Today's News: big bad breaking! And then some

It's been a good start of the week for movie news, mostly because of one single bomb Marvel dropped.

Marvel past releaseplanning aan voor Spider-Man

And here it is. Or rather, here's the follow-up, as the main news item that Marvel has gotten Spider-Man back in the fold was posted by a colleague of mine (bastard!). But here's the first few ramifications for Marvel's Phase 3, with many more likely to follow in the next few years. Good thing about such major nerdgasmic news is it gives one inspiration for a column (or two), which I hope to pen this weekend. So I'll reserve my actual opinion on whether Spider-Man at last joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a good idea or not - for it's definitely not all sunshine in Marvel land with the webhead swinging his way through his fellow superheroes - for that opinionated piece to follow. Unless one of my colleagues beats me on that front as well. Not an unlikely scenario, since anything Marvel has a tendency to get people talking or in this case typing. That said, I am looking very much forward to seeing what take on the new webslinger will be applied to the new movie(s). I wasn't a fan of the way Sony handled the Amazing Spider-Man movies, nor of how they ended Raimi's trilogy. My nerd sense is telling me there's plenty of room for improvement. From the details, it's likely Marvel will turn to their Ultimate Universe for inspiration, a move I don't lament at all. I'm currently re-reading Ultimate Spider-Man - coincidentally, as I started doing so two weeks before this news broke - and it once again proves an utterly delightful and catchy read, that also goes to illustrate many an excellent possibility of hooking up Spidey with other Marvel names, without hurting any of them. I can only hope the new movie, plus Spider-Man's appearance in those of others, will turn out half as well as those comics did.

Eerste trailer serie Bloodline

Looks decent, but I have a hard time envisioning this as a long running show. The concept seems too limited to continue for more than a season or two, and from what I gather, it's Netflix' intention to keep it going as long as desirable. Then again, I once had similar reservations about this series called Breaking Bad, and look how positively that turned out against everybody's expectations. Of course, every character has a background you can delve into, but it feels like there's only so many startling family secrets you can reveal until it eithers gets boring or ludicrous. But what do I know, I've only seen this trailer, which no doubt totally limits our imaginations for this show. There's undoubtedly more to it than what's pictured here. Still, I can't help but get a distinct Festen vibe from this. A family tearing itself apart when the black sheep of the bunch starts digging up shady past events certainly sounds very familiar to those who'll recall the classic Thomas Vinterberg film. However, even if the basic premise is remarkably similar, we can expect there to be a lot more going on in a 13-episode season than in a two-hour movie. There better be, if Netflix hopes to keep this show going.

Lawrence en Pratt beoogd voor Passengers

Here's a premise that probably is better suited for a two-hour movie than for an entire season of episodes. Man accidentally wakes up in cryosleep on a spaceship during a voyage that ought to take decades. Man knowingly wakes up woman for companionship on trip. Whatever happens, happens. As to what happens exactly, I dunno. I can think of a thing or two, either involving bloodshed or sex, or both. It's one of those intriguing notions that gets the mind working after only two sentences of conceptual layout. But as for me, a Sci-Fi geek, you had me at 'spaceship'. As for who can play these characters, Lawrence and Pratt are decent choices, at least one of them sizzling with talent. However, I would have gone for someone else than the current go-to, default hot actor and actress in Hollywood. Both of them seem kinda omnipresent today. For a movie that largely revolves around two people only, I'd say it's better not to cast movie stars, but "real actors" instead, to avoid getting that feeling of seeing Pratt and Lawrence talking to each other for hours (even though that is what is going on, but we need to be able to suspend our disbelief and pretend they're somebody else). A project like this seems better suited to lesser known (but not necessarily lesser talented) actors. Even though that would make it a tougher sell to most audiences, who just want to see Pawrence and Pratt talking to each other for a few hours. But that's what people invented talk shows for.

Lionsgate wil meer Hunger Games

Speaking of Jennifer Lawrence, Lionsgate wants to see more of her. Or at least, they want to see more of that precious dough she keeps making the studio doing her Hunger Games thing. Or they want more material that carries the Hunger Games signature, potentially without the principal talent, since I imagine Lawrence is kinda done with the series when it ends. But studios are never done making huge piles of cash. So when something sells, you keep it selling as long as you can. And so the studio is looking for new ways to "flesh out" (read: ruthlessly exploit) their top franchise after it has properly come to an end. They're looking at both prequel and sequel opportunites, it's stated. Meaning, they don't care about the actual contents, they're just considering any and all ways that keep the franchise running for longer than the source material allows for. It works for Harry Potter and Warner Bros, their argument reads. We don't know that it does actually, since Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hasn't been released to popular or financial acclaim (yet). Plus, author J.K. Rowling is in full cahoots on that new series of films, while it remains to be seen whether writer Suzanne Collins is as enchanted by the notion of more Hunger Games. So for now, it's only a studio's dream of more money without any material to back up the reality behind that line of thinking. May the odds be ever in their favor.

Eerste trailer Hitman: Agent 47

Or they can just start their franchise over again entirely. Seems to be working for Hitman, since this trailer already looks better than all of the previous film. Of course, that film wasn't a hit in any way the first Hunger Games was, hence the option for rebooting. There's (fortunately!) a form of unwritten decency protecting the audience against rebooting a franchise the moment the first take on it has been completed. Otherwise we would have had three more Lord of the Rings trilogies by now. But when a film failed to connect to its audience strongly enough to warrant a sequel, yet still holds potential for making more money, a reboot is always just around the corner. Often for the better, since in many cases a reboot improved upon its predecessor and ushered in a new era for the franchise. Time will tell whether that holds true for Hitman: Agent 47 as well. It's still a videogame adaptation too, after all. They usually have more running against them than films based on other media properties.

Today's Triple News: interstellar hunger island

Posting one news item a day keeps boredom away:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157230/nieuwe_trailer_hunger_games_mockingjay

That's it, no more games. Are we ready for a war? Because that's what we're getting, if this trailer for the first part of Mockingjay is any indication. It surely enhances the scope of the Hunger Games world, which until so far felt a bit too limited to the actual Games of the title, rather than flushing out the wonderfully dystopian world surrounding them. Thanks to the lucrative popularity of the previous two installments, it's clear the studio sure provided the budget necessary to put this war on screen in a visually grandiose way. However, the trailer also makes no mistake in revealing that it's still mostly about the characters. That's good, as there's a lot of them we're emotionally invested in and we want to know their plight. However, in the case of the obligatory love triangle - truly a staple of the popular young adult fantasy genre that studios don't dare to shed, because it draws so many scores of screaming teenage girls - between Katniss, Peeta and Gale, here's to hoping that particular bit of character development isn't going to take precedence over the rest of the story, as it's obvious there's a lot more at stake than just the lives of three love smitten teens, and most of it is far more interesting to behold. Like hovercrafts shot down by explosive arrows!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157247/nieuwe_poster_interstellar

I must admit I find this first post-teaser poster on the dull side. It's obvious Christopher Nolan still doesn't want to give too much of the plot away, so the new poster doesn't reveal any more than we already know, which is that Matthew McConaughey (pictured) plays an astronaut who travels through a wormhole (not pictured) with some scientists (not pictured) in hopes of finding a new planet for humanity to prosper on after they've made a mess of their own globe (not pictured, I think). The brave new world the protagonist encounters is seen on this poster - or so we are to believe judging from the trailer, which maybe we ought not to do - and it doesn't look too inviting. Maybe the tagline is deceiving us, maybe there's something else going on and we shouldn't judge a whole planet just by the appearance of a small region. After all, there's places on Earth that look like that too (which is where they shot the film, I reckon). Point is, this poster tells us nothing new about the movie. And since this is a Christopher Nolan movie, there's probably a lot more to tell, since they tend to be stuffed with exposition and plot angles. Can't say the same for the posters used to sell them to the audience.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157246/hiddleston_gaat_naar_skull_island

Interesting bit of casting here. Hiddleston isn't the kind of name I had expected to see in this type of old-fashioned adventure flick. But then, neither was arthouse/independent darling Adrien Brody in the 2005 King Kong and that worked out well enough. Besides, information still is sketchy about what this movie's plot actually involves, apart from humans visiting the eerie, barely habitable Skull Island prior to Kong thrashing the Big Apple. We're still even unsure about whether Kong himself will make any appearance at all in this film. There will be ferocious creatures present though, that's been established. Wouldn't be much of a Skull Island without creepy crawlies eating people. Hiddleston probably isn't one of those snacks, as he plays the protagonist. But what kind of character that entails is still kept in the dark. Maybe a sailor or some other nautically experienced type of everyman. Whatever it's gonna be, I'm glad to see Loki Hiddleston in this picture, as his performance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was one of the finest comic book character interpretations to date, convincing me of his considerable prowess as an actor. And though this isn't based on a comic, the subject material isn't exactly far off either. As for the choice of director, I have nothing to say about his merits as I remain unfamiliar with his works, few as they are. I hope he's a type of upstart prodigy who will do the film justice, but I'm sure he's not gonna be the next Peter Jackson. Would have been nice to see PJ handling this film, but his King Kong story has been done and I doubt his heart would be in another.

Today's News: Hunger Games 2's promotional campaign is catching fire

Here's a pretty picture I posted on MovieScene today:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147107/nieuwe_poster_the_hunger_games_2

It's an interesting new poster conceptually. It looks old and weathered, like a Seventies' political propaganda pamphlet (which is a good sign), or a worn out romantic dime novel (which is not so appealing). I like the subtle way the advertising campaign of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire hints at the plot development of the movie itself. Katniss Everdeen starts as a celebrity in the Capitol, very much against her will, as demonstrated in the previous two posters released, where she donned one of those ugly, creepy Capitol beauty dresses to fit in with the local fashion which obviously didn't suit her. Those previous posters were dubbed 'teaser material' by the studio execs responsible for their release. Now we've arrived at the first "official poster" (such an odd term really, as if the previous material wasn't official Hunger Games stuff), and Katniss has shedded the attire the Capitol would have her wear in favour of her old, simpler garments, returning to who she really is and hence who her followers, the exploited masses yearning for freedom from tyranny, want her to be. Armed with her trusty bow she will make her stand and fight for those fans that follow her as the symbol for liberty she has become, rather than the fake champion of a morally deplorable Capitol show designed to keep the Districts in line by killing their kids publicly the shady rulers of this world designed her to be. This poster amply shows her stand, soon not quite so solitary anymore as the country will be plunged into full-scale war thanks to the choices she made. And so the perceptive audiences will have half the plot spoiled for them already simply by looking at a bunch of posters. No matter, those that watched the first film knew this was coming anyway; it's all about execution from this point on.

I'm fairly excited at the prospect of this movie. I've come to appreciate Jennifer Lawrence as a capable young actress and a witty girl (and I sure did like her covered in blue paint!). I liked the first movie despite minor shortcomings. I only hope those flaws, especially the dreaded love triangle, will not be the main focus in Catching Fire. After all, there's still plenty of elements of this particular dystopian society left unexplored apart from indecisive teenagers hungry for one another. However, there's a strong risk that will be the prime ingredient of the second installment, since The Hunger Games continues to carry a Twilight-esque stigma as being a 'teeny action flick', despite Twilight being - fortunately - over and done with. And being copied to death in unsuccessful rip-offs (The Host, Beautiful Creatures, The Mortal Instruments), something The Hunger Games clearly isn't in any way, except for the inclusion of a love triangle. But there's a real chance that's exactly what the studio means to exploit in order to attract all those teen girls that helped make Twilight so much dough. Who needs regular audiences if you have legions of obsessive fangirls backing your finanical interests?

At least this poster is spared two hunky guys standing behind Katniss, her face suggesting she's more concerned with which one to pick instead of kicking Capitol scumbag ass. So far, I like the posters, I like the trailers, but I will refrain from my expectations catching fire whilst caught in the hype, since there's still plenty of story elements that might lead to severe disappointment.

The odds are mostly in our favor, mostly

The Hunger Games

Rating ****/*****, or 7/10

With the Hollywood studio executives frantically scouring the book stores in search of new potential easy-to-sell franchises to fill the huge financial gaps left by the now finished Harry Potter and soon to be completed Twilight sagas, it came as no surprise when news reached the ears of the media regarding the upcoming motion picture adaptation of the best-selling Hunger Games novels by Suzanne Collins. After all, the first novel suited the Hollywood prime audience of youths between the ages of twelve and 25 perfectly, for one thing because it was about such youths (as were the franchises mentioned above), and for another, because it turned out an excellent balance between action and drama, with enough romance and humour mixed in to appeal to most demographics, plus it had the benefit of an already existing 'big name' because of the book's popularity. Hollywood apparently did the right thing for itself by turning The Hunger Games into a movie, given the various ticket sale records already broken in the first few weeks of its theatrical run. The question is: did it do the right thing for the general audience? Judging on this first entry into what will undoubtedly become a trilogy faster than you can learn to realistically mimic a Mocking Jay's whistle (people who have already seen the film will know Jennifer Lawrence couldn't), the answer is a hesitant 'yes'. The Hunger Games, though not without flaws in both execution and overall plot, is at least an exciting thrill ride that will appease many a viewer on any dreary day, and will probably satisfy the majority of the novel's legion of fans.

Set in a dystopian society in a temporally unspecified future (a few centuries away most likely) and a geographically unestablished part of North America, The Hunger Games deals with the adventures of 16 year old Katniss Everdeen (played by rising star actress Jennifer Lawrence who's fortunately up to the task of carrying the majority of this film but still looks better covered in blue paint), an intelligent and athletic girl from District 12 of the nation of Panem. (Panem=Pan Am=all of (North) America? Or is it the Panem from 'panem et circenses' (bread and games in Latin), meaning the Capitol running this state supplies the “bread” (means of living) and the subjected Districts supply the “games” (i.e. the tributes in the form of 24 kids a year)? Witty name? Pretentious perhaps? You decide for yourself, but I think 'Panem' sounds like a silly name for any country.) The movie gives us an intriguing but all too brief history lesson into the foundation of this country's present status quo, which goes a little bit like this: in a post-apocalyptic world, the twelve poor Districts started an uprising against their rich Capitol overlord, a conflict in which the latter triumphed. As punishment for their disobedience, each District must offer annual 'tributes', namely two of its children between the ages of 12 and 18, which are pitted against the other Districts' tributes in the 'Hunger Games', a battle to the death, broadcast nation wide, with only one survivor out of the total of 24 competitors allowed.

Katniss is living the good rural life with her little sister, her mother (Deadwood's favourite whore Paula Malcomson) and her hunky loverboy Gale (Liam Hemsworth, Thor's brother). Of course, all good things must come to an end, especially this early in the film, so Katniss finds herself as tribute, selflessly offering herself voluntarily so her little sister, who was the actual choice of cruel fate, is spared a violent certain death in the arena. The other District 12 tribute is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson of Journey 1 and 2 fame, apparently also a rising star in Hollywood but nowhere near as talented as Jennifer), a boy with a secret. Together with their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson doing what he does best, playing someone out of his bloody mind), a former Hunger Games survivor who since has made a successful transition from celebrated champion to opportunist alcoholist, the pair travels to the Capitol.

And here the fun really begins. One of The Hunger Games' strongest assets is the set design and the simple but effective way it communicates the vast differences, both culturally and ideologically, between the Capitol and the Districts (or at least the 12^th District, since we sadly get to see next to nothing of the other Districts). While Katniss' world is lush and green, with lots of forests and actual wildlife, simple cottages for housing and populated by hardened, gritty coal miners, the Capitol is the exact opposite, a totally urban environment filled with big, ugly concrete buildings in the Italian Fascist style, technologically advanced with no remnants of nature of any kind, populated by people in the most excessively flamboyant attire and make-up imaginable. Especially this last piece of cultural establishment of the ruling part of the world raises some uncomfortable laughs from the audience, given the fact that the grotesque outfits of the Capitol citizens makes them look both pleasantly innocent and dangerously disturbing, amiable and sinister at the same time (Elizabeth Banks excels in showcasing this duality in the role of Effie Trinket, the Capitol liaison to the District 12 kids). The only one who doesn't seem to join in on the current Capitol fashion is the dictator Snow (a fittingly regal but somewhat maniacal Donald Sutherland), who rules both Panem and the Hunger Games event with an iron fist.

Katniss and Peeta, understandably overwhelmed by the grandeur and splendour of the Capitol, are welcomed by its population as would-be heroes or true star athletes, though everyone knows they'll soon be most likely quite deceased. What follows upon the tributes' arrival is a lenghty series of sequences around the tributes that are designed to let the audience, both the Capitol spectators and the viewers watching the film, get to know this latest batch of cannon fodder, all the while working up to the actual tournament and slowly but surely making the tension levels mount accordingly. So in a successfully satirical mockery of media power we watch Katniss and her rival competitors being dragged through a parade, interviews with television host Caesar Flickerman (performed with visible enthusiasm by Stanley Tucci) and training sessions in which we also learn some of the differences between the tributes' mentality. The kids from Districts 1 and 2 (which turn out to be the Districts most loyal to the Capitol, sucking up to it vigorously) all volunteered for the event and are really out for blood instead of mere survival. This is of course a simple plot ploy to establish a 'good kids' versus 'bad kids' routine, the virtuous Katniss and Peeta belonging to the former, and the likes of the psychopath Cato (bulked out Alexander Ludwig) and his entourage to the latter. Both in the interviews and the training, Katniss appears to be a most promising competitor, with her popularity in the Games only growing when Peeta publicly reveals to be in love with her. Question is: is he really, or is it an attempt to make his level of interest among the Hunger Games' audience rise for his own benefit?

And then the Games begin. Now the movie gets to make good on its promise of suspenseful life-or-death fighting. To hurry things up a little, a whole bunch of tributes is killed in the first few minutes of the show when all but Katniss run to acquire weapons made available to them. Katniss makes for cover first, using her knowledge of the forest – the shape the arena has conveniently taken – to survive and only kill when necessary. Alliances are soon formed, and much to Katniss' chagrin Peeta appears to have been forced to join Cato's merciless gang of cutthroats, who hunt down and pick off lone warriors one by one. Katniss herself teams up with the little District 11 girl Rue (charming young Amandla Stenberg), who of course gets murdered all too soon, after which she believably mourns her loss and disposes of her body with respect, the televized images of which start a rebellion in Rue's home District.

A District 12 tribute causing an uprising in District 11 raises some uncomfortable plot questions here: what is the point of giving the 12 Districts a common cause against the Capitol again, in the shape of this tournament? President Snow describes the Games as a symbol of hope for the Districts, but the only hope there seems to be is the rise of a martyr/savious who will rid the Districts of the Capitol, and I daresay that is not the message the dictator means to send to his subjects... The Hunger Games seem to be just simple amusement for the ruling city at the expense of their subjected territories, encouraging dissent among the latter which will ultimately overthrow the former. Also, why 24 subjects out of 12 Districts, thus making sure every District faces at least one loss, while the Capitol can set the Districts against each other by using one 12 victims, with one District triumphing over the other eleven. Given the status of District 1 and 2 as suck-ups to the Capitol, supplying the Hunger Games annually with trained killer kids that are said to almost always win the day, provides for a genuine opportunity to strengthen the differences between the Districts, so as to keep them hating each other instead of focusing to bring down the repressive regime together. 'Divide and conquer' tactics are apparently lost on this particular dystopian government, but not on the observant spectator trying to make sense out of the Hunger Games' purpose.

That said, as poorly conceived as the political situation around the Hunger Games may be, the film itself certainly succeeds in making the event worthwhile, by delivering some rather tense moments of suspense as the kids are after one another in full force. Katniss has to use her every skill to stay alive from her persecutors, and witnesses a decent amount of unfair slaughter in the process. Of course, the movie is rated PG-13, so the level of bloodshed is restrained to an appropriate minimum, courtesy of quick cutting away from the gorier moments or shaking the camera around vehemently to make sure we don't get to see in too much detail what we obviously know we would see otherwise. Eventually, Katniss regroups with Peeta, who's escaped from Cato's vile clutches, and the two share some intimate moments in a hidden cave, proving Peeta's love is true. Katniss more or less returns the favour, which makes the existence of a love triangle the likes of Twilight in this film official! Who will she choose, her actual boyfriend Gale waiting for her back home, or her buddy-in-arms helping her to stay alive? Fortunately, this movie has little to say about it otherwise (though the unavoidable sequel undoubtedly will), considering Katniss needs to survive first in order for her to be able to make an actual choice, and of course, so does Peeta, since Katniss isn't the necrophile type.

And this provides another plot point of contention, considering Katniss never has to actually make a choice. Warning, here be spoilers! Katniss and Peeta are the sole survivors after having fed Cato to a bunch of digital (both for real and in the Hunger Games' arena) mutant dog monsters. Now of course we come to the long awaited matter of: 'what will Katniss choose?' There can be only one survivor after all, but apparently the rule is: 'there must be one survivor'. And so Katniss comes up with a cop-out solution of her and Peeta eating poison berries, thus committing suicide together instead for one being forced to kill the other. This the Games do now permit, so both kids are allowed to live and return home alive, much to the dismay of President Snow who has his Gamemaster (Wes Bentley) commit suicide himself over this fiasco. So all's well that ends well, but the audience is robbed of seeing Katniss' choice between life and death, which feels like something the movie was working up to. Instead, we are treated to the prospect of an annoying love triangle for the next film. Yay...

So there you have it. The Hunger Games, overhyped as any such big event film designed first and foremost to the teenage market is, is not a bad film per se, but not wholly good either. Though it delivers solid action, up to par acting and offers a fairly delicious dystopian society, reminiscent to those good old post-apocalyptic flicks in the same style from the Seventies, it could have been better if the world of Panem had been flushed out a bit more, the Hunger Games themselves finetuned somewhat stronger, and if the plot hadn't stolen a satisfying emotional climax from us. The set-ups for a sequel or two are overtly present, and though there's a certain appeal to seeing more of Panem, there's also the strong dread it will only go downhill from here, turning into a teen dramafest. Whether that will be the case remains to be seen. I'm not exactly hungry for more, but if you offer me some tasty little portions more of this, I'm game.

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/thehungergames/