Today's Triple News: the vice of mocking Triffids

This is what you get if you don't get around to posting your own news for a few days: it just piles up:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153308/potter_regisseur_maakt_remake_triffids

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153285/eerste_poster_hunger_games_mockingjay_part_1

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153241/bruce_willis_speelt_hoofdrol_in_sci-fi_thriller_vice

All fairly predictable news really. The Day of the Triffids is not specifically a commonly known science fiction movie, but has a certain cult following that assured more would be done with the property in the future than to stick to lousy miniseries on TV. It was a given the first Mockingjay poster would continue the trend in showing the bird logo in an altered fashion not so subtly parallelling Katniss Everdeen's rise to rebellion. As for Vice, that is probably the most surprising bit of news, in two ways. First, it's basically a Westworld copy ('synthetic staff of holiday resort abused by visitors strike back in a rage of vengeance' sounds suspiciously familiar, does it not?). Second, Bruce Willis supposedly plays a bad guy (it sure sounds that way judging by the film's plot synopsis), which doesn't happen every day. I'm not saying it's a first; e.g. Planet Terror or Perfect Stranger for example. But Hollywood movie stars of his stature have a tendency to stick to playing the formulaic role of an heroic character, as that's what their agents and studio execs expect the audience wants to see them play. Why change a winning routine that keeps bringing in the big bucks after all? Maybe because these stars themselves get bored doing the same thing over and over again? A change of pace also helps them gain respect as true actors (which some of them really aren't) as they get a chance to reveal their versatility by playing a type of character they usually avoid. I know Willis is talented enough to play a convincingly brutal villain, so that's not what's wrong with Vice in my mind. I just don't care much for an uninspired story like this. Again, judging solely by the synopsis (as nothing else is available yet), which seems clear enough. Especially when there's a Westworld TV series in the making at HBO, which assuredly promises us every vice this movie could come up with, and more.

As for the Triffids remake, it had to happen sooner or later, and the powers-that-be opted for sooner. The last adaptation, a dreadful miniseries of ill repute, debuted less than five years ago, so the name (which doesn't seem mistakable for anything else), may still be fresh on some people's minds, but likely not for the better. So undo the damage done by throwing another adaptation our way, overseen by a notable talent. Newell surely is talented enough, having earned his reputation with a diverse range of movies including Four Weddings and a Funeral, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Donnie Brasco and of course his most famous (and undoubtedly most lucrative) film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Carnivorous extraterrestrial plants seem like something he could handle between breakfast and tea easily enough. Still, as is the case with Vice, there's a danger of thematic repetition here. Day of the Triffids already sounds similar to the better know Invasion of the Body Snatchers in terms of story (already remade a few year back, also pretty dismal). What's  more, the Triffids themselves are largely incidental, as the story is more about human intereaction in times of major crises, specifically man's ability to work together in (a lack of) harmony when society collapses. This theme, though still one that has the power to attract viewers easily, has been done a bazillion times already by now. In this regard, there's actually little narrative difference between Day of the Triffids and, say, The Walking Dead, except the latter already has succeeded in getting the audience's attention and respect as a serious (well, mostly) piece of audiovisual entertainment. A zombie Apocalypse is one thing, but the whole notion of an invasion by man devouring vegetables generally sounds ludicrous to most people, so if Newell wants his audience to take it seriously - which decidedly was the intention of the original novel at the least - he'll have to work hard to make us get over our initial negative expectations that would work against the film's favour. Thankfully he has also done Great Expectations, that might help.

As for expectations and thematic repetition (segue!), there's the new Hunger Games poster. This was one bit of repetition most people expected. As such, it's far from original, but given the rise of quality in the movies in question, no less welcome to inflame our hopes for an even more compelling finale (despite being cut in half to allow the studio to scrape every bit of milk out of Jennifer Lawrence's teats, pardon my expression). The movie isn't very subtle in terms of symbolism, and it's easy to deduce the shit has now hit the fan from comparing this poster to its predecessors, which showed a more obsequious jay, despite the constant appearance of flames indicating there's a lot of bottled-up anger involved. This time the repression has failed to keep the rage at bay and the mockingjay is finally spreading its wings in aggressive pride, its head held high as a symbol of defiance. It makes for a striking image, nevermind the little variation as opposed to earlier promotional artwork. Considering the number of different posters released for Catching Fire, I'm sure more inspired artwork will follow soon. This is only a tease after all. Plus, as the same piece of imagery concluded the second movie it isn't even wholly novel stuff to begin with. As such, you could also consider it a cheat. However, it certainly will succeed in drawing attention in theaters (probably just because it looks so familiar, causing an instant shock of recognition from "hungry" fans), and as such it's certainly a successful piece of work. The fact it saves money in terms of design costs is just a bonus for the studio, and a welcome one no doubt, as it's a given Mockingjay Parts 1 and 2 will cost a fair amount of cash to produce. Not the least of which will go to Jennifer Lawrence's bank account, as a raise in salary seems inevitable for such a "hot" (pun? You decide!) actress people can't seem to get enough of.

Today's bunch of mini-reviews

Great Expectations: ***/*****, or 6/10

Mike Newell's take on the classic novel by Charles Dickens. The elaborate visual look to the film suggests a director who has dabbled in big Hollywood pictures, correctly so with the likes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time on Newell's resumé. Despite his experience in big American movies, Great Expectations is decidedly British in tone, as it should be considering it's based on a British novel centered on a poor British boy getting involved in the affairs of wealthy British folk. Little Pip leads a normal harsh life in the lower class, struggling to make a living. He soon finds himself entranced by the eerie Ms. Havisham, a bat shit crazy lady who was betrayed by her bethrothed and since hates all men. The woman sets him up with her young but cold ward Estella with the purpose that he falls in love with her and she gets to break his heart, which kinda happens. Later in life Pip (now played by Jeremy Irvine) is invited to become a gentleman in London, learning the do's and don'ts of high society, courtesy of an unknown benefactor. He soon meets Estella again, now performed by the ravishing Holliday Grainger (of Borgias fame), but is dismayed to hear she is set to marry a not so likable other. Can Pip rescue his love from the clutches of the upperclass? Will he become a gentleman after all? What's the deal with Ms. Havisham and who is paying for his upbringing? Thanks to the lovely acting of the cast of Harry Potter notable veteran English actors, among them Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes and Robbie Coltrane, we are about to find out. And still, despite this solid cast with its impeccable performances and a grandiose detailed period look, Newell's Great Expectations just ends up being somewhat dull. Is it the fact the story has been done so often in years past (even South Park has done an episode around it)? Is it the dated story of social inequality and upperclass intrigue? Who's to say? Truth is, it's better not to foster too great an expectation beforehand, since you might end up disappointed, but it won't be the actors' or the production designer's fault. And don't expect any robot monkeys either.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters: ***/*****, or 6/10

This is not the fairy tale you heard as a kid, about two young siblings killing a witch in an oven. Well, that does happen, but this movie mostly focuses on the successful career of slaying witches those children made afterwards as they grew up. Thanks to Norse director Tommy Wirkola, who in his own country is noted for his 'Nazi zombie' flick Dead Snow, this new spin to the fairy tale ends up being a slick, action packed horror flick filled with many an over-the-top witch kill and creepy monstrous crones to match (good make-up effects there!). Hansel (Jeremy Renner doing what he always does, which is not so interesting) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton, always interesting!) scour the land as bounty hunters, often being hired to track and eliminate local witch infestations. Now, they must face the ultimate ordeal of converging black magic as a powerful witch leader (Famke Janssen) is determined to perform a dark ritual that would grant her great power to the ruin of all good things. As an added nuisance, she needs Gretel's blood to do the trick and Gretel doesn't agree with that decision. Soon the pair must fight off more witches than they ever did before, at the same time learning a new thing or two about the place of witches in the world and the fate of their parents they always thought abandoned them in the woods to die. A typical simple plot bereft of true narrative surprises, but a decent stage for nice hardcore action and a plethora of thrilling stunts. The movie delivers in those regards, and with a running time of just under 90 minutes doesn't overstay its welcome.

Oz: The Great and Powerful: ***/*****, or 7/10

Big budget semi-prequel to The Wizard of Oz (more so to the book than to the 1939 classic film, also for copyright reasons), directed by Sam Raimi who gets more family friendly than we've ever seen him before. Down-on-his-luck country magician Oz (James Franco) gets swept to the far away fantasy land of the same name via balloon and tornado where he is hailed as the saviour of the realm. Since it would make him king, earn him the love of several gorgeous woman (Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz, lucky bastard!) and provide him with a fabulous treasure, the greedy swindler all too eagerly accepts, despite the fact he's expected to kill a wicked witch (a lot of witches in Hollywood all of a sudden: I guess vampires are retro by now). Accompanied by several digital characters, Oz sets out to complete his task, which will cost him more effort than he initially considered. Even though our protagonist is basically a truly egomaniacal dick, the obligatory stereotypical moral lessons soon do their work (this is Disney after all) and all ends well with Oz being outed as a good man with his heart in the right place. This is not a movie you see for character development, but one you watch for visual thrills. Oz has never looked so ominously breathtaking, the Emerald City has never been greener and the Yellow Brick Road is just so dastardly yellow. Inhabited by a multitude of strange creatures (including terrifying flying baboons to scare the kids... in 3D!) and adorned with all manners of spectacular vistas, the technical aspect of the film is secure. In fact, it's underscored by a delightful nod to the classic film – they just couldn't ignore that one – as the film opens in black & white, in the original Academy frame ratio, up until the moment Oz meets Oz and we're colourblinded by contemporary digital possibilities in three dimensions. It works well enough, despite the story being largely 'been there, done that'. It's not Raimi's most original production, but there's great fun to be had for the whole family for a good two hours, as is Disney's goal in life.