Shit, this is starting to look derivative... Robot cops, the fine line between men and machine interspersed with explosive action sequences, unique robots developing a personality and starting to display Saviouresque symptoms... What's new here? You'd think RoboCop and I, Robot never happened. However, they did, and judging from this latest trailer Chappie will add little of novelty to the robot repertoire. However, this is Neill Blomkamp we're talking about, so I do hope he's got some tricks up his sleeve so he might surprise us yet. If he does, I'm betting it resides in the area of social commentary, which is rather his forte. Execution of both District 9 and Elysium proved not devoid of flaws, but the heart and the action both sure were in the right place. It's not like the dystopian future of Elysium differed that much from previously portrayed divides between a small elite and a vast multitude of have-nots. And it was still a damn fine flick. Chappie will likely at least be that. I would have hoped for some more original storytelling besides that, but I'll take what I can get. It's not like there's that much intelligent Sci-Fi directors to go round these days, so I support the few folks that try. Unless they really miss the mark completely (eh, Nolan?).
So now we know when the devil gets his due. Even though actual footage of the series still has not been released (they better hurry with that, with only three months to go), the new poster sure sets the tone. This is definitely gonna be one of Marvels darkest projects. I wonder whether that is the best way to go when you're building a second shared Marvel universe for television. You'd think a lighter choice would be a better decision to reel viewers in. However, it's all in the name. You could start with light fare like Jessica Jones, but only the true Marvelites would know that name. Daredevil is more well known, partially thanks to Ben Afflecks crappy movie, though that was over a decade ago. Yet people likely still remember it. But the real strong name of course is Marvel. That suffices for most audiences. And if the company has its way, the same will soon ring true for Netflix, so a series like Marco Polo can count on a large enough number of spectators just because it has the Netflix logo attached to its credits. It seems to work well enough for HBO. And considering the quality the company offers thus far, I wouldn't mind if the same holds true for Netflix.
More younger versions of X-characters, more talent needed to fill their boots. Though the majority of the actors and actresses mentioned in the original article I am not familiar with, I do believe there's some fair choices here. I'm divided between Team Turner and Team Ronan. Turner does a fine job on Game of Thrones, and the populairty of that show definitely gives her a mean edge. However, Ronan has a far more impressive resumé which encompasses a wide array of dramatic roles, some of them which proved quite heavy but she pulled them off admirably. Unbiased by the GoT sympathy for Sansa Sophie, I'd say Ronan should get the part. However, GoT does make me prejudiced against any actors who didn't star in it, so I won't deny I'd love to see what Turner could do with the character of Jean Grey. Hailee Steinfeld has a similar background to Ronan, so I would not mind her winning the part either. I'm glad it didn't go to Moretz though; I like her work, but I'd hate to see her get typecasted as 'that comic book girl'. She's got Hit-Girl, let it end there. As for the guys and girls up for Cyclops and Storm, for the most part I can only say 'who the heck are all these people?'. I only know Tye Sheridan from Mud, in which he performed quite well. Here too, there's a sympathy vote working its magic, as Taron Egerton currently has buzz because of Kingsman. The fact it was directed by Matthew Vaughn who, as the director of X-Men: First Class, could pull some serious strings also adds in his favour. But then too he'd end up with a comic book stigma, even though X-Men and Kingsmen at least are wildly different, far more diverse in nature than Kick-Ass and X-Men. There's just so many elements to consider here. Since I have zero influence in the whole casting process anyway, I'm just going to let this one roll on and I'll bitch and whine about the final choice when actually one has been made. Still, I can't help it: Go Sansa!
Another good movie gets a follow-up for television. There's a lot of that happening these days, and not all of the titles involved are justified for the small screen treatment. I would say Minority Report is among those. Sure, there's story a few possibilities remaining after the events of the movie. However, the issue is that it follows the movie directly and thus might spoil its deliciously undefined ending. The last half hour of the film can be interpreted in two very different ways, and I'd hate to see the series ruining the movie by picking the less ingenious of the pair. And even if the series opts to ignore the matter entirely and leaves us in the dark as we should be, I still feel no particular need of watching a follow-up to a by then 15-year old flick. Even if it doesn't tread the same paths as its predecessor. Though it at least beats the prospect of a full-on remake, like 12 Monkeys is currently undergoing.
What with all the reviews and such, it took me a while to get around to posting new news (aside from that little item yesterday, but that wasn't news to my mind, it was a gift from the gods), but then, last week wasn't particularly noteworthy in that regard. Here's the entire crop of the previous week:
This show is starting to look increasingly epic. Just the way I like my historical drama on telly. Of course, with a modern twist here and there: I doubt any naked sword fights took place during Polo's actual visit, but I'm not complaining. It appears Netflix has a solid first entry into the historical epic on its hands with Marco Polo, likely to rival HBO's quality programs - Deadwood, Rome, Boardwalk Empire - that dabble in the same genre with such notable success. The only thing that bothers me somewhat is the overuse of spoken English. More actual Chinese (and/or Italian for that matter) would have been appreciated to add to the levels of authenticity (especially when actors from those parts are cast), but that goes for any similar show produced in the English language by rival networks, too. Otherwise, this is definitely a series to look forward to.
I'm less impressed by this one. The twisty crime thriller has kinda become a staple in recent years, most of these copying Tarantino's flicks. Son of a Gun apparently does not, judging from this trailer, but otherwise hardly appears innovative. Except maybe for its status as an Australian entry into the genre, can't recall too many of those. Casting Ewan McGregor as a bad guy - with beard, like some sleazy Obi-Wan Kenobi - is a more inspired move though, as he's not often seen in such a capacity, almost playing against type. But the notion of this top dog criminal taking a youngster under his wing for his own shady purposes rather than for his new buddy's benefits is hardly the stuff of novelty, nor is the secret agenda the teenager cherishes to get out on top himself against all odds. I'm reminded of the French film Un Prophete, for example, which featured a very similar story line, minus all the action. I guess there's only so much you can do with prisons and break-outs in whatever country. It's just the way you spice things up that makea any difference.
It had to happen sooner rather than later. With all the dystopian movies currently hitting Hollywood's primary audience where it counts the most - their wallets - it's no surprise the granddaddy of all imperfect society stories is slated for a reprise. The Hunger Games, Divergent, The Maze Runner, they all took a page or two from Orwell's (in)famous reflections on ruthless governments absolutely controlling their populace. There's also a lot of sexual material present to appeal to the audience's hormones. Problem is, the original 1984 is a much more adult story, centered around adult protagonists. I doubt the studio will change that core aspect of the story to appeal to the spectators currently gobbling up dystopian fare en masse, nor do I think a serious director like Paul Greengrass would let them. However, just the notion of a society where everybody is under total control of the government's watchful eyes might bring to mind to more mature audiences who don't know jack-squat about Orwell's visionary writings the similar young adult flicks that are doing big business at the boxoffice at the moment. They might turn it down just on its dystopian qualities, ranking it as just another Hunger Games copycat (what do people know, eh?). Or the subject matter might just be too dismally bleak for them, which it just happens to be (nor should that be tampered with). However, I hope adult and younger audiences alike give it a chance, as this particular story remains as urgent thematically as it was at its inception in the late Forties.
Janis Joplin is something I know jack-squat of, admittedly. Popular musicians, be they from the Sixties or from more contemporary times, just have never particuarly held my interest. Too busy with watching movies to care about music, I suppose. I only knew Joplin died of an overdose (had to learn it from Austin Powers, I'll have you know). I wouldn't ever recognize her songs. I do know Amy Adams is a fine actress though, so that at least is one thing this biopic about the ill-fated songstress has going for it. I also know director Jean-Marc Vallee has a knack for historical drama, which the story of Joplin's life (and more so, her death) can be called after fifty years. So the motion picture adaptation of Joplin's life and times at least seems to be in good, Academy Award nominated hands, I'd say.
Get out your handkerchiefs, everybody! This video is quite a tearfest. It seems to have been made as much for the fans of both Middle-Earth franchises as for the people involved in making them. We're treated to footage from all six films, most of it fondly remembered, other bits eagerly anticipated. We also get to see a lot of folks hugging each other on set, bringing to mind those good times for those lucky few who helped bring the two trilogies to life. Over all of it Billy Boyd's singing is heard. I don't find the music or lyrics nearly as moving as the imagery, I must confess. The text isn't that much different from the likes of Into the West or May It Be, which graced two our of three Lord of the Rings movies, nor does the melody sound that much different or inspired to my ears. Nevertheless, the message is clear: this is indeed a goodbye, as we're on the threshold of the last (Peter Jackson) directed Tolkien adaptation, and that's a bittersweet thought indeed. Of course, remakes of both projects are bound to occur some time in the future, but for now, it's a sad thought that it will finally end here. It's been a great journey though, one that will forever be cherished for decades to come by the generations that grew up with it. So, from the bottom of my heart: thank you, Peter Jackson and the entire cast and crew of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies!
Yes, there was more news to report on, since Marvel saw fit to wash away al our questions on their projects for the next five years in a deluge of news, and I didn't post it all at once to keep people from getting overdosed on superheroes. So here's a sort of follow-up on what I posted earlier this week, though I will of course refrain from getting repetitive. I'm not gonna drone on about Marvel Studios' first female solo film as others have, since that is beginning to get old news, as both DC and Sony are developing female superheroine flicks of their own. I've known women can make capable superheroes ever since I started reading comics 20 years ago. So I consider Captain Marvel - who I've noticed isn't named Ms. Marvel, as in most of her comic book history, since that would likely be too sexist - in no way to be more worthy of anticipation that the other Marvel properties in development. The only thing that puzzles me is Marvel's apparent decision to have her team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy rather than the Avengers. I guess there's room for only one captain on Marvels primary superhero team, and having two of them, both blond and strong, might confuse audiences needlessly, even though one of them features boobs.
Still, I'm more curious to see what Marvel plans on doing with the Inhumans. Making a movie based on this superpowered human subspecies which has mostly featured as side characters in other franchise's series (and often not as good guys, too) seems like an odd choice. I guess Marvel still feels the need to include a team of misunderstood, villified outsiders the world hates and fears into their line-up, and since they don't own the rights to the X-Men any more, they decided to make do with this eclectic bunch of characters. Ideologically speaking, it's good to know Marvel still embraces the notion of taking a stand for people other than ourselves, teaching us that despite our often explosive differences we are all still only human and we should learn to live together rather than aim to kill those whose otherness scares us. I'm not sure the Inhumans are the best way to tackle said issues though, considering their aggressive history (which will undoubtedly undergo major rewriting to fit the bill more properly). Unlike the X-Men, they opt for selfimposed isolation rather than acceptance. They didn't move their entire civilization to the moon for nothing. Maybe they feel threatened by Richard Branson's attempt at commercializing space, which could end up in rampant, undesirable lunar tourism (though at the current rate his rockets keep exploding, that doesn't seem to be much cause for alarm). And if they get fed up with humanity somehow, will the Inhumans leave the moon and wreak havoc on Earth to preserve their genetic purity? I've already seen that movie, it's called Iron Sky (and I loved it, mind you!). I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Marvel intends to do with these people.
But wait, there's more Marvel to go around. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still running, remember? And to keep people interested in a show that isn't drawing spectators in such a huge capacity as Marvel would like, they planned to air the first Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer during this week's episode. The Internet hindered those plans though, so the trailer premiered online a week earlier than originally planned. Didn't stop Marvel from keeping their word and air the trailer again on telly this week. It's the same preview, except for a short but highly enjoyable opening scene, which does a grand job reminding us why we like the Avengers as a group so much. They have a great interplay together, a wonderful group dynamic that just screams for Joss Whedon's talents writing for such groups, which is one of his more famous and respected trademarks. This particular segment also pays hommage to the comics though, in which similar scenes of hammerlifting have played out a few times before, and the results in terms of good humour are none the lesser on screen. I could probably watch a whole movie about the Avengers getting together just hanging out and idling their time, rather than getting serious when another interchangeable villain threatens the world or stuff. Particularly when Whedon writes it. Scenes like these suffice of course, as it's an equally great thing to see the Avengers gearing up for action together.
'Game of Thrones in ancient China', is basically what this series keeps being hyped up as. Not a bad comparison, as the situation Polo encountered in the Far East very much was a game of thrones. However, despite the sex and political intrigue, which thanks to the popularity of shows like Game of Thrones is starting to become a staple of television - which I don't mind at all - that's where most comparions between both shows end. Except for the whole medieval background with swordplay, horse riding and such of course. However, you'll find no supernatural creatures plotting the downfall of man in the background. Despite the cultural affinity of the Chinese for dragons, there's none to be seen in this series (which only saves on the undoubtedly already expensive VFX budget). A few attempts at sorcery are probably interspersed throughout here and there, but I bet Netflix won't go so far as to call up creepy demons from their actresses' naughty bits. The show doesn't need all that, as actual history is fantastic enough in this case, and the Chinese are plenty exotic all by themselves. If you want to compare shows, Marco Polo has more in common with the likes of Rome and Deadwood. Both also shows from HBO, it must be noted, since that network simply wrote the book on the subject matter of explicit sex and intrigue cable shows excel at revealing today. But considering Netflix's own repertoire with series á la House of Cards, I bet they have little trouble transporting such a rich narrative atmosphere to a period setting, even though the latter is still mostly unfamiliar terrain to them. And I look forward to seeing the result.
I cannot say I'm as impressed by this trailer. It looks like rather standard Sci-Fi, but gives off the vibe of pretending to be more than that. If it is, I'm not seeing it. It appears to question the age-old demarcation between man and machine, the line where the latter becomes the former. That's about as old a science fiction concept as they come, though it still tends to fascinate. Using the guise of a beautiful woman to make it more easily acceptable for the audience to get drawn into the debate is also a hardly novel approach. Crafting a robot into the image of a sexual alluring and desirable female has been done to death ever since Metropolis in 1927. However, naming the robot in question Ava is less of an everyday occurrence. Yet Ex Machina has the dubious honour to share that aspect with The Machine, a movie with a suspiciously similar premise (and title, even), which only was released last year... So as they ask in New Jersey, 'what's up with that?!'. Intellectual theft, divine intervention or just a veeery coincidental coincidence mayhaps? I dunno, but it doesn't help getting me pumped for this movie, nor does the prospect of a writer turning director. In this case it's Alex Garland. Sure, he wrote a few good movies (including some science fiction titles, like Sunshine), but that doesn't mean he's a capable director. I haven't yet forgotten how a fine Director of Photography landed the director's chair for that godawful Transcendence, which also shares more than a few story beats with Ex Machina (though in that case it's 'man becoming an A.I.' rather than 'man building an A.I.'). Nor am I looking forward to the writer of J.J. Abrams' Trek fuck-ups directing what's set to be the third Trek fuck-up in a row, because Abrams is too busy fucking up (?) Star Wars. Just stick to your own trade, let directors direct. And let writers write. But don't let them write the same as other writers and get away with it. If that's indeed what's happening here.
Here's another derivative little thing for you. Divergent is basically the next Hunger Games, except the new Hunger Games movie is actually the next Hunger Games. Nobody can deny there's many similarities between both stories. Doesn't mean Insurgent should also 'be inspired' visually by its rival. These new posters bear a fairly striking resemblance to some of the character posters released a few months back for Mockingjay - Part 1. Except they feature lesser actors, and less guns too (lesser budget, no doubt). Ripping off another movie's marketing campaign doesn't help setting you apart from that film. But my guess is a strong independent identity isn't Insurgent's goal. They're hitching a ride on the Hunger Games' success by enticing the same audience with the same sort of subject matter. The Hunger Games is making huge sums of money, so of course the producers don't feel bad leeching off that franchise by letting the audience know they offer a similar product. They're basically shouting 'if you enjoy the Hunger Games, check out this franchise while waiting for the next installment!'. It worked on Divergent, and it is likely to work for Insurgent as well. Doesn't make either of them better movies though. Or more original ones for that matter. The only thing Insurgent seems to have that Mockingjay - Part 1 does not, is a 3D release. And that doesn't get me more excited in the least. But then, I'm not the target audience. Impatient teenage girls who like The Hunger Games are. And considering Divergent made a lot of money as well, I suppose there's lots of those.
More historical series, epic or otherwise, are always welcome, especially if they involve 'political skullduggery, sexual intrige and spectacular battles'. I can't recall Marco Polo having been done before on the small screen, so this might be as good a time as any to start. There's enough hugely fascinating material to be covered, ranging from Polo's long voyages to the East and the clash of cultures between West and East (but also the mutual learning) the explorer personified, to the major political strife in ancient China. At least there's one Game of Thrones veteran to bring his expertise on television like this along, and the participation of the duo of writer/directors Sandberg and Ronning is also most welcome after their wonderful Kon-Tiki movie that already showed they have an affinity with exploration, even though I know they are quite busy working on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales simultaneously. In all honesty, I'm not acquainted with showrunner John Fusco's body of work, but judging from his resumé - which includes The Forbidden Kingdom and the upcoming Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon II (don't ask) - the Far East is something he enjoys, and if that's true, he might be properly motivated to make this project work to the best of his abilities, as would befit a showrunner. As for Netflix, I have as yet no need for it in my life, since I prefer to watch television of my choice the oldfashioned way, by slowly but surely - with emphasis on the former it must be admitted - working my merry way through huge piles of DVDs and such. So I guess I'll have to do some serious waiting on this show over the next two years, as I'm also not the downloading type. Oh well, that pile will keep me busy for many more months to come anyway.
And should I get bored regardless I can always go see a movie in theaters, like Muppets Most Wanted for example (not the strongest segue, I'll grant you). This new Golden Globe promo spot is pretty hilarious, though it could easily have been done with other movies too, or for other award shows for that matter. Wouldn't be surprised if the Muppets had something up their sleeve for the Oscars too. Until that time, this fun little teaser is enough to whet our appetite for this 'most sensational, inspirational, celebrational, muppetational' sequel. And it also adequately reminds us to avoid any online message boards that are running rampant with trolls, flame wars and assorted silly people, especially the sort that would entice unsuspecting visitors to make money simply sitting at home.
