Today's News: dumb dinosaurs and jungle automata

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156944/pixars_good_dinosaur_opnieuw_aangepast

I have a bad feeling about this one. And not just because there's talking dinosaurs present, though that's never a good sign (eh, WWD3D?). The Good Dinosaur has been reported to feature its fair share of production difficulties, and now it appears the whole thing needed to be started largely from scratch, even though the majority of the voice acting had already been recorded. Of course, major restructuring of Pixar films is part of their routine by now. Toy Story, too, had to be started all over again, and few will argue that final result didn't work out as well as the first concept would have done. Then again, the last Pixar movie to experience severe production diffulcties was Brave, and that finished film wasn't among Pixar's best efforts. It really can go both ways. Of course Lithgow says it's gonna be even better than before, but that's not a very reliable statement; he's not likely to say the opposite before the movie has hit theaters. Actors and other assorted crewmen always come clean about disappointing work after the audience has had to experience their failures for themselves. Replacing the original director, who did the wonderful Up, by someone who thus far has only directed a single Pixar short by comparison, doesn't bode well. But then, there's talking dinosaurs in here, so for me the project was going awry from the get-go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156960/blanchett_en_bale_in_jungle_book_origins

The Jungle Book war is on! You'd think Disney's The Jungle Book would have an edge, with a grand cast including the likes of Scarlett Johansson, Ben Kingsley and Bill Murray, but Warner's Jungle Book: Origins, too, has assembled a stellar cast to stay in the competition. Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch?! Suck on that, Disney! Considering both movies deal with the same subject matter in a very similar way, combining live-action with digital animals, and now both include a top-notch cast of seasoned and popular voice actors, the question is which of the pair has the edge. I think I'll have to say it's Warner's Origins, based on their choice of director. Andy Serkis just has much more experience with both animals and motion capture, and that's key. He understands the technology, plus he understands the biology. Jon Favreau, who directs Disney's take on the story, doesn't have the amount of experience with the natural world Serkis does. Also, Serkis has a whole extra year getting things right and working out the technical aspects. Not to mention he gets to see the competitor beat him to theaters so he can witness its pitfalls and carefully avoid them to make for a superior film. Time is not on Favreau's side. However, he has the directing experience, as this is Serkis' true feature film directing debut (not counting his job as Second Unit Director on the Hobbit movies). I guess both movies are relatively even matched. It sure as heck won't be a matter of casting in both cases.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156923/eerste_posters_dumb_and_dumber_to

Oh wow, a mindless Hollywood comedy making fun of another film in its promotional campaign. Like that's never been done. I gotta say, this choice of poster post-modernism is a no-brainer (pun, duh!). And considering the general reception of Lucy (despite its financial success) by both critics and audience - both parties agreed it made little sense and was utterly devoid of logic - I think the similarities won't end there. But maybe that's just because I care naught for Dumb and Dumber To and don't have any particularly positive hopes for this one. I didn't see the original, which by now is twenty fucking years old, so I won't bother with this excessively late and therefore unwarranted sequel. At least it's safe to say only the marketing campaign will rip off other Hollywood films, unlike most brainless Hollywood comedies whose sole plot seems to be based around that single notion.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156959/eerste_trailer_automata

I think it's safe to say everybody's first reaction to this trailer will be 'I, Robot much?' Both from a plot perspective and from a design point of view the similarities between both pictures are remarkable. Even though Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' are standard fare in many Sci-Fi works in film and literature these days, this movie seems to take more than a few pages from Asimov. The trailer also hints there's many a character trait Will Smith's and Antonio Banderas' characters from both movies share. Can't say Banderas looks much like an insurance fraud investigator, though in the future, who knows what changes to their image they made? Still, I'm intrigued. It's a Spanish/American co-production starring an international cast and helmed by a relatively rookie Spanish director, so it's bound to be something other than your average Hollywood action flick, which is basically what I, Robot was, though it was a good one at that. The trailer suggests these robots are evolving more or less on their own accord rather than because of outside interference in their programming, which is also an appealing notion bound to raise some juicy existential questions if adequately explored. Other than that I remain on the fence for this one. You just can't judge a film like this based on a single trailer, they're too deceiving. I won't be programmed by a trailer to believe a movie is something when there's a good chance the final product will prove to turn out to be something else entirely.

Today's News, and HFR

Posted this little bit of news on MovieScene the other day, so of course it was bound to appear here as well. Note: it got edited, and the glaring spelling error in Jim Carrey's name is not mine:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/143774/foto_jim_carrey_in_kick-ass_2




Yup, that's right: Jim Carrey is playing a character (named Colonel Stars and Stripes, an obvious reference to the renowned super-patriot Captain America) in Kick-Ass 2. And why not? He's no stranger to comicbook movies, having done Batman Forever and The Mask in the past. With such a track record, you can of course doubt he's a stranger to good comicbook movies, but for now I have full faith in Kick-Ass 2, considering all the old favorites (minus Nicolas Cage's character Big Daddy) are back with a vengeance. There's just little than can go wrong with this movie, which is still being based around a fairly simple premise: ordinary people take to the streets in silly costumes and beat up bad guys. Or so they think. It worked fine the last time around. Naturally there is the danger of the film feeling redundant due to repetition, or the presence of a new director (Jeff Wadlow) who has yet to fully prove his competence in the chair, but so far no really awkward news has reached my ears about this project (except maybe for Matthew Vaughn not returning as director, but at least he will still produce). Judging from this single picture (which is much too little to make a truly based judgment about the whole film) Kick-Ass 2 is simply continuing what Kick-Ass started, meaning we'll get more wacky characters in doubtful mental conditions fighting crime in overly outrageous and no doubt excessively violent manner. Plus more Hit Girl. What's not to like?!

I also, finally, got to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in IMAX 3D HFR, now that the Christmas break has ended and there's finally some showings of the film that are not sold out. Of course I had already seen the movie in the regular 3D version - which I mentioned before was fucking awesome, an opinion I'll stick by - so I got to focus a bit more on the technology behind the film's projection than on the actual movie itself. I must say, HFR is not as bad as I feared it would be. I had already had a few sneak peeks through the projection booth's windows, at which point I was not wearing glasses so it looked absolutely hideous, due to the motion of the camera and characters which seemed cranked up a little too much, making it feel unnatural. As it turns out, HFR is indeed a tool in service of 3D projection. The image looks a lot more quieted down and smooth when wearing the necessary glasses, and it's indeed tremendously sharp to behold. There was only a handful of scenes, mostly concerning fast paced action or close-ups of characters's hands and objects, where you were made aware the film was indeed shot at 48 frames per second, and in those few instances it did indeed momentarily make the projection technology draw attention to itself: this had to be expected, since all the fuss about HFR should warrant the occasional feeling of a different viewing experience, positive or negative.

The sharpness of the imagery does make the job of the visual FX teams creating the movie's vast array of digital effects more difficult. Digital effects stand out more in 48fps, being exposed for the pixels they are. It was clear the FX teams worked overtimes to make their computer generated wizardry appear photorealistic, and for the most part, they succeeded. Gollum was the absolute highlight, looking about as real as he could ever hope to get and, also thanks to Andy Serkis' input of course, giving a totally compelling performance. That said, several shots of charging Wargs and vicious Goblins looked less convincing, but never truly bad. It's clear movies that will be shot in HFR better have the budget to make their VFX look good, since if they fail in this regard, lousy digital imagery will destroy the spectator's viewing experience by exposing the cinematic trickery for what it is.



The question now of course remains: where does HFR go from here? So far the reception of Peter Jackson's new preferred way of shooting a movie has been lukewarm in Hollywood. Which is not surprising, since basically HFR at this point is a gimmick in a gimmick: it looks good in 3D, but has yet to prove visually pleasing in the regular 2D-format, which is still (fortunately) the dominant way of film projection. Though James Cameron has expressed interest in the technology, it'll be years before we see HFR applied to other movies than the upcoming pair of Hobbit sequels. And if the recent evolution of the current 3D-format is any indication, greedy producers hoping to cash in on the phenomenon's hype will quickly apply a cheaper type of HFR to things like low budget horror movies, all too easily satiating the market and ruining HFR's name in the process by not convincing the audience of the need for the format. It can of course be argued there is no particular need for HFR at all. After all, the regular 3D version of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey already was fully engaging as a marvelously pleasing visual presentation, and few audience members complained about image blurring during action sequences. Mostly, viewers were too busy focusing on the movie itself, the story, the characters, the things that still remain, and for that matter will always remain, the most important ingredients for making a good film. At least Peter Jackson still understood that part of moviemaking too.