bond 24, I'm sure.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157541/lego_batman_film_aangekondigd

I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea. The LEGO Batman character seemed to work fine bouncing off of other characters in witty repartees, but could the arrogant superhero toy actually carry his own movie? And would that be a smart move, considering a new version of the Dark Knight in the flesh is currently also developed, played by an actor many consider to be wrongly cast? It appears to be a case of bad timing and it may backfire on Warner/DC. Or maybe the exact opposite will happen, because both takes on the same character are so stupendously different (at least, we assume they will be at this point). However, I'm quite convinced the sequel to The LEGO Movie should take precedence over this spin-off and ought to star the brick version of the Caped Crusader as a side character yet again, to see whether the joke's still funny then. There's something gratuitous to famous characters, real or fictional, being LEGO-ized. It's simply an easy gag, has been for decades (remember this one, from the days LEGO movie tie-ins were still a spanking new phenomenon?). Even now that we learned to get used to LEGO making brick versions of many a major movie franchise, those minifigure versions of the real deals are not supposed to be the stuff of major motion pictures themselves. I guess it's up to LEGO Batman to prove whether that sentiment still holds true, or whether LEGO itself has finally been widely socially accepted as an 'artificial actor' playing different characters itself, even performing roles that have been and still are played many times before.

 
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157547/eerste_trailer_serie_powers

Hardly a novel subject nor a novel approach. The 'reluctant buddy' team-up could definitely be called a staple this day and age, especially when one is gruff, rude and experienced (and male) and the other is young, rash and ideologically motivated (though not always necessarily female). The black/white motif is age-old as well. As for series based around the premise of superpowered individuals and their place in society, if any, we've also seen our fair share of those (The 4400, Heroes, Alphas). Gritty, grounded in reality, both room for cynicism aimed at and hope for the general human condition, check, check, check. Likely to be cancelled after a season or two, definite check. So what would make us watch this show? I like the casting choice of Sharlto Copley, he's not the most obvious actor for the part. Though he's best known for his comedic touch, he too often dabbles in distressing real-world scenarios mixed with a fantastic element (e.g. District 9). Plus, he has done grimy, dislikable characters before (e.g. Elysium, nevermind his overacting). So his involvement is a big pro. But is it enough to beat all the apparent cons? That remains to be seen.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157562/nieuwe_posters_hobbit_3

Did two reports on the deluge of Hobbit posters in my previous post, don't really feel the need to get repetitive here. Especially since these four new posters are equally dull as their predecessors, and don't do justice to the epicness that is in store for us (supposedly). I like the characters and the actors portraying them, but I don't need their sweat, blood and tears so in-my-face. Unlike the trailers, these posters don't get me pumped for this final Middle-Earth movie.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157561/resident_evil_en_mortal_instruments_series_aa

Sure, considering all the fabulous quality series currently on television, let's explore franchises that failed to find an audience on the big screen for regurgitating on the small screen. Then again, there has proven to be a definite audience for the Resident Evil films, as the sixth is currently in pre-production. None of them are serious blockbuster movies though, they all carry a B-movie stigma. They're totally the stuff of guilty pleasure and everybody knows it; they don't have good FX, good stories or good acting, but the fanbase keeps watching nonetheless. Probably because of all the hot women involved, like star Milla Jovovich. I doubt the series' budget could afford her though, which means there's one less succesful ingredient present in the series. They can find another 'hawt' action babe of course, but the audience needs time to get to appreciate her kicking ass. And poor Mortal Instruments doesn't even have the hot chick element in its favour, but since it's aimed at teenage girls, a few hot guys will suffice. Apparently demon slaying Jamie Campbell Bower didn't fit that bill, since the movie flopped so bad (though there were many other reasons for that, too). I think this franchise has a better chance at finding a new life on telly though, considering there's plenty of source material from the books to mine, plus most people obviously never bothered watching the film, so it might feel more 'new' than it actually is. And the young adult genre is still going strong at the movies, so maybe there's still a chance the failed flicks among them find an audience on television after all. So we can "look forward" to series based on the likes of Beautiful Creatures and The Host as well, possibly. Yay...

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 News: lots o' trailers mostly

The latest crop of news of the past few days consists of mostly trailer material:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156970/nieuwe_trailer_serie_gotham

Seems somebody was inspired by Nolan's seminal Dark Knight trilogy. The whole look of this show, based on the trailers so far, screams Nolan in its display of realistic psychopaths and criminals and dark steel and glass canyons. No trace of the more outlandish, fantastic elements of Batman lore. Considering it's an origin show that can still come of course. You've got to show the everyday people behind these heroes and demons before going overboard with any otherwordly shenanigans they might offer. So for the time being, the villains to be set up will dabble in the more commonplace criminal enterprises instead of revealing their odd personality quirks out loud. I doubt we'll be seeing Poison Ivy controlling plant life with pheromones anytime soon, which is probably for the better. It seems that at the heart of the story remains young Bruce Wayne's loss of his parents and honest cop Inspector Gordon's subsequent quest to apprehend their killer, which forms a personal bond between the two of them based around their need for justice. That's as Batman as they come without introducing the alter ego of the Caped Crusader. It's also a basic element of the Batman make-up that the Dark Knight movies kinda raced through, which does make the show stand out more on its own. Question is, will Gordon catch the murderer, or will he fail at that, which makes the urgency for young Bruce feel all the more pressing? And how do all these token Batman villains, like Catwoman, Penguin and Riddler fit into the grand scheme of things? Despite the copycat style, still a lot to look forward to.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156979/eerste_trailer_outcast

Another medieval Sword & Sorcery flick starring Nicolas Cage as a wethered ex-crusader? Been there, done that, didn't work out so great before. It seems Outcast's plot just trades in the creepy witches and demons from Season of the Witch for angry Chinese overlords and royal family squabbles. And instead of Ron 'Hellboy' Perlman for a sidekick, we get Hayden 'whiny Anakin' Christensen. Also not much of an improvement. Cage's fondness of silly wigs remains, so at least there's some consistency to his career. The entire thing seems like a B-movie with a minute plot based around a string of action scenes, which is to be expected from a movie directed by a first-time director who usually deals with coordinating stunts only; though he has an impressive resumé in that department, no doubt there. Chances are that means the action scenes will be executed rather adequately, which seems like the least we should hope for in this film's case.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156980/eerste_teaser_woman_in_black_2_

The popular trend of giving succesful horror films a sequel of sorts that doesn't feature any of the characters from the previous installment continues, whether we like it or not. The Woman in Black was a very effective chiller, but its ending seemed fairly definitive, even though it was established that exorcising the vengeful spirit from the title didn't work. That's enough for any studio hungry to cash in on decent box office results (can't imagine they were stellar or anything), so the murderous ghost will soon be at it again. Hammer Studios has a history of fondly remembered horror movies and their many follow-ups, and in a way it's reassuring to know the recently revamped horror specialist studio isn't afraid to use its tactics of old. Do we want a second Woman in Black? Not particularly, but I'm all for period movies with Gothic looks. Hammer has always had a knack for those and the 21st Century seems no different for them in that regard. The premise isn't so bad either. Snotty kids evacuated from WW II London are relocated to a creepy countryside mansion, and instead of finding a delightful fantasy world in the cupboard they encounter a sinister spirit hellbent on enticing them to suicide there. Basically sounds like an evil Narnia, so what's not to like?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156982/weaver_niet_in_expendabelles

This is quite a setback for the ExpendaBelles project. If you consider old grunts like Sly Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose primary decade of fame and fortune was the Eighties, as the prime action movie stars of their day, Sigourney Waver was their definite female counterpart, thanks to the first two Alien movies - groundbreaking pictures in that regard - and Ghostbusters. There's not that many well remembered powerful older action gals around that remain as active as she is. Terminator's Linda Hamilton maybe? What has she been up to since then? For any other similar femme fatales, you'd have to look for more recent fare. Weaver would have been the project's greatest asset in iterms of casting, so who could fill her shoes now? Sure, there's plenty of grand dames of the cinema who could, but not that many with a memorable action movie background that would warrant their presence. It just goes to show how rare such roles were for females back then. Which made this female equivalent of The Expendables a risky venture to begin with, as there was always a realistic chance those few girl power women of old would turn down a part. Considering The Expendables 3 is not doing so well at the boxoffice - to say the least! - maybe it's a clear signal there's no particular public demand for this type of film at present. However, it's the female bits (no pun intended) that would have made the difference here, and I was quite intrigued as to how that would play out. It would have been great to see theatres hosting a Ladies' Night that doesn't feature a typical romantic comedy for a change. Guess that's gonna take a while longer to transpire, if it doesn't fall through at all.

Today's News aplenty

Guess who's behind on commenting on his own posted bits of news this weekend?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156239/nieuwe_batman_mogelijk_in_2019

It would have made more sense to give a major character his own solo debut before throwing him in the mix with others, as Marvel did so successfully on The Avengers. However, Warner/DC are in a tremendous hurry. The superhero movie fad has been going on for over a decade now, the novelty will wear off and audiences will grow tired of all these superheroes saving the day ad nauseam soon. It's not unlikely we have already witnessed the height of the superhero silver screen craze by now. However, Marvel has shown its rivals the light and the financial rewards to be reaped, so a competing über-superhero blockbuster from that other major comic book publisher is in short order. And considering the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, plus the popularity of the Batman character in general for the last 70 years, it's safe to say audiences know the Caped Crusader well enough not to be in need of an origin story once again. Batman may really not need another introduction for a change. Let him meet Superman first and see how that works out for the both of them, and worry about retelling this particular take on the character later on. Of course, it's likely his background will be touched upon in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, though probably not in so much detail. I'm sure it can be skipped for a film or two, as Justice League too is scheduled to beat The Batman, as is the solo film's dull working title, to theaters. It may actually be good for the character's air of mystique to keep his origins in the dark for a while longer than anticipated by the general audience. And since the Dark Knight trilogy turned out so well, we can still enjoy it to the fullest for a few more years before the mantle is passed to another director, another actor and another universe for Bats to play in.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156258/rian_johnson_regisseur_star_wars_episode_viii

The hunt for talented young directors to shape Disney's Star Wars universe continues! Not that I consider J.J. Abrams either young (age: 48) or talented (mucking up Lost, sacking Star Trek). But his co-directors Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) and Josh Trank (Chronicle) sure fit that description. And Rian Johnson does too. His episodes of Breaking Bad were amongst the best of the entire series' run and proves he understands compelling characters and drama just fine, while Looper was simply a good watch (not flawless, but still a noteworthy Sci-Fi flick). Apparently Disney thinks the world of him, as he's not only directing Episode VIII, but also writing both that one and its successor, Episode IX. I bet there's a juicy, shocking cliffhanger involved that warrants the involvement of the same writer to make things run more smoothly from a plot point of view. So that makes five(!) Star Wars films currently being prepped, the greatest activity ever on the franchise. How much anticipation can the fans survive? And how much harder will the blow to them be if these films do not live up to the hype which is rapidly reaching insane levels? As all major film studios are, Disney is unmistakably in a hurry to capitalize on what it has. I hope it works out for everybody, studio and devotees alike. Fortunately, after the disappointment Star Wars' own creative father wrought on the franchise in the previous decade, most fans will know not to live in hope to much. But ever more of such promising names attached, the chances continue to rise we will be getting at least one good Star Wars movie in the near future.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156259/laatste_trailer_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_online

As for Planet of the Apes, that franchise already experienced a successful reboot with Rise of the PotA. So far the trailers indicate the level of quality is maintained for its successor, Dawn of the PotA. Thanks to this latest trailer I'm even more stoked for this movie than I already was. Okay, so the image of a chimp riding a horse while firing twin guns is a bit on the side of campy excess, all else seems solid enough. You've got intriguing characters, a fascinating post-apocalyptic state of affairs, excellent visual effects and some damn fine actors (Andy Serkis! Gary Oldman!) to make it all come alive. And things are not too black and white, as there's villains and heroes on both sides and there's something to be said for everybody's motivations. Of course we root for the formerly oppressed apes, but thanks to the virus that wiped out most of humanity, the stakes have been balanced to such an extent that the humans are not much beter off, which makes them sympathetic underdogs in a clever role reversal. There's room for that gray area between man and beast to be explored, the trailer suggests, even though much of the movie obviously consists of acts of violence committed by both parties. And unlike in the original movies, the lines between the three species of apes - chimpanzee, orang-utan and gorilla, if you recall - are not so clearly delineated as before, so there is opportunity to make use of those differences too. It's not as simple as chimps good, gorillas bad, as in the Seventies. Nor is it apes good, humans bad, as was the case for most of the previous movie. As the trailer shows, and hopefully the film itself will too, everybody is still all too human and peace is our only option for mutual survival.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156264/sinister_regisseur_schrijft_outer_limits

Derrickson sure is getting busy lately. He still has to finish another horror flick, he's busy prepping Doctor Strange for Marvel, and now he's tackling The Outer Limits inbetween. I hope he does it justice, as his remake of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still didn't prove him to be a science fiction genius. The choice to base an entire movie off a single episode also is no cause for optimism, especially if it's a feeble one (no offense to Harlan Ellison). I question the choice to adapt this TV-show to the big screen, since the latter just doesn't fit its format all too well. The same can be said for its friendly competitor, The Twilight Zone. Anthologies are beter served in weekly succession on the small screen where viewers can grasp the concepts more easily than they can if they encounter them in theaters only every three years. After all, if a movie proves to be received well by its audience, it will expect a direct sequel in terms of story, rather than an entirely different story altogether. Imagine if I, Robot was the first Outer Limits movie and the sequel wouldn't deal with robots at all: would that have sat well with spectators? It just so happens that that particular tale was first used in the original TV series before Will Smith made it his own star vehicle in 2004. If there was no Will Smith in its successor, people might have been ended up disappointed. The only other workable solution is to fit multiple short stories into a single movie, as done in the Eighties' Twilight Zone movie, not to great effects despite the involvement of several notable directors for each segment (including Steven Spielberg). To me, the silver screen just doesn't seem to be suited to unrelated short stories packaged under the same title. Theatrical limits are just a little too far beyond the outer limits the show handles.

Today's Review: The LEGO Movie

The LEGO Movie: ****/*****, or 7/10

Movies based on pre-existing toys are often the stuff of anxiety for those that grew up playing with them, especially when it concerns brands that have been around for decades and thus have proven to be multigenerational. Will the alliance between movie studios and toy manufacturers, always driven by mutual profit first and foremost, yield a final viewing experience that not only serves to push kids into nagging their parents to go get them some but also to remind the older spectators as to why they themselves enjoyed the toys so much they feel their kids should continue playing with them, too? So far, few toy based films have succeeded on both fronts, as most of them are pretty dreadful: compare films the likes of Transformers and Battleship for example. Fortunately, The LEGO Movie doesn't fall into that same category of failure at all, as it enhances the feeling of joy and excitement experienced by everyone that ever built something from scratch out of the colourful little bricks. That said, from an ideological perspective, the motives behind the film's plot cannot helped but be questioned by mature audiences when the film is over.

Of course, a movie about toys can't feature the toys themselves being played with for two hours, it needs a narrative structure to suck audiences in. The LEGO Movie introduces the character of Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt), about as generic a LEGO minifigure as they come: typical old fashioned yellow head, not much physical accessories, wearing the same smile almost all day every day. He's got reasons to be smiling, as he believes himself to live in the perfect utopia, courtesy of President Business (Will Ferrell) who provides everyone with instructions to live their full life by, ranging from morning exercises, breakfast, buying overpriced coffee (37 dollars, awesome!) and carrying an eternal sunny disposition. The catchy national anthem 'Everything is awesome' not withstanding, it goes without saying this existence is one big lie and no good will come of its continuation.

Emmet is soon drawn into a wholly different life style altogether when he accidentally touches an unusual item that soon sticks to his back, meets a beautiful girl who looks nothing like all the other minifigures he has known and is promptly declared an enemy of the state, necessitating him and the girl named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) to go on the run. Basically a little plastic version of The Matrix, Emmet soon learns there's another realm beyond that which he always took for granted, as many dimensions, each with a theme of its own – including Western and 'Middle Zealand' – peacefully coexist alongside each other. Unless President Business destroys them all by gluing everything together permanently, according to his own rigid instructions. Fortunately, Emmet may be the 'Special', a minifigure with extraordinary master builder skills, who is the only one able to stop the shady schemes at hand. And so he teams up with the blind wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a pirate composed of various random parts called Metal Beard (Nick Offerman) and of course, Batman (Will Arnett), who is kind of a dick, to save the LEGO worlds from blind, obedient universal conformity, to let creative freedom ring.

Directed by the duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who have proven themselves to be experts in whimsical animation, The LEGO Movie proves a feast for the eyes as we behold just what you can do with the little bricks. Or at least, what you think you can do. Make no mistake, this film is not stop motion animated with little LEGO figures, it's all computer animation designed to look like the stiff toys are moving about. Deception is key here, but we are deceived pretty well by the fabulous look, as we witness smoke made of LEGO, explosions made of LEGO and even oceans made of LEGO. It's an awe-inspiring sight for everyone who has ever tried to make LEGO look the least bit realistic and ended up being several tens of thousands of bricks too short to get anywhere on that front. Any sense of jealousy on what the computer can create with LEGO is smothered in the film's great sense of humour, building jokes as easily as putting bricks on top of each other. Aside from the traditional number of safe but smart popcultural references, the best gags spring from our plastic heroes witty selfreflection as to being just that. Miller's and Lord's infective comedic talent, joined by the voice cast's audible delight, ensures everyone in the audience is quickly wearing a smile all too similar to those featured on the classic minifigures' faces.

That said, it isn't all fun and games, this is business too. The LEGO Movie takes its message of 'everyone should build whatever the heck they like' very seriously, clearly preferring random creativity over slavishly building stuff based on what the printed paper says it ought to look like. Which leads to a rather serious showdown as the actual status quo of the LEGO realms is revealed and a cheerful kid confronts his ruthless father, begging him to just let him run with his imagination. Being played by Ferrell too, clearly the unimaginative adult mind is in the same league as the childish destructive view of business as presented by the film's bad guy. Rather hypocritical, as the LEGO company is itself a major toy corporation that hasn't gotten to where it is now by giving kids their product to play with, but selling it to them instead for hard cash. Sure, kids can build whatever they want, but it's the business of the product and the parents that pay for it that provides that option for them. There's something eerily uneven between the movie's message and the actual state of affairs, as this movie certainly isn't about spreading the gospel of global creativity, but to make everyone involved in its production money (and then only those willing to cooperate: notice the lack of Marvel superhero figures opposed to those of DC, while both brands are available as buildable sets in every toy store). Of course, kids won't realize this and most parents will be too busy enjoying the movie to care, until their offspring start whining for more LEGO to play with and they have to pay the bills. And at that point it's hard to deny The LEGO Movie is something other than an insidiously effective 100 minute advertisement for the great LEGO product.

But while watching the movie, everything is indeed awesome, as our inspiration is fueled by the grandiosely detailed design of the various LEGO worlds and the sheer fun for young and old that inhabits them. And then the credits roll, and that itch to get some bricks to start building yourself is heartily felt...

Today's Double News: Game of Gotham, a Foreshadowing

This just in from MS, by me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153685/nieuwe_lange_preview_game_of_thrones_seizoen_4

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153660/ben_mckenzie_gecast_voor_gotham-serie

15 minutes of previewing GoT, can it get any better? Sure, watching the actual new season itself instead of being hyped to death. Unlike most other (shorter) teasers for the upcoming season, this one proves really worthwhile. Sure, you got the cast and crew joking around a bit, showing they're just people too, but considering all the death, dismay, dismemberment, decapitation, dicks and dragons these folks deal with each year while working on this magnificent show, it's obvious they are in need of such simple diversions to stay sane. Plus, it's always a blast to see the actors, whose performances you utterly love (yes, you do! Even if they're evil people!), had a great time filming this. Of course HBO wouldn't dare show the bad days - and I reckon there are some, up in the frozen wastes of Iceland and the soaring heat of Croatia - but at least nobody is actually losing any body parts. And even if silly shenanigans and zany dance routines are not your thing, there's plenty of actual new footage to get that mouth of yours watering for more sword & sorcery & sex. There's an epic new dragon shot (my, those beasties are growing rather large!) as well as a first Meereen cityscape, which looks splendid and distinct from the Slaver's Bay cities we witnessed so far. Too bad it makes its throne room look somewhat underwhelming (small for a throne rooom really), but with such compelling performances and terrific drama (and loads of naughty bit cleverly intermixed) we won't even begin to notice such trivial trifles. Winter may still be coming after three seasons, but Seven Hells be damned if this show doesn't stay as formidable as ever.

And now for something completely different. Or not really actually. Just a different setting in a different universe. But a similar game of thrones will soon be played on the small screen in Gotham City, as cops and crooks struggle for power of this metropolis. Not to mention a certain Caped Crusader, though since he's still a kid here I wouldn't bet on seeing much of him anytime soon. Which means Gotham's Finest have to make a stand against crime running rampant on its own. Fortunately James Gordon is on the job, and this week news broke that Ben McKenzie has been cast in that role. I have never heard of him, as I haven't watched anything he's in. Not on purpose of course, it just never popped up in my path. I'll be sure to watch a bit of Gotham though, even if just to see whether that town is anywhere near as interesting without Batman as it is with. Considering many ingredients that make the Dark Knight so enduring are present here, and the story unfolds around many of the same characters, except younger, chances are good it'll prove compelling material. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time revamping a franchise completely with a younger cast severely backfired (at least in my opinion, though not necessarily in those of others). But at least J.J. Abrams is not involved with this one. Good thing too, since there's someone I'd really liked to see Batman beat up.

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?

Today's Double News: rebuilding the Addams Family, with Lego

Two more little bits of news posted by me on MS:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151330/addams_family_film_in_de_planning

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151331/nieuwe_trailer_the_lego_movie

So the Addams Family is brought back to life once more? Figures. It proved a success in the past on multiple occasions, so Hollywood is convinced it can do so again. Even though we already had a very similarly themed movie in last year's Dark Shadows, which didn't turn out so well. So at least there is room for a macabre family done right. Animated though? It wouldn't be the first time this creepy family unit has been featured in animation, so it's not necessarily a bad idea, even though most people will still consider a live-action version, whether it's the classic TV-series or the Nineties' films, first and foremost when they hear the (in)famous theme song. At least a writer is involved who knows her way around eerie,Gothic, digitally animated movies (though they're hit and miss in terms of quality in her case, so this could swing either way). Let's wait and see whether MGM actually manages to acquire the rights to this franchise and starts casting before we start judging this project too much in advance. Which also hides the fact that I've hardly ever seen any Addams Family in my lifetime. I guess I either missed it as a kid (it was probably on cable telly), or I just discarded it as 'not my thing' and I can't remember anything else about it.

Speaking of animation and stuff that is my thing, a stop motion Lego movie surely qualifies as such. And so The Lego Movie gets a second trailer, an official one this time as opposed to a mere teaser (see below). I must say, the teaser was able to whet my appettite more thoroughly. I start to wonder whether watching talking, moving Lego minifigures for ninety minutes or more is something that doesn't get dull after a while. YouTube shorts is one thing (or thousands upon thousands, really) but a full length film is quite another. At least there's a decent voice cast (though a bit heavy on the comedy stars maybe): who would ever have thought the likes of Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson would voice characters like these? And what's up with all the DC superheroes? Getting the Justice League on the big screen sooner than expected it appears, just not the way we were meant to think it would pan out (but hey, no Batfleck here!). Too bad there's no Marvel heroes too to balance things a little neatly, after all there's plenty of Marvel themed Lego sets as well. I guess Marvel is too busy making "real" movies instead of playing with toys and dreaming of bigger things.

Today's News: Gotham City gets its own TV show... without the Caped Crusader

This just in from MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150349/batman_spin-off_serie_gotham_op_fox

With all the buzz surrounding Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it comes as no surprise other studios are looking to cash in on the continuing popularity of comic book adaptations on the big screen by exploring other potential venues for the universes their franchises are set in, like the small screen. If one studio can pull it off successfully, why not another after all? Not an illogical (or very original) line of thinking, but Gotham is gonna have a tougher time convincing the audience. After all, Fox may have bought the rights to the city, but not to the city's illustrious protector, which is of course what people want to see the most, and what many will expect to see. At least in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. there is the possibility to occasionally have major tentpole characters - like Iron Man, Thor or Captain America - that people are familiar with from the movies guest star on the show, though the odds of this actually happening are slim, since the actors playing them have likely grown too big to consider a quick telly appearance worthwhile. We may be in for a pleasant surprise somewhere down the road, but don't count on it yet. Not so on Gotham. Especially since the show also excludes the option of introducing Batman from a narrative viewpoint. The vigilante simply doesn't exist yet in the time frame this show will be set in. At best, we may get a cameo or something from a very young Bruce Wayne. Still, that would make us feel like watching Harry Potter without Harry, or Jurassic Park without dinosaurs. That said, even without the Dark Knight, someone is watching over this cesspool of scum and villainy and his name is Jim Gordon (but not played by Gary Oldman this time, obviously). He's been with us for 74 years, so there must be some interesting stories to tell about him. And there's still the chance we might get to see Bats' other acquaintances, both friendly and adversarial. There's a few of his allies already around in this period (Lucius Fox for example), and a notable bunch of baddies as well. Of course, just how their copyrights are settled will remain to be seen. Nevertheless, I'm quite convinced Gotham City can be a fascinating place without Batman too. Especially when it was written by the guy who brought us Rome! After all, that particular city was still very intriguing without Julius Caesar.

Today's News: first Lego Movie trailer assembled

Here's what I had to say about the new Lego Movie trailer at MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148012/eerste_trailer_the_lego_movie

It's a bizarre project, really. It's based on a hugely popular, iconic line of toys, but at the same time it joins together various other franchises that under normal circumstances (i.e., non-plastic) would never have gotten together. There's Batman and Wonder Woman, there's Raphael from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, there's a historical Raphael, there's mermaids, astronauts and scores of other figures that are solely Lego's invention. You wonder how they pulled this one off in terms of copyright. Successfully it seems, though I wouldn't be surprised if this particular aspect of the film might bite them in the bottom down the road, especially if the movie becomes a smash hit (which is always the right time to start legal battles). After all, this film features so many DC comics characters (but no Marvel, even though Lego makes figures of that company's franchises too!) it might as well render the upcoming Justice League movie useless.

Will it be a success? I think it sure will, in terms of box-office at least. You got toys every kid in the world plays with (or should!) on an almost daily basis, in fact toys kids have been playing with for decades, so it's more easy for the kids to convince their parents to come along. Of course you can argue it's more fun to play with Lego than to watch someone else do it, but the same goes for football and there's a bigger number of people watching that than there is playing it. It's all in the brand name, and Lego is a big brand, well known and commonly appreciated. Much more so than Hasbro's Transformers and G.I. Joe action figures, which are more limited in terms of the demographics they appeal to, yet look at how well their films - unjustifiably - did. I wonder if Lego got the rights to its own movie... it would be odd to see Hasbro making its Lego ripoff KRE-O doing Lego Movie merchandise!

But does the trailer look good? I'm (moderately) pleasantly surprised by it. Yes, the story is derivative to the extreme, almost done to death in fact. Regular guy gets thrown in an epic quest to save the world along with a group of heroic characters that teach him the values in himself. Yawn. But this is done with Lego figures. In stop motion. And even in 3D. Waaaah... Okay, some of the shots in the trailer look a little crude, but hey, that's what Lego is. And it seems the jokes make up for it. In fact, I laughed a few times, which happens less and less in trailers I watch. It's clear the directors of the zany but wonderful animated flick Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs had a hand in building this world (pun intended of course; duh!). Their affinity and talent for odd situations and goofy gags, both visual and in dialogue, appealing to young and old alike, seems omnipresent. Hopefully the trailer for once is an accurate synopsis of the content of the actual film (though I would also like it if it is better than the trailer suggests). We'll have to wait until next year to find out, but hey, for nerds like me there's still various upcoming Lego Lord of the Rings, Hobbit and Star Wars sets to look forward to until then. Lego couldn't resist reminding my wallet of that fact. Shrewd maneuvring, Lego... at least the parents will know what to expect financially if they take their kids to see this film.

Batman's bane: pain and hope

The Dark Knight Rises: ****/*****, or 8/10

Say what you will about the shocking event of a lunatic dressing up like The Dark Knight's Joker and shooting dozens of people in a movie theater in the USA, at least it indicates that character as played by Heath Ledger (1979-2008) has become iconic in only a short space of time. Of course, that does cause a problem for the next installment in the franchise, since it has a lot to live up too. Not surprisingly, expectations for The Dark Knight Rises have risen to extreme heights in the last few months, every rumour involving the project mindlessly taken for actual truth, every tidbit of news meticulously examined by legions of overexcited fanboys, every newly released still picture undergoing major scrutiny and investigation as to how it might fit in the movie and its overall plot. With such hyperactive hype, it seems unlikely the film will hold any surprises for the die-hard fans that have looked at all the available evidence and undoubtedly know the movie by heart before they've even seen it as a whole. And now the final product has finally arrived in theaters everywhere, so everyone can go and watch it and we can at last put the hype behind us and look at the motion picture objectively. Simply said, Nolan struck gold again, though not as amazingly rich as before.

Warning! Spoilers! Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, its successor first sees Bruce Wayne (still played by the overly serious Christian Bale) in the midst of a deep depression, still mourning the loss of his childhood friend and the love of his life Rachel Dawes, who fell prey to one of the Joker's diabolical shenanigans. Living alone as a hermit at Wayne Manor, only in the company of his faithful butler Alfred (again played impeccably by the ever reliable Sir Michael Caine), he has hardly set a foot outside since his alter ego Batman took the fall for the faults of the maniacal Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent, after which the Caped Crusader himself also left the scene indefinitely (and still nobody can't figure out the identity of the masked vigilante). However, when a mysterious cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway playing the ever infamous Catwoman, though never referred to as such) steals a family heirloom from right under his very nose, he's intrigued enough to pursue the matter personally, not so much for the stolen goods as for the identity of this intriguing female thief. However, he soon finds she's just the tip of the iceberg in a much larger, lethal scheme that once again puts his beloved city of Gotham at the hands of a mad terrorist plot, instigated by the excessively intimidating mercenary leader Bane (Tom Hardy fully muscled up and wearing a slightly silly mask). And so, the Batman is forced to come out of retirement to battle the forces of evil once more over the fate of his city, despite having been out of it for quite a while, but still equipped with all the right martial arts moves, clever detective skills and above all, fabulously cool gadgets ranging from bat shaped throwing stars to his own private stealth jet. Problem is, against Bane, it turns out it's just not enough...

As he did before to great critical and fanboy acclaim, Christopher Nolan fully manages to apply a full range of motivations and pathos to all his major characters, at times making the movie feel more like a Shakespeare play than a superhero blockbuster, but he's ovbiously fully aware this is his final Batman movie (to many audience members' chagrin, including mine) and he should close things off accordingly, deliveringly one last action extravaganza to completely blow his loyal spectators' minds in every respect. Resulting in a 164 minute film, he's definitely gone all out, but at times it feels he's just gone overboard a little too much, considering the excessively epic setpieces, including a city wide occupation that lasts for five months, armies of thugs and police officers duking it out on the streets and a nuclear explosion to neatly tie all ends up. It all feels a little too large scale for a Batman film, considering he's usually restricted to smaller, more personal vendettas. Fortunately, the movie acknowledges this aspect too by giving Batman plenty of personal issues to deal with, from a double love affair – with Selina on the one hand and philanthropist-with-a-secret Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) on the other – ending in betrayal and near death, to the admiration of rookie cop and wanna-be pupil Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and most importantly, Bane's ties to mentor-nemesis Ra's Al Ghul, thought killed in action in Batman Begins, which makes The Dark Knight Rises refer to the first movie with the proper respect, even having Liam Neeson return for a small bit part as the sinister Ducard who tutored Bruce in the ways of a shadow warrior. With so much on Batman's plate, this film has plenty of fascinating material to cover already. Just consider the epic action scenes a nice little bonus, aiding an already grand finale to this trilogy by giving it some additional visual flair that neither helps nor hurts the already satisfying experience that forms the whole.

With so many characters, many of them new additions to the cast and thus terra incognita, it's a wonder the many plot lines involving them don't get in each other's way, though it must be said, both Michael Caine and Gary Oldman (playing Batman's long time ally Police Commisioner Gordon again) are out of the picture for longer than we would like. The new characters all get a decent set-up and the necessary background information is supplied (though some retain a fair amount of mystery), but the main villain Bane and the delightful rogue Catwoman get the lion's share of attention. The former opens the movie with an instant classic action scene, where he is bound and held on a plane by the CIA, only to quickly have things revealed to be totally under Bane's control as he turns the tables on his supposed captors, demolishes their plane spectacularly and forcefully takes what he was after. Bane is in essence a one-man army, much like Batman himself, with all the right training, fights skills and gadgets, except more prone to violence. Hardy, exceptionally beefed up to make him larger than life, plays him with believable bravoure, lack of subtlety and genuine scariness to make you believe that if anyone can break Batman, mentally and physically, this is the guy who would, and he does just that, snapping the Dark Knight's back upon their first encounter, taking all his assets, overrunning his town and reducing it to total anarchy and banishing his enemy to a creepy prison pit that nobody but Bane himself is said to have escaped. With regard to the latter, this literal hell hole feels a bit out of place in Nolan's vision of the Batman legend, surrounded by mysticism and located in a desert environment, but with such a contradicting feel to the dark streets of Gotham it serves adequately as a place where the defeated Dark Knight can rise, surviving his ordeal and returning to his home town with a vengeance to have another go at his new archnemesis.

You might ask, 'why so serious?', and the answer would be that Bane just doesn't joke around. He's no Joker out for general chaos, he's Gotham's reckoning, out to finish what Ra's Al Ghul started in Batman Begins, razing the city to the ground, reducing its citizens to utter desperation and destroying their dark protector in every way possible. However, he's also no Joker in the way he just doesn't have the same impact as a villainous character, despite the havoc he wreaks on poor Batman. It's likely due to his somewhat grotesque appearance, wearing a goofy breathing mask that distorts his voice but still leaves room for a funny accent. Of course the Bane from the comic books looked worse, but in hindsight Nolan would still have been allowed to change the character's look to make him less comic-y and more realistically a bad guy.

Fortunately the much needed levity is found in the character of Catwoman. Hathaway portrays her as the typical sultry “feline fatale” we've come to love in all her incarnations (with maybe one blatant exception; eh. Halle Berry?). She's obviously more interested in her prize than the men she deceives to get what she wants and she features catchy dry wit and major seductive talents, though there's also a certain level of fragility mixed in: her origins remain to be revealed but it's clear she didn't grow up in a happy place, making her only care for herself and her blonde (girl)friend Jen, seeking to escape the world and aiming for a clean slate. She may look cheerful in her devil-may-care attitude but there's an undeniable level of fright and trauma present. Plus, she's extremely spiteful of rich people, making the chemistry between the nonchalant billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne – who's really loosing up from his personal demons when meeting her – and Selina a surprise to herself and a blast to watch for the audience, surpassed only by the even more charming and wittier chemistry between both their masked alter egos.You root for the pair of them, though Selina's bad history makes it seemingly impossible for them to ever affectionately exchange anything other than wisecracking dialogue as they fight Bane's henchmen together. While Bane is the movie's major antagonist, it's clearly Catwoman who steals the show.

Nolan completes his masterpiece trilogy by addressing yet another major theme that forms an integral part of the Batman persona. Whereas Batman Begins revolved around fear and The Dark Knight was all about chaos, The Dark Knight Rises' focal point is hope, though in every character's event it's born out of pain. Selina hopes for a chance at a new life to escape her gloomy old one, whereas Bane, suffering from terrible pains only controlled by his mask, hopes to exact revenge for Ra's Al Ghul by breaking his mentor's wayward pupil. Bruce Wayne has lived in pain for nearly a decade and finally learns to let go of it in getting involved with Catwoman and Miranda, but their betrayal leads to even more pain, as he is exiled to an abyss and forced to watch as Bane cuts of his city from the rest of the world and threatens to destroy it in a nuclear explosion, making Gotham's citizens hope for a champion to end this reign of terror. The good guys eventually rise above their pain and face their tormentors to liberate Gotham from its ordeal. As with all of his movies, Nolan injects his story and the characters inhabiting it with a great amount of psychological issues, delivering an action film that doesn't just go for high adrenaline spectacle and sensational sights (though it does feature plenty of both) but also contains thematic values and insights that make it rise far above the average summer blockbuster, yet still consists of many excellent moments making it a successful popcorn movie too, especially when Batman goes all out on fighting crime with his array of awesome vehicles. When the Caped Crusader finally hits the screen in full regalia on his Batpod in the middle of a wild chase scene between cop cars and thugs on motorcycles, accompanied by Hans Zimmer's memorable booming orchestral score, the audience can do nothing but cheer and fully immerse itself in the gripping action.

It might as well be called a fact Ledger's untimely death gave The Dark Knight and his own performance as the Joker a mystique that could never be duplicated, and Nolan doesn't bother to try, going so far as to never even mention the Joker in The Dark Knight Rises. While the regrettable Aurora incident will certainly give this film a macabre place in film history all its own, and it will undoubtedly break a number of box office records as any film this highly anticipated would, Nolan's Batman-movie-to-end-all-Batman-movies cannot surpass the superior The Dark Knight, despite Nolan's best efforts. Like the Bane character, it's simply larger than life a little too much and it could be called too epic for its own good. However, it's doubtful anybody ever expected it to top its predecessor, no matter how much people looked forward to it. As a conclusion to Nolan's superhero trilogy as a whole, it succeeds in its purpose, resulting in a grand finale for the much beloved and acclaimed franchise ending on a bittersweet note that still allows hope for more to come (which Nolan states is not gonna happen: maybe for the best). Were it not for the studio already in the process of revamping the character and rebooting the franchise yet again (after all, there's simply too much opportunity to make more money here), Batman could finally retire for real this time. In any event, Nolan's Batman will always be fondly remembered as the ultimate take on the Dark Knight.

And watch the trailer here

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknightrises/