Today's News: Fifty Shades of a Wonder Woman

Here's the second batch of last week's reported news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157982/breaking_bad_regisseuse_beoogd_voor_wonder_woman

I find the whole notion of an apparent necessity to score a superheroine picture a female director more sexist in itself than the supposed lack of superheroines. As if male directors are totally incapable of understanding female sensibilities! However, I agree the lack of female directors as a whole begs an explanation, and I have none to give. Their numbers are surprisingly low, especially in but not limited to Hollywood. So it's not surprising there's only so many directrices to pick from for Wonder Woman. Warner's list of choices was basically a list of all women who directed an action flick in the last two decades, and it was still quite a short list at that. I think they made the right choice though (if the deal doesn't fall through, which it still might). These days, television directors making the switch to the big screen (and vice versa, too) is much more accepted than it once was. And of course in such a scenario you want a director who worked on the most acclaimed and popular shows. So finding someone who directed episodes of the current 'Big Three' - Breaking Bad (which is not so current anymore, I'll grant you that), The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones - is basically striking gold. With such a rich texture of compelling drama and genre aesthetics under her belt, Wonder Woman is likely to be a smooth ride for Michelle MacLaren. And hopefully she'll get a chance to direct a male supercharacter movie as well some day, just so we know female directors understand male sensitivities too.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157995/nieuwe_trailer_fifty_shades_of_grey

Speaking of sexist, this is a part of the female mindset the appeal of which I will never understand. Call it male narrowmindedness if you must. This seems like total melodrama, and not the least bit sexy. But of course, I'm not the target audience, and from what I gather so far the target audience itself has a hard time explaining why they remain so drawn to Fifty Shades of Grey itself. If you call it a subconscious female desire for male domination, you're a chauvinist pig, but I still can't see much in this other than that. But I'm not supposed to: this is female pornography, a deep felt sense of eroticism enticing to women but wholly unintelligible to men. Or so it's written off. Doesn't stop me from watching the film upon its release, needless to say while bringing along a healthy dose of male scepticism. But at least this is one ruthless hype I simply cannot be drawn into, thanks to my gender.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158001/daniel_bruhl_nieuwe_schurk_in_captain_america_3

Oh, very sensitive! Casting a German to play a bad guy in a movie about WW II hero Captain America! The previous German villain at least was played by an Aussie actor. That's Australia, not Austria, mind you. But hey, at least he ll get the accent right. He might actually even talk German, which would make sense. That is, if he's indeed playing a German character, which is likely but by no means certain. There's still a large rogues' gallery for Cap to pick baddies from, and not all of them (but still many) are of the Germanic persuasion. My money is on Baron Helmut Zemo, in this case. Brühl has that air of aristocratic sophistication with a hint of megalomania to him, though maybe that's just me seeing more in him than there is; which only means he's a good actor, a fact we already were made aware of before on numerous occasions. Or maybe Marvel will surprise us and Brühl will play someone totally different. After all, rumours suggest his character is also a Doctor Strange nemesis, which narrows it down considerably (and effectively rules out Zemo, alas). No common foe that is of major significance to both good guys springs to mind, but then, I'm not all that acquainted with the good Doctor. Maybe Brühl's participation to Captain America: Civil War will be limited to a bit part, setting him up as a major antagonist for Doctor Strange to do battle with later on. After all, Iron Man is supposed to be the primary antagonist to Cap in Civil War. Marvel could just be throwing us off-track again. Wouldn't be the first time (nor likely the last) a terrific actor is cast for a small cameo in one character's motion picture only to appear guns blazing at a later date in another's. But hey, it's the guessing game that makes for half the fun.

Today's Triple News: pure evil, corrupting the law and Inhuman

To boldly post news that no one has posted before (except on other movie sites):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156865/ed_harris_gecast_in_hbos_westworld

Westworld's cast keeps growing ever more impressive. That is to be expected, as talent draws talent and when you've got Sir Anthony Hopkins on your cast list you can get basically everyone. Ed Harris for example. Good choice. He's had experience in both westerns and Sci-Fi, and has played major villains before, so why not combine the three for him? I am worried about this 'Man in Black' character, who's supposed to be the definition of utter villainy. Aside from the fact that I don't recognize such a character decision from the original Michael Crichton movie, I know this exact same concept didn't pan out so good on another J.J. Abrams produced TV show, which 'lost' its quality the moment this aspect started to dominate the series. Westworld does deal with the philosophical rhetoric of good and evil in distinguishing artificial morality from our own and reflect our all too human flaws in the process, but why make it so literally black and white by adding a purely evil character into the mix? And what part does he play narratively? If he's dressed in black, my first bet would be the infamous Gunslinger (Harris does look a bit like Yul Brynner after all). But he's not intended to be purely evil; he's just driven by his original programming after shortcircuiting, doing what he was designed to do (shooting folks), but without the convenient security of an off-switch. Or will this series maybe also delve with the poor sequel Futureworld, in which there was a silly sinister ploy of replacing world leaders with robotic replicas? Could this Man in Black be behind a similar scheme? Many questions abound, but the quality of acting won't be in dispute. It's the writing we may have to worry about. Still human work, you can't hire robots for that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156864/eerste_teaser_better_call_saul

Ten seconds of footage, that's what I call teasing. And we learn nothing new about plot or characters from this clip. Basically, it only confirms Saul Goodman is once again played by the impeccable Bob Odenkirk, who perfectly balances charming and conniving for the part. So far so good. Reading the basic plot description makes me a little hesitant though. There's more than just a few major parallels between this series and its glorious parent, Breaking Bad. Both follow the rise of small-time everymen who turn their respective talents into a way to make money, but find their humanity degraded in the process, hurting those around them for personal gain. And both shows co-star Jonathan Banks. Big difference is there's no clock ticking here, as the main character isn't dying. In fact, knowing he won't risk kicking the bucket before long (or better yet, at all) might also form an obstacle for being sucked into this story as much as we were into its predecessor. However, it's too soon to let cynicism run rampant and state Vince Gilligan is just repeating the success of Breaking Bad by merely tweaking its premise for Better Call Saul. I bet he has a few surprises in store for us yet. And if he doesn't, I won't go so far as to sue him for not living up to my expectations.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156880/maakt_marvel_inhumans

Seems Guardians of the Galaxy hit the right accords in terms of connecting with the audience, considering its swift and immense success. No wonder Marvel seeks to expand the cosmic part of the comic book universe for expanding its cinematic equivalent. Inhumans might work out just right for them. It's a whole other thing from the merry, rogueish Guardians, these ancient super powered Terran outcasts opting for self-imposed exile from their home planet in order to keep them from butting heads with humanity which would lead to great loss of life on both sides. It's basically 'X-Men on the moon', which is a good thing for Marvel as they're not allowed to introduce the term 'mutant' due to potential copyright infringement. Inhumans is the next best thing, different enough from similar premises. It's a more serious, darker corner of the Marvel universe though, so that might not sit well with the folks who were drawn in by Guardians. Or it will, just because of its differences. Personally, I was never a big fan of the Inhumans, they're a little too ethereal and devoid of humour for my taste. Their long history and ties with both terrestrial and extraterrestrial life seems hard to tell in a two-hour movie in a way that makes you really care about their plight. We're gonna have to wait and see whether Marvel can overcome such hindrances and make Inhumans work a good as they did the Guardians.