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

News! News! We got news here!:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's 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 many little bits of news

Someone has been a busy little bee posting movie news these past few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156058/nieuwe_poster_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is a poster I'm going ape over. So that's not a very original pun in this context, I know. Nevertheless, it fits the bill. The more I see of this sequel to the already surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the more I feel it's gonna be very much worth our while. Top notch, groundbreaking visual effects notwithstanding, there's a definite heart and soul to the story of man's (and ape's) incapability of coexisting alongside beings that on many levels should be considered equal (read: other humans with different points of view). Such intolerance can only lead to our own demise in violent revolt, for which we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Of course, apes make the same mistake as humans (ape shall not kill ape; yeah right!), showing that they're truly not so different. This poster hearkens back to the climatic events of the previous installment very nicely, even though the bridge portrayed on the one-sheet doesn't seem to be the same as in that final showdown. Apes on horesback wielding firearms are new to the (rebooted) franchise though, and just shows how far primate progression has come since. Or more aptly, just how much they resemble us now, considering their eagerness to carry weapons to purposefully harm others and subject animals to do their heavy work. Since mankind has been largely wiped out in this flick due to the pandemic set up in the credits of the previous film, both sides are now on equal footing in terms of strength. Will this incarnation of Planet of the Apes devolve into mutual annihilation as did its Seventies' predecessor? Or will a more hopeful outcome prevail instead to demonstrate such violent times have passed? Considering a third movie is already in the pipeline, don't expect an answer too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156034/marvel_will_derrickson_voor_doctor_strange

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156075/marvel_overweegt_hardy_of_cumberbatch_voor_doctor_strange

While Ant-Man is still stuck without a director (at least five candidates have passed the job over the last few weeks), Marvel is quickly moving forward with Doctor Strange regardless. In fact, at this rate it feels like the latter will beat the former to theaters, which might work too if the Marvel scribes shuffle their various set-up pieces for the larger Cinematic Universe around to accomodate these production problems. Strange has landed a director - Scott Derrickson, with the lousy Day the Earth Stood Still remake on his resumé, but also a recent tendency to deliver decent horror flicks - and consequently the studio is now focusing hard on finding a lead actor. The most promising name once attached to the project, Viggo Mortensen, is not on Marvels mind anymore, sadly. Instead, they choose to opt for 'hotter' names and at the moment that list has been narowed down to two: Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy. Both solid actors with a diverse enough background for me to realize they could adequately play this supernatural character. Both careers flawed by their involvement with much lamented Star Trek projects, as Hardy portrayed Picard's angry clone Shinzon in the feeble Star Trek: Nemesis, while Cumberbatch wasted his time and talent boringly repeating an unrepeatable Khan in the even worse Star Trek Into Darkness. I'll forgive those sins, as they have proven they are still very capable actors since. If it indeed has to come down to either one of these two, Cumberbatch would be my pick. The characters he has played usually prefer mind over matter, his unsurpassed take on Sherlock Holmes being the prime example. By comparison, Hardy's roles have tended towards men who let their muscles do the talking: not mindless necessarily (e.g. Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, who is both very strong and extremely intelligent), but still more driven by their physical attributes. The Sorcerer Supreme is very much a being of the mind. Sure, there is a physical aspect to him, with all his silly gesturing when uttering spells and whatnot, but otherwise his intellect takes precedence, his mind literally leaving his body when voyaging on the astral plane to keep humanity safe from supernatural harm. I'd feel more comfortable seeing the lean and elegant Cumberbatch in that capacity than the bulky built Hardy, as there's enough overly muscled Marvel heroes prancing around on the silver screen already. But still, I would have preferred Mortensen entirely.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156042/wachowskis_jupiter_ascending_uitgesteld

An unexpected move, but an understandable one for such an FX heavy film. At least the film was already announced to be in 3D, so unlike G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which witnessed an eeriely similar dramatic push in release date, this movie is not being postponed because the studio wants to pressure a 3D release on us. Nevertheless, Jupiter Ascending has all the hallmarks of a big summer blockbuster (popular stars for both male and female demographics, a recognizable pair of directors, epic effects, fairly typical plot), so to reduce it to a February release seems an odd move. It's likely the studio wants to ensure it has little competition at the box office, as it previously had to compete with equally big movies like Transformers: Age of Extinction, Hercules, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and the not so dissimilar Guardians of the Galaxy. Currently, the only film slated for February remotely in its league is the fantasy spectacle Seventh Son (which features less stellar names, a rather unknown director and also underwent its fair share of production problems and release postponements, as it was shelved for a year or two). Even though the late winter season isn't most noteworthy in terms of financial success, if there's few other big movies to contend with, the higher your attendance numbers will be. Or so the studio hopes. Time will tell whether they're right. I kinda hope so, since this movie looks rather promising. Even though both Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis far from get me stoked, I'm always in for another space opera as too few of those are produced to my liking.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156059/watts_en_kim_gecast_in_insurgent

Divergent is another one of those franchises that tries to narrowly avoid blockbuster season by appearing in theaters just before the storm of big movies hits. Understandable, as the first film wasn't quite a big film itself, though considering its success its sequel, Insurgent, seems better endowed in that respect. Jupiter Ascending now steers clear of that one too, appearing some six weeks beforehand. The Divergent movies so far have still to rely on their popularity with the young adult female demographic for the most part, which worked so well for the books aimed at the same target audience. The first film was ambitious, but had a reasonably low budget and only one big name (Kate Winslet) to speak of. Now that the ice has been broken and an audience for its successors seems guaranteed, the studio is expanding its scope. The series seems to follow the Hunger Games blueprint in that regard: for good reasons, as its audience and its thematic contents are largely identical. However, the second Hunger Games film (and the upcoming sequels) dared to enter the winter blockbuster season to establish a clear breakthrough to the top (to great effect), something Insurgent still avoids. A bigger budget is a given though, and names to match are swiftly added to the project. Octavia Spencer was already on board, while Winslet remained too. These two Oscar winners are now joined by a third, Naomi Watts. A lot of strong, talented actresses apparently. Good thing too. Hopefully the young women that form the core audience will take hints from them instead of the rather bland teen leads whose adventures they follow.

Today's Double News: Divergent fanbase can go ape

Today's batch of fairly fresh movie news:

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

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

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

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

Today's Double News: apes and agents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's Triple News: monsters, apes and cunnilingus

No less than triple news today, another first!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152339/eerste_posters_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152305/nieuwe_poster_nymphomaniac

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152306/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_godzilla_online

A lot of posters these last 24 hours. The Holidays are nigh so studios want to promote their upcoming projects more vigorously than usual to make sure all those cinemagoers (and I know from experience there will be lots of them!) will get a glimpse of their product. Except for Lars von Trier, who just wants to shock and amaze everybody, Holidays or no. He certainly succeeds with his latest Nymphomaniac poster, which is even more unsubtely explicit than the previous batch. If we didn't know what to expect from that particular film, we know now. I must say, I find this movie ever more amusing, thanks to its promotional campaign. These daring and original poster concepts are effectively catching my attention, as I know they attract others too. I wonder whether any of these will actually be seen in theaters anywhere, they seem to be so risqué they're only suited for online marketing. Say what you will about a stubborn troublemaker like Von Trier, he certainly knows how to cause a scandal that can only benefit the movie getting noticed. Whether people will go and see it is another matter and whether those that do will actually like it is an even more poignant question. But even if Nymphomaniac fails to be a compelling piece of exploration of human sexuality/erotics, its promotion is a definite success!

The other marketing material I posted is more standard fare. The Apes posters tease, they do little more. You get little new plot information from them other than the return of Caesar and Koba, the addition of two novel ape characters (including a new gorilla), and the fact the shit is about to hit the fan because of their grim look and war paint. Doesn't matter, I was already looking forward to this movie. I liked the previous reboot Rise of the PotA, as well as all the originals (some more than others). However, I'm not going more ape over this film now than I already did.

That said, I am getting more excited over the Godzilla remake. It seems it takes the simple basics of the Japanese originals, introducing a giant mutated dinosaur (?) and pitting him against the military, without bothering with an accompanying plot too much. That's good, because there is little more to Godzilla than that. Sure, there is the warning against nuclear weapons, but that's hardly a new message. And unlike the dreadful 1998 American remake, this Godzilla actually looks like his Japanese counterpart. Though story isn't the most pertinent issue, at least there's some terrific actors present (Gary Oldman. yay!) and a director who knows and respects the subject material (as he demonstrated with his Kaiju hommage guerilla film Monsters). And action doesn't appear to be something this movie lacks. It seems there's little here that can go wrong making this as good a Godzilla film as any of them. Which doesn't mean it will be a masterpiece (nonono!), but it will be good monster-stomping-cities fun, which is all you could hope for in a big G film. Except for the appearance of other creatures to fight Godzilla. I don't see any here, but earlier promotional material ensured us that's thrown in as well.