Today's News: business as usual

It's been a slow second half of the week for posting movie news. Good thing too, it won't cause me to get behind again:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157681/nieuwe_john_carter_in_de_planning

I had hoped for this, so I'm glad the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs isn't letting a second John Carter of Mars movie gestate for another 70 years. I was really disappointed Disney's John Carter flopped so hard at the boxoffice. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a damn fun movie with great visuals and it had solid franchise potential. Maybe I liked it more than I should, but subject material like this - strange aliens, exotic alien worlds, sexy alien chicks, etc. - really is my cup of tea, always has been. Granted, the movie made its fair share of mistakes both in terms of development, narrative and marketing, but in my mind it truly deserved a better fate. And so ERB, Inc. thinks, too. The original books were groundbreaking, swashbuckling rollercoasters of adventure novels that have endured for many decades, so there must still be an audience for them somewhere. No harm in trying again, starting from scratch, maybe not spending such excessive amounts of money on them this time. I'm really hopeful the company can find a new partner, a studio that still feels there's room for old fashioned Sci-Fi adventures like these. At least this time they know what not to do to make it work. Though it would make sense for both the estate and the studio to wait a little longer, after Jupiter Ascending and Star Wars Episode VII have hit theaters, so they can see whether there's still an audience for grandiose space opera in the ERB tradition.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157701/nieuwe_trailer_the_woman_in_black_2

Seems like more of the same. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the first Woman in Black was quite a decent horror flick with its wonderfully creepy and moody period look. Trading in a late Victorian style for a WW II era visual look is not a bad thing. From a story point of view, it makes sense as to why people would allow kids to visit that horribly haunted house again. It seems a better place for children to be than a bombed-out London, any regular parent would think. City folks don't believe in countryside ghost stories after all. And not having Daniel Radcliffe as the protagonist is probably a good notion too. His post-Potter presence in the previous part tended to overshadow the movie as having its own identity. The Woman in Black is still commonly referred to as 'that spooky film featuring Harry Potter', and I don't think that does it any justice at all. Then again, the second installment stars Potter's Narcissa Malfoy, for those who weren't aware. Hopefully it doesn't mean the movie will soon be acknowledged as 'that spooky movie starring Draco's mum'. That is, if Angel of Death turns out as decent a scary movie (or more so) as its predecessor. Otherwise, I couldn't really care less anyway.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157700/_bale_speelt_steve_jobs_in_boyles_biopic

Another Steve Jobs biopic? There was one in theaters only a year ago. Than one, however, didn't win much favour with audience or critics with its rather bland and straightforward approach. Nor are its director and main star (Ashton Kutcher, if you recall) considered such bankable talents as Christian Bale and Danny Boyle. So yeah, why not make another? There's still plenty to tell about so inspiring and innovative a man, no doubt. Plus, there's better storytellers available, and Boyle sure is an intriguing choice. I don't mind Bale, though he tends to go a little too far in his acting, reminding you that you're not watching the character he plays, but that you're seeing Bale doing his extreme thing again. The script is in the capable hands of Aaron Sorkin, who seems to be in danger of being typecast as the screenwriter for penning biopics about important folks in the digital industry for hugely talented directors (he also did The Social Network, after all). You think we'll get multiple Bill Gates motion pictures when that Microsoft man logs out of this life? If so, Sorkin is likely to be Hollywood's go-to guy to pen a script about Gates' life.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157709/jesse_eisenberg_in_dcs_suicide_squad

Hopefully poor Jesse Eisenberg fully realized what he got himself into before signing on as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Considering DC's overly ambitious plans for its own cinematic universe - clearly copying Marvel's designs, but still - it would be natural for a bad guy of Luthor's stature to appear in multiple DC movies soon. Luthor, after all, has his greedy conniving arms wrapped aroud a lot of shady businesses in the DC comics, and has had them there for decades. The movie version is expected to be just as busy controlling an evil empire, one that's not restricted to simply plaguing his nemesis Superman, but many of his fellow heroes as well. Right now the most apt comparable character available in the Marvel Cinematic Universe villain would be Loki, who also started out the archenemy of one but soon demanded a bigger piece of the superhero pie. Luthor is likely to do the same. Nevertheless, his skills would make him more of an evil Nick Fury, controlling strings of a lot of other baddies behind the scenes, as Fury does with good guys (or what he considers to be such, at least). In this case, it seems he's the guy responsible for forming the supervillain team called Suicide Squad, soon to give the Justice League a hard time. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and thus Eisenberg, make regular appearances, both minor and major, in many upcoming DC movies. And I'm sure Eisenberg won't particularly mind, it just keeps him occupied while the pay checks keep coming in at a steady flow.

Today's Triple News: amazing dragon jobs

Let's put an end to MovieScene news posts by my hand accumulating indefinitely right here, right now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155304/danny_boyle_beoogd_regisseur_voor_biopic_steve_jobs

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155276/eerste_vijf_minuten_how_to_train_your_dragon_2_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155262/x-men_in_aftiteling_amazing_spider-man_2

Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.

Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to  computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.

Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.

Today's Mini-Review: Trance

Trance: ***/*****, or 6/10

Danny Boyle's attempt to mindfuck us, which proves only half successful, witnesses the weaving of a stylistically elaborate mosaic but a less well conceived narrative that turns increasingly less gripping. The first 40 minutes delivers a good set-up, as we follow an art heist at an auction, where a small band of robbers led by Vincent Cassel (always a good choice to feature as a bad boy in any movie) makes off with a painting by Goya that has just sold for over 27 million pounds. At least, they thought they got away with it. In a sweeping bit of exposition the protagonist, the mentally troubled auctioneer James McAvoy (who does a fine job mixing his usual physical attractiveness with a somewhat unhinged and erratic personality), has just directly educated us, the audience, in the veritable impossibility of stealing paintings at auctions, partially thanks to the well timed expertise of art protectors like himself. Thing is, he's in on the ploy. But not really, as he has a hidden agenda all his own. That severely backfires on him as he gets hit in the head after hiding the painting prior to the robbery, thus forgetting its location, much to the chagrin of his fellow conspirators who do not take this failure lightly and soon have no choice but to turn to a cold and professional hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson, doing a better job than usual) when their own physically uncomfortable methods of persuasion fail to reveal the knowledge they seek. Dawson all too easily gets drawn into their shady world of plots and doublecrossings, by her own testament because she's bored of the dreary routine of her work, but obviously because she's fascinated and possibly charmed by McAvoy's pained art thief. And that's when things start to go from an intriguing premise to an ever more disappointing pay-off, as we soon find something else entirely is going on, and this whole movie was never really about stealing art so much as it was about an ex-couple with an alarming past reconnecting thanks to Dawson's mental machinations (think of it as the crime thriller version of Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, just not nearly as compelling). The problem is, the art theft plot intrigued us much more than this renewed lover's quarrel does, but soon gets snowed under in favour of the latter plot line. At least strong performances throughout and the occasional solid action sequence and moment of mental shock (i.e., gore) provide some distraction from ever more jumbled and chaotically structured plot development that just can't seem to be able to let us reconnect with the movie itself when the damage is done. And just where was that darn painting? For all we care, it might as well have been shoved up Dawson's clean shaven beaver, which we get to see in close-up twice. Lucky us, but this movie would have had more resonance in terms of being memorable if it had also featured a more carefully balanced plot that doesn't end up in blatant melodrama that you can't, and don't truly care to, wrap your mind around.

Today's News: Trainspotting 2?

Here's a little bit of film news for all you lovers of little bits of film news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145316/boyle_wil_trainspotting_2_maken

Please disregard the blatant error in word use in the second sentence, it's not mine. Apparently the editor on MovieScene didn't understand what I was saying so he thought he'd better edit it to make it more clear. He failed.

My opinion on this news? (If you can call it that, since it's all just in the planning stages at the moment.) In all honesty, I haven't seen Trainspotting (yet). A movie nerd is only as good as the movies he's seen. (Speaking of which, I saw a ghastly, abysmal movie last night, the review of which will soon be up on MovieScene and thus on this, my blog, as well.) That said, I am not a big fan of revisiting certain films after several decades just because the writers/director suddenly got nostalgic about earlier work/want to milk more cash out of the younger generation. The results are rarely impressive and tend to even hurt the movies they follow (cough*Indiana Jones*cough). Danny Boyle however is a fairly serious, accomplished and intelligent director, so he might indeed make a good follow-up out of it, but it remains to be seen whether one is actually desired by the general audience.

And I might seen Trainspotting somewhere down the line. Eventually. When I'm done reviewing bad films for MovieScene maybe.