Today's Double News: Hercules into the wild

How's about sum' news, yo?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156010/nieuwe_trailer_hercules_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155999/opvolger_nieuwe_wildernis_in_de_maak

The rule that success at the box office guarantees a sequel is not limited to fiction films. When enough money is made, even documentaries require a follow-up of sorts by an insatiable studio. Of course, the 'of sorts' bit is what is most poignant here, as it's open to interpretation just how such a sequel should built on what came before. After all, a documentary dealing with a specific subject can basically cover everything there is to say about that and not leave room for more of the same about the subject, thus rendering a sequel a blatant redundancy. So it is with De Nieuwe Wildernis in my mind. The point has been made well enough: the Oostvaardersplassen are a beautiful nature preserve that doesn't actually preserve nature as it used to be, but nature as it can be, aided by humanity's graces. You can shoot more breathtakingly splendid shots of horses prancing about, foxes hunting or all manner of birds generally being pretty, but it would add little of consequence. A new angle is what makes it stand out, and it seems distributor Dutch Filmworks has found one. And so this sequel isn't really a sequel, just equipped with a title - the Dutch version at least - that creates all the right expectations from an audience that fondly remembers its "predecessor" and hopes to be dazzled by nature's beauty once more. And yes, it does show the Oostvaardersplassen again. But not solely that area, as it is incorporated into a mosaic of European nature in general. And since the movie is made by Frenchmen who conceived of their angle independently from De Nieuwe Wildernis, expect a different kind of documentary. It's good to know Dutch audiences will soon get the chance to be familiarized by the splendour of forests and wildlife outside of Holland too, so they'll know where to plan their next vacation. As for the possibility of a direct follow-up, I think it surely exists. There's other nature preserves in the Netherlands worthy of being immortalized on film, you know. How about National Park the Meinweg in Limburg? Or the Hoge Veluwe? Why not focus on the wacky antics of beavers in the Biesbosch, that ought to attract a crowd. An actual sequel to De Nieuwe Wildernis really isn't outside the realm of possibility. Just as long as people stay away from the depicted area after having been delighted by the film instead of going around trampling nature's beauty en masse, I'm all for it.

This second Hercules trailer makes me a bit more hesitant about the project that the first. Those fabulous Twelve Labours of his only form part of the background story apparently, so most, if not all, of the neat monster action seen in this trailer will not be featured as extensively as I had hoped in the movie proper. Instead, the plot will focus on Herc's latter days as a mercenary, saving a kingdom and a beautiful princess from tyrannical oppression. Sounds a bit too familiar a plot for my taste. Not much different from what The Legend of Hercules was all about earlier this year, except with a bigger cast and budget (good thing too, makes it look less than a crappy video game). Also fairly reminiscent of Dwayne Johnson's own The Scorpion King. Still good for a laugh no doubt, but not as spectacular as recanting all Twelve Labours in full would have been. And there's still no movie that does justice to that complete Hercules epic, it's always served in bits and pieces instead. This story would really be better suited for a TV series, also considering its rather episodic nature. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen eventually (preferably on HBO with lots of nudity and gore and all the other niceties of life). But for now, we have to make the best we can with partial retellings of the myth, some good (hopefully), most not so much (like the last one). I remain skeptic as to what category this particular rendition will end up belonging to, though I can guess.

Today's Double News: Hercules ain't part of the Avengers yet here

Must post more news, must post more news!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154668/eerste_trailer_dwayne_johnsons_hercules

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154639/nieuwe_setbeelden_avengers_age_of_ultron

This Hercules is more like it. All kinds of monsters and supernatural elements present, just as the original Greek myth offered aplenty. It's amazing there hasn't yet been a Hercules/Herakles movie to do those elements of the story justice. You wish Ray Harryhausen had made a movie about the demi-god in his time. It seems this is the closest we will ever get, even though the central part of the story isn't about the Twelve Labours (so I wouldn't hope for too much solid monster action just yet). Instead, it's about Herc playing a merc and fighting a tyrant to save a kingdom. That sounds a little bit too much like The Scorpion King (The Rock's breakthrough in the film business), which in itself was doing a derivative job of the Eighties' Conan the Barbarian franchise. In fact, apart from the monsters and the instantly recognizable "brand name" Hercules, there's very little here that seems to set this story apart from Scorp. Oh well, at least it looks to be a fun action flick, with a good cast. And sorry Dwayne, I'm not referring to you. I'm talking about established GBAs (Grand British Actors) like John Hurt and Ian McShane. Plus less grand but still very British actors like Peter Mullan, Joseph Fiennes and Rufus Sewell. Why is it that action flicks like these always have to rely on Britain's top talent to carry the acting, while the Americans only show off their muscles? Acting your way out of a CGI heavy film like this, now that's a real Labour!

And we got our first glimpses of several new highly anticipated Marvel characters as photos from the Italian set of Avengers: Age of Ultron leaked. First off, there's Magneto's kids siblings Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. It seems this Quickie retained his familiar thunder bolt patterned costume while the one from X-Men: Days of Future Past keeps his ties to the Mutant Master of Magnetism. Scarlet however looks little like her top model outfit sporting equivalent from the comics (too bad really!), or even her Ultimate Universe counterpart (unlike Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye, also present on these pics). It seems they made up a girlie costume appropriate for her intended age for this movie. However, her hexing moves are straight out of the comics, so there's at least some tribute to those at least. I wonder how they're gonna explain these kids' powers if they're not allowed to call them mutants. Was Quicksilver bitten by a radioactive/genetically engineered roadrunner perhaps? As for Scarlet Witch, how do you probably explain altering the laws of probability by using spells in a scientifically sound manner? Last but not least, we may have our first glimpse of the titular nemesis, the maniacal robot Ultron. Or at least, we see a guy wearing some sort of armour which kinda resembles Ultron. Otherwise, there's little robot-ey to the suit. I reckon this is a stand-in giving the kids something to work with on set. Or some Italian fan who ran onto set after avoiding the heavy set security. This has yet to be confirmed by Marvel.

Today's News: Dwayne Johnson versus earthquake

Another post of mine on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150918/dwayne_johnson_gecast_in_rampenfilm_san_andreas

The user comment left behind by someone that read this newsflash isn't wholly incorrect: this does bear a fair bit of resemblance to 2012. Problem is, that film was basically the ultimate disaster movie, featuring everything from devastating earthquakes to giant volcanic eruptions and humongous tidal waves, so how could you hope to impress a post-2012 audience with "only" an earthquake? Simple. You add a star. As is the case in most disaster movies, the star of the film is the disaster itself, while the cast is only meant to guide you through it to add some human drama. That's why casts of disaster movies usually, with very few exceptions, don't feature big name moviestars but only 'moderately well known' actors instead, often with the addition of older actors that have slowly but surely fallen out of favor with the public's immediate interest (as was done all through the Seventies with classic actors of the Thirties, Fourties and Fifties). None of the actors in 2012 were genuine moviestars. But now Dwayne Johnson gets to stand up to an earthquake, and currently he's undeniably a hot star, with a fairly wide audience appeal. So people that don't care about Johnson get to enjoy the tremors (which probably won't bring The Rock down), while Johnson fans will care less about the actual catastrophe, but simply crave to see their hero back in action. You wonder why studios don't employ big names in this type of epic film more often. It may have something to do with the bad reputation of disaster movies (also thanks to the Seventies), that so far generally told stars they've reached their expiration date. Maybe Johnson can debunk that much maligned 'genre curse'.

In other ways San Andreas seems an overly standard disaster flick: epic shots of ruin and destruction coupled with standard family drama throughout (an estranged family too, that no doubt finds new strength due to their trials). I doubt Johnson can change much about that routine. Especially if it's brought to us by Brad Peyton, who delivered quite a similar story in Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, except against a fantasy backdrop. Even in 3-D though, I doubt San Andreas will outboast 2012 in terms of scope and awe.

Today's News: shooting Hercules (on film) begins

If you're already tired reading about plastic dinosaur toys, this bit of news from MovieScene might be of interest to you:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147811/opnamen_dwayne_johnsons_hercules_begonnen

I hadn't heard of both this project and the graphic novel it's based on before. It sounds reasonably intriguing, but there's a lot of apparent similarities with Johnson's own The Scorpion King (2002). That's not necessarily a bad thing: TSC might not have been a good film, but it was a fairly fun action flick. I have a gut feeling this movie will turn out likewise. Though a different approach to the mythological Hercules sounds fascinating, I'm not overly fond of ignoring the more fantastic elements like monsters and sorcery, which always proved my favorite bits of any mythology. And what about gods? They're surely the realm of fantasy (for an atheist like me at least), but they're mentioned in the synopsis I've read, plus they're an integral part of the Hercules persona that should not be ixnayed in my mind. He's a demigod and he knows it, after all. The rest of the plot sounds fairly standard really: conflicted mercenary and his gang get involved with the wrong crowd, i.e. a ruthless monarch, and slowly see the truth about themselves, realizing they're good guys after all so they turn the tables and start fighting for the oppressed masses. And then they win and their leader becomes the new king or stuff. That's probably the gist of it. Can't imagine Hercules ever being a real bad guy. Now that would be an original take on the character for sure!

I will not deny there's a lot of solid names attached to this project. Least of which is Brett Ratner, who is truthfully a capable action director - is this a good moment to openly state I liked X-Men: The Last Stand? - but usually feels lacking in most other departments. Still, he's a fairly decent player in Hollywood. Certainly not the lowest of the low as far as directors are concerned, but also not exactly top Hollywood brass. John Hurt, Ian McShane, Rufus Sewell and Joseph Fiennes all sound like music to my ears. Solid British actors each, every one of them always a joy to behold despite the occasional feeling they should have picked a better project than waste their talent on the current one. This Hercules flick might very well turn out to fall in the latter category. After all, it kinda sounds like a typical B- action movie, Sword & Sandals style. However, if it were, I doubt Johnson himself would bother to star in it, considering how far he's come - or he thinks he's come - over the last decade. Perhaps he felt nostalgic and wanted to do something reminding him of the old days? Fat chance! Maybe he wanted to cash in on the comic book craze and star in a graphic novel adaptation of his own? Or maybe, jusy maybe, there's more to Hercules: The Thracian Wars than we might be inclined to think at first... Whatever that may be, it's definitely not in that silly title.

Journey 2: underwhelming in all but the third dimension

Rating: ***/*****, or 5/10

A few days ago I criticized the disappointing use of 3-D in Star Wars Episode I, which was re-released solely to cash in on the 3-D hype currently controlling Hollywood studio executives' minds (and their bank accounts), and to a lesser degree the minds of audiences around the globe. Being converted in 3-D over a decade after its initial release, the 3-D effects in Episode I were unfortunately far from compelling or convincing, though seeing the movie itself back on the big screen was a bit of a blast (if you like Star Wars in general, and can swallow the prequel trilogy specifically). Viewers flocking to theatres expecting to find the new 3-D addition to The Phantom Menace a worthwhile event will be disappointed, since there just seems to be little room for 3-D were it was never intended to be, often making you forget the 3-D is there to begin with. The opposite is also possible, as Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, released in theatres this week, makes perfectly clear.

Journey 2 is, as the title obviously suggests, a sequel, though the first movie wasn't simply called Journey. It was called Journey to the Center of the Earth, and it was released in 2008. You probably missed it, if you are aware of this particular incarnation of Jules Verne's classic adventure novel at all. It was one of the earlier entries into the current 3-D craze and hit theatres at a time when there were still few theatres with 3-D projectors around (oh, the good ol' days!). I myself was very much aware of it though because it featured a bunch of dinosaurs, and movies with such contents make me lose all objectivity. And apparently common sense as well, since I bothered to travel all the way to Almere to see it in a theatre there that was a few years ahead of its time, like Almere often thinks it is (if you don't know about this wretched city, Google or Wiki it, but be sure to eat lunch or dinner afterwards). The movie theatre in question – I will not mention its name – has got to be the ugliest, most depressing movie building I've ever visited: it kinda felt like an image out of an Orwellian dystopian future. I actually paid to see the movie full price, something I hadn't done in a while then because of my 50% student discount powers, and which I have never done since, in payment for my loyal, unquestionable service to the sinister Pathé company. But despite these trials, my dubious perseverance was awarded with a delightful viewing experience: I saw massive caves, subterranean oceans, stunning blonde Anita Briem, flying piranhas, Trilobites and of course the much coveted dinosaurs, all in spectacular 3-D! For a short while, this movie made me a believer in 3-D. And then it got milked... and milked... with often such hugely dismaying results that I lost my interest in 3-D and the mere notion of a movie I anticipated being released in 3-D made me cringe and sigh out loud.

And on the topic of milking, we're back to Journey 2 3-D. Apparently, Journey 1 (I'm lazy enough to use this abbreviated title, even though I claimed above there is no movie with this nomenclature) made some money despite its limit release (limited since it was only released in 3-D instead of a regular 2-D version also being in circulation, as is usual now). And therefore, Hollywood Law states a sequel or some other follow-up must be produced by any means necessary. And now we have the result.

Guess what? Whatever shortcomings this sequel has (and there are many many many of those), in regards to 3-D effects, it's one of the best films I've seen in the last few years! Apparently the powers-that-be behind this franchise were aware of the 3-D history behind the first film, and honoured it by making sure the second film would surpass it on this front. So again we get a fast paced adventure flick filled to the brim with nifty, neat-o 3-D effects, ranging from the generic 'in-your-face' type to the excellent use of it in backgrounds and tracking shots, showcasing what you can do with 3-D and how few other movies make full use of its potential. Some of the most memorable set-ups include a zoom shot over the lost city of Atlantis, with the camera flying past a huge statue's trident, a giant electric moray eel swimming in a circle so closeby you feel like reaching out and touching it, a harpoon being thrown right into our eyes and The Rock getting berries thrown at his nipples, which bounce back in every direction (the berries, not the nipples). I had the good fortune of seeing this in an IMAX theatre, and I felt completely immersed into the movie, an effect 3-D hasn't had on me in a long time. This movie made 3-D feel like the event that audiences hope for it to be, instead of just a lame addition installed to justify higher admission prices. The 3-D alone makes this movie work, which is a rare happenstance, despite 3-D movies being so plentiful nowadays. It seems once again a 2-D version is nowhere to be found, which should be the case considering if you take away the 3-D, little of interest remains...

Despite the fantastic use of 3-D and a good overall sense of adventure, this movie just has nothing else going for it. The story is bare boned and predictable at every turn (not that there are many turns anyway): Josh Hutcherson (the only remaining element from Journey 1 aside from the Verne references) is being a spoiled brat who wants to go off and find some island because his grandfather sent him morse code messages on how to find it, and his stepfather (Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, who replaces Brendan Fraser as the heroic lead) awards his misbehavior by taking him to said island in the hopes of creating a bond between them. In Palau they charter a rusty old helicopter and its pilot, Luiz Gusman in a stereotypical JarJarist comic relief role (i.e. supposed to be funny, but failing miserably) to fly them to their location, and as a bonus they get Vanessa Hudgens along for the ride as eye candy. Of course they quickly find the island, which Verne, plus various other authors randomly thrown in, alluded to in his novel Mysterious Island. As happened in the previous film, the works of Verne are used as guides to the protagonists in their quest to stay alive, as if the places Verne described actually existed (think Scientology's take on L. Ron Hubbard's books, except with a better author being used and less religious nonsense mixed in). Naturally the group ends up stranded there and has to run from one threat to the other to stay in one piece, a confrontation with a giant frilled lizard providing the most memorable action scene. The grandfather (Michael Caine, apparently once again in dire need of cash, otherwise he would have turned this sucker down) is found alive and well and takes them on a tour across a number of digital set pieces, including Atlantis, giant bees and a volcano spewing gold. The island of course is too good to be true, and turns out to be swiftly sinking, so our heroes have to get off by finding Captain Nemo's hidden submarine, which they do, after which they get home safely and all's well that ends well.

Worn out subplots concerning Josh Hutcherson's grandfather never really caring about him and The Rock wanting to be accepted as a father figure by his stepson provide the only real opportunities for the audience to bond with these characters as it sets out on this voyage with them, but ultimately viewers won't care less about them and just want to see them get into one fantastic situation after another, which is of course what they get. Say what you will about Journey 2, but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything other than the most basic adventure extravaganza with copious amounts of action and excitement.

Character development, plot twists and deep themes are of course lacking because they are not needed to thrill audiences for 90 minutes. Unfortunately the abundance of lousy jokes, many of them imvolving poop and assorted viscous, oozy materials, were apparently considered a necessity, but most of them (especially the ones provided by Gusman) are just not funny. In fact, given The Rock's known comedic talent (which he applies well in this film, the high point being the aforementioned berry throwing scene), Gusman's character might as well have been omitted entirely. Vanessa Hudgens looks gorgeous (again, good use of 3-D) but her relationship with Josh Hutcherson follows the cliche ridden path from nuisance to acceptance to romance, while chemistry between them is low. There's more chemistry between The Rock and the various creatures he has to fight in order to get his friends to survive the day, and of course, it's these creatures that stand out the most. Tiny elephants, giant birds, bees and lizards and a moray eel endowed with exceptionally high voltage give the cast a run for their money, but win the day in staying in our memories of this movie. In Verne's novel, such animals were of course absent, which means the producers were heavily inspired by Ray Harryhausen's take on this story, which ended up in his fabulous Mysterious Island in 1961, showcasing some of his brilliant stop motion photography that still awes audiences today. It's unlikely Journey 2's creatures will survive in cultural memory as well as their predecessors, but for now, they do their job.

Suffice to say, the carefully crafted but sensational use of 3-D is this movie's only truly redeeming feature while all else is quite forgetful. When the movie is over and the lights go on again, you've had the 3-D ride of your life, but the movie itself won't stay with you for more than a few days at best. Whereas Episode I results in audiences asking themselves 'Was I watching this movie in 3-D?'. Journey 2 will have them asking 'Was I watching this 3-D in a movie?'. However, given Journey 1's limited release and the fact a Journey 2 was made regardless, the wide release of the latter will undoubtedly spawn a Journey 3. The producers took this into account and made sure there's enough not quite so subtle hints as to Josh Hutcherson's next destination. And as long as the 3-D effects stay on their current level of excellence, we won't mind taking that trip to the moon with him in a few years...

The Scorpion King

Rating: **/*****, or 5/10

Conan Light biedt geen inzicht in titelfiguur

Diegenen die vorig jaar The Mummy Returns niet hebben gezien zal de titel Scorpion King niets zeggen. Het tweede deel van de Mummy-reeks voerde het personage, gespeeld door worstelaar The Rock (echte naam Dwayne Johnson), ten tonele als nieuwe schurk waar de daadwerkelijke booswicht, de mummie zelf, mee overhoop lag in een strijd om de wereldmacht. Het optreden van de schorpioenkoning in vlees en bloed bleef in The Mummy Returns beperkt tot een korte maar fascinerende introductie waarin diens geschiedenis uit de doeken werd gedaan; in de climax van de film werd The Rock vervolgens vervangen door een uit de computer getoverd schepsel dat zo overduidelijk digitaal was dat het 't einde van die film geen goed deed. Het was overtuigender geweest als de worstelster gewoon lijfelijk aan het einde weer opgevoerd werd, maar kennelijk was dat niet spectaculair genoeg. Een gemiste kans dus, maar met zijn eigen film mag deze Scorpion King alsnog laten zien wat hij in zijn mars heeft. Dat blijkt echter niet veel te zijn.

Helaas geeft The Scorpion King weinig inzicht in het karakter van de titelfiguur. De connectie met The Mummy Returns is praktisch niet-bestaand. Waar het personage in de voorganger nog werd neergezet als een woeste veroveraar uit lang vervlogen tijden die de wereld de oorlog verklaart, is er van zulke ambities in zijn eigen film niets te merken. Als zodoende levert The Scorpion King meer vragen op dan hij beantwoordt. Niet onbegrijpelijk dat Mummy-regisseur Stephen Sommers voor de eer bedankte en de ervaren actieregisseur Chuck Russell (Eraser, The Blob) naar voren geschoven werd.

De situatie ligt nu als volgt. The Rock speelt Mathayus, de laatste Akkadiër, die zijn diensten als huurmoordenaar heeft aangeboden aan een groep rebellen die strijdt tegen de oorlogszuchtige tiran Memnon (televisie-acteur Stephen Brand) die van plan is de wereld te veroveren en daarin bijzonder goed slaagt dankzij een geheimzinnige tovenares (de zeer verleidelijke Kelly Hu) die de uitkomsten van zijn veldslagen kan voorzien. In een poging de tovenares te ontvoeren sneuvelt Mathayus' broer, waarop zijn vete met de krijgsheer persoonlijk wordt. Vervolgens slaagt hij er alsnog in de heks te schaken en sleurt hij haar mee de woestijn in, waar zich uiteraard de typische romance tussen het tweetal ontwikkelt. Ten slotte waagt het duo samen met de rebellen en hun onstuimige hoofdman Balthazar (de altijd indrukwekkende Michael Clarke Duncan, The Green Mile) een laatste aanval op Memnons fort in de hoop hun vijand te verslaan. Voeg hier de nodige actiescènes, een nogal irritante sidekick (Grant Heslov) en namen en plaatsen uit allerhande mythen en legenden (van het Bijbelse Gomorra to Cassandra uit de Ilias) aan toe en de resulterende potpourri levert het eindresultaat The Scorpion King op, waarin de link met The Mummy Returns volledig ontbreekt en zowel het gehalte 'scorpion' als de hoeveelheid 'king' tekort schiet.

Als op zichzelf staande film levert de film nog enig vermaak op tijdens de daverende actie, maar stelt het in totaal weinig voor. Het uitbundige spierballenvertoon van The Rock gaat doorgaans gepaard van nogal flauwe 'tongue-in-cheek' humor, die aangeeft dat we het geheel vooral niet te serieus moeten nemen, wat we toch al niet van plan waren. Inhoudelijk doet de film sterk danken aan Conan the Barbarian, ook al een film met als protagonist een bonk spieren die strijdt tegen een kwaadaardig heerser die hem ooit een dierbare ontnam, in een fictieve voorhistorische wereld met elementen uit allerlei mythologieën.. Echter, die film was een stuk gewelddadiger, waarmee vergeleken The Scorpion King nogal soft overkomt. Bovendien mist The Rock het norse, cynische karakter waarvan Schwarzenegger zich destijds bediende, maar wat in deze film juist niet misstaan had. The Scorpion King is in principe 'Conan light'.

Naast The Rock houdt de rest van het acteursensemble zich goed overeind. Michael Clarke Duncan speelt hem in feite van het scherm, waardoor het jammer is dat zijn personage vrij weinig scènes heeft. Stephen Brand levert goed werk af, maar zijn Memnon is te beschaafd (inclusief Engels accent) om een overtuigende booswicht te zijn: als een soort Alexander de Grote tracht hij de wereld beschaving op te leggen door volkeren te verbinden, zij het met geweld, waardoor hij niet een typische machtswellusteling is. Ook ervaren Britse rot Bernard Hill (Titanic) komt langs, als een excentrieke uitvinder die zijn tijd ver vooruit is en het buskruit levert aan de rebellen. Het merendeel van de acteurs in deze film heeft meer in zijn mars dan The Rock zelf, die duidelijk nog weinig ervaring heeft in de kunst van het acteren maar meer bedreven is in het loslaten van zijn spierkracht ten bate van hersenloze actie.

The Scorpion King biedt hoofdzakelijk oppervlakkig avontuur. Het altijd bloedeloze geweld duidt aan dat de makers een tienerpubliek voor ogen hadden, een gevoel dat nog versterkt wordt door de hoeveelheid blote huid die Kelly Hu de gehele film door tentoonstelt zonder daarvoor daadwerkelijk uit de kleren te gaan. De film voelt aan als de jongensdroom van een middelbare scholier die in de schoolbanken tijdens saaie lesuren fantaseert van een leven vol spanning en sensatie in exotische locaties met een mooie meid aan zijn zijde. Misschien voelt het puberpubliek zich sterker aangesproken door The Scorpion King dan de gemiddelde bioscoopganger. Diegenen die hoopten op een interessante kijk op de voorgeschiedenis van het intrigerende personage uit The Mummy Returns komen hoe dan ook bedrogen uit, want hoe de schorpioenkoning van koene vrijheidsstrijder naar bloeddorstig veroveraar ging blijft hier een raadsel.