A colourful bunch of characters. A lot of guns. A batch of terrific actors. The prime ingredients of any Tarantino movie, and Hateful Eight proves no different, judging from these pictures. Though another Western, directly following Django Unchained (which may not wholly fit that moniker, it must be noted), this movie seems a whole different animal. It's got more principal characters, but less characters as a whole. It also seems limited in terms of setting, taking place for the most part in and around a stagecoach stopover during a heavy blizzard. Eight characters with divergent pasts, many haunted by their experiences in the recent American Civil War, get holed up together and soon tensions erupt with explosive results. And there you basically have the Western version of 12 Angry Men. As is usual for Tarantino, it's not a novel concept, but it's the way it's handled that makes it enjoyable and successful. And with such talent among the cast (and apparently Channing Tatum, too), it seems like little can go wrong in terms of quality. Same can't be said for these characters, most of them likely won't leave that cabin alive. Tarantino will put those guns to great use in making sure of that.
Speaking of the Civil War, here's another conflict with the same name for you. Different time, different sides though. Should a masked man with a secret identity and an essentially dangerous set of superpowers take responsibility for his actions, or let the government do it for him? Iron Man says yay, Cap says nay. And thus the Marvel heroes are at each other's throats. Which heroes, you may ask? Well, from the looks of it, virtually all of them and then some. Basically all the Avengers from the previous film (that made it out alive at least) are returning, and a bunch of new names - like Ant-Man, Spider-Man and Black Panther - are thrown into the mix. You gotta have an ample batch of superheroes for a superhero war, after all. But why then, isn't this movie basically your Avengers 3? Isn't Cap A gonna get lost in his own film? There's two sides to the conflict and he's only representing one of them. I'm sure the powers-that-be take this into consideration and make the ideological questions at hand and the characters through which they are addressed the most, Cap and Iron Man, take centre stage. Which still means Iron Man is likely to assume a role at least as important as Cap's. Hey, that's what you get for not making an Iron Man 4. However, there's still a true bad guy to take out amidst all the superhero fisticuffs, and it's former Nazi Baron Zemo, one of the classic Cap villains. Surely that will tip the plot in Cap's favour, though not so much the stakes, if he has to fight both him and the government lackey Avengers. There's a reason Cap died at the end of the original Civil War storyline, you know...
My first thought upon seeing these posters is they enlarged Emilia Clarke's breast size. That's gotta show how excited I am about seeing Ahnuld as the Terminator again. Sure, he made it into an iconic character back in the days, but in my mind Terminator Salvation showed you can have a decent Terminator flick without the Austrian Oak. Audience attendance for that movie disagreed with me. And now that Arnold's political career is over, he's back (yes, that line is impossible not to use in this context these days). The plot kinda helped him out in returning, crafting an alternate timeline to twist the old (and there's lots of that both in terms of characters and rehashed dialogue) into something new. Sarah Connor, Kyle Reese, T-800, T-1000, been there, done that. So now we get a T-3000 to provide the new action. I recognize an abandoned concept from Salvation in this character. A fiendishly sinister original ending shaped in a character, to be exact. Originally, Sam Worthington's character in the predecessor was gonna save the day and then unexpectedly kill off the good guys and take John Connor's place as resistance leader (basically with the intent to lead it to its doom). Too daring and dark, so they let it go for a more cheerful, positive resolution. Now the new model Terminator on the block assumes Connor's appearance, and possibly more than just that, as it's unclear from the trailers where its loyalties lie. Interesting to see this notion return in a different form. But thanks to the alternate timeline, basically every Terminator notion returns in a different form here. The oneliners stay the same though. We loved them then, why wouldn't we now, the studio likely assumes. Same thing as with Schwarzenegger.
I still hate to admit it, but I'm getting more and more optimistic about this new Star Wars film. Though I'll never forgive J.J. Abrams for what he did to Star Trek, it does seem increasingly more evident that his mentality in just right for the competition. Or maybe he just knows how to utilize the classic trilogy's well remembered and much beloved aesthetics to get the fans hoping he's doing the right thing. After all, in terms of plot and characters we still know next to nothing. It just looks grand. But since Star Wars was always better known for its fabulous looks rather than its complex storytelling, all things considered he seems to be doing more right than wrong thus far. And thanks to these wonderful pictures, we know just a little bit more than we did before their release. Adam Driver is playing a baddie on the Imperial side. I doubt anyone would have thought differently, but at least that's now confirmed. It's safe to say less fans would have guessed Lupita Nyong'o is playing a digitally enhanced space pirate, though these pics dont tell us what she looks like just yet. The expected visual effects work aside, the best thing about this photoshoot is how clearly it shows J.J. is also using a lot of practical effects, another thing most will fondly remember from the Old Trilogy and lament the lack of in Lucas' own Prequel Trilogy. The bizarre menagerie of exotic aliens and droids, as well as the elaborate sets for strange new worlds, look nothing if not spectacular. But whether it will all be put to good use...? We won't know until December 18.
I didn't see that coming. Such a British actor in such an American blockbuster, but basically it's a terrific presence in a kick-ass series of films, so it's by no means a bad match. But who will Bilbo Freeman play? I honestly haven't a clue. What I've read from the plot suggests this particular version of Civil War isn't limited to US soil, but is played out on the global level. So Freeman could be portraying some representative from another nation, likely the United Kingdom. But that's just rampant speculation on my part. Though I have a tough time seeing him play a superhero character (which isn't something I would actually have issue with), he may surprise us all again and prove to be doing just that. Captain Britain perhaps? Considering how few different nationalities are found among the current line-up of Marvel Cinematic superheroes, it wouldn't hurt the story to introduce a few that are not from the USA. Even though that might make for an overly crowded film. But hey, so far the only non-Americans on the Avengers rostar are the Russian Black Widow, the Asgardian Thor and (spoilers!) now Scarlet Witch from that fictional Eastern European country. Sure, Civil War introduces the Wakandan Black Panther, but that's still not many characters to make for a worldwide event. Of course, it's the actions of the superheroes on foreign soil that makes things global and politically delicate and therein likely lies the rub which will soon involve Martin Freeman's character.
Can't say any of these names sound particularly appealing to me for directing Spider-Man. I get that they all directed films involving teenagers and comedy which is an important market and demographic for Hollywood, but to just give them the lead of a very expensive superhero flick? Let's hand the reigns of Spider-Man to the guy who made Pitch Perfect? That doesn't sound like the smartest line of thinking to me. Marc Webb directed a film similar to those on the resumé of these guys, (500) Days of Summer, prior to helming both Amazing Spider-Man films. Look at how well that turned out... rebooting the character (again!) less than five years later. Not that I blame Webb for the lackluster quality of both films, which is mostly to blame on aggressive involvement from a studio without a sense of direction for the future. But this time I would go for someone more snazzy, more experienced with this sort of subject matter, even though teens and comedy are definitely parts of the mix. How about Edgar Wright? He's done teenagers and superheroes before, and he's apparently not doing anything since he left Ant-Man. Sounds like a prime choice!
Speaking of Ant-Man, here's his new poster. Looks good, but the formula for these posters is now a given. Hero(es) on the foreground, faces of supporting cast and a bit of setting in the background. And there you have it. And in this case, it doesn't look as visually striking or intriguing as with, say, Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor: The Dark World. It will do the job, sure, but this poster lacks the inspiration of the teaser poster, which was basically all white with a tiny Ant-Man in the middle. That was daring and fun. This is a routine job. Let's hope the movie is not.
Little is added to what we already knew of this film's plot, but a big can of raunchy jokes has been opened here. Makes you wonder how much more of this we're in for when the actual movie hits theaters, since all manner of bodily fluids and sexual positions have been adressed in this three minute red band trailer alone. One thing this preview makes amply clear is that we shouldn't expect too much from the plot; as if we did. Yes, it's pretty intriguing from a philosophical view point, basically being a retelling of that classic episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Measure of a Man. To what extent does artificial intelligence qualify as 'life'? And what are its rights under the law as dictated by man? All wildly fascinating stuff, make no mistake. But hey, we're talking about a live teddy bear in this case, so forget about any of it sticking for very long. It's not meant to be taken seriously by nobody. The only sticky stuff present in Ted 2, as overtly indicated by this trailer, will be sperm and alcohol.
Butterfield is as good a choice for a younger Peter Parker as any, to my mind. His name certainly sticks out from the others on the shortlist, him having had the most big screen production experience and critical accolades that come with it. That said, do we want a younger Peter Parker? This is Spider-Man after all, not Spider-Boy. True, but in most every incarnation of the character, he started out at high school. He also did in both the Raimi trilogy and the recent Amazing Spider-Man reboots, but in both cases, the actor that portrayed the wallcrawler definitely felt older than the character was supposed to be (since in both cases, he was). So maybe it's about time we let the younger generation try its had at webslinging. No kids on the current Avengers slate, so let's diversify a bit and add one. It's sticking close to the Ultimate Universe the Marvel Studios movies have a knack of imitating. It might make the impact of the upcoming events in Captain America: Civil War hit home harder. Restricting superhero activity is one thing for adult superhumans, but what about teenagers? Requiring them to register their powers to the government, thus limiting their life options from an early age, does feel rather harsh. Hopefully a teenage Spider-Man played by an actual teenager does add some such intriguing new layers of superhero logistics and laws, if played right. And I'm fairly confidant Butterfield can play it right.
I'm still not convinced these four are right for their respective parts, though. And from the buzz online, it appears I'm not alone in that hesitation. So far the responses to the trailers and other promotional material has predominantly been on the negative side. Maybe it has something to do with Marvel's apparent campaign of smearing the quartet's name because Marvel Studios doesn't own the rights to the franchise anymore. That would be quite cynical and detestable, considering the FF's illustrious history at Marvel since 1963. However, I haven't followed most of the recent FF stories, so I don't know if rumours are true. I just know what I see, and I see these trailers and I'm simply not feeling overly excited by them. Other than the lack of chemistry of the actors and the characters I'm fearful of (which hasn't been proven yet), I can't quite put my finger on it. The actors are fine in their own right, and I know from readint the comics there's plenty to like about the characters in general. Maybe it's the director? Rumours again are not kind. Josh Trank apparently isn't the most easy of directors to work with. Which forms a decent segue to...
... this bit of news. No more Star Wars for Trank. Much like Gareth Edwards and Rian Johnson, he seemed like a fine choice. A talented young upstart, fresh from his first critical and commercial success. And therein no doubt lies the problem, as other than Chronicle, Trank has nothing to his name just yet. Sure, he directed a likable indie superhero flick, but handling a big blockbuster movie, especially one that comes with high expectations and related pressure, is another thing entirely. Word is things didn't go so smoothly on the set of Fantastic Four. So that might have made the right folks at Disney/Lucasfilm a tad nervous. You're not giving Star Wars to someone who can't even emotionally handle a small property like FF. Especially when there's ample time to find a successor. So the second entry in the Star Wars Anthology series is now in need of a new director. But what about Fantastic Four 2? Fox has already been planning that sequel for some time, with Trank slated to direct it. There's no word yet on whether Fox and Trank will part ways. Which again makes you wonder how much of these rumours are true. A grain of salt is a good thing to take with all this stuff for sure. The Internet may be playing Jedi mind tricks on us.
And here's a mind trick for the members of the female audience who're into this sort of thing. A thirty second tease of Jamie Dornan putting on a tux and a silly mask, followed by a moaning sound. Not very subtle but it will do the trick. Less than two years to go until the release! Make sure to note it in your agendas and plan your lives accordingly, ladies! Even though nobody will honestly accuse Fifty Shades of Grey of being a good film, I'm sure the womenfolk will gobble up the sequel vigorously. But hey, men do the same with "their" franchises like Fast and Furious and all those darn superhero movies, so let's not get overly sexist here. Just remember, guys: in about three years time this will all have blown over and we can resume the everyday course of life as it nothing happened. It's not like anybody is talking about the Twilight movies and books anymore these days. Thankfully.
That's what I'm talking about! Less logo (awesome and iconic though it may be) and more striking visuals to entice folks from visiting the new park. Two down, one more to go, and the second trailer just around the corner. Even though the creature is wholly incorrect from a scientific viewpoint, I cannot help but drool over the Mosasaurus one-sheet. The thought of a giant marine reptile - not a dinosaur, as the studio would like you to think - in a tank is such a simple concept, but it totally works. I feel as excited as the little boy on the poster beholding this critter. The shark, less so, I imagine. From what I hear from the script going round, these fish have to be cloned to serve as the Mosasaur's food, since they're on the endangered species list. A fun little side notion with little to no plot consequences, but also a delightful little inside look at the awkward logistics of a dinosaur theme park. The I-Rex poster serves as a decent reminder of the whole man versus nature dichotomy, basically the franchise's philosophical routine. I like the set-up, though if it was applied to hide the appearance of the Indominus Rex, it's a wasted effort, considering the merchandise and I-Rex action figures are already available in many stores around the globe. Of course, the general audience may not be aware of that fact (yet), but it's also not very courteous to misdirect them into thinking the I-Rex is as large as suggested on this poster, as it actually isn't judging from the trailers. But hey, it's a fantasy creature, so some artistic license are allowed, not to mention copyright is installed on the creature's name and likeness. So what's on the third poster? It's gotta be the T-Rex. I guess many fans will still feel it needs to reassert its dominance as the Tyrant Lizard King after JP III, even though that's a moniker bestowed on it by man rather than by nature. Obviously the T-Rex is gonna kill the I-Rex in some spectacular climactic battle, as it doesn't take kindly to people cloning rival superpredators. So it does deserve a poster of its own, and tomorrow we may find out whether JW's plot and promotional campaign are that predictable. But it's gonna be awesome regardless.
And then there's this less predictable story. Sucks too, as I considered Michelle MacLaren the finest choice to direct Wonder Woman, if a female director is obligatory. Someone who helped make The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones to be as great as these shows are would have been a damn fine asset to this picture. But of course, the studio had to screw it up by restricting her input over the story. The usual creative differences ensued, and the best choice departed the project. So who did they pick as her replacement? Patty Jenkins of all people. Ironic to say the least, considering she herself walked off the set of Thor: The Dark World a few years ago because of the same creative differences. Who's to say Jenkins will know any greater liberty directing for DC than she did for Marvel? Then again, she likely knew this when she signed up for WW, so maybe she has finally grown to accept the restrictions placed on the creative input of directors picked for these pieces of the larger superhero cinematic universe puzzles. Man or woman, when working for Marvel or DC, a director must know his or her place, subject to the whim of the studio. No room for emancipation here.
My, doesn't Daniel Craig look like a manly man on the first one-sheet for the 24th 007 film? His eyes never seemed more blue. That alone should win over the womenfolk en masse. Plot details are few, but that matters little when it comes to a huge beloved franchise like this. It's James Bond, people know what ingredients to expect. This poster guarantees they'll get some of it, namely a tough protagonist and plenty of (gun) action. And likely the usual obnoxious product placement ads interspersed throughout the film, as his gun and watch seem ready for that. The general image suffices for the marketing campaign up to this point. The most important thing is the name getting the chance to nestle itself into the collective consciousness, building awareness for the impending movie well in advance. It's hard to miss on this poster. Even though for those more strongly interested than the general audience, it's still unclear whether it's 'Spectre' or 'SPECTRE'. But details on that and the actual story can wait until the promotional campaign kicks into higher gear, when trailers start pouring in. For now, suffice to know that, as always, James Bond will return. And so will Craig.
Even though we may be, Disney sure isn't done remaking its entire library of animated features into live-action films. We've only just had Cinderella, but at least three more projects are in the works, including this one, Beauty and the Beast. After all, it's a tale as old as time, so who cares there have been dozens of versions of this story already? The expensive and visually lavish French film was released just over a year ago, but casting on the next iteration is already in full swing. And some of the casting is certainly spot-on. Luke Evans as the arrogant hunter Gaston is a golden choice. Kevin Kline and Emma Thompson are always good reliably British choices. I'm more on the fence over the titular characters, as played by Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, respectively. Also very British, perhaps too much so to play supposedly French characters. Watson undeniably is a beauty, but I've got a hard time picturing the dashing, gentlemanly Stevens in any beastly form. It's gonna require a lot of make-up to hide those positive features of his. And how about the chemistry between both? So far, Watson has never played one on one with another actor for a whole movie, she's always done threesomes or group jobs (no, not of that kind!). She did well enough playing off multiple characters, but didn't often convince me on a smaller, more personal scale. Guess it's up to Beauty and the Beast to show me otherwise.
Another movie up for a television series, and what an odd choice it is. Apparently Let the Right One In has some staying power and enough of a franchise potential in the mids of execs in the TV industry. Despite being limited to one original Swedish film and its lacklusterly received American remake. I haven't seen the Scandinavian original. but I did see the US take on it and found it to be surprisingly strong for an American remake. Either they simply just got it right for a change, or the Swedish film must be exceptionally good. But a TV show based on this premise? I can't imagine it running longer than a single season. Boy befriends ancient vampire who looks like little girl. She helps him defend himself against bullies, he aids her in acquiring blood. Plus a little murder mystery on the side, but that's all there is to it. If they want to make a show out of it, even a short series of like six episodes, they still need to add a lot of details and new story elements to stretch it out. And apparently, considering the high praise for the original film, the story doesn't really need it. That combination of facts doesn't bode well for this project. But hey, I've heard of worse recently announced TV shows based on films, both good and bad ones. And since we're living in the Golden Age of Television, we can afford a badly adapted series or two. Enough good stuff to pick from. It just kinda sucks for the Swedes if their hit movie was among the poorly conceived shows out there.
A change of main actor notwithstanding, the Transporter just continues raging on the big screen as ever. It never got to be a major franchise despite spawning two sequels, but it seems the Luc Besson studios are endeavouring to change that, having learned from surprise boxoffice successes like the Taken series and Lucy how the game works. Wouldn't be the first time an action packed movie series featuring fast cars and hot dames which everybody considered burned out after the third installment, suddenly picked up speed with its fourth entry. Remember Fast and Furious? However, that series benefited from the return of its hottest stars against the odds, and Transported Refueled does not. Jason Statham just departed after three films and left the steering wheel to Ed Skrein. What do we know him from? Playing bit parts in a bunch of action movies, but he's most notably known as the creepy Daario Naharis from Game of Thrones, before the hot Daario Naharis (Michiel Huisman) took over our collective notion as to what Daario Naharis should look, sound and be played like. So the appeal of the new Transporter flick isn't likely to come from the main star. Hopefully the fast-packed action, cool vehicles and scantily clad girls prove enough to entice audiences and ensure the F&F like future the producers no doubt envision. Fat chance.
Yes, ID4 2 is still a go and the cast is getting bigger by the week, whether we care to see a second film or not (most of us don't). Big European name Charlotte Gainsbourg - from those creepy sexually charged Lars von Trier movies like Nymphomaniac and Antichrist, that freak out American audiences so nicely - has joined the fight against the next invasion of evil alien grasshoppers. We have no idea what character she'll play as of yet. My hope is she'll play the French president who leads the heroic main assault against the sinister extraterrestrials in a fighter jet by herself. Not gonna happen. If she performs duty as a government leader at all, it's probably one desperately needing American assistance to combat the legions of evil, as these things go in Hollywood blockbusters. Maybe she won't play someone in office at all though, that might just be my imagination running wild. Face it, if the script calls for a strong female European political leader, anyone in their right mind would immediately cast Sidse Babett Knudsen, who would personally kick some serious alien butt. Given her recent repertoire, it's not inconceivable Gainsbourg will play the stripper girlfriend of the black pilot instead. Though maybe she's too old for that, and the black pilot they cast too young. Did Jeff Goldblum's character finally found a wife then? So many options, and not all of them as flattering to Gainsbourg's considerable talents, as you can see. It doesn't matter really. If not by Gainsbourg, alien ass will be kicked by someone else for sure. Because that's what ID4 2 will definitely be about.
And some sad news to conclude this week. All good things must come to an end, including this one. I have yet to catch up with the previous two seasons of this delightful show, though I've heard they're not as good as what came before. I'm still sorry to see the Crawley family leave the air, regardless. Downton Abbey proved about as high class a show as British telly can deliver. Fabulous tale of sweeping change in both the higher and lower echelons of society in the first half of the 20th Century, proving both sides are utterly compelling and relatable in their dealings to stay afloat. Not to mention the strong assembled talent, always good for terrific performances. Usually quality English shows prove to last only a season or two, so we should consider ourselves fortunate it lasted as long as it did. At least Downton Abbey gets a chance to be wrapped up properly. A fine
series like this deserved a fate better than cancellation, even those
who ended up disliking it shouldn't deny as much. Oh well, as I stated before and we all know, the whole 'Golden Age of Television' thing. Plenty to watch. Let's merrily move on.
I suppose this was last week's bit of 'breaking news' (insert exclamation mark or two). Even though the Star Wars spin-off films aren't nearly as hugely anticipated as the upcoming Episodes proper, they're still Star Wars movies. The title of the first solo feature, as directed by Monsters Man Gareth Edwards, is now revealed to be Rogue One. Still no plot synopsis, but if the name is any indication, it will undoubtedly involve the famous Rogue Squadron pilots, of which Luke Skywalker was once a member in the Rebel Alliance, before his status as a Jedi Knight took precedence. Rogue One is generally the call sign of the X-Wing Squadron's leader, so could it be about that? With Felicity Jones as the protagonist, will she play a tough female fighter pilot kicking some Imperial ass all over that galaxy far, far away? Sounds a bit like Starbuck on Battlestar Galactica, but hey, that show took a hint or two from Star Wars itself. Maybe the title is simply a huge misdirect and the movie will actually be about something entirely different. Could be, considering the persistence of those bounty hunter plot rumours. But maybe they keep on popping up because people want a bounty hunter movie, as nearly everyone had hoped this first solo feature to be a Boba Fett flick. Doesn't mean that project is off the table if Rogue One is really about Rogue's pilots, since this certainly won't be the last Star Wars spin-off. From the talented Edwards, I'll take any Force filled Fighter fest I can get, rather than facing the inevitable letdown that's gonna be Abrams' Episode VII...
Speaking of letdowns and things resembling other things, this trailer just screams 2012. The plot looks very much like that of Earthquake, except with one main character rather than multiple. I just can't understand why this hugely expensive project was greenlit so soon after 2012's release. Do studio execs really think Dwayne Johnson's presence and lots of visual effects are enough to entice audiences to go see it in theaters? Though I like rampant destruction as much as the next man, to my mind there simply seems little appeal to this film. The devastation scenes are gonna be fun at best, but never original or inspired, while the rest of it just seems utterly dull. Maybe someone in Hollywood knows something the general audience doesn't at this point, and the long expected big bang is finally imminent on the American West-Coast. A big earthquake with lots of property damage and huge numbers of fatalities won't be fun, but would make the film a hot current event at least. But other than that, I can only see this movie being shattered and crushed by the success of others at the box office.
In terms of originality and box office success, I have more hope for this film, Pixar's latest. First of all, it has the Pixar name going for it. It may have taken a dent or two lately because of the lack of inspired projects, but it's still strong enough to stand out amidst a crowd of animation competitors. Second of all, the plot seems much more thoughtful than in the case of most animated features of late, and finally hails another Pixar original rather than a dreaded sequel or spin-off. Lastly, considering the success of characters like the Smurfs and the Minions, clearly colour coded little entities with distinctly different personalities are sure to appeal to kids everywhere en masse, so positive box office results are more or less guaranteed. The only thing in that regard I would have done differently is push the release date back a few more weeks, to stay clear more of the Minions movie and avoid animation competition, but otherwise Inside Out will do just fine. Will it be on the same creative level as the Pixar greats of the previous decade? I dare not speculate. It sure has a unique premise it seems, but whether it will connect to audiences without degenerating into a mindfuck? Probably, but certainly not a given as of yet.
And here's a less original animated feature for you. An unavoidable sequel from a lesser studio, it's hard to deny. Doesn't mean it will be bad, per se. After all, everybody loves monsters, animated or otherwise. The success of the first film clearly established that, otherwise this sequel would not exist. So far, Hotel Transylvania seems to stick to relatable events, family squabbles and such. No creatures secretly controlling our minds, evil characters hellbent on taking over the world, or other grandiose plot points in this franchise. The plethora of strange and spooky creatures ensures the visual impact needed, while the plot keeps it much more down to Earth. Dracula's daughter has married an outsider (an everyday human) and spawned a halfbreed kid, and now his family, including his overly oldfashioned and conservative father, must learn to cope with current events. Hardly an unrecognizable problem. Just with unusual characters, vampires and werewolves and stuff. I like that notion of turning things upside down. Hopefully Hotel Transylvania 2 will acknowledge the potential of this emotional plot and not let the monstrous take priority over the human aspect.
Speaking of inhuman characters, here's two of them. Mutants really, though that term is taboo in Marvel Studios's canon. Obviously the new Avengers were the last ones to get their own character posters, since the studio considers the popular returning characters the big audience draw, while these two still have to prove themselves. Quicksilver already turned out a great character in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but that of course wasn't 'Marvel's' Quicksilver. It's gonna be a challenge starting from scratch with the same powers and adding a distinct separate personality on the same creatively enjoyable level. Hopefully the sibling relationship with Scarlet Witch is utilized to maximum effect to make this Quicksilver a decidedly different and original take on the same character. Considering the simultaneous release of these character posters, it seems to be what Marvel is aiming for. After all, they could have mixed things up and paired either one of these with the posters for other newbies like Ultron or Vision (the latter still unaccounted for), but they didn't. Of course, the big question then is, will Olsen and Taylor-Johnson show the necessary chemistry between them to make us like these siblings? I saw the new Godzilla again this week, in which these actors played husband and wife. Can't say they did a particularly compelling job in that role. Hopefully brother and sister suits them better...
How many characters can you cram on a poster without it looking too crowded? Marvel put ten Avengers on one poster and added a bunch of homicidal robots too, and the result is a one-sheet that looks a little too busy for its own good. Just look how poorly the new characters are reflected, insultingly pushed into the corners. Heck, Hulk's arm muscles are printed in greater close-up than the much anticipated sibling mutants genetic test subjects. Good thing there's the nigh obligatory character posters available to remedy this injustice. So far, no character posters featuring those new characters have been published though. It likely will still happen, after all there's six more weeks before this film opens (eight in the USA even). So until we get to see the final posters for Vision, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, we have to make do with the old line-up of superheroes. Cool characters, but rather conservative and bland posters though. I doubt anybody is getting any more hyped up from these one-sheets than they already were thanks to the trailers. Maybe Downey Jr's upcoming 'big announcement' can get that hype to pick up more momentum perhaps. What could it be? Spider-Man references in this second Avengers flick? Or maybe something a little closer to home, like him stepping down as Iron Man, or that character getting killed off entirely? It's unlikely the last two scenarios would be announced before the film opens, that would be highly spoilerific. I guess we just have to be patient for both this impending news flash and those last few character posters then. Oh, the hype...!
I've probably seen a bunch of episodes of Community the new director for Lego Movie 2 helmed, though I can't recall them specifically. However, Community's quirky, whimsical humour is also to be found in the first Lego Movie, so on that note the guy seems well suited. No feature films on his resumé though, but that's not exactly uncommon in directing animation. Besides, he's directed Community's tribute to the classic G.I. Joe cartoon from the Eighties, which means he has both experience in animation and with adapting a toy line into an audiovisual feast. The Lego Movie 2 could have done worse for a director. But how about the Lego Batman spin-off, which is supposed to hit theaters first, but doesn't seem to be as deep in pre-production at this point? Anybody with experience directing toys, animation and superheroes in a humorous fashion? That's a much tougher call, so it's logical to see potential directors have to be screened more thoroughly for that one. How about one of the guys from one of the Toy Story films (Buzz Lightyear sure counts as a superhero in my book)? That would be striking little gold bricks for sure!
Oh Jessica, why would you bother? Snow White and the Huntsman was a decent flick, but not the stuff of sequels. This separate Huntsman movie is just a cash grab that only features a character or two from the first movie and most of the team involved in its production has moved on to more original projects. So why would an Oscar-nominated A-list actress waste time and talent on this flick? The money is probably good. I doubt she'd do it because it'll prove such an acting challenge or because she wants to be closer to Chris Hemsworth's robust manly six-pack. Oh well, the audience only benefits from terrific actors, that means the film is secured of decent performances, even if all else may prove forgettable. So far three damn fine actresses signed on for this flick already, Chastain herself, Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt. So at least Hemsworth flexing his muscles and mumbling his way through the movie will have some actual talent to go up against. Otherwise, this movie, rife with development problems so far, simply doesn't get my hopes up.
Look at me, spoiling this most anticipated movie of 2015 for myself in the name of duty... Oh well, I've already seen the toys so I know what the dinosaurs will look like. Besides, half the dinosaurs shown here won't make it into the final film, hence the paleoart covering their appearance, rather than the CG rendered models. Sucks that the hand drawn creatures look far more appealing and much more paleontologically accurate. They're putting their movie brothers to shame. Pronated hands, feathery bits and splendidly vibrant colours; quite the opposite of the bald, scientifically incorrect and blandly coloured animals we'll see in the movie. Far more exotic species too, but the audience wants to see T-Rex and Raptors, because that's usually all they know. Forget about the more intriguing, poetically named likes of Metriacanthosaurus or Microceratus, those names don't have the star power or the necessary 'sexy' quality to them needed to entice audiences. Or so the studio thinks. Velociraptor and Dilophosaurus weren't exactly house hold names before JP came around. At least we'll have some new species, like Dimorphodon and that genetically engineered bastard that's going to be the main baddiesaur. It's a Hollywood movie, so we shouldn't expect any realism. As further illustarted by the size chart that shows a huge Sauropod like Apatosaurus to be smaller than T-Rex. At least the kids will know better, they might educate their ignorant parents a bit on the subject. As for me, I refuse to let this bring down my enthusiasm for a new Jurassic film. I've had to wait too long for one and I need my dinosaur fix. It's not like there's such a thing as an accurate portrayal of a dinosaur anyway. We simply can't know.
The end of the year is nigh, the slow flow of news is a telling sign of that. Good thing too, since I got plenty of work to do in these last few weeks of 2014.
Well, that's just nice! Five eligible directors and the one I trust most to save Star Trek from going down the drain immediately says he's not interested. A damn shame, since intelligent Sci-Fi is exactly what Trek is in dire need of to once again differentiate it from the action oriented likes of Star Wars, and intelligent Sci-Fi is just Duncan Jones' forte. Justin Lin and Daniel Espinosa are mostly mindless action directors (no offense, guys!), so not the types Trek needs. I haven't seen The Imitation Game (yet), nor have I sampled any of Morten Tyldum's domestic fare, so I can't speak of his suitability for Trek 3. Considering his first overseas film stars Benedict Cumberbatch, who previously played a character I so do not want to see again in the next Trek film, I'm inclined not to give Tyldum the benefit of the doubt, though I agree that is rather narrow minded of me. That leaves Rupert Wyatt. His Rise of the Planet of the Apes indicated a compatibility with smarter science fiction, but once again, his oeuvre isn't particularly elaborate and I don't feel like judging a director's capacities for Trek on just the one film. Duncan Jones was just what the franchise needed, in my mind. Very disappointing to know he won't be involved. And if such bad news isn't enough of a downer, the news reached the Internet this week that Paramount is eager to incorporate witty sidekick characters á la Rocket & Groot into the next film because of the success of Guardians of the Galaxy. Which once again goes to show that studio execs, at least the ones working at this studio, only follow what's hot and trending, rather than appreciate 50 years of Trek history that did pretty well without such blatant attempts to make the franchise resemble other popular properties. I truly fear for the future of Trek, it increasingly doesn't seem to have one that's worthy of the lore that came before...
Wow, Suicide Squad really seems to have a thing for casting Oscar nominees. Guess DC's strategy to differentiate itself from Marvel is to cast mostly actors with past Oscar buzz. The majority of the main Marvel actors are well suited at what they do, but, with a few exceptions, Oscar material they are not. Director David Ayer seems to have his job cut out for him managing all this movie's talent and the unavoidable egos that come with it. I'm glad they casted Davis rather than Oprah Winfrey. That latter choice just seemed to much like the stuff of 'silly Internet rumour', even if Winfrey is serious about a solid action career. Davis is known to excel at heavily dramatic roles, but has co-starred in plenty of action movies that don't take themselves overly seriously. Suicide Squad definitely falls into that category and so does the role of Amanda Waller, the government liaison tasked with overseeing all the villainous egos in the Squad itself. Seems like she and Ayer have that much in common, hopefully they'll be able to teach each other a thing or two.
Hayley Atwell is also one of those actresses who's in all regards skilled at her job, but not someone likely to get nabbed for an Academy Award anytime soon. Especially in her return to the small screen for Agent Carter (maybe she'll win an Emmy though, you never know). So far, I like what I've seen of this new show, and I always like seeing Hayley anyway. Nevertheless, with this series the Marvel Universe once again emphasizes its spy stuff, something which I feel it's overdoing. We already have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. running and that titular organization, though it took a blow recently on the big screen, is still very active in the Marvel movies as well. Now we get a show which spends a lot of its time exploring the origins of S.H.I.E.L.D. Too much espionage for my taste. Granted, the Marvel Universe is not just about superhumans, but it is hard to deny that's its most appealing aspect, so I would call for more superheroes and less shady spy organizations. Of course, with five upcoming Netflix series dealing with that subject, the future looks bright enough in that regard. And at least Agent Carter has the charming historical Fourties period to distinguish itself from the later S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans. So it's not just all repetition of the same thing, just variation.
Speaking of those upcoming Marvel titles, here's a closer look at one. After Agent Carter, Daredevil is the next Marvel series planned for 2015. And this one is a bit more super, though much more grounded in reality than his contemporaries on the big screen. He's not fighting aliens or gods, just busting criminal asses on the streets of New York. Something a bit more relatable. His outfit also isn't nearly as fancy as we're used to from superheroes. However, word is ths suit above is just an initial garment, and not the familiar final red garb, which will make its appearance later. Hopefully they'll manage to find a careful balance between fancy and gritty, the way the 2003 movie just didn't. At least Charlie Cox, like Atwell, is one of those reliable actors you can fully trust to make things work, without his demanding an Oscar in return.
Bradley Cooper, however, does have his eyes fixed on an Academy Award. And he's also a part of the Marvel Universe, though not as visible as most (he's responsible for that funny raccoon from that recent space movie, remember?). Third time may prove the charm, having been snubbed for an Oscar twice already, but clearly taking a precise aim for one again in Clint Eastwood's American Sniper. Eastwood being a sort of Oscar magnet also helps his cause no doubt. Seems both director and star made a strong dramatic movie, if the trailer is to be believed. Very American too, and not just in regards to the title. Eastwood is not one to sugarcoat his country, and it apears American Sniper will make no secrets of the negative effects of American actions abroad against those citizens taking said actions. Nor will it need to defend itself from showcasing such actions, as the need for them is not without cause. Or maybe the trailer is dead wrong and the film is actually a ideologically black & white patriottic puff piece, who knows. Hopefully the movie will do this fine trailer justice.
This is getting somewhere, conceptually. Though there's still a lot of questions to be answered. I had a tough time visualizing how this whole interplay between the voices and the characters they control would work. I guess I got my answer. It does seem a somewhat static concept though. Are these voices really gonna stay confined to being simple talking heads in a conference room playing off each other as they suggest the actions of their subject? That has a tendency to get boring. I assume it's gonna be more visually interesting that that, somehow. I like the little details, like each set of voices taking on the characteristics (moustache, glasses, hairstyle and the like) of their host. I do believe limiting the voices to a set of five does sell the human psyche a bit short, but at least it makes for coherent storytelling, not plagued by an abundance of different emotional characters. Would have made more sense if some other emotions popped up in the minds of other characters, as everybody has some more strongly developed emotions defining their personality. Maybe that will still be the case, but we just don't see it from this trailer (which is basically more a clip of the film than an actual trailer, it must be noted). For now, the concept still isn't worked out as much to get me really
excited about this film, but at least it proves intriguing and - as far
as I'm aware - inspired.These days, that's as much as you could hope for in a Pixar movie.
Yay, character posters! No big budget Hollywood flick's promotional campaign would be complete without them. Typical set-up of archetypal characters here. You've got your lead, a female for a change; her love-interest; the villain; and the wiser, older gentleman whose services will mostly consist of providing expositionary dialogue, to help both the protagonist and the audience get acquainted with this new world. Interesting to see Sean Bean is by now considered old and wise enough to play the part of the latter. But hey, any excuse to get him (and an excruciating death scene on his part) in your film is well worth the effort. I still wish the leading couple would have seen different casting, as the acting of neither Kunis nor Tatum appeals to me. But hey, it's not about their acting (or about me, sadly), it's about their popularity with the audience, and both stars are undeniably hot at the moment in that regard. I won't deny that despite the dull leads, this movie has very much peaked my interest. Even though in many ways it seems like it's copying Dune a bit too much, the notion of humanity being just a resource of vastly superior extraterrestrial life to exploit at will is a nice change of pace. Though no doubt the plot will devolve into the typical 'chosen one' routine of old. The set-up may prove fascinating (and the visual effects, too, naturally), the execution likely less so. Oh well, we didn't expect the ingenuity of the original Matrix come again from the Wachowskis, now did we?
It's been a busy week what with Sinterklaas and the news surrounding the Jurassic World trailer (and that other trailer too, which I won't mention here since it's been picked apart frame by frame everywhere else already), so here's a belated crop of this week's news from my hand:
The more I see of this movie, the more I want to see it in theaters. I know I shouldn't get my hopes up since it's by all accounts a rather generic raunchy Hollywood comedy starring all the usual suspects, but still it has piqued my interest. It probably has something to do with my fascination - coupled with a healthy dose of abjection - for dystopian societies, even though this one is sadly all too real. Everything we hear about North-Korea, and not everything being as trustworthy as it is considering the various ideologies at work, makes it sound a very incredulous yet all too actual place. I would never want to live there, but it's so shady and abhorrent there's this vast web of projected fantasies and horror stories surrounding it that remains intriguing. Of course this movie doesn't pretend to tell the truth about the nation, nor does the country ever tell the truth about itself. But it's so inherently 'other' that it's hard to deny its fascination. Even when that's exploited for stereotypical Hollywood jokes. This trailer made me snicker on more than one occasion. Some of the jokes might very well hold an uncomfortable and alarming truth though. But then, so did The Great Dictator in its days, even though the truth in hindsight was far more sinister than the fiction and in many ways, painfully unfunny. It's unlikely The Interview will ever be considered as great a classic as that film, but it's definitely in the same league, though obviously more contemporary.
Why the heck not? As Skyfall showed, the rebooting has already progressed quite far in the 007 franchise, now that old characters appear in new guises (M, Q, Ms. Moneypenny). Much as keeps happening to the protagonist himself in fact, and that has worked out pretty well so far. Why would the same principle not apply to Bond's primary nemesis Blofeld? There's no reason it shouldn't. Of course, the studio has its mind firmly set on a powerful actor who can elegantly balance the precarious line between too realistic and too campy, which is the route the franchise currently seems to be taking, as Skyfall indicated (strong drama and character conflict, but also an outrageous villain and a pit full of Komodo Dragons). Christoph Waltz perfectly fits the bill. It's not the first time he plays an evil character who feels both all too frighteningly actual and totally over the top (e.g. Inglourious Basterds), so he knows the drill. It'll be delightful to see what the new look of the character will be. I doubt the bald head and the facial scar will be as overtly present as on previous incarnations. Probably a toned down version of that. And will the cat stay? If not, it'll definitely be referenced. It should.
For some reason, this just can't excite me. I can't quite put my finger on it, since it has some things going for it that I like, including a full scale alien invasion. Maybe it just looks too generic, maybe the jokes and the bleeding heart message are too bland. Maybe I'm kinda done with Jim Parsons playing a social outcast, even though this is not our society for a change. It could be the trailer just gives away too much of the plot for me to care about the final product. Perhaps the aliens look too much like cuddly toys aimed for selling to kids. I shouldn't judge ahead so strongly, I know, but on all accounts I'm guilty as charged. Wouldn't be the first trailer for which I did so this week, though that other trailer got it worse. Probably because it gave away so little of the plot by comparison.
This movie, too, doesn't excite me that much, but in this case I know where the fault lies. It feels repetitive. It's from the same comic book writer as Wanted, and it has a lot of striking similarities with that title. Both feature secret organisations fighting to keep the world in balance. Both recruit an unlikely regular guy as their new agent and pin a lot of hopes on him because he looks so ordinary but he's oh so special. Both star some grand actors to suck us into the world of the piece. Both feature all kinds of outrageous gun fights and assorted action scenes. The only thing Kingsman apparently doesn't have that Wanted did, is a strong female character - 'twas Angelina Jolie in Wanted's case - learning the upstart the tricks of the trade and giving us a good butt shot in the process. This time we have to make do with the very British Colin Firth to introduce both the young protagonist and us, the audience, into this crazy world. These posters indicate there's still room for some neat female butt though. No firing curved bullets this time, but there's room for other far-out stuff like a hit woman with robotic legs. And what's with the pug? Truth be told, I didn't care much for Wanted, so this movie will be hard pressed to do better.
Don't. Just don't. Please. This movie featured a solid plot that didn't seem to leave much room for more, unless it's more of the exact same. And I don't need a plot regurgitated for me to appear in a new guise for a younger generation. The only way this could be a sequel is if it featured recurring characters, and so far the old cast doesn't seem eager to jump on the same bandwagon again to sing the exact same tune. Even the studio itself seems a little hesitant on this one. First, the production was rescheduled to a full year later. Second, the number of sequels has been lowered from two to just the one. What does that tell you? It just seems nobody's heart is in this. The original 1996 movie really does suffice. If the studio truly does feel like making more dough on this title, just re-release it for its 20th anniversary (preferably not in 3D, but that's not a likely scenario these days). That's really all the celebration we need, for it's still a great thrill ride of a blockbuster flick.
Well, that just looks adorable! Not that I expected otherwise from Aardman, but am I glad their style remains consistent. From the looks of it, it's not the fairly basic plot that counts here, it's the fun to be had out of it, coupled with the wonderful style of animation Aardman always delivers. I do have this unshakeable feeling it looks aimed a little too much at a younger audience, which may mean there won't be a subtitled version in Dutch theaters, only a dubbed one. That would be a damn shame, so I hope it proves untrue. I for one am definitely up for more delightful British humour, preferably in their own language. Then again, language? The trailer doesn't offer any actual lines of dialogue. Nor does IMDb have a cast list available, as if there's no voice acting present. If that's the case, I need not worry about shitty dubbing at all, and everybody is happy. Excellent solution to save on dubbing and subtitling costs, Aardman!
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.
Quite the stirring live-event that was, when Marvel announced its new five-year plan. It looks like the Marvel Cinematic Universe will undergo a lot of upheaval soon. Old characters get tossed around and in some cases, likely killed. Fortunately, fascinating new characters will step in to even the score a bit. Question of course, is whether these new kids will prove to have an equal amount of staying power. Marvel sure has listened to the fanbase's loudest requests, while at the same time opting for diversification of characters. A black superhero film, a female heroine carrying her own movie; the sky is the limit as it is in the comics. Time to kill of all the chauvinist blond male characters while we're at it, they must have thought. And so Cap is marching towards Civil War. It killed him in the comics and, just as in the case of the source material, his successor is already in place to take over the shield. At the same time, Thor is facing Ragnarok and the end of all things, which also doesn't bode well for him, not to mention the universe. The universe is in deep trouble already as Thanos is finally stepping up out of the shadows of cosmic villainy to assume his place as ultimate bad guy, as he at last acquires that Infinity Gauntlet with which Marvel has been teasing us for a few years now. A single movie wasn't enough to tell that epic tale of heroism and sacrifice, so it's split into two parts. It may even be enough to throw the Guardians of the Galaxy into the mix - as they have plenty of ties to Thanos too - though both movies are explicitly labelled as Avengers flicks. Shit is swiftly hitting the fan.
What will remain for Marvel's Phase 4, one cannot help but wonder. The Infinity War seems a very tough act to follow. Though it appears unlikely the very popular founding Avengers like Cap, Thor and Iron Man will be retired for good, it seems the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have to make do without them sometime soon. New heroes will rise, but a team consisting of Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel will find itself with the task to fill some very big boots. Diversity is key, possibly enticing a broader audience, while also adding more room for relatable conflicts and engaging character dynamics, the type of things Joss Whedon excels at (I doubt the Avengers movies will lose him as showrunner anytime soon). Of course, such a group will only be as good as its separate components. Captain Marvel remains to be cast, but it's now very likely Benedict Cumberbatch will assume the mantle of Doctor Strange. Though he was not my first choice, casting such a fine actor definitely won't hurt. I'm less sure about the casting of Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther, simply because I'm not familiar with the man's work. He's rather unknown, which is probably for the best, as to the general audience the same can be said for Black Panther himself. It wasn't like Chris Hemsworth was such a wellknown guy before he became the God of Thunder, yet that turned out pretty well. Seasoned actors and eager young dogs, a potent combination as ever. Fortunately the Marvel veterans will still be around for a movie or two to guide these newbies, nevermind their acting experience, into the Marvel fold. I bet we can expect a situation along the lines of that old saying, 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'. And though I'm a strong proponent of change in movies, I would like to stay the Marvel Cinematic Universe equally exciting at is it, if not more so. Seems that's exactly what's gonna happen.
This franchise, too, has hardly changed since its inception. New faces come and go (and usually come again), but the core ensemble remains the same, as does the recipe of fast cars, tough guys, sexy dames and plenty of action. Paul Walker's untimely death has not changed that, though whether the studio feels the need to make another movie without him after Furious 7 remains to be seen (though I know the answer, if the boxoffice will be any indication). It's safe to say Furious 7 is the most ambitious entry in the franchise so far, even though the ingredients have not been altered. Virtually the entire main cast is back, while several popular actors have been added to the mix to spice things up even more. A director hardly familiar with the genre but quite proven in another has so far steered this project succesfully around its many pitfalls, including the loss of Walker. This conservative teaser poster is a clear indication little has changed to the franchise's success formula despite everything thrown at it. The audience will get what it wants, and a lot more. It's just those shorter titles people will have to get used to, since nobody has time anymore for long titles these days.
Which didn't stop the producers of Exodus: Gods and Kings to add a redundant subtitle to the name of the film. Exodus itself would definitely have sufficed. The addition is just there to hit the character struggle at the core of the movie's narrative home that much harder. It seems to be a classic story of brohter versus brother, one of them being the Pharaoh/King, the other his closest friend who ends up defying him because God tells him to do so (ah, the destructive power of faith running rampant!). I think these posters oversell that point and focus a little too much on these characters, even though I know full well it's all about them. I guess the supporting cast wasn't interesting or vital enough to warrant posters of their own. No one-sheets with grand actors like Ben Kingsley or Sigourney Weaver, or younger, more popular ones like Aaron Paul. Too bad, but at least we get a good chance to admire the detailed work that went into making Bale and Edgerton's fabulous period armour.
