2015: Het beste en het slechtste in de bioscoop

Het jaar zit er min of meer op, dus is het tijd voor de gebruikelijke lijstjes. Welke films die dit jaar het licht in het donker vormden kan ik iedereen aanbevelen, en welke moet een ieder absoluut zien te vermijden? Hieronder de links naar de lijstjes zoals ik die heb ingediend bij mijn voormalige werkgever, MovieScene.nl, en mijn huidige, FilmTotaal.nl, gevolgd door mijn wat uitgebreidere originele tekst.

MovieScene: Beste Films 2015

MovieScene: Slechtste Films 2015

FilmTotaal Top 10


Top 10 Beste Films


1. Jurassic World

Nou nou, wie had dat aan zien komen voor een JP fanaat als ik... Objectief gezien natuurlijk niet de beste, maar over Jurassic ben ik nooit objectief geweest en iedereen mag het weten. Ondanks die paar tekortkomingen (rennen in hoge hakken en zo) die ik domweg negeer, bleek het een emotioneel weerzien (vier keer, veel te weinig eigenlijk) met een oude vriend die ik veel te lang heb moeten missen (veertien lange, onafzienbare jaren). Een werkend park en hordes dino's is precies wat ik wilde hebben en precies wat ik kreeg. Welcome to Jurassic World! In de negen titels hierna volgt die gewraakte objectiviteit.

2. Mad Max: Fury Road

George Millers krankzinnige comeback naar de gekkigheid die hem eind jaren zeventig op de kaart zette blijkt zowel voor fans van het eerste uur als de nieuwe generatie een volslagen surrealistische en hyperactieve hellevaart. 'Over the top' krijgt een geheel nieuwe invulling en het publiek de beste actiefilm in jaren. 'What a film, what a lovely film!'


3. The Martian

Sir Ridley weet science in space na Nolans bombastische en wetenschappelijk absurde Interstellar weer interessant te krijgen met een zowel intiem als episch drama. Louter topacteurs en Mars zag er nog nooit zo prachtig maar toch zo vervaarlijk uit. Plus de beste Lord of the Rings verwijzing ooit.


4. Ex Machina

Dit fenomenaal gespeelde drama kruipt onder je huid en zet de verhoudingen met je techologische gadgets weer op scherp. Machines zijn zowel verleidelijk als beangstigend in deze intelligente maar constant onheilszwangere Sci-Fi thriller. Oscars voor de hele main cast alstublieft!

5. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

De hype was zoals verwacht een tikkeltje extreem, maar toch bleek TFA een geslaagde nieuwe Star Wars film die ons de teleurstellende prequels deed vergeten. Hoewel het verhaal bij vlagen een herbewerking van ouder materiaal leek, wist zowel de oude als de nieuwe cast te overtuigen. Het geheel werd met zoveel liefde door overduidelijke medefans geleverd dat het onmogelijk was er niet in mee te gaan. Toch zal ik meneer Abrams de begane misstappen bij die andere space opera franchise, Star Trek, niet vergeven.


6. Inside Out

Wie dacht dat Pixar tussen alle sequels door geen tijd meer had voor innovatieve ideeën bleek zich schromelijk te vergissen. De geest van Pixar leeft als nooit tevoren in deze Pixarfilm over de geest. Wederom een tranentrekker voor het hele gezin van de bovenste plank.


7. Sicario

In de 'war on drugs' is het recht de grootste verliezer, stelt pessimist Denis Villeneuve. Dankzij dit zenuwslopende drama moeten we hem gelijk geven. Intense spanning, fantastische acteurs en een luguber einde dat nog een tijdje na blijft galmen, alles wat we gewend zijn van onze favoriete Canadese zwartkijker.


8. Ant-Man

Na de teleurstelling van Avengers: Age of Ultron waren we wel toe aan iets heel anders, iets kleiners. We kregen het letterlijk in deze superheldenkomedie met een hart van goud. Ondanks het opstappen van Edgar Wright blijft zijn stempel qua komische opzet en energieke montage goddank herkenbaar behouden.

9. Er Ist Wieder Da

Lachen om Hitler, mag dat? Ja hoor, maar de boodschap dat de komst van een nieuwe Führer met even onfrisse opvattingen als de oude dichterbij is dan we wellicht zouden denken, gaat niet aan de kijker voorbij. Hilarisch maar confronterend tegelijk.


10. The Walk

Robert Zemeckis' ode aan doorzettende durfals kent een simpel plotje maar wordt met bijzonder veel vaart en enthousiasme verteld. Maar het is de techniek die deze bioscoopervaring compleet maakt. De derde dimensie wordt zelden met zoveel effect geleverd. Mensen met hoogtevrees kunnen wellicht beter thuis blijven. Jammer genoeg zal deze film in de thuisbios lang zo'n indruk niet maken.


Troep zat er helaas ook genoeg tussen dit jaar...

Top 5 Slechtste Films


1: Vacation

Wat vroeger werkte, werkt nu vast ook wel, dachten de Hollywoodbonzen. Dus gaan we weer met de Griswalds op vakantie in de wetenschap dat alles fout zal gaan. Inclusief de grappen, want de humor is wel heel erg onleuk. Hoeveel lichaamssapgrappen kunnen er doodslaan in één klucht? En waarom moet alles sowieso terugvoeren op fysieke en seksuele onzekerheden in deze zeperd? Als alleen de auto nog een beetje op de lachspieren werkt, weet je dat het goed fout is gegaan.

2: Fantastic Four

Au... De slechtste Marvelbewerking tot nu toe. Wat ging er mis? Zo te zien alles, want werkelijk niks deugt aan dit fantastische viertal. Wie dacht dat de FF in 2005 al op hun bek gingen: het kan dus nog flink veel erger. Schrap dat vervolg a.u.b.!


3: The Green Inferno

Eli Roths kannibalenfilm met wel heel weinig kannibalisme, die veel te lang de tijd neemt om de irritante hoofdpersonen richting de kookpot te sturen waar we ze het liefste zien. Daar is een woord voor: saai.


4: Knock Knock

Eli Roth (alweer) imiteert Funny Games maar dan met twee wulpse maar vervelende jongedames. Dat pakt opvallend preuts uit en wordt nooit eng of confronterend. Wel slaapverwekkend.


5: Fifty Shades of Grey

Ik besef me dat ik de doelgroep niet ben, maar ik krijg het niet warm van al dit kitscherige gedweep met zweepjes. Wat mij betreft de saaiste seksscènes van 2015 in de minst opwindende erotische thriller. 


2015 werd van tevoren al geacht een jubeljaar voor de industrie te zijn met het aangekondigde overweldigende filmaanbod. Hoewel de kassa's naar verwacht behoorlijk vaak en hard rinkelden (geloof me, ik heb het gevoeld!), viel het inhoudelijk beschouwd toch een tikkeltje tegen. De hype overheerste, maar werd meestal niet echt waargemaakt. Blockbusters die alles mee leken te hebben vielen tegen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Spectre), voor elke heropgezochte klassieke reeks die onze gunst verwierf (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Mad Max) viel er een andere vies tegen (Terminator, Vacation, Fantastic Four) en het aantal verrassingen vanuit het onafhankelijke/arthousecircuit was ook niet overdadig hoog. Wat dat laatste betreft moet ik eigenlijk mijn mond houden, want als deze lijstjes iets duidelijk maken is het dat ik het dit jaar veel te mainstream heb gehouden en te weinig aandacht heb geschonken aan de rest. Uiteraard heb ik er in mijn taak als recensent wel een aantal mee kunnen pikken, maar tijdgebrek heeft mij desondanks genoopt er te veel links te laten liggen. Daarin ligt dan gelijk een goed voornemen voor 2016... Minder hype, meer de grenzen opzoeken.

Today's News: Machines, martial arts and alien invasions

Ordinary week in terms of news, with nothing mindblowing to report. Just a few tidbits like these:

Nieuwe trailer Ex Machina

This film is growing on me in terms of anticipation, though I remain skeptical (just not as strongly as I was initially). The fact it was chosen as the opening film of the upcoming 31st Imagine Film Festival makes it score some points, since those folks don't just pick the first genre film that comes their way for that honour. This second trailer also indicates this is more than just a repeat of last year's The Machine, and that it may actually be a better film as well (hence this receiving a theatrical release in the Netherlands, while The Machine sadly did not). However, any bits of ingenuity seem to be found mostly in execution rather than innovation, since this trailer makes no mistake this is again a movie about a robot gone bad, which has been done countless time since the Fifties got that ball rolling. It's the way in which the artificial intelligence goes awry that makes it more distinct. This AI appears to get under your skin on an emotional and sexual level, rather than by its mental superiority (though the fact it utilizes such basic human instincts against its creators goes to tell something about its intellectual capabilities as well). Of course, that too is an age old theme (Metropolis, for example), just not applied as often. I wonder what this machine's ultimate goal will be. Surely it won't be something as grand as world domination, since we already have Avengers: Age of Ultron to remind us of some other reaons why we should never fully trust our technological innovations.

Nieuwe Trailer Avengers: Age of Ultron

Speak of the devil, that particular anti-robot film got a new trailer this week as well. Promises to be quite the superhero spectacle, but we already knew as much. The particular preview shines a bit more light on the motivations of the main antagonist. Save the world by killing the human race, it appears. That's one way to do it, sure. The easy way out, which makes for twodimensional baddies and clear-cut black versus white conflict. But hey, it worked on the first Avengers movie just fine. If you want an ingenious story, you know better than to look for it in this type of flick. This is all about fun characters and explosive action. First film showed both elements are in ample supply from this creative team and so it continues to work its merry magic for this second installment. There's plenty of Joss Whedon type humour to be found here, especially centred around the characters interacting. They just don't like each other all that much but they're sort of stuck with one another, and it makes for relatable scenes of humanity amidst all the superhero shenanigans. Just how the new characters relate to the old guard remains to be seen. It appears debutantes Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are somehow involved with Ultron initially, which is not that surprising since they're supposed to start off as bad guys themselves. As for Vision, quickly thrown in at the end of the trailer (and probably the film proper, too), he's no doubt the anti-Ultron AI, reminding us that not all technology is evil. Considering all the technophobia recently running rampant in the movies, there's a positive message for a change. After all, if we're gonna save the world, we'll need some technology to make it happen.

Eerste casting Independence Day 2 onthuld

And if it isn't evil robots, we'll need to save our planet from extraterrestrials with sinister intentions, too. A bunch of all-American heroes did so nearly 20 years ago, and since Hollywood never forgot the financial benefits involved then, they'll have to do so once more. But will audiences pay to see them do just that once more? It's not like we know the story is gonna be anything but repetitive. Everybody knows there's gonna be more aliens out for our planet and some dudes have to get together and kick their asses, the American way. It would be a huge surprise to everybody if there was anything more to it than that, but that's not gonna happen for sure. The suits behind this film obviously want to play it safe, so they're going with the same characters as before, and if they can't get them because the actors don't feel like doing the exact same thing (good for them), they'll want the next best thing. So Jeff Goldblum is back (which I don't mind since I like him) and Bill Pullman likely is as well. Will Smith thought he could make better use of his time (doing After Earth 2 or stuff), so they cast somebody else to play his son, to literally follow in his father's footsteps. Are we glad they didn't opt for Jaden Smith, that would have been a huge turn-off for everybody that still hopes this will be any good. Jaden is probably too involved with the likes of After Earth 2 as well. In case Pullman passes on the project after all, they got Liam Hemsworth ready to go as his character's son-in-law. Apparently the point ID4 2 tries to make is that heroism specifically runs in the family, rather than running in everyone. As for making good movies, we'll find out sooner or later, whether we want to or not. Or we can try and ignore this project altogether and just get our anti-alien fix from watching the first film again.

Biopic Bruce Lee in de maak

I've honestly never seen a Bruce Lee picture. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in watching a picture about the man himself. But don't give me any of that 'only his relatives know what he was all about, so everybody else can't make a good biopic' crap. That's directly stating 'we're cashing in on the memory of our father' to my mind. It's not like there's no books written or documentaries made about the martial arts legend that involved thorough researching of all the documented facts, including earlier testimony from those same relatives. Of course the previous biopics got some facts wrong, that's a simple biopic staple. It's very likely a biopic made by his descendants is bound to turn some actual events around just as easily, if not more so. You think they'll address the negative aspects of the man's life (and there's bound to be some of those, especially taking his early demise into account) in any objective way? Yeah, that's gonna happen... I tend to be much more skeptical about biopics that do involve the direct family because a certain degree of subjectivity is unavoidable. And I figure the same thought applies to many people. I just don't think that many people will bother to concern themselves with the people behind the production of such biopics. To be quite honest: who really cares as long as the movie is good? If it isn't, at least we'll know who to blame for tarnishing Bruce Lee's memory.

Today's News: machines in revolt and intellectual theft

The week has picked up some speed in terms of notable news items:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157772/marvel_maakt_inhumans_en_captain_marvel

Yes, there was more news to report on, since Marvel saw fit to wash away al our questions on their projects for the next five years in a deluge of news, and I didn't post it all at once to keep people from getting overdosed on superheroes. So here's a sort of follow-up on what I posted earlier this week, though I will of course refrain from getting repetitive. I'm not gonna drone on about Marvel Studios' first female solo film as others have, since that is beginning to get old news, as both DC and Sony are developing female superheroine flicks of their own. I've known women can make capable superheroes ever since I started reading comics 20 years ago. So I consider Captain Marvel - who I've noticed isn't named Ms. Marvel, as in most of her comic book history, since that would likely be too sexist - in no way to be more worthy of anticipation that the other Marvel properties in development. The only thing that puzzles me is Marvel's apparent decision to have her team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy rather than the Avengers. I guess there's room for only one captain on Marvels primary superhero team, and having two of them, both blond and strong, might confuse audiences needlessly, even though one of them features boobs.

Still, I'm more curious to see what Marvel plans on doing with the Inhumans. Making a movie based on this superpowered human subspecies which has mostly featured as side characters in other franchise's series (and often not as good guys, too) seems like an odd choice. I guess Marvel still feels the need to include a team of misunderstood, villified outsiders the world hates and fears into their line-up, and since they don't own the rights to the X-Men any more, they decided to make do with this eclectic bunch of characters. Ideologically speaking, it's good to know Marvel still embraces the notion of taking a stand for people other than ourselves, teaching us that despite our often explosive differences we are all still only human and we should learn to live together rather than aim to kill those whose otherness scares us. I'm not sure the Inhumans are the best way to tackle said issues though, considering their aggressive history (which will undoubtedly undergo major rewriting to fit the bill more properly). Unlike the X-Men, they opt for selfimposed isolation rather than acceptance. They didn't move their entire civilization to the moon for nothing. Maybe they feel threatened by Richard Branson's attempt at commercializing space, which could end up in rampant, undesirable lunar tourism (though at the current rate his rockets keep exploding, that doesn't seem to be much cause for alarm). And if they get fed up with humanity somehow, will the Inhumans leave the moon and wreak havoc on Earth to preserve their genetic purity? I've already seen that movie, it's called Iron Sky (and I loved it, mind you!). I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Marvel intends to do with these people.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157824/extra_materiaal_avengers_age_of_ultron_online

But wait, there's more Marvel to go around. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still running, remember? And to keep people interested in a show that isn't drawing spectators in such a huge capacity as Marvel would like, they planned to air the first Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer during this week's episode. The Internet hindered those plans though, so the trailer premiered online a week earlier than originally planned. Didn't stop Marvel from keeping their word and air the trailer again on telly this week. It's the same preview, except for a short but highly enjoyable opening scene, which does a grand job reminding us why we like the Avengers as a group so much. They have a great interplay together, a wonderful group dynamic that just screams for Joss Whedon's talents writing for such groups, which is one of his more famous and respected trademarks. This particular segment also pays hommage to the comics though, in which similar scenes of hammerlifting have played out a few times before, and the results in terms of good humour are none the lesser on screen. I could probably watch a whole movie about the Avengers getting together just hanging out and idling their time, rather than getting serious when another interchangeable villain threatens the world or stuff. Particularly when Whedon writes it. Scenes like these suffice of course, as it's an equally great thing to see the Avengers gearing up for action together.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157774/eerste_trailer_netflix_serie_marco_polo

'Game of Thrones in ancient China', is basically what this series keeps being hyped up as. Not a bad comparison, as the situation Polo encountered in the Far East very much was a game of thrones. However, despite the sex and political intrigue, which thanks to the popularity of shows like Game of Thrones is starting to become a staple of television - which I don't mind at all - that's where most comparions between both shows end. Except for the whole medieval background with swordplay, horse riding and such of course. However, you'll find no supernatural creatures plotting the downfall of man in the background. Despite the cultural affinity of the Chinese for dragons, there's none to be seen in this series (which only saves on the undoubtedly already expensive VFX budget). A few attempts at sorcery are probably interspersed throughout here and there, but I bet Netflix won't go so far as to call up creepy demons from their actresses' naughty bits. The show doesn't need all that, as actual history is fantastic enough in this case, and the Chinese are plenty exotic all by themselves. If you want to compare shows, Marco Polo has more in common with the likes of Rome and Deadwood. Both also shows from HBO, it must be noted, since that network simply wrote the book on the subject matter of explicit sex and intrigue cable shows excel at revealing today. But considering Netflix's own repertoire with series á la House of Cards, I bet they have little trouble transporting such a rich narrative atmosphere to a period setting, even though the latter is still mostly unfamiliar terrain to them. And I look forward to seeing the result.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157785/eerste_trailers_ex_machina

I cannot say I'm as impressed by this trailer. It looks like rather standard Sci-Fi, but gives off the vibe of pretending to be more than that. If it is, I'm not seeing it. It appears to question the age-old demarcation between man and machine, the line where the latter becomes the former. That's about as old a science fiction concept as they come, though it still tends to fascinate. Using the guise of a beautiful woman to make it more easily acceptable for the audience to get drawn into the debate is also a hardly novel approach. Crafting a robot into the image of a sexual alluring and desirable female has been done to death ever since Metropolis in 1927. However, naming the robot in question Ava is less of an everyday occurrence. Yet Ex Machina has the dubious honour to share that aspect with The Machine, a movie with a suspiciously similar premise (and title, even), which only was released last year... So as they ask in New Jersey, 'what's up with that?!'. Intellectual theft, divine intervention or just a veeery coincidental coincidence mayhaps? I dunno, but it doesn't help getting me pumped for this movie, nor does the prospect of a writer turning director. In this case it's Alex Garland. Sure, he wrote a few good movies (including some science fiction titles, like Sunshine), but that doesn't mean he's a capable director. I haven't yet forgotten how a fine Director of Photography landed the director's chair for that godawful Transcendence, which also shares more than a few story beats with Ex Machina (though in that case it's 'man becoming an A.I.' rather than 'man building an A.I.'). Nor am I looking forward to the writer of J.J. Abrams' Trek fuck-ups directing what's set to be the third Trek fuck-up in a row, because Abrams is too busy fucking up (?) Star Wars. Just stick to your own trade, let directors direct. And let writers write. But don't let them write the same as other writers and get away with it. If that's indeed what's happening here.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157784/eerste_posters_insurgent

Here's another derivative little thing for you. Divergent is basically the next Hunger Games, except the new Hunger Games movie is actually the next Hunger Games. Nobody can deny there's many similarities between both stories. Doesn't mean Insurgent should also 'be inspired' visually by its rival. These new posters bear a fairly striking resemblance to some of the character posters released a few months back for Mockingjay - Part 1. Except they feature lesser actors, and less guns too (lesser budget, no doubt). Ripping off another movie's marketing campaign doesn't help setting you apart from that film. But my guess is a strong independent identity isn't Insurgent's goal. They're hitching a ride on the Hunger Games' success by enticing the same audience with the same sort of subject matter. The Hunger Games is making huge sums of money, so of course the producers don't feel bad leeching off that franchise by letting the audience know they offer a similar product. They're basically shouting 'if you enjoy the Hunger Games, check out this franchise while waiting for the next installment!'. It worked on Divergent, and it is likely to work for Insurgent as well. Doesn't make either of them better movies though. Or more original ones for that matter. The only thing Insurgent seems to have that Mockingjay - Part 1 does not, is a 3D release. And that doesn't get me more excited in the least. But then, I'm not the target audience. Impatient teenage girls who like The Hunger Games are. And considering Divergent made a lot of money as well, I suppose there's lots of those.