Today's News: murderers, redundant Sci-Fi en drop-outs

Busy start of the week, I'd say:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157832/nieuwe_trailer_12_monkeys_serie

Is there a point to this? Sure, the movie is 20 years old by now and thus it's totally time for a remake, reboot or whatever, by Hollywood standards. But why make a series out of a two hour movie? And not even a miniseries at that, but what the network hopes will develop into a regular running show. I simply don't see that happen, it seems there's far too little source material available for that. Plus, the strong climax of the movie is not something you can hold off indefinitely episode after episode, while revealing it would mean the emotional core of the story is done and over with and there are no more surprises left. Maybe the writers have thought of ways to flesh out characters and situations, but even then it just doesn't seem to offer much more than its premise. And of course it has to live up to its forebear, a movie many people already have seen so they know how it ends and what it's basically all about. Then of course it must survive being compared to the original movie in terms of visuals, which is also a tough act to follow (it was one of them wacky Terry Gilliam movies, remember?). There's just too many elements working against the series from its inception. I'm surprised it was ever made into a series in the first place. No offense, monkeys. but I just don't see this running for more than a season.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157831/trailer_murder_of_a_cat

Looks like a charming indie-comedy. As a cat owner, I can sure understand the protagonist's plight. I would find it quite abhorrent, disturbing and emotionally scarring to find my cat shot with an arrow - though that is not a likely scenario in my area, you can never rule it out entirely - and the police not taking it seriously because it's "just a cat". And I know full well the natural duplicity of cats, their tendency to have relational affairs around the neighbourhood with whomever is willing to stroke their fur and give them a bite. So I can definitely relate to this. Otherwise it seems like a fairly trite but true concept: a socially awkward guy is shaken out of his cocoon by unfortunate circumstances that brings him into contact with a nice girl. Not particularly original, the stuff of many indie-comedies in fact, but sympathetic enough. I'm glad to know Fran Kranz is still actively acting, I haven't heard or seen a thing from him since his delightful performance in the brilliantly unpredictable horror flick The Cabin in the Woods. Sure, he's playing a nerd again, but that suited him last time, so I see no reason why it shouldn't now. Nerds, also a thing I can definitely relate to. *sighs*

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157825/leatherface_vindt_regisseurs

Here's another thing most of us don't need, except for the people who'll just swallow anything containing blood & gore around Halloween. It's not like the previous Texas Chainsaw Massacre prequel was any good or worth remembering. I don't see why it would this time, as the notion of a teenage Leatherface doesn't intrigue me at all. In fact, I'm much averse to the idea of prequels exploring the origins of great villains in the first place, as it tends to demystify them more than benefits their persona. How often have we seen a film like this where delving into his younger psyche made the evil in question even more sinister? Why do we constantly need to be reminded that the monster was once just a guy like the rest of us, telling us we could all go down that route if we're unlucky? We have history to remind us of such distressing facts. I can think of no horror prequel where exploring the background of the menace helped sustain its sense of dread and frightfulness to the same degree it would have done without such a background. Darth Vader, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Hannibal Lecter, Dracula, all of their reputations as phenomenal villians suffered from telling too much about their past. And since Leatherface already underwent such a treatment, I don't see the need to make things even worse. Now that's the true evil only money hungry studio executives can cause.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157850/syfy_maakt_vervolg_op_2001_a_space_odyssey

Another production of which the validity can be questioned. Especially as a separate entity, rather than a retelling of the long story that preceded it. Now any comparison with the two Odyssey movies - one an undying classic, the other one, not so much - is inescapable. After all, this will basically serve as the conclusion of a tale unfinished for 30 years. Wouldn't it have made more sense to start from scratch? I guess the thought of actually remaking 2001: A Space Odyssey first would be too sacriligious even for Hollywood. That's a good thing, but it does make it harder for audiences to get a grip on the story, as I doubt that many are familiar with the sequel 2010 (1984). Rightly so, as it simply wasn't a very good film. But since there's no new material introducing this new miniseries, we  dive right into a deep story that's been laying dormant for decades. We'll either to have to brush up on prior events by our own accord, or just roll with it. And I bet most spectators will go for the second option, just because they're lazy and they can't be bothered to check out old films. I think it's gutsy to produce this show, particularly so late in the game, but whether it's a smart move remains to be seen. No matter what talent attached to it (Sir Ridley!!), I wouldn't hold my breath on too stellar a result just to be on the safe side. But hey, if its fails, at least it's a miniseries rather than a regular one, so it won't leave us hanging in the dark of space as its predecessors did (and as the 12 Monkeys series is likely to end up doing, except for the space bit).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157848/bale_uit_biopic_steve_jobs

Wow, that was fast. Usually it takes actors quite a bit longer to admit to themselves they're not right for a part and drop out. It's both a blessing and a curse Bale left when he did. This Steve Jobs film is still early in production, so there's time as yet to find a suitable replacement. However, a solid actor like Bale leaving is simply a negative thing in the eyes of most people, there's no denying. Then again, the project survived both David Fincher and Leonardo DiCaprio calling it quits, and their replacements turned out alright. I doubt Danny Boyle is gonna depart simply because Bale just did. Maybe all these stars dropping out is a good sign to the studio they need to find someone less picky for the part. How about a talented but relatively unknown actor instead? It would sure help the budget. Looking at it in such a fashion, this is not a loss, but a great opportunity instead. And at least they still have Seth Rogen as Steve Wozniak. Unless he drops out, too. And even if the project now fails entirely, we'll always have that lovely jOBS movie with Ashton Kutcher.

Today's veritable cascade of news

 

So much news, so little time to comment on it all here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156573/lionsgate_maakt_film_over_boston_marathon_aanslag

A typical post 9/11 tale of inspirational courage and the folly of terrorism, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with that, just a fairly predictable event. We've seen movies like these before, and we'll witness them again after each attack on everyday America. I must say, they wasted no time on this one. The Boston Marathon bombing occurred just over a year ago and a movie is already in the works. Can you imagine how quickly the novel it was based on was written and released. By comparison, movies dealing with 9/11 took a lot longer to arrive in theaters, with the best known examples, United 93 and World Trade Center, both being released in 2006. That's a five year gap right there. No offense to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, but 9/11 was naturally a much more shocking and emotionally costly experience for the majority of the American population. Maybe Americans have since gotten used to this sort of thing - which nobody should, of course - and thus need less time to personally deal with the shock of the aftermath of such atrocities. Or maybe Hollywood just takes less time to capitalize on homeland terrorist attacks. For no matter how respectfully and sensitively they handle the subject matter, it's honestly not all about spreading the word of hope when movies like these get made. Money remains ever an objective.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156575/brochure_jurassic_world_onthult_nieuw_park

Here I go again, spoiling a much anticipated movie for myself by posting new news about it online. Comes with the territory, I won't deny. I'd be pretty lousy at my job as a news editor (voluntary though it may be) if I skipped out on certain bits of news just because I don't want to know about them myself. Especially if they seemingly give away much of the plot of a movie many are anxious to see. Which appears to be just what this bit of marketing for Jurassic World is doing. You've got a list of dinosaurs that could - though not necessarily will - make an appearance, as well as various locations and set-ups that will be seen throughout the movie as the prehistoric inmates chase their human snacks around. And you have the final confirmation of Isla Nublar as the place where it all goes down, as such firmly establishing a link to the first Jurassic Park movie. It's now up to the fans to speculate what areas and species will and won't make it into the final product. I think it's safe to say Metriacanthosaurus won't make an appearance... again, as its existence was also hinted at in the original 1993 movie when Nedry stole its embryo: I'd say this is just a neat little nod to the original film on the writers' part. Similarly, Baryonyx and Suchomimus look so much alike, at least one of them won't make the cut (or maybe both, as each of them also looks a lot like JP III's Spinosaurus). The only species nobody can deny will be used in the final film is Mosasaurus, as the brochure also reveals it has its own underwater observatory, which is just too cool a notion not to make use of. Plus, marine reptiles is something none of the previous movies utilized, so it would make for an action scene the like of which has not been seen before. Of course you can complain about the logistics of acquiring Mosasaur DNA, which I won't (as I know a way they could have gotten hold of that, do you?). Compared to this Jurassic World Lagoon, it's likely we won't be seeing the Aviary, as that concept was already made use of in Jurassic Park III, which would make it repetitive in this scenario. This also makes it less likely we'll be seeing either Pteranodon or Dimorphodon. What we will be seeing is T-Rex, that's a given. Maybe eating rich tourists on the 18-hole golf course, that might be fun. For everything this brochure spoils about the movie, there's an equal amount of information that is left out. For one thing, the genetically enhanced theme park monster super predator - the 'Diabolus Rex', as it was called in previous rumours - discussed by director Colin Trevorrow on earlier occasions is not mentioned here. It's likely they try to keep that a secret for as long as they can, at least to those who have missed the director's notes of two months past. And where's our good ol' pals the Velociraptors in all this?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156583/eerste_fotos_ultron_voor_avengers_2

And there's another spoiler for you: the look of the titular villain in the second Avengers installment. Though, if you're a fan of the Marvel comics, it is not that much of a spoiler, as the cinematic Ultron apparently doesn't differ much from the one seen on paper since 1968. More surface detail has been added, making him kinda look like a Michael Bay Decepticon, though most anthropomorphic killer robots tend to look like that, but otherwise he appears to be similar in shape and size to his comic counterpart. Unless he's holding four additional arms or something behind Cap and Iron Man's back, but let's not run rampant in speculation about what we don't get to see based on just this one preview. For in Ultron's case, we'll have to make do with just this single picture for now (nevermind his minions in the background). A few more official movie stills were simultaneously released in this issue of Entertainment Weekly, but they contain little new noteworthy information. We already knew what Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - the second one on the big screen, and admittedly it's gonna be hard to make us forget Evan Peters' fabulous take on the character in X-Men: Days of Future Past - looked like. We didn't know Don Cheadle was in the film though, likely not only replacing his role as Jim Rhodes, but also as his armoured alter ego War Machine. That's another Avenger to add to the mix, making for a confirmed total of ten. Coupled with at least two baddies (Ultron and Baron Von Strucker) and the continuing S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans of Nick Fury, it looks like this is gonna be another crowded superhero epic. But in an ensemble movie, that is to be expected. As long as this movie delivers the same amount of fun as the previous flick did, I can live with some characters taking a backseat. I'm more concerned of weaving the story of Von Strucker's HYDRA plots, which involves the Maximoff twins, seemlessly together with the otherwise apparently unrelated story about Tony Stark designing a robot to assume his mantle of Iron Man, with that thought seriously backfiring on both him and humanity. Which in itself is a fairly natural flow from the events in Iron Man 3 and adequately alters Ultron's origins, as there's no Hank Pym around in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as of yet to design the genocidal android, as happened in the comics. I think the writers turned that story in the right direction though, as it now makes sense following on from Iron Man 3. And so far it looks like they're not gonna mess up Ultron as they did the Mandarin. Thankfully!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156585/nieuwe_poster_sin_city_2

Good new poster, keeping in touch in terms of style with its predecessors the way we like. Art is not the issue here, connecting the stories is. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is both a prequel and a sequel to the original 2005 movie. On the one hand it tells the story behind Dwight's facial alteration, which precedes his story line in Sin City, where his character was played by Clive Owen as opposed to Josh Brolin, pictured above. On the other, it deals with Nancy's quest for vengeance after Hartigan's demise. As you can see from above, Nancy already took a few hits killing her way to the corrupt top levels to expose the Roarke empire's crimes. At the same time, Hartigan is also seen on the poster, despite his death previously. Judging from what little we saw in the trailer, he's a spectre of his former self, plaguing Nancy's mental health. Marv (Mickey Rourke) is back as well, even though he too failed to live through the events of the previous movie, hinting he'll be part of Dwight's back story, or possibly his own. How to make narrative sense of this all? It seems tough, and as a result I think this movie will serve better as a compendium piece to the first movie than as a standalone film (sucks for new audiences). But hey, as long as the visual flair is as stunning as before and there's plenty of pretty dames and tough men doing some sinning, eh? Let's hope that will be enough. Remember a not so positively received little movie called The Spirit that seemed to think the same thing? You probably don't, nor should you.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156609/derde_deel_the_ring_aangekondigd

Do we really need this? Do we really want this? 'No' on both fronts, but does Hollywood really care what we think if there's the possibility of making a little bit more money out of the franchise? There's another 'no' for you. Besides, the Japanese original Ringu had three sequels, so we're still two behind. It's been nearly ten years since the last activity on the American Ring franchise, so it seems overly late for a sequel or a prequel. A reboot seemed more obvious, though I'm glad they didn't opt for that (though they still might). I would have been more glad if they spend their money and effort elsewhere altogether on something more imaginative, but sadly, studio executives always fail to ask me for my opinion first. So far, this has all the makings of a studio cash cow as opposed to an honest attempt of making a worthwhile successor (or predecessor, in terms of story) to the previous two movies. I'd be very surprised if we'll end up seeing Naomi Watts reprise her role for this one. Though that is probably why it's gonna be a prequel, so she won't have to. Smart thinking.