Today's Column: Judgment Day approaches for the Jurassic Park fanboy

This month's column is up!

Dag des Oordeels voor de Jurassic Park fanaat

No real controversy this time, just a lot of nervous anticipation. The day me and many others have been waiting for for 14 years is close at hand. Should we be excited it has finally dawned, or will all of our hopes and dreams be shattered in two hours of Hollywood viciously demolising our cherished childhood memories? Looking at the trailers and everything they tell us about the story, it honestly can still go both ways. It may be the greatest movie experience in many years for the JP fans, or it may leave us with a major dinosaur sized hangover that will cause us headaches for years, as this is definitely not the end of something, but rather the beginning. The beginning of the Jurassic World franchise replacing the much beloved Jurassic Park franchise, or the continuation of the latter in the guise of the former? I dare not speculate. Where Jurassic is concerned, I'm currently a nervous wreck.

I want to immerse myself fully in the hype, believing it's gonna be the best thing ever, but past experiences with similar Hollywood hype have left a sour taste for the very term. No mindless swallowing and tirelessly rejoicing about every little bit of info released - in fact, aside from the trailers I try to avoid most additional promo footage - but keeping a watchful eye on the development of this soft reboot. It's not like the story offers so many major new directions compared to the original film. There's still a theme park of dinosaurs on a remote island and shit still happens despite humanity's typical overconfidence it won't. Enter new characters learning the same old lessons by being chased by new dinosaurs (and a few old ones). It's the way things are handled that makes for a different experience, for good or for bad. So soon we will know whether entrusting this giant blockbuster of a film to a fairly inexperienced director, who only ever made one movie prior to this (though at least it was pretty good), was a smart move. Soon we will learn whether the overwhelming sense of wonder and awe the first film instilled in so many of us is preserved in Jurassic World, or blatantly traded in for generic blockbuster action and dito oneliners. Soon the wait is over, and we will all know whether Jurassic Park still lives strongly in Jurassic World, or whether a highly derivative but feeble follow-up of the former is the promise for the next few years.

How will this end? Tune in next month for the answer!

And here's a little joke to keep things light.

Today's News: business as usual

It's been a slow second half of the week for posting movie news. Good thing too, it won't cause me to get behind again:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157681/nieuwe_john_carter_in_de_planning

I had hoped for this, so I'm glad the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs isn't letting a second John Carter of Mars movie gestate for another 70 years. I was really disappointed Disney's John Carter flopped so hard at the boxoffice. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a damn fun movie with great visuals and it had solid franchise potential. Maybe I liked it more than I should, but subject material like this - strange aliens, exotic alien worlds, sexy alien chicks, etc. - really is my cup of tea, always has been. Granted, the movie made its fair share of mistakes both in terms of development, narrative and marketing, but in my mind it truly deserved a better fate. And so ERB, Inc. thinks, too. The original books were groundbreaking, swashbuckling rollercoasters of adventure novels that have endured for many decades, so there must still be an audience for them somewhere. No harm in trying again, starting from scratch, maybe not spending such excessive amounts of money on them this time. I'm really hopeful the company can find a new partner, a studio that still feels there's room for old fashioned Sci-Fi adventures like these. At least this time they know what not to do to make it work. Though it would make sense for both the estate and the studio to wait a little longer, after Jupiter Ascending and Star Wars Episode VII have hit theaters, so they can see whether there's still an audience for grandiose space opera in the ERB tradition.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157701/nieuwe_trailer_the_woman_in_black_2

Seems like more of the same. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the first Woman in Black was quite a decent horror flick with its wonderfully creepy and moody period look. Trading in a late Victorian style for a WW II era visual look is not a bad thing. From a story point of view, it makes sense as to why people would allow kids to visit that horribly haunted house again. It seems a better place for children to be than a bombed-out London, any regular parent would think. City folks don't believe in countryside ghost stories after all. And not having Daniel Radcliffe as the protagonist is probably a good notion too. His post-Potter presence in the previous part tended to overshadow the movie as having its own identity. The Woman in Black is still commonly referred to as 'that spooky film featuring Harry Potter', and I don't think that does it any justice at all. Then again, the second installment stars Potter's Narcissa Malfoy, for those who weren't aware. Hopefully it doesn't mean the movie will soon be acknowledged as 'that spooky movie starring Draco's mum'. That is, if Angel of Death turns out as decent a scary movie (or more so) as its predecessor. Otherwise, I couldn't really care less anyway.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157700/_bale_speelt_steve_jobs_in_boyles_biopic

Another Steve Jobs biopic? There was one in theaters only a year ago. Than one, however, didn't win much favour with audience or critics with its rather bland and straightforward approach. Nor are its director and main star (Ashton Kutcher, if you recall) considered such bankable talents as Christian Bale and Danny Boyle. So yeah, why not make another? There's still plenty to tell about so inspiring and innovative a man, no doubt. Plus, there's better storytellers available, and Boyle sure is an intriguing choice. I don't mind Bale, though he tends to go a little too far in his acting, reminding you that you're not watching the character he plays, but that you're seeing Bale doing his extreme thing again. The script is in the capable hands of Aaron Sorkin, who seems to be in danger of being typecast as the screenwriter for penning biopics about important folks in the digital industry for hugely talented directors (he also did The Social Network, after all). You think we'll get multiple Bill Gates motion pictures when that Microsoft man logs out of this life? If so, Sorkin is likely to be Hollywood's go-to guy to pen a script about Gates' life.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157709/jesse_eisenberg_in_dcs_suicide_squad

Hopefully poor Jesse Eisenberg fully realized what he got himself into before signing on as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Considering DC's overly ambitious plans for its own cinematic universe - clearly copying Marvel's designs, but still - it would be natural for a bad guy of Luthor's stature to appear in multiple DC movies soon. Luthor, after all, has his greedy conniving arms wrapped aroud a lot of shady businesses in the DC comics, and has had them there for decades. The movie version is expected to be just as busy controlling an evil empire, one that's not restricted to simply plaguing his nemesis Superman, but many of his fellow heroes as well. Right now the most apt comparable character available in the Marvel Cinematic Universe villain would be Loki, who also started out the archenemy of one but soon demanded a bigger piece of the superhero pie. Luthor is likely to do the same. Nevertheless, his skills would make him more of an evil Nick Fury, controlling strings of a lot of other baddies behind the scenes, as Fury does with good guys (or what he considers to be such, at least). In this case, it seems he's the guy responsible for forming the supervillain team called Suicide Squad, soon to give the Justice League a hard time. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and thus Eisenberg, make regular appearances, both minor and major, in many upcoming DC movies. And I'm sure Eisenberg won't particularly mind, it just keeps him occupied while the pay checks keep coming in at a steady flow.

Today's News times five

Anyone care for a bit of news? Even though some of it is days old by now...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156322/teaser_hunger_games_mockingjay_online

I like this sort of teaser. The kind that could easily have been an actual part of the movie proper - maybe it still will be - and expends on the story as a whole, though it can as easily be missed (in defiance of the contemporary tendency of viral marketing campaigns to divulge certain plot information that would have been better served appearing in the film itself where the addressed matter is irritatingly left open (I'm looking at you, X-Men: Days of Future Past!)). Of course it works only for those who have seen the previous two installments of the saga, as those who have not can only wonder what all this is about, nor do I think this theaser convincing enough to tempt them into seeing the first two films pronto. Like all teasers, it serves to forewarn the imminent arrival of the film in question into theaters, while this one also hints up front at the fate of poor Peeta Mellark now that the sinister President Snow has his hands on him. The video shows us what we already knew (if we indeed witnessed the previous films), that the Capitol of Panem will not take kindly to rebellion. There's been enough Games, now it's time for war, as this intimidating speech makes perfectly clear. Unless those insubordinate districts get in line before their insolence rains destruction down upon them. Fat chance.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156323/predator_krijgt_reboot

This news has already seen an update since I posted it, in which Shane Black stated the new Predator movie would not actually be a reboot, but more of a soft sequel. In many ways, it doesn't really matter much, considering the differences between both terms are negligible. As the sequels Predator 2 and Predators, as well as the occurrences of the violent trophy collectors from outer space in the duo of Alien vs Predator spin-offs, already showed, there's only so much you can do story wise with extraterrestrials hunting humans for sport. Since it would have been unlikely this new movie would follow the events of the first movie directly, a reboot seemed the better choice, reintroducing the Predators as they go about their usual gory business, but not hunting the same people twice (though considering Arnold Schwarzenegger's interest in repeating past successes, he might very well be up for anouther round). It's pretty much a given a 'soft sequel' will manage the same type of story. In this day and age of post-postmodern hyperintertextuality, no doubt both ways would have contained their fair share of references to past installments (and probably dragged the Xenomorphs into this mess for a gag or two as well). Whatever you call it, it's the same thing. I do like the irresistable irony that the guy who, as an actor, was the first to get mauled on-screen (though not as explicitly as some of the victims that followed in his footsteps) by one of the murderous creatures in the very first movie from 1987, now is chosen as the director to breath new life into the franchise. I do hope that goes to show his heart is in it and he means to make this a kick-ass horror/action gorefest of a thrill hunt, like the franchise started out to be. So far his track record as a director isn't enough to convince me of his capabilities in that department. I for one thought Iron Man 3 was the most disappointing Marvel Studios' flick thus far. But I'm not ready to hang him high in a jungle three just for daring to tackle Predator for that. Unlike the evil alien did himself back in '87.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156317/eerste_trailer_oorlogsfilm_fury

A rather standard trailer for what appears to be a rather commonplace WW II movie. After all the initial fuss about this movie and Brad Pitt's lead role in it, I was expecting something more than this fairly basic war drama. All the usual ingredients are there: an isolated group of men on a dangerous, seemingly hopeless mission, a battle hardened, gruff commander who cares first and foremost about the troops under his command, a rookie soldier's first time into battle and the emotional distress that comes with this initiation into manhood, tension amongst the camaraderie when faced with increasingly insurmountable odds, etc. I don't see any stand-out elements convincing me of the need to go see this movie. Brad Pitt alone doesn't cut it for me. I already saw him fighting WW II the American way in Inglourious Basterds: another thing entirely of course, which was also what made it so memorable compared to more typical movies like this one. Of course, it's only a trailer, and trailers can be deceptive to say the least (like the trailer for, again, Inglourious Basterds, which made the movie look like something it ended up not being for the better part). There's no particular appealing names in the rest of the cast, while Shia LaBeouf's presence serves more as a deterrent from watching this film for me. Fury doesn't look bad per se, it just doesn't look furiously good.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156374/eerste_trailer_dracula_untold

Another trailer which doesn't look as good as it ought to be is this debut preview of Dracula Untold. A fairly good cast and a somewhat intriguing, though hardly novel, plot notwithstanding, this trailer screams 'B-movie' all over. The cheap Gothic imagery and the poorly executed effects work doesn't bode well for the Prince of Darkness' origin story as told by total newcomer Gary Shore. Coupled with the fact this movie will open, in IMAX nonetheless, in a month plagued by the absence of attractive features (IMAX or otherwise) in theaters, its themes cannot help but remind me of the dismal action adventure flick I, Frankenstein earlier this year. It's regrettable IMAX feels the need to turn to visually unimpressive substandard budget fare that is not suited to the excessively big screen experience it boasts, to ensure there's always some title available in the format, even in slow seasons. The moody posters gave me hopes for this movie, but the trailer takes some away. As said before, trailers are no fair indication of the completed movie viewing experience, especially when heavy FX work is involved. Undoubtedly some of the shots seen in this preview remain to be polished before the film's release, even though it's not produced on the most stellar of budgets. But aside from the visuals, there's still a thing or two to be said against this film based on what this trailer show us. Or is that indeed Charles Dance playing the demonic character? That would sure help pull me in a bit more!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156372/releasedatum_pacific_rim_2_bekend

If Guillermo del Toro says he wants to make a movie, it gets made. Even though it's a sequel to a not all that profitable predecessor. It happened on Hellboy - thankfully, as Hellboy II was a heck of a lot more awesome than the already not so bad first installment - and it seems history is repeating itself on Pacific Rim. The fact overseas box office turned out far more lucrative than the disappointing domestic sums the movie garnered sure helped the studio suits to greenlight a sequel. I don't mind, as I like Del Toro - a nerd turned director is always something that agrees with me - and I generally like his movies, some more than others obviously, but so far he hasn't made a single one that I consider to be bad. Pacific Rim sure sat well with me as the ultimate hommage to the Japanese Kaiju genre, which outdid nigh all of the entries the Japanese themselves made into that phenomenon. Monsters are my forte, giant or otherwise, so another round between titanic creatures and ditto robots sounds neat enough. Can't say it's particularly inspired, but an hommage doesn't have to be. Though I would welcome something new in a second film, but I'm sure Del Toro can come up with something before the 2017 deadline that suits my desires for giant monster/robot mash-ups.

Today's Review: Godzilla

Godzilla: ****/*****, or 7/10

You can't keep a classic monster down. All you can do is keep him locked in the fridge for a while, until the time is right to introduce him to a new generation. And so it is with that most iconic King of Monsters, Godzilla. Toho, the Japanese studio behind the creature, hasn't released a new Gojira flick of its own ever since his big 50^th anniversary showdown Final Wars in 2004. As the Big G is turning 60 this year, it seemed about time to revamp him once more for an international audience. Teaming up with studio Warner Bros., making audiences forget about the previous American remake, the dreadful 1998 Roland Emmerich movie, proved the least of challenges. This time, the director's chair was given to somebody who had proven experience carefully balancing human drama and monster action, the man behind the guerrilla style low budget Monsters, Gareth Edwards (whose credits until that point included only that movie). His take on the giant reptilian behemoth makes for one of the finest Godzilla movies yet, but it also frustratingly illustrates just how little you can do with the character.

Thematically, Godzilla has always been an obvious case of 'man versus nature' and this time proves no different. Man's folly playing with powers (usually atomic) beyond his control that end up wrecking civilization has been a prime franchise message since day one, but as it has been a decade since it was last sent to audiences, this is as good a time as any to reapply it to Godzilla's latest origin story. However, Edwards opts to focus most of the plot's attention not on examining Godzilla's existence, but his foe's instead. This story thread is neatly interwoven with the fate of the Brody family. Living in Japan in 1999, father Joe (the always formidable Bryan Cranston) and mother Sandra (Juliette Binoche) work at a Japanese nuclear power plant, where things soon mysteriously go awry, leading to the plant's destruction and Sandra's dramatic death before her husband's eyes. The area is soon declared a quarantine zone, but Joe can't stop investigating the strange events of that fateful day for the next 15 years, alienating him from his son Ford (a rather bland and forgetful Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

When his father once again causes trouble with his illegal excursions into the forbidden zone, the now adult Ford, a US Navy officer, indulges him to present his case or shut up about it forever. Their father-son bonding trip into the zone makes for a frightful, haunting return to their old family house in a now abandoned, rundown city. Alarming news imagery of the Fukushima area in the wake of the terrible tsunami and the nuclear disaster that followed is successfully evoked by the ruined town set to give this Godzilla movie a 21^st century update that accordingly makes it feel sufficiently current and underscores Godzilla's original themes still claim merit. Stumbling onto a secret government operation, the Fords are confronted with the 'MUTO', a giant insectoid creature, millions of years old, that has laid dormant for countless ages, but is now waking up. And all the military might in the world is not gonna stop it from following its natural instincts to feed on atomic energy – it eats nuclear bombs, which kinda sounds like a solution really – and procreate. To the latter end, it has signaled a wake-up call to its mate and the two beasties proceed to hook up again, likely to humanity's demise, with more tragic consequences to the Fords, directly caught in its wake.

Edwards spends quite some time setting up the MUTO's motivations and the plight of the Ford family, soon making you ask a most pertinent question: where is Godzilla? It must be stated that there is surprisingly little scenes of the actual Godzilla in this movie, but when he finally does appear, he does so with a vengeance. The giant reptile is the MUTO's natural enemy of ages past and as one big bug called the other, so too their predator woke up to find its prey, as expert Dr. Serizawa (Hollywood's obligatory Japanese actor, Ken Watanabe) explains, while donning a foreboding look of concern and alarm that irritatingly stays for the entire film. The name Serizawa will sound familiar to Godzilla aficionados, and is just one of many little tidbits Edwards has lovingly thrown in as an hommage to the Japanese movies. The MUTO's, however, are a new invention specifically for this film, but they serve their purpose adequately for resurrecting Godzilla and providing for a good old-fashioned Kaiju brawl at the movie's climax. Just like the Godzilla themes of old have hardly changed, so too does the audience's taste for big monster battles remain, as Edwards all too clearly understands. It just takes quite a while to arrive at that point in the film where the fight finally goes down. We have to sit through many a scene of human character drama that ultimately doesn't make us really care about their plight before we get what we want. Though patience is required, it cannot be denied that the introduction of both Godzilla and his adversaries is slowly but surely built to a crescendo. When the Big G finally does appear for the first time, it will be hard for fans to repress a chill at this reunion with their old friend. It would have been even more effective had the classic Godzilla score been applied, but the current soundtrack proves effective enough.

It's clear Edwards sees no point in redefining Godzilla's look, as Emmerich did before, as this new incarnation of Godzilla stays rather true to the recognizable Japanese forms. Of course, this being a big blockbuster movie, the beast has grown in size considerably to accommodate the humongous budget and the expected onslaught it wreaks on both human cities and the military forces thrown at him. Edwards' respect for the classic Kaiju movie approach of men in suits playing the monsters shows, as you'd almost be inclined to think Godzilla is brought to life again in just that manner. Even the MUTO's motions seem decidedly human at times, but make no mistake: all three monsters are fully digital creations, not guys in suits smashing cardboard sets. Nevertheless, Edwards' ode to sixty years of 'suitmation' is well appreciated. Still, the notable differences in Godzilla's appearance compared to his predecessors, particularly his rather obese bodily features, are bound to tick off some fans.

Unjustly so, as this Godzilla, both the execution of the titular character and the movie as a whole, form a vast improvement over the previous American capitalization of the Japanese property. That said, in terms of story Edwards adds little novelty to the previous fifty years of Gojira. The message remains the same, and is delivered in a rather serious fashion, as this particular Godzilla is certainly one of the darker takes on the character: for Edwards, giant monster movies are a serious business and there isn't much room left for levity. The usual tendency towards flat human character development interspersed between delightful monster battles remains. The fact is, there's only so much you can do with a giant monster. Edwards will be hard pressed to find innovative angles to take his successful reboot in for the next installments. However, as this movie demonstrates, times haven't changed enough for the cautions against man's tampering with nature to subside, nor has the audience changed to such an extent they can't appreciate a good ol' titanic monster clash on the big screen. Even if the upcoming sequels fail to deliver notably new directions for the franchise, clearly Godzilla has enough of a fight left in him for another fifty years.

Today's Triple News: a teenage game of Goonies

Posting here, posting there, posting movie news everywhere:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154984/teaserposters_teenage_mutant_ninja_turtles_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154985/game_of_thrones_met_twee_seizoenen_verlengd

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154931/goonies_ii_bevestigd

More Game of Thrones? I'm game. *insert smiley emoticon* Merriment aside, this is a logical step for HBO at this junction. Game of Thrones' ratings continue to go up, profits continue to come in, and to ensure viewers cancellation isn't looming around the corner - which is always something the audience fears tremendously, and the thought of it might discourage new viewers to start viewing - they renew the show not just for one but for multiple seasons, to send a strong signal the series will remain very much alive for a while longer. At this rate the series might very well make it to that total of 'seven or eight' seasons the showrunners expect to crank out of it. Considering the quality of this series coupled with the fact how much I love it (doesn't everyone?), this is nothing but good news for me. Better news of course would be HBO's commitment to see the series through to its very end without pulling the plug prematurely should ratings go down after all, but that's more or less unheard of. This way you can still keep the audience in suspense somewhat as to the ultimate fate of the show. Remember, all shows must die.

A franchise that does not seem to want to stay dead is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The concept is currently up to its third cinematic incarnation. Previously we had guys in suits and a fully animated film, this time both approaches will be mixed to make for digital characters interacting with flesh and blood counterparts. I care naught, for me the one and only Turtles will always be the old early Nineties cartoon. And even that isn't as good as I remember it to be upon rewatching. This current reboot feels too much like an excuse to sell more toys, much like Transformers and G.I. Joe (same studio too). Michael Bay's involvement wasn't something that made me clamour for renewed turtle power either. It seems those early rumours about turtles from space has fortunately been debunked in favour of a more traditional look though. These teaser posters effectively reaffirm that position, considering they first and foremost throw the fanbase a bone by revealing what hasn't been changed about their Turtles: their signature colour scheme and assorted weaponry. Unless these armaments and colours end up belonging to different turtle characters that we currently assume, but who in Hollywood would be dickish enough to pull off such a disrespectable prank?

Speaking of needlessly readressing past franchises, how's about The Goonies? If it wasn't for this rumoured semi-confirmed sequel, you would not even call it a franchise, but apparently the 1985 movie made enough of an impact that (some) people are still talking about in 30 odd years later. That's not enough to warrant such a late sequel though. In fact, you'd think a reboot would make more sense at this point, considering the original cast has all grown up big time by now (physically at least). If the original involved kids looking for subterranean treasure (that's as much as I know since I honestly haven't seen this film: shame on me, true...), a sequel that serves us adults looking for the same thing doesn't sound in line with the predecessor much. More likely it will be about their own offspring repeating their parents' shenanigans, with the original cast added for nostalgic flavour. That's the only way I could see a sequel work. But I still don't think they ought to make a sequel (or reboot, or re-imaging) to every old success story. Better find some new cinematic treasure in the subconscious cave instead, Hollywood.

Today's Column: Remakes and fan hypocrisy

Wrote another column for MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/149258/column_hollywood_hypocrisie_en_het_grote_herkauwen

I think I'm getting the hang of this. I tend to have some difficulty getting inspiration, but when I've found it (or it has found me) I can swiftly write well over a 1,000 words on the topic in question, though the folks at MovieScene prefer it if I didn't go so all-out, as they like their columns to stay confined to a limit of anything between 700 and 900 words. I try to restrain myself a little of course, but when my true opinionated prosaic flows there's no stopping it until every drop has been milked on paper (or its digital equivalent), especially when the subject at hand is of a personal nature, as this one is. And so far I have no trouble meeting my deadline (first Friday of the month): this particular piece was written almost a month in advance. Let's hope I can keep that up. At the moment, I haven't got a clue as to what my next column will be about though... but I bet it will have something to do with movies.

J.J. Abrams: to cowardly go where better men have gone before

Star Trek Into Darkness: **/*****, or 4/10

Warning! Here be spoilers! But who cares?!

I'm not having a good time lately. Star Trek Into Darkness has recently been released to critical acclaim and positive box office results. Tough luck for me, since now I have to continually remind people around me whay this is not a good thing, same as J.J. Abrams' previous “Star Trek” film (2009) was not a good thing. At least this time many Trekkies are agreeing with me J.J.'s involvement might not have been the preferred direction for the franchise to go in hindsight – a lot of my fanboy colleagues at first disagreed with me on J.J.'s previous monstrosity and ended up actually liking it, bunch of morons! – since many have a hard time accepting his take on Khan, which is a watered down, emotionally empty version of the original 1982 Trek classic The Wrath of Khan. And even Trekkies agree buggering their classics is not something that Trek should have to endure. But it does, and the general audience – bless their God given 'right to be stupid'! – loves J.J. for it.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens with an overly Spielbergian action climax á la Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is not surprising since it's well known that J.J. has always been inspired by Spielberg, as well as for his tendency to be blatantly derivative of the master's work if he can help it. The public finds Kirk, Spock and McCoy on M-class planet Nibiru where a giant volcanic eruption is threatening the surivival of the local humanoid species. Of course, Kirk cannot allow the Nibirians to be wiped out, even though the Prime Directive dictates non-involvement with non Warp drive equipped species. In essence this means Kirk should just let things happen as they happen and ignore the species' plight altogether. Which was the way Picard usually went for in TNG, if his crewmembers didn't screw it up for him. In this case, Kirk does the screwing up himself, saving the species but doing irreparable cultural damage when he's allowing them to see (and afterwards worship) the Enterprise in all its glory as it rises from the ocean. The audience doesn't get time to question what the hell it was actually doing underwater in the first place (well? What was it doing there?! You tell me!), except to show off a few cool shots having a starship do something that hasn't been done before, but only for the sake of looking cool as opposed to making narrative sense. Of course this infringement upon Starfleet's 'rule of rules' doesn't go unpunished and Kirk has his command taken away from him. Rightly so, since if this (and in fact the whole previous movie) demonstrates anything, it's that this particular Kirk is too young, too impulsive and too stupid to properly fit into a captain's chair. 

 

Luckily for Kirk however, Starfleet HQ is attacked and his friend and mentor Captain Pike is killed – no wheelchair with simple yes/no vocal interface for this timeline's Pike! – and Kirk can convince the admiralty to give him back the Enterprise and go on a manhunt for the terrorist behind the plot, a man named John Harrison, who is ultimately revealed to be Khan so soon into the movie that it doesn't really matter if I spoil it for you here (besides, there's a spoiler warning above, nerfherder*!). Kirk tracks the villain down to Q'onoS (but spelled 'Kronos', so people don't get confused aligning what they hear with what they see onscreen) where he beamed to after his last attack on Earth – nevermind Trek physics in this timeline, if it avoids lenghty story telling and swiftly gets “our heroes” where they need to go it works fine for Abrams – which ends up in an all too brief showdown with a bunch of Klingons (ugly with helmets, uglier without; but at least they speak something resembling Klingon) before Khan is arrested and taken back aboard ship, where the plot thickens. Or so Abrams would like us to think. Turns out Khan is just a puppet in a larger masterplan of a naughty Starfleet admiral who's out for a little 'coup d'etat' on the Federation for his own inexplicable but undoubtedly nafarious ends. And that's the film's biggest problem right there.

The main issue against STID in regards to Khan as an antagonist is that for the longest time he plays second fiddle to Peter Weller's villainous Admiral Marcus. It's not until Marcus is disposed of that Khan comes into his own. Until that time we have to make do with an overly militaristic old fart threatening to subvert Starfleet in order to... yeah, for what reasons exactly? Marcus' motivations remain rather vague. But then, an admiral who keeps a model of a top secret warship on his desk for all to see is hard to take serious anyway. At least Khan has clearer goals, and they are not even so ignoble. In fact, once Marcus, who forced his hand all the time, is out of the way, Khan isn't even that much of a bad guy – he just wants to rescue his own “crew”, much like Kirk tries to protect his – but the script has him act like one after a completely gratuitous surprise appearance by old Spock (Leonard Nimoy selling out once more), who informs his younger alternative self, and the laymen in the public (there will be many no doubt), just who Khan used to be in the original time line, so the audience expects Khan to be just as evil now. Consequently, he is, for no other reasons than to satiate our expectations and to fill the void left by Marcus' demise which has left the film without a proper bad guy. Unlike was the case with the original Khan, there's no reason for Khanberbatch to have any real personal beef with Kirk. In fact, they teamed up successfully against Marcus only a minute before, making Khan even more 'less of a bad guy'. The lack of a solid conflict between Kirk and Khan is a severe weak point in establishing Khan anew, as is his so-called status as a superhuman. Thanks again to poor scripting, Khan is hardly allowed to show off his superiority, at least in the brain department. His actions are more the result of opportunity than they are of careful advance planning. Like everything in J.J.'s Trek-verse, Khan is just not as smart as he ought to have been. At least Cumberbatch portrays him with enough angry vigour and physical prowess to come off as 'fairly frightful'. But he's still a far cry from Ricardo Montalban's original, far superior super human, who was truly dominating “his” movie in terms of menace and intellect. After all, he caused Spock to die.

In Star Trek Into Darkness, it's Kirk's time to meet his maker. Thing is, his untimely demise doesn't make for an emotionally gripping final moment as he faces Spock, hands to the glass in an effort to reach out in mutual understanding and respect one last time. Problem being, this is not the Kirk we have known for so long and thus come to love. We've been with this particular Kirk for only a few hours total and that's simply not enough to care deeply enough about him to make us feel anything when he kicks the bucket. And even if it did, we are robbed of this intended emotional climax anyway thanks to a very cheap and convenient plot device, courtesy of Khan. The genetically enhanced dictator not only packs a mean punch, but he also has healing powers in his blood. Long story short, giving Kirk a blood transfusion returns him to the living – yes, you're reading this correctly – and all's well that ends well. Seriously, what was the point of having him die at all, apart from haphazardly echoing the bittersweet, tearjerking final moments of Star Trek II? Apparently it was only a way to piss Spock off once more, making him go on an emotional rampage (again! That's twice in two movies: apparently this Spock just isn't a very good Vulcan) and defeating Khan for once and for all. Obviously, not without a little help from his girlfriend Uhura. Women resucing their men out of tough spots is as much a cliché as the age old damsel-in-distress these days.

And there we have another weakness in the script when it comes to characters: Uhura. Or better said: the rest of the crew. They don't get that much to do and continue not to matter much. Uhura for some reason has an actual boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with Spock, even if this is completely illogical. After all, in the preceding film planet Vulcan was destroyed, so why would Spock bother dating a human girl instead of a Vulcan woman when there's already so little Vulcan blood left to keep the species going? The whole how and why behind their liaison is blatantly ignored, nor does it ever get beyond the stage of petty squabbling interspersed with brief moments of saying 'I love you'. And that's just not enough to make a relationship with consequences of this magnitude a thing of logic. Or realism. Then there's Sulu. Which is basically all that can be said of his presence in this film. So moving on, we have Chekov, Russian accent more cringeworthy and annoying than ever. This time he gets his big break and is moved from helmsman to Chief Engineer, a completely ridiculous career switch that would only make sense to blind people (Get it? Of course you don't, you need to know Trek for realsies to get that one!). What happened to Scotty, you might ask? Well, he had moral qualms (yes, there's some in Abrams' Trek at last!) when he was asked to okay for a load of unconventional photon torpedoes aboard ship, which he declined so Kirk gave him the sack. My reason to fire him would have been Simon Pegg's overuse of everything connected to the Scottish dialect, including some heavy drinking. But even drunk he can be convinced to help Kirk out regardless, and he shows up just in time to save the day, just so the plot can fill some holes it wouldn't be able to fill without the aid of ample alcoholic consumptions. Oh, and McCoy occasionally graces the screen with his presence too, but not enough to truly matter other than bringing Kirk back from the dead when the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the Trekkies who just want this branch of the franchise to be closed down for good.

Is there nothing good to be said for Star Trek Into Darkness? Sure there is. Zachary Quinto does a fair job imitating Leonard Nimoy, for the most part. The visual effects, of which there are more than in all the previous Trek movies combined, appear convincing enough, except for the times they are obscured by lens flares. I gotta say, I got a bit of a kick out of seeing Q'onoS, a dark, sombre, foreboding planet with a single moon that was shot to pieces (Praxis no doubt). But for the most part it was painfully clear J.J. prefers Star Wars over Star Trek. Almost all locations and action sequences felt like something out of Wars. For one thing, 23^rd century San Francisco looked more like Coruscant than it did Earth. This Trek universe is populated with all manner of gizmos and creatures that are meant as little throwaways just for fun, but will confuse the hell out of true Trekkies. What the hell was that android thing doing on the bridge? What's the deal with those Starship Troopers type dress uniforms they're wearing at formal gatherings? And why did the totally gratuitous and irrelevant semi-nude scene starring Alice Eve's body last so briefly? At least some of those throwaways refer back to actual Trek: bonus points for the Enterprise NX-01 model on Marcus' desk! And as a freebie, you get a bit of Section 31 in this film too.

J.J. is definitely not a true Trekkie, as he has shown and even openly stated many times before, but at least the writers took clues of previous Trek and incoporated them in their script for Into Darkness. This film is laced with references, some clever and subtle, others not so much (think in-your-face, mind meld style). The general audience will probably be unaware of virtually all of them, but that will not be the case for Trekkies. The effort is appreciated, but the undeniable result is whenever a reference pops up, it hearkens back to better Trek and leaves a sour aftertaste, instead of the joyful feeling one usually experiences when getting a reference. That, plus the fact Star Trek Into Darkness feels like a soft and shallow retread of one of the most classic Trek films makes this movie another kick in the groin (or the knee, depending on where certain species keep their genitals) for the true fanbase that has lived and evolved with Trek for decades, but has a hard time accepting the dumbing down of what was once an intelligent, witty and engaging Sci-Fi franchise.

Fortunately for J.J., turning Trek into an action driven brainless space opera has landed him the gig for directing Star Wars Episode VII. Hopefully that will soon mean Abrams will stop being involved with Trek. Why shouldn't he after all? Star Wars is where his heart lies as he has reminded us all too often. We can only hope Trek will now be given to someone who really cares about it and understands how it works. Though I fear permanent damage has been done to the franchise by Abrams' lack of care, I cannot help but feel ever inspired by Gene Roddenberry's faith in humanity and its continuous striving for a better future. In Trek's case, it can't get much worse. But at least Abrams' work has compelled people who didn't know jack about Trek to seek out true Trek and explore its strange old worlds. If anything, it suggests Trek will continue to live long and prosper in some way, and so will the Trekkies.

*The derogatory term 'nerfherder' actually stems from the Star Wars universe, but you would hardly be able to discern Abrams' Trek-verse from the Star Wars universe anyway, so what the heck...

Today's News: Fantastic Four Reborn

Posted this bit of news on MovieScene today:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/142501/fantastic_four_reborn_krijgt_releasedatum

Unlike the recent reboot of Spider-Man, in the case of the Fantastic Four a rebot is actually warranted, considering the lackluster quality of the previous pair of FF flicks (2005, 2007). Though not bad per se, they were surely disappointing next to their superior (in both plot and general execution) superhero counterparts like X-Men (2000) and Spider-Man (2002). To say they were cheesy would not be far off the mark. Casting decisions, vital for making Marvel's First Family come alive, were rather poor in some cases: both Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic) and Jessica Alba (the Invisible Girl/Woman) lacked the necessary gravitas and chemistry to make their characters as compelling as their comic book counterparts. Likewise, Julian McMahon has unfortunately set his mark as one of the lamest super villains in the realm of comic book adaptations, playing a very unconvincing Dr. Doom that missed all the signs of intimidation and intelligence that ought to come with the character. However, both Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans did a decent job as the Thing and the Human Torch respectively. The latter in fact went on to play Captain America, both in his own film and in the superior ultimate superhero film The Avengers, so at least Evans proved himself as an actor capable of successfully bringing comic book characters to life. But it's clear two adequate bits of casting didn't make up for a good team of four, and the movie suffered from it.

Of course rebooting the Fantastic Four will also mean we'll be treated to the whole origin story all over again. Considering 20th Century-Fox's intentions to create its own Marvel shared universe (not an entirely original concept, granted, but still not something to dismiss), having the FF eventually join forces with the X-Men (and possibly Daredevil) on the big screen, a retelling of the group's history may not be such a bad idea, even though it will come as a redundancy to many fans, but undoubtedly not to most general spectators who are likely to have forgotten all about both existing FF films. It may sound harsh, but perhaps it's better to indeed forget about the previous two installments entirely in favour of establishing such a new cinematic corner of the Marvel Universe. Such a tactic worked for the Hulk, also a Marvel character that witnessed a revamping in order to bring it more in line with the upcoming Avengers movies. Fox better take a note from the result, The Incredible Hulk (2008), on how to stay true to a character without unnecessarily dishing out the whole origin story, instead telling us enough about it to understand the characters involved while delivering a wholly new story with an entirely different cast.

There's certainly room for improvement where the Fantastic Four are concerned. We have yet to see a movie about them that lives up to that first adjective after all. Can 'almost rookie' director Josh Trank pull it off? Chronicle showed us that he has an affinity for special effects but he also takes his time to tackle his characters' plight, though he's not afraid to cover ground already covered before (an abused kid going bad when superpowered, how original...). Given the subject matter and its previous history at the movies, seems exactly what we need then!

200th post by the way. Nice! Here's to at least as much posts in 2013!