Today's Review: Ascent

Met vierduizend foto's een semidocumentair verhaal vertellen over een berg, je moet het maar durven. Fiona Tan doet precies dat in Ascent, een experimentele film waarin bewegend beeld geschuwd wordt, maar toch een verhaal verteld moet worden aan de hand van louter fotografie. En het hoofdonderwerp is niet eens een mens, maar een berg. Maar dan wel één van de beroemdste en meest gefotografeerde bergtoppen op aarde, de Japanse Fuji. Aan deze piek kleeft zoveel symboliek en geschiedenis dat Tan haar tachtig minuten makkelijk gevuld krijgt. Want Fuji is onlosmakelijk verbonden met het verleden, het heden en de toekomst van Japan en haar inwoners en dus goed voor een onuitputtelijke bron van verhalen. Tan brengt er een handjevol ter herinnering in Ascent, maar het feit blijft dat de film ondanks de dappere vorm toch een verzameling fraaie plaatjes voorzien van boeiende maar statische voice-overs blijft.

Wie verwacht dat een film die slechts bestaat uit fotografisch materiaal per definitie een documentaire moet zijn, komt bedrogen uit. Tan gebruikt de verzamelde shots tegen de verwachting in ook met een narratief doeleinde. In dat verhaal wordt een Engelse vrouw geconfronteerd met de door haar overleden Japanse geliefde bijeen vergaarde foto's van de berg Fuji. Ze probeert via deze foto's hernieuwd inzicht te krijgen in de Japanse geest, die ze weliswaar van dichtbij meemaakte, maar als buitenstaander nooit volledig kon begrijpen. Fuji is essentieel in die Japanse mindset. Zelfs voor niet-Japanners roept het iconische beeld van de berg direct associaties op met de haast ongrijpbare mystiek van het land van de rijzende zon, die wonderlijke natie waar eeuwenoude traditie en ongebreidelde moderne technologie zo eenvoudig hand in hand lijken te gaan. Fotografie is echter niet de meest moderne technologie, maar door haar langere geschiedenis voor Tan wel de ideale methode om Fuji te bezien, op een manier waarvoor film, fictie of documentaire tekort zou schieten.

Fotografie is immers de kunst van het stilstaande beeld en die onwrikbaarheid is nou net wat Fuji schijnbaar typeert. Het uiterlijk van Fuji is in wezen niet veranderd, van die alleroudste foto's uit het midden van de negentiende eeuw tot op de dag van vandaag. Fuji is simpelweg een onbeweeglijke natuurkracht die voor Tan alleen via fotografie begrijpelijk gemaakt kan worden. En daarin verschilt de berg niet veel van de mensen om haar heen. Want ondanks de technologische vooruitgang verandert de Japanse geest haast niet. Zij wordt misschien getemperd door de tijden, zoals in haar turbulente oorlogsverleden, maar blijft anderszins eveneens onwrikbaar. Tan illustreert dat door het voortdurende ontzag dat de Japanners koesteren voor hun berg te tonen in de veelzijdigheid van het fotografisch materiaal. Eeuwenoude, met de hand ingekleurde studiofoto's van bont gekostumeerde geisha's met een getekende Fuji op de achtergrond gaan hand in hand met hedendaagse kiekjes van toeristen genomen vanuit stedelijke vergezichten en het weidse platteland. Het is die diversiteit die Ascent boeiend houdt.
 

Voor Tan en haar hoofdpersoon wordt echter de beklimming uit de titel door de (op Fuji?) gestorven Hiroshi als leidraad genomen. Dichter bij Fuji dan op haar wonderschoon besneeuwde top kan men niet komen. Die beklimming is meer een ritueel dan een toeristische uitstapje, dat door duizenden tegelijk voltrokken wordt, als een soort bedevaart. Zoals de poëtische voice-over van Hiroshi - verleden tijd voor zijn vrouw, maar zeer in leven in zijn eigen vertelling van zijn 'close encounter' met de berg - vertelt zit Fuji in het Japanse bloed. Dat onderstrepen de verhalen die beide vertellers ons meegeven. Mythologie wordt moeiteloos afgewisseld met historische anekdotes. Zelfs het optreden van Fuji in de film King Kong versus Godzilla wordt aangehaald, waarbij de berg het decor vormt voor het titanengevecht uit de titel. Gelijk ook een strijd tussen Japanse en westerse iconografie, eveneens van toepassing op Fuji's historie. Als symbool voor Japan trachtten de Amerikanen tijdens hun bezetting na de Tweede Wereldoorlog die symboliek te breken door de berg zoveel mogelijk uit film en foto's te censureren. Een zinloze taak natuurlijk, want die berg staat er immers nog steeds in al zijn onbeweeglijke glorie, zo onderstreept Tans relaas treffend.
 
Die immobiliteit moet echter toch relatief beschouwd worden, want Fuji is en blijft een vulkaan en vulkanen zijn wispelturige natuurkrachten. Hoewel de laatste uitbarsting alweer meer dan driehonderd jaar geleden plaatsvond - ruim voordat de fotografie ten tonele verscheen, dus van het gevaar van Fuji geen beeldmateriaal - zal de berg uiteindelijk opnieuw haar vurige woede over haar omgeving uitstorten. "Foto's zijn ijs, film is vuur", meent Tan in Ascent, maar als vulkaan is Fuji beide. De fotografische benadering is gewaagd, maar toch te beperkt om de geest van Fuji waarachtig te vangen. Hoewel Tans opzet respect oogst door ondanks de beperkingen van het door haar gebruikte medium onze aandacht vast te kunnen houden, is een berg van Fuji's kaliber een dynamischer eerbetoon waard.

Today's Column: Crossovers and childhood dreams

September's column has arrived:

Column: Crossovers en kinderdromen

Oh boy, did I devour Batman versus Predator as a kid... Even though the subject matter was far more gory and gruesome than your typical Batman story and may not have been wholly suitable for a youngster my age. I think I turned out alright (I don't abide blood sports, for example). Of course, this wasn't your typical Batman story, since it was also a Predator story and those are usually the stuff of R-ratings. If they're not, they fall short of being a Predator story like the fans expect or desire them, which is one of the reasons no doubt the PG-13 rated movie Alien VS Predator was so lamented by the fanbase. But it does present another challenge when adapting crossovers: incompatibility. Batman is one of those characters which can suffer multiple age ratings, though the grittier, harder Dark Knight stories are usually received more fondly by the majority. But Predator, if done right, simply isn't suited for people under 16, or shouldn't be from a social viewpoint (like teenagers under 16 are not going to check out stuff the law says they can't, in the privacy of their own homes). Likewise, King Kong versus the Smurfs seems equally incompatible, though that's more because of the vastly different subject material rather than the age category. I put that in for a joke, but needless to say you can find some fan's home video depicting such a meeting on YouTube easily enough.

Fact is, crossovers are popular, and have always been so. Ancient Greek mythology already got that ball rolling by throwing several notable heroic characters together in the story of the Argonauts, like some Avengers of Classical Antiquity (and again in the Trojan War). Thanks to our contemporary Avengers, crossovers are a hot topic again, which even leads to rival studios teaming up (in itself a bit of a crossover) to bring the fans just the crossovers they want to see (I'm talking about you, new Marvel Spider-Man!). But crossovers are hardly a novel notion in the annals of film. Universal joining its iconic horror creatures together sounds more like they're remaking the likes of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man rather than them mindlessly copying Marvel, though it's likely a bit of both. But this wave of crossover movies will die down soon enough, since crossover stories usually are far from world class material.

Most of them actually are total gimmicks, cashing in on people's own perceptions of chance encounters between notable characters from different walks of popular culture. Not much story is needed really, the idea of two (or more) characters meeting, often fighting, suffices to draw attention. Batman versus Predator got it right at least, but Batman/Aliens proved less stellar material. The original King Kong versus Godzilla was a total dud, a typical Japanese Kaiju movie in which Kong looked nothing like the giant gorilla previously smashing New York. Crossovers are always fascinating, but not many of them are truly good. They're not designed to be, nor do they need to be. The characters meet, the characters part ways again, usually never to meet again. In the meantime, money exchanges hands between audience and producers. That's all there is to it really. Or is Marvel going to change this? After all, the notion of a shared universe that can endure for a few decades is a new thing, at least. And the number of crossovers between that universe's characters keeps growing, but there needs to be more story meat to it to keep the audience from losing interest. Same thing for the upcoming DC Cinematic Universe. But it remains to be seen whether the same will hold true for the Universal Monsters, the iconic Kaiju creatures or other popular franchises thrown in the mix together. You'd kinda need a separate universe for those, to keep these crossovers outside of continuity if needs be. That's how they always did it in the comics, to explain away why superheroes of different companies didn't join forces/clash more often if they inhabited the same realm: they didn't actually, these crossovers took place in other universes, outside of established continuity. A handy loophole, one that Marvel and DC can't seriously utilize anymore at the movies because that might make them lose face. But it works well enough for the likes of Freddy VS Jason (an actual movie), Tarzan VS King Kong (an actual book), or Godzilla VS the Smurfs (pure fiction).

It needs to, to stop fans from contemplating the possibilities to severely. Because if the Fantastic Four once fought Godzilla, Godzilla squabbeled with King Kong, King Kong battled Tarzan, Tarzan fought Predator, Predator warred with Aliens, Aliens plagued Batman and Batman co-operated with Spider-Man, that would mean Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four share the same universe! Now if only I could fit the Smurfs in there somewhere...

Today's Special: Top 10 Movie Dinosaurs

I don't write stuff like this very often, but this week I got inspired.

Top 10 Filmdino's

I guess you'll know what fired said inspiration. It's a Jurassic World this week and you're just living in it. Lucky little me got to see the movie in a press showing in advance and he liked it well enough. Nowhere near as magical or mindboggling as the original Jurassic Park, but I doubt anyone would have expected that. It was a fun dinosaur flick with sufficient original angles to make it worth this JP fan's while. Review up soon!

The day before I got to see JW I decided I needed to take a break from playing with JW Lego and write a piece on dinosaur movies. Again. But last time my historical overview (check the Archives here for details) was met with lackluster enthusiasm for not fitting the criteria properly. This time it does and with the dinosaur craze running rampant, it's as appropriate a time as it ever will be. Nevertheless, some overlap with the previous piece proved unavoidable. Consider them companion pieces.

So here's the 10 individual dinosaurs or dinosaur species I consider to have made the most inpact on cinemagoers since cinema's inception. It's a varied bunch, ranging from 1914 to the present, with most conceivable techniques of bringing the beasties to life included, from hand drawn animation to stop motion to guys in suits to expensive CGI. Only the live lizards with fins and horns glued to their bodies are absent (for obvious reasons). Some of these dinosaurs are scary as hell, vicious carnivores eating their way through prehistory. Others are mostly everyday animals driven by nature's instincts. Some of them are loveable, the sorts you'd want as pets. Others you'd never want to meet face to face, though paleontologists would gladly sacrifice a limb to see them in the flesh. The Number 1 pick is pretty obvious, and the why is again made apparent in Jurassic World. My predictions proved correct in terms of its role in that film. It's one of the movies' most memorable effects for a reason, not to mention the most popular dinosaur ever. And as this list illustrates, it and all other dinosaurs will forever captivate people's imaginations, proving that even extinction could be called relative.

The park is open...

Today's News: Kingsmen, earthquakes, giant monsters: but worst of all, extinction

This is my batch of news the week has yielded thus far:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158267/nieuwe_japanse_godzilla_in_de_maak

This was bound to happen sooner rather than later. I'm surprised we had to wait for the announcement as long as we did. The new Godzilla remake by Gareth Edwards quickly proved to be a big success worldwide, so of course the original studio is looking to bring back the original monster in its country of origin ASAP. And I don't mind at all. It's been ten years since the "last" Gojira flick, the terrificly entertaining Final Wars, which happened to be its Fiftieth Anniversary celebration. In hindsight, it's a damn shame there's no new Japanese feature to celebrate its Sixtieth, and I suppose the American feature will have to do (and it does fine at that). The question of course is not whether 'we need this', since 28 (!) Gojira movies have proven the creature isn't particularly versatile in both its themes (continuing nuclear angst, almost exclusively) or story make-up: Gojira needs to be destroyed by man, or Gojira destroys other creatures, that's basically the two most prevalent plot routines the majority of the movies follow. I doubt a proper 21st century Gojira will add much novel substance to the franchise, but as long as it delivers decent suit-acting and highly enjoyable Kaiju monster fights accordingly, most people won't particularly care, nor will I.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158283/eerste_trailer_san_andreas

Well, this looks positively uninspired. It's basically a remake of Earthquake, though with different human characters. Which of course we won't give a damn about, since disaster movies for the audience really are all about the disaster itself, while the characters serve merely as canon fodder. Throwing a movie star like Dwayne Johnson in the mix doesn't change a thing about that. In fact, it may be somewhat alarming for his career, since disaster movies have an awkward habit of (ab)using actors and stars that are at the tail end of their career. That's why Kylie Minogue is in this film, for example. One cannot help but wonder why Johnson signed up for this project (though it may have something to do with the director, with whom he has worked previously). One also cannot help but be puzzled as to why studio execs greenlit this picture. It simply offers nothing new it appears, both in terms of story but also visually. We've already seen Los Angeles get whacked somethin' fierce by a giant earthquake in 2012. It's really doubtful San Andreas' level of digital destruction will surpass that of the alleged Mother of all Disaster Movies, especially with a director at the helm who is new to the genre. It's highly doubtful someone who doesn't specialize in flicks of extreme demolition could match a disaster movie made by Roland Emmerich. I can't stop San Andreas' director from at least trying, but I can honestly say anybody who has seen 2012, a movie only five years old, will look at this trailer and be befuddled by its apparent excessive redundancy. Only a true major earthquake wrecking the American west coast could add a much needed sense of actuality or urgency to this one.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158284/kathryn_bigelow_onthult_leed_achter_olifantenstroperij_in_korte_film

A sense of urgency, however, is exactly what typifies Kathryn Bigelow's latest directorial effort, the shocking short Last Days. The focus on terrorism which could be called a trademark of her oeuvre proves well suited to this short synopsis of the evil at work in the illegal ivory trade, which is not simply threatening but downright causing elephants to go extinct before our eyes. African terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab kill these innocent and magnificent animals (and other species like rhinos, too) en masse to sell their tusks to shady South-East Asian criminal networks who make useless trinkets and bogus medicine to sell to stupid rich people in that part of the world. And consequently, the terrorists use the money to kill innocent people as well. It's a lose-lose scenario for both man and beast. Fortunately, we have talented filmmakers like Bigelow and other good people who care enough to combat these despicable practices. In my mind, they're the true heroes of our age, since particularly on the African continent itself, fighting these heinous crimes is not without risk. Graphic material notwithstanding, if I had my way I would show Last Days upfront of every movie playing in theaters. Everything to make the general audience, blissfully unaware of these exact goings-on as they tend to be, recognize the painful reality, so they can sponsor the fight against elephant poaching before there are no more elephants left to poach, which sadly could prove to be a lot sooner than most people would think. Kathryn Bigelow, I salute you for supporting this cause!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158292/nieuwe_trailer_kingsman_the_secret_service

And then there's the typical movie terrorist with his grandiose plots and schemes that only involves killing people and just leaves defenseless animals alone. Gotta love the maniacal mastermind with his diabolical ploys that are so completely over-the-top they can only be put down by larger-than-life characters, to effectively remind you you're just watching a movie and reality is nothing like this. Kingsman: The Secret Service sure seems a film in that veign, where only the most British of characters can ward off the impending evil. The kind of evil Samuel L. Jackson is only to happy to supply as he eagerly acts his way through villainhood (do I detect a lisp in his voice, mayhaps?). This new trailer gets me a little more enthusiastic about this project, though that is mostly thanks to the cast infectiously appearing to have a great time with the subject material of silly one-liners and nifty gadgetry. Otherwise, the premise is hardly unique or inspired. I guess we can just chalk this one up as a 'fun ride devoid of any pretensions'. That's fine with me. The ignorant general audience can't consider the plight of endangered species all the time. How about three minutes of elephant suffering mixed with two hours of mindless entertainment then?

It's raining news, hallelujah!

Comic-Con made sure there was plenty of news to post this last week. Here's some of my more recent contributions to MovieScene's ever growing archives:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156694/comic-con_laatste_concept_art_posters_avengers_2_

I already commented on these Avengers: Age of Ultron concept art posters before, so I'll skip that for these latest one-sheet releases, which finally complete the whole picture (see above). There's not much to say about these Hulk and Thor posters, as they add little of novelty value to the project as a whole. Save for the colour of the Hulk's pants maybe, which has finally traded in the dark blue of the previous movie for the iconic pink everybody associates with the character.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156693/comic-con_gunn_terug_voor_regie_guardians_of_the_galaxy_2

This too comes as little of a surprise considering the overwhelmingly positive feedback in prerelease and press showings for the Guardians' first adventure, set to debut worldwide in two weeks. Of course it will remain to be seen whether enough audiences will connect with this oddball intergalactic team of rogues to make Marvel the big bucks as the studio is now preparing for. However, since there's little else of consequence released in theaters this upcoming month, I think it's guaranteed this next entry in Marvel's Phase 2 will do tremendously well at the box office. Which only works in director James Gunn's favour. At this moment, Marvel will stick to directors who have proven their worth and can smoothly work with the studio without creative issues, considering the woes which have befallen Ant-Man's production of late after its director resigned, which continues to have serious ramifications for the project. Stability is now Marvel's prime concern, and when that aspect is paired with profit there's no reason why a capable director shouldn't be rehired to make the second installment turn out as good, if not better, than its predecessor. So go, Gunn!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156718/comic-con_toekomstige_tegenstanders_godzilla_bekend

It seems Gareth Edwards also aims for stability when it comes to his blockbuster success, the rebooted Godzilla. Fans praised the first film's take on the titular character, but proved less enthusiastic when it came to his antagonists, a pair of mutated prehistoric giant bugs invented solely for this film. They did their job serving as cannon fodder for the King of Monsters though, but now it's time to raise the bar. And what better way to do so than by also rebooting his classic gallery of adversaries? General audiences won't mind whatever creature gets hammered by the Big G (or the occasional vice versa), as long as they get enough bang for their bucks. If there's one thing Edwards showed with his first Godzilla feature, it's that he too is an avid fan of the original Japanese films. So it comes as little surprise that he opts to reintroduce everybody's favorite Godzilla enemies: the mythical giant bug Mothra, the humongous Pterodactyl Rodan (both characters got their own movies too back in the days) and last but not least, Gojira's prima nemesis, the three headed armoured space dragon King Ghidorah. Hopefully Edwards won't play all his cards all at once, but distributes the dose of retro monsters a bit evenly for the already announced pair of sequels, so as to prevent Kaiju overkill in Godzilla 2. As superhero movies have showed of late, there's such a thing as too many cool characters in a single film making a mess of the story. Of course, the Godzilla movies are all about characters making a mess of things while the story is subservient to such rampage, but it can't hurt to save your strongest assets for later.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156717/comic-con_kong_wederom_king

And with the renewed interest in giant monsters comes word that Hollywood doesn't mean to keep that other royal creature dead for long. King Kong too will soon be seen again on the big screen where he belongs, but not in another remake. Which is a good thing, as the last one was produced less than a decade ago and proved to be quite a memorable rehash compared to most of them, so there wouldn't be a need to retell that classic Beauty and the Beast tale just yet. So it seems a prequel is the route the studio chooses, which is also not the most exciting notion to my mind. Do we need to know how Kong became King of Skull Island? It kinda seems a given: it's survival of the fittest and Kong fits that description best, killing every sinister subject that defies his will. There doesn't seem to be much more to it. Of course you can introduce another group of people stumbling on the island and exploring its monster infested interior, getting into conflict with the giant gorilla. Heck, you could even throw another pretty girl into the mix. The result would be predictable though, as we all know how Kong came to his eventual demise, and we never cared as much about the human characters' plight as we did about the ape's. Even though I loved the various incarnations of Skull Island (as I'm a big sucker for monster movies), this project makes me hesitant. That said, it's produced by the same studio - not Peter Jackson's - as the current Godzilla franchise is. Do I smell a potential crossover here?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156733/comic-con_trailer_the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies

Speaking of Peter Jackson, he too has a little franchise in the works, and it is coming to an end. A dramatic and emotionally charged end, the new trailer would seem to indicate. Not to mention epic. Needless to say this trailer got me super stoked for the final Hobbit film, which I already was to begin with (yay, Hollywood hype effectively working its magic for five more months!). Parallells with that other closing chapter of a Middle-Earth movie trilogy were bound to be drawn, and the trailer capitalizes on that sentiment by adding just another link with PJ's Lord of the Rings films in the shape of Pippin's tearjerking Home is Behind song playing over the imagery. It's a nice touch, though it hammers the point home harder than might be wise. Nevertheless, what's to dislike in this trailer? Big battles, a giant dragon (bound to be killed off in the first 20 minutes of the film due to the way the book is adapted, but still), all kinds of intriguing cultures and creatures clashing and a top cast bringing it all to life. As I'm not a Tolkien purist, I won't complain about some of the additions the writers made to the story, like that car chase over ice. Keeps some surprises to the whole if you already read the book. But what do we have to look forward to when it's all over? When Lord of the Rings ended, we had The Hobbit still to come (though that took nine effing years!). But could this truly be the end of our cinematic adventures in Middle-Earth? What do we do with ourselves then?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156732/comic-con_tarantino_bevestigt_tweede_poging_hateful_eight

I knew it! You don't brisquely cancel a whole movie, pre-production already in progress, just because someone leaks a script. Screenplays get leaked online all the time. When any movie hits theaters, few people lack the chance to get to look the whole story up on the Internet if they so choose. Which most folks don't, because they want to see it in theaters anyway. When Tarantino first scrapped the project, he stated he might publish it in book form. That would have been the true waste, as we already have a downloadable written version of this story online thanks to that leak. But in Tarantino's case, it's the filmed version we want. Why read that book if the alternative is another one of his expertly written motion pictures starring a great cast determined to make it work? So it was a given Tarantino would decide to make that film sooner rather than later after all. Which makes me wonder whether his whole tantrum about the affair, or even the affair itself, wasn't just some big publicity stunt to create public awareness and interest for The Hateful Eight. Maybe it was just a hateful Tarantino getting in the right mood to direct the project.

Today's Review: Godzilla

Godzilla: ****/*****, or 7/10

You can't keep a classic monster down. All you can do is keep him locked in the fridge for a while, until the time is right to introduce him to a new generation. And so it is with that most iconic King of Monsters, Godzilla. Toho, the Japanese studio behind the creature, hasn't released a new Gojira flick of its own ever since his big 50^th anniversary showdown Final Wars in 2004. As the Big G is turning 60 this year, it seemed about time to revamp him once more for an international audience. Teaming up with studio Warner Bros., making audiences forget about the previous American remake, the dreadful 1998 Roland Emmerich movie, proved the least of challenges. This time, the director's chair was given to somebody who had proven experience carefully balancing human drama and monster action, the man behind the guerrilla style low budget Monsters, Gareth Edwards (whose credits until that point included only that movie). His take on the giant reptilian behemoth makes for one of the finest Godzilla movies yet, but it also frustratingly illustrates just how little you can do with the character.

Thematically, Godzilla has always been an obvious case of 'man versus nature' and this time proves no different. Man's folly playing with powers (usually atomic) beyond his control that end up wrecking civilization has been a prime franchise message since day one, but as it has been a decade since it was last sent to audiences, this is as good a time as any to reapply it to Godzilla's latest origin story. However, Edwards opts to focus most of the plot's attention not on examining Godzilla's existence, but his foe's instead. This story thread is neatly interwoven with the fate of the Brody family. Living in Japan in 1999, father Joe (the always formidable Bryan Cranston) and mother Sandra (Juliette Binoche) work at a Japanese nuclear power plant, where things soon mysteriously go awry, leading to the plant's destruction and Sandra's dramatic death before her husband's eyes. The area is soon declared a quarantine zone, but Joe can't stop investigating the strange events of that fateful day for the next 15 years, alienating him from his son Ford (a rather bland and forgetful Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

When his father once again causes trouble with his illegal excursions into the forbidden zone, the now adult Ford, a US Navy officer, indulges him to present his case or shut up about it forever. Their father-son bonding trip into the zone makes for a frightful, haunting return to their old family house in a now abandoned, rundown city. Alarming news imagery of the Fukushima area in the wake of the terrible tsunami and the nuclear disaster that followed is successfully evoked by the ruined town set to give this Godzilla movie a 21^st century update that accordingly makes it feel sufficiently current and underscores Godzilla's original themes still claim merit. Stumbling onto a secret government operation, the Fords are confronted with the 'MUTO', a giant insectoid creature, millions of years old, that has laid dormant for countless ages, but is now waking up. And all the military might in the world is not gonna stop it from following its natural instincts to feed on atomic energy – it eats nuclear bombs, which kinda sounds like a solution really – and procreate. To the latter end, it has signaled a wake-up call to its mate and the two beasties proceed to hook up again, likely to humanity's demise, with more tragic consequences to the Fords, directly caught in its wake.

Edwards spends quite some time setting up the MUTO's motivations and the plight of the Ford family, soon making you ask a most pertinent question: where is Godzilla? It must be stated that there is surprisingly little scenes of the actual Godzilla in this movie, but when he finally does appear, he does so with a vengeance. The giant reptile is the MUTO's natural enemy of ages past and as one big bug called the other, so too their predator woke up to find its prey, as expert Dr. Serizawa (Hollywood's obligatory Japanese actor, Ken Watanabe) explains, while donning a foreboding look of concern and alarm that irritatingly stays for the entire film. The name Serizawa will sound familiar to Godzilla aficionados, and is just one of many little tidbits Edwards has lovingly thrown in as an hommage to the Japanese movies. The MUTO's, however, are a new invention specifically for this film, but they serve their purpose adequately for resurrecting Godzilla and providing for a good old-fashioned Kaiju brawl at the movie's climax. Just like the Godzilla themes of old have hardly changed, so too does the audience's taste for big monster battles remain, as Edwards all too clearly understands. It just takes quite a while to arrive at that point in the film where the fight finally goes down. We have to sit through many a scene of human character drama that ultimately doesn't make us really care about their plight before we get what we want. Though patience is required, it cannot be denied that the introduction of both Godzilla and his adversaries is slowly but surely built to a crescendo. When the Big G finally does appear for the first time, it will be hard for fans to repress a chill at this reunion with their old friend. It would have been even more effective had the classic Godzilla score been applied, but the current soundtrack proves effective enough.

It's clear Edwards sees no point in redefining Godzilla's look, as Emmerich did before, as this new incarnation of Godzilla stays rather true to the recognizable Japanese forms. Of course, this being a big blockbuster movie, the beast has grown in size considerably to accommodate the humongous budget and the expected onslaught it wreaks on both human cities and the military forces thrown at him. Edwards' respect for the classic Kaiju movie approach of men in suits playing the monsters shows, as you'd almost be inclined to think Godzilla is brought to life again in just that manner. Even the MUTO's motions seem decidedly human at times, but make no mistake: all three monsters are fully digital creations, not guys in suits smashing cardboard sets. Nevertheless, Edwards' ode to sixty years of 'suitmation' is well appreciated. Still, the notable differences in Godzilla's appearance compared to his predecessors, particularly his rather obese bodily features, are bound to tick off some fans.

Unjustly so, as this Godzilla, both the execution of the titular character and the movie as a whole, form a vast improvement over the previous American capitalization of the Japanese property. That said, in terms of story Edwards adds little novelty to the previous fifty years of Gojira. The message remains the same, and is delivered in a rather serious fashion, as this particular Godzilla is certainly one of the darker takes on the character: for Edwards, giant monster movies are a serious business and there isn't much room left for levity. The usual tendency towards flat human character development interspersed between delightful monster battles remains. The fact is, there's only so much you can do with a giant monster. Edwards will be hard pressed to find innovative angles to take his successful reboot in for the next installments. However, as this movie demonstrates, times haven't changed enough for the cautions against man's tampering with nature to subside, nor has the audience changed to such an extent they can't appreciate a good ol' titanic monster clash on the big screen. Even if the upcoming sequels fail to deliver notably new directions for the franchise, clearly Godzilla has enough of a fight left in him for another fifty years.

News, news and news some more!

Nothing can stop this constant flow of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155834/jessica_chastain_mogelijk_hoofdrolspeler_true_detective_seizoen_2

Fits right in with the current trend of highly respected and multiple award winning Hollywood actors to accept television roles, something which used to be "beneath their stature". The times have changed though. Television now is where all the critical acclaim goes, as it is also the place where the most interesting characters and stories, and thus the most challenging assignments for actors, are found. HBO sorta started the rise of contemporary quality television at the opening of this century, so it's not surprising to find the most high profile actors starring in their shows. Jessica Chastain would be a fine addition to the ranks of Steve Buscemi, Anna Paquin, Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey, the latter pair preceding her on doing True Detective. As this is an anthology show, they're out as their story is about done (or so I've heard, as I have yet to see the show: too much good telly, too little time to spare), and there's room for a new story and fresh blood accordingly. Making it female-centered is not a bad idea to differentiate the next season from its predecessor; in my mind there's not so (good) many female detective shows as there ought to be anyway. As for the Brad Pitt rumour, I'm inclined to think that stays a rumour. Yes, TV is attracting bigger and bigger names ever more, but there's still a vast difference between solid actors and huge movie stars. The latter category is not something I soon expect to see exploring the wonders of working on television. For one thing they're too short on time, even for a 'ten episode a season' show like this, plus they would be downright inaffordable. Playing challenging parts aside, the money motive still rules supreme. Movie stars tend to do the same thing over and over again, as that is their niche, what the audience expects from them. But no doubt this routine too will witness a major paradigm shift one day (aren't we all bored by Tom Cruise's one-note career for example?). Just not this soon I reckon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155838/batman_vs_superman_krijgt_officiele_titel

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Such a long title, feeling the need to set up both Supes, Bats and the Justice League. The good thing about Batman vs. Superman was its catchiness, which was helped by its fairly short title. Just look at The Avengers: title says it all in two words (you could even do without 'the', in theory). Adding the Dawn of Justice bit might give audiences that are not as much in the know a clue as to what's in store for them in future years, though it also kinda spoils the fun for those who weren't yet aware of Warner's plans for their DC Cinematic Universe. As the new title indicates, the common Internet name for this project was successful enough not to really change it, merely to add to it. Except for the rather useless ditching of the 's' - the loose 'v' looks silly - it's still the same. It also reveals what many fans already anticipated, namely that the Man of Steel and the Caped Crusader indeed will go head to head with each other. As is the common tactic in superhero stories, you can't get to fully appreciate your fellow vigilante without fighting them first. Do you think both characters will beat up Wonder Woman when they meet her in this film too? There always seems to be this sexist line of chivalry that is not to be crossed when it comes to the interaction between male and female superheroes, even when it's common knowledge the women are as strong, brave and intelligent as the men. As for the logo of this film, the Man of Steel logo has hardly changed as the film also serves as a sequel to last year's Superman reboot. However, the Batman logo needed a bit of a makeover to differentiate it from the Dark Knight movies' iconic look. The slick, pointy, sharp edged bat logo of the last decade is now replaced by a more rounded variation where the various appendages aren't as pronounced as usual. It kinda looks fat by comparison. Altogether, this logo kinda reminds me of one of those perverts in the park that flashes his genitals when he opens his raincoat, except this is a superhero revealing another superhero under his wings. There's an occasion to insert sexual innuendo here, but people have been doing that ever since these two heroes wearing their underpants over their leotards first hooked up in the comics. So I'll just leave it at that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155854/nieuwe_posters_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for

Character posters, who would have expected that? It's a traditional marketing recipe for films like these, one that the previous Sin City film also exploited to great avail. Considering the size of this film's cast, I doubt the studio will stick to only these five one-sheets. Nor should they, since these are rather awesome me thinks. They honour the source material by their comic book style and sensibilities and they make you want to check out what the rest of the cast looks like when 'SinCitied'. Of course we already know what they look like when it comes to the returning characters (four of those here, though one played by a new actor), but it's the newcomers we are most curious about. Or the sexy dames. You didn't think they wouldn't make a saucy poster of Jessica Alba again, did you? The previous poster showcasing her stage talents was soon elevated to the early 21st Century's equivalent of the infamous Raquel Welch poster from the Sixties. Of course the novelty has worn off by now, so I don't think this second attempt will turn out just as iconic in Alba's case. Maybe the titular 'dame to kill for' will outdo her in this regard? Expect Eva Green's Ava Lord to be featured on a similarly sizzling poster all too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155866/edgar_wright_stopt_als_regisseur_ant-man

Wow, this is quite a downer... Ant-Man was practically Wright's pet project. He stood up for the character even when nobody else, the studio included, saw any potential in it. Apparently, the studio no longer stood up for him, citing the age-old 'creative differences' routine as the cause of the director's dismissal. Spokespersons for both parties have stated they parted amiably, but I have a hard time believing that. Wright invested nigh a decade of work in this film and actual shooting was already underway. Being sacked at that point in production would hurt anybody tremendously. I really hope studio and director can still make amends of some sort, as I love Wright's work and I would have very much liked to see his take on a Marvel character, any of them. If not Wright, then his writing partner Joe Cornish is probably the best way to go, as he has displayed a very similar style of directing in his feature debut, which is still the only movie directing credit on his resumé. It's not unheard of for Hollywood to hire new talent based on only a single previous directing job though, even one of very low budget by the standards of the majors.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155869/gareth_edwards_regisseert_star_wars_spin-off_en_godzilla_2

Case in point: Gareth Edwards. He went from shooting a guerilla Sci-Fi/horror/action flick on a shoestring budget to directing a Star Wars film in only five years. Of course, it was his affinity with monsters that got him there via Godzilla, and he's also not done yet with the Big G. Not surprisingly, considering his reboot of the King of Monsters is smashing box office records everywhere as easily as a guy in a rubber suit smashes cardboard cityscapes in the original Japanese Gojira films. It's very gracious of studio Legendary to allow Edwards to do Star Wars first and their Godzilla sequel second, even though they're no doubt anxious to get underway, considering how well Godzilla is currently doing. Apparently, that mystic, near deified quality Star Wars once carried over all other Hollywood films still hasn't worn off completely. Few studios would dare interfere with the production schedules of the joined corporate powers of Disney and Lucasfilm, or the plans they harbour for their directors. I hope Edwards knows what he's getting himself into, as he's still rather new to the Hollywood game. It would be a damn shame to see him losing the Star Wars gig in a similar way Wright stepped down from doing Ant-Man. I'd hate to see J.J. Abrams take over that project as well.

Today's Double News: less than yesterday

Let's resume posting news in the usual frequency, shall we?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154917/marvels_dreadstar_wordt_bioscoopfilm

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154916/nieuwe_uitgebreide_trailer_godzilla

I had only vaguely heard of Jim Starlin's Dreadstar, which is not surprising as it didn't get a Dutch translation, unlike many other Marvel comics. It's not a part of the regular Marvel Universe, instead being featured on the pages of Epic Illustrated, a semi-independent Marvel imprint where creative talent could show off their own ideas and keep more of their royalties accordingly. Now that Marvel is a really, really hot brand, it's a no-brainer studios, big and small, are looking for as yet unexploited Marvel properties, even in more obscure corners. It's good to see lesser known franchises are also eligible for cinematic adaptations, though in Dreadstar's case, it's hard to sell to a financier since the story is so unlike the existing Marvel movies, not to mention wholly outlandish and definitely expensive to produce. Audience expectations of super heroism when hearing the name Marvel might also work against the project, as this is totally different conceptually from the Marvel style people have come to know and love from the movies. Don't expect crossovers with already established characters, even the cosmic ones like Thor or the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy. Dreadstar is a whole different animal. Which is what makes it exciting as a movie project, but a tough sell for the small studios that now own the rights. Whether Dreadstar will truly make it to the big screen only time will tell. I'm hoping there's room for unusual Marvel off-shoots like these though. There's more to Marvel than superheroes, you know? I can live without an adaptation of Millie the Model though.

I could also live without another American remake of Godzilla, but Hollywood is presenting us with one of those regardless, and I gotta say, it doesn't look so bad. Considering how few of the original Japanese movies can actually be called 'good', that's not so hard to pull off. This new 'extended look' isn't as extended as you might at first be inclined to think, and basically serves as yet another trailer, with about half of its material shown before and the other half new stuff to keep us interested. And since Breaking Bad, I'm always interested in Bryan Cranston, even is he is playing second fiddle to a giant digital reptile. It seems the trailer is telling us that the human element to the story is not neglected - good thing to, if you have an actor of Cranston's stature on your payroll - though of course the creature is still of greatest interest and therefore, not shown as much as you would like, confined to shapes and silhouettes. It keeps the audience in suspense as to what this latest incarnation of the King of Monsters will look like. Though those who really want to find out need only take a look at the movie's merchandise, which has already been released. Wanna see what the new Godzilla looks like? Click this link. That's right, he's fat. And his spikes are rather small. And there's a million other things fans might hold against this design, but hey, at least he doesn't look like his silly Sixties' Japanese counterpart seen here, which could be seen merrily cavorting in kids' movies, dancing around and such. You wonder how this beastie could have grown so iconic despite doing a bunch of these terrible kiddie pictures.

Today's Poster: the big G returns to do what he does best

I found another neat new poster to post on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153929/nieuwe_poster_godzilla

This is how you do a good poster, at least in the case of a remake (which is sort of what this movie is, though there's plenty of room for new material). You refamiliarise your audience with the character in question, in a setting that brings about a shock of recognition. It reminds you what you remember most about what you liked about the original character, which is thrashing cities in Godzilla's case. If you like Godzilla at all, that is; which a lot of people apparently do, considering the 28 original Japanese movies and the two American remakes, this being the second. It's a giant monster movie staple, but spectators still get a kick out of seeing human habitat laid to waste at the feet of some ferocious, titanic creature. Especially if the city being demolished is familiar to them (hence why these movies usually tend to favour big landmark cities, obviously). At the same time, this movie makes you curious enough not to get overly negative about this iconic character being milked again for a new generation, by adding the element of curiosity. What are those falling lights above Godzilla's head? Is he gonna get mixed up with alien lifeforms with nefarious schemes again, maybe? This poster also adequately displays what Godzilla is all about (or at least, should be), functioning as the ultimate nuclear nightmare destroying human lives by the thousands after having been resurrected by man's folly of playing with powers too big and volatile for his control or understanding. Nevertheless, if Godzilla will indeed fight extraterrestrial antagonists or rivalling giant mutations, he may also be mankind's only hope. Whether 'Kaiju' enthusiast Gareth Edwards (Monsters) will opt for either take on Godzilla, or just go for both, remains to be seen. That he gets Godzilla however seems clear from this poster. Plus, unlike what happened to the previous Godzilla, he honours the original Japanese design by staying close to it, instead of giving him a giant make-over as occurred in 1998. That also can't hurt.

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.

Today's News: the big G stomps his way into a new teaser

Not done with MS news posting just yet:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150606/teaser_trailer_remake_godzilla_online

Seems a solid teaser trailer. We get to see enough of this film to get us interested - if your interest is ever at all piqued by this type of film - in the usual death and destruction Kaiju-monsters tend to cause, ending on the big reveal of the main antagonist, without showing him off too much, thus keeping us intrigued as to his total form. It seems Gareth Edwards (who previously directed the low budget guerilla shoot Monsters as an homage to Godzilla and similar creature features) has the utmost respect for the big beastie, judging from his all too similar appearance compared to his Japanese counterparts, as opposed to the previous American Godzilla, which was and looked too much like an overgrown iguana. Also, Edwards makes it clear this movie is all about Godzilla himself; there's no human characters in sight here, despite the cast boasting such names as Bryan Cranston, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Juliette Binoche and the regular go-to Japanese guy for Hollywood flicks, Ken Watanabe. In fact, even the voice-over is not from any of the movie's standard cast, but a historical citation from Robert Oppenheimer. His chilling, haunting quote referring to the Bhagavad Gita is always a good choice when speaking in terms of nuclear holocaust, and in cinematic fiction, the offspring of such human folly, the giant monsters out to get mankind for its hugely irresponsible ways. Speaking of monsters, the teaser also indicates Godzilla is not the only big boy in this film. At least one other giant creature is visible, though it doesn't appear to be in perfect health anymore, undoubtedly having been knocked to smithereens by the big G's fire breath (you'd think after nigh on sixty years other Kaijus would know better than to mess with the King of Monsters!). Seems we can expect some decent Kaiju on Kaiju action - in terms of fighting, I mean! - besides Godzilla thrashing puny humans, as he also does best.

Overall, I'm teased. One thing's for sure: it can't actually be worse than the 1998 American attempt.