Today's Review: Vacation

Another review up!

Vacation - recensie

Well, that was positively awful. Of course, the current trend of making a comedy as raunchy as possible by cramming it full of dirty jokes involving excrements and unusual sexual positions has been going for quite a while now, so you can hardly blame this Vacation for that. It's not like the original movie refrained from such shenanigans. But the level of said gags is just abominably low here, making it painfully unfunny for the most part. Too bad, because I know the lead Ed Helms, of Hangover fame, is capable of funnier routines. But even he is hopelessly lost somewhere between the rim jobs and Chris Hemsworth's erection. You got a bad thing going when the holiday car is funnier that the characters driving it. But at least the car doesn't make poop jokes galore. This vehicle of Albanian make is just loaded with silly gadgets and awkward options. Not all of them a guarantee for success, but at least I chuckled over the navigation system's sultry female American voice accidentally being replaced by a seemingly outraged Korean counterpart. If translated however, it would no doubt be revealed to get in line with the rest of the ample obscenities the script contains.

As with most remakes these days, this one wouldn't have been missed if it wasn't produced at all. However, recycling the original film's plot and adding Horrible Bosses or We're the Millers type jokes to it likely saved the studio a few bucks. The story is mostly the same as its predecessor's, while some of the situations are even lifted verbatim from some of the other Vacation movies from the Eighties. It's not like this is that well known a franchise these days, so who would know, right? But if you acknowledge the status of this film as a remake by making jokes about that very fact in the actual film, you sure run the risk of people checking out the previous installments and finding out just how lazy the writing is this time around. Even such references to the original are hardly an inspired move. Remember 21 Jump Street addressing its status as a reboot by literally saying nobody at the top has any better ideas than just regurgitating old notions ad nauseam? It's a funny line, until you understand just how poignantly true it is. We don't need to hear the same argument here to hammer the point home. The movie is unhilarious enough without reminding us a better film with the same name and the same plot was produced thirty years ago. Or that we're likely to see another movie with said name and plot in a few more decades. The kids in this feature definitely appear stupid enough to make the same mistakes all over when they grow up.

Luckily, this Vacation will be swiftly forgotten. It'll prove a lot harder to get that obnoxiously catchy song Holiday Road out of our heads.

Yesterday's News continues Today

Having binged GoT (hell yeah!), I'll pick up where I so shamefully left off:

Wilde terug voor Tron 3

Neither good nor bad news to me. Olivia Wilde is a gorgeous gal and her acting was okay (though not mindboggingly compelling or anything), but it's not what I watch TRON movies for. Unlike most movies (though less so for summer blockbusters), TRON is all about the visuals. Of course those from the first movie were a lot more revolutionary than the effects of its late sequel, but Legacy too definitely delivered some cutting edge vistas. However, this time the question of the plot is more important, considering visual effects won't have developed so intensely since the last film (from 2010), compared to the gap between the first and second film. Not to mention where the story of Legacy left us. And then there's more room to consider Wilde's character. She's the first character from TRON's digital world to have made it to our everyday reality, as opposed to vice versa. The bad guy apparently has been destroyed and the good guy returned home after an arduous ordeal. So why would the good guy and his girl return to TRON's world of pixels? Aside from offering us more visual goodies, of course.

Johansson gewild voor Black Lagoon

Naturally Universal wants Scarlett, everybody wants her. She has grown to be one of Hollywood's most bankable and popular actresses. With that status of course comes the freedom to pick any project she likes, and I doubt a remake of a Fifties' horror classic counts among those. Especially one that already is a soft retreat of similar fare, repackaging a familiar Beauty and the Beast tale in an only moderately different guise. Plus, considering all the 'shared universe' business Universal is proposing for the various remakes of their horror flicks - which is not necessarily a rip-off of Marvels cinematic universe, considering Universal pulled off the same scheme to attract audiences 70 years ago -  it's not unlikely Johansson would have to sign for multiple pictures, repeating her Marvel contract. I doubt she's be willing to do that, now that she's a mom. That is, assuming the studio wants her in the role of the blond babe chased by the horny, oh so misunderstood prehistoric creature. It's not a given that is what the studio wants her for. Maybe it's just what our conservative mind suggests in case of this casting. Considering Johansson isn't only hot but quite talented as well, maybe we got it all wrong. This is the 21st Century after all. Could it be she'll play the creature itself? A female creature falling for a handsome human male, perhaps, in a wonderful reversal of roles? Or a female creature with the hots for a female human, to deliver some sizzling sexual situations to entice bi-curious audiences? Yeah, that's so not gonna happen. But hey, Joss Whedon just accused Universal's Jurassic World of sexism in traditional gender roles (based on a single clip, which may not be the smartest idea), so maybe someone at the studio was listening and decided the time was right to switch sexes around for a change and surprise us all. I'm sure that would attract Johansson a lot more than following age-old movie routines.

Redmayne in Fantastic Beasts?

Notice the question mark there. Only a few weeks ago I posted the news that Matt Smith likely nabbed the lead role in this Harry Potter spin-off. Now it turns out Eddie Redmayne is the new favourite, and Smith's name is nowhere to be found. Other names also keep floating around, which suggests the deal with Smith fell through after all, despite both parties seeming eager to start filming. So yeah, I need to post more question marks in the case of casting rumours like these, since unless contracts are signed, they're always just rumours. So now I may have falsely gotten people's hopes up and those that yearned for a cult series actor playing Newt Scamander might face the harsh reality that's not gonna happen, as he has likely been replaced by a recent Academy Award winner. Sorry, folks. But hey, Eddie Redmayne is a good actor at least, so he, too, is a decent choice for this new lead character we know next to nothing about. As for the actor, he's very British, that's as good a sign as any. Only Englishmen have a shot at playing in a J.K. Rowling based flick, after all. But even among British actors, some Brits are better than others. And personally I think Redmayne is a safer bet than Smith. But then, I've never seen Smith in Dr. Who.

Today's Review: Cinderella

Finally, another review up!

Cinderella review

Okay, so this movie serves us a most oldfashioned fairy tale imaginable and displays a shockingly conservative view on the role of women. Nobody will deny it. But if you can swallow that, it's indeed quite as magical a movie experience as it aims to be (and not even in obnoxious 3D, for a change!). I don't think the studio is excusing reverting to old social values, it just acknowledges a classic tale without feeling the need to utterly change it by updating it to appease a modern audience. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, as this movie proves much more enjoyable than similar recent rehashes of old glory like Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland, which were quite bland and forgetful despite making the female protagonists tough and independent. Both qualities are sorely lacking in the victimized Cinderella, I admit. But this movie seems to say 'Oh, the heck with it! Let's embrace such ridiculously backward gender patterns for a change and acknowledge our true classics as they used to be, not as they should be today!' If Disney meant to say explicitly that women are either weak willed victims or total bitches with this movie, you honestly think grand dames of cinema like Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter, let alone promising new faces like Lily James, Holliday Grainger or Sophie McShera, would voluntarily have signed up for this slap in the face of their sex? I think they just recognized the obviously outdated romantic plot for what it was and decided to run with it just to enjoy getting a chance to play such outrageous roles, so seldom seen today. And for the better, since if they occurred more often, that would indeed be suspicious and uncalled for. But it's not wrong to indulge in reactionary storytelling every once in a while, to appreciate just how much female roles have changed since the days these types of women were seen everywhere on the big screen.

Plus, the movie is at least a little modern in other regards. There's a black guy playing the captain of the royal guard in a court full of white folk. And him and the prince certainly seem like close chums. That wouldn't have happened in the original animated classic for sure. What a long way we've come!

Today's News: more comes every day

The latter half of the week certainly picked up some speed:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158720/remake_the_blob_vindt_regisseur

I'm not surprised this cult classic is getting another remake. The premise is just too much fun to ignore for more than a generation. Extraterrestrial ball of ooze wreaks havoc on Earth by devouring the population and growing ever larger: what's not to like? Of course, the Blob will only be as convincing as its FX and I doubt CGI will look as neat and realistic as the subject matter warrants. It sounds like the director just doesn't want to get his hands dirty on practical effects (and I reckon they would get very dirty indeed with the type of practical effects needed for a film like this). So as happens too often these days, computers prove to be the easy way out, but not the fun way. However, doing the Blob digitally this time around does set it clearly apart from its predecessors, making it a clear example of the zeitgeist, as befits the franchise. The 1958 version showed primitive practical effects and a lot of, by present day standards, redundant teen culture manifestations to woo the babyboomers to embrace the film (which they did). The darker Eighties' film showed quite a progression in terms of effects, but ideologically speaking it was a rather cynical film in which the government was even more sinister than the titular entity itself and a juvenile delinquent had to defeat the thing instead. Also, gore galore. And now comes the latest version, which has a Blob all CGI. Proof of the times indeed. It'll be interesting to see how it portrays humans though.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158680/amazon_wil_films_produceren

Of course Amazon wants to get in on the movie business. All of its competitors are starting to go down that route after all. It was just a question of when rather than if. Not surprisingly, this announcement doesn't follow long after Netflix spread the word it's doing the same thing. Amazon however, is still primarily known as a web store rather than a producer of television shows. Its name hasn't been established as strongly in terms of audiovisual production yet. That's likely also the basis for the decision to keep the movie industry happy by not offering their productions up for streaming simultaneously as releasing them in theaters, a convention Netflix was all too eager to break. Of course, audiences won't mind either way as long as the product proves to be appealing. Netflix does beat Amazon too in that regard, for the moment, thanks to making deals with the likes of Marvel. As for the future, we will see. It's too bad the Amazon execs haven't yet specified any of these upcoming movie projects of theirs, I would have loved to know what they're concocting for our pleasure. That is, if they've indeed already started production, rather than just making the announcement they will soon. If they're too release a dozen movies in the next two years, they better get started.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158704/world_war_z_2_in_de_maak

'Starting with a clean slate' sure sounds like a great idea for this sequel. The previous slate didn't resemble the source material much, and that proved a damn shame, as the original was not only shockingly different but also vastly more ingenious and innovative and made the movie feel dull and predictable by the inevitable comparison. Hopefully the writers take a closer look at Max Brooks' novel this time around. Which begs to ask the question whether that book could ever be translated to the big screen in a satisfactory way. Given the format it's written in, a two-hour movie just doesn't feel the right way to go. A TV (mini)series might allow for a closer adaptation, but the fragmentary, semi-documentary style the book dabbles in also doesn't seem too well suited for that either. There's simply too many stories and characters to make for a clear red line through it all. The only thing they all have in common is the interviewer gathering these distinct narratives and the living dead that star in them. Perhaps a series of webisodes would make for the best way to adapt these stories, but that's not a format that many audiences are too comfortable with, nor is it often used in a way to make the major bucks the studio is hoping for (which the movie did, despite its dissimilarities to the book). Oh well, whatever form it'll take, we'll always have the novel if things go south.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158734/ejiofor_gewild_voor_doctor_strange

Another talented, Academy Award nominated actor sought by Marvel to join its ranks. As to who he's playing, that's indeed the million dollar question. It certainly won't be Strange's loyal servant Wong. Aside from the fact that casting a minority in a role that traditionally was reserved for another minority is a route that many might deem offensive (and possibly rightfully so), it seems a waste of his abilities as an actor. Besides, this guy just spent Twelve Years playing a Slave, I doubt he's looking for another servantile role (though that would certainly be the stuff of irony). And now that his (rather exotic and easy to mispronounce) name is finally getting the attention it deserves in the industry, something more intriguing and major is needed to win Ejiofor over. So he's either going to play the adversary or the mentor to the protagonist, for sure. My money is on the former, also because I want to see him as a bad guy again, since he did so well playing one in Serenity (the creepy and ideologically singleminded Operative, remember?). I have no doubt his acting talents would be well suited in either capacity though.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158739/scodelario_gecast_in_pirates_5

I'm less interested in this bit of casting. Scodelario sure is a pretty girl and may have some decent acting capabilities under her belt (though not much of it was apparent in The Maze Runner), but it seems she's cast as just another generic love interest, kinda similar to Keira Knightley in the first Pirates of the Caribbean. We really don't keep watching these movies for those types of supporting actors, but for the catchy shenanigans of master actors Depp and Rush. It's Barbossa and Sparrow that the vast majority of the audience loves best, and that's not likely to change (though after four movies, their staying power is undeniably tested). Whatever scene from any of the previous Pirates movies first comes to your mind, it's surely not one starring Knightley and Bloom, I bet. Of course, that doesn't mean the studio should release a movie starring just the two ever disagreeable Captains (though I cannot help but wonder as to the result). New characters are obligatory to keep things (at least feeling) fresh. But it's the zany, outrageous pirate characters that make for the most memorable performances, not the bland star crossed lovers in the background. Scodelario is likely to do a decent job, but as for new characters, it's Javier Bardem playing the new pirate baddie that sounds most intriguing. Aarrrrr!!

Today's News: bunch of trailers & bunch of Razzies

So far I have succeeded in my goal to post at least one bit of news on MS every day. Here are the most recent results of that:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158620/nieuwe_trailer_avengers_age_of_ultron

Age of Ultron definitely promises to be a darker movie than the much more lighthearted and cheerful first Marvel ensemble movie that preceded it. Makes sense, in this universe of ramifications and consequences. The general audience probably hasn't kept close track of events as much as the legions of fans have (myself included), but the current state of affairs in the MCU is no cause for more playful superhero shenanigans. Serious stuff has gone down, you know. S.H.I.E.L.D. is in shambles, HYDRA has its tentacles firmly in place wherever there are power bases of mankind to be found, Loki secretly rules Asgard and Iron Man has lost most of his fortune, respect and technology. And then there's those various Avengers we haven't heard from for the least three years, not to mention several new names in their roster to shake things up. Obviously, these people have a lot on their plate and Joss Whedon has no intention of making things too easy for them. The shit is going to hit the fan and previously mounted tensions will erupt. From the look of things, Iron Man will have to take the blow of most of it, after his plan of creating artificial peacekeepers goes horribly awry and the rest of the team has to clean up his mess. However, as per the comic book lore, it seems the team will have to worry about their unpredictable and uncontrollable comrade the Hulk the most. Whatever the outcome, the team will be shaken up severely and it's conceivable that for every new member introduced, a veteran will step down. And we wouldn't have it any other way, since such dramatic results make the MCU the ever interesting place that is.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158629/remake_escape_from_new_york_van_start

This project has been in the works for many years, though it can't be said a lot of actual work was done on it. I'm not surprised it still will happen one day though. This movie has a definite high concept but is obscure enough for the general audience not to be aware of its status as a remake. And it has some clear franchise potential, allowing the main character to escape from other places once he's out of New York in any number of follow-ups. I'm glad originator John Carpenter is involved to some extent, though I know full well 'executive producer' and 'creative influence' can mean any number of things, many of which are not as involving as they sound. I'm pretty sure this remake isn't going to be anywhere near as gritty and grimy as its predecessor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio notched the rating down from R to PG-13, so as to reach a wider audience for that franchise they're aiming for. Too bad, but I can live with it. I'm more interested in how this new dystopian future of theirs is going to play out. The bleak future from the original's 1997 has come and gone and it happily proved not to be as bad as advertized. Nevertheless, there's ample social anxieties in the present to capitalize on and I hope Carpenter will utilize his 'creative influence' steadily enough to ensure this new future is gonna be dirty and rotten but still a heck of a lot of over-the-top fun, as it proved in 1981.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158596/trailers_nieuwe_series_the_messengers_en_izombie

Ignoring the trailer for The Messengers, which looks like typically ludicrous Christian Apocalyptic drivel, I have to ask what's up with the current trend of making the naturally abject notion of a walking cannibal corpse a thing to be romanced and sexualized? I can understand how that works for those other undead in popular fiction, the vampires, since they're normally not in a state of decomposition and generally use their powers of hypnotism to sexually lure their victims in for their blood, which can result in a lot of sultry sex. But a rotting body hellbent on devouring brains simply ought not to be sexy, which clearly doesn't stop folks from fantasizing about it and making TV shows out of it. I gotta say, with the right blend of relative humour the concept can work, as was evidenced in the fairly hilarious Warm Bodies. Can it work over a prolonged period of time rather than a two hour movie though? iZombie will have to prove it can. I gotta say, the female protagonist sure does look cute despite being dead. The zombies in this show clearly aren't as far gone physically as the majority of their cinematic brethren. Then again, the trailer suggests the main zombie is a bit of an anomaly, as she also has kept her ability to reason. That makes the whole zombie element of the show seem a lot less alarming. Her ongoing drive for consuming human flesh apparently isn't as strongly developed, as a job at the coroner suffices to keep that necessary flow of brains coming. Or there are much more people killed in town than ought to be usual, perhaps. I hope the struggle for humanity in the deteriorating zombie brain is gonna be handled as consistently and convincingly as the skeptic would demand, rather than the show quickly devolving into a buddy cop routine or an all-out romantic comedy, as the trailer also indicates could very well be the case.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158630/michael_bay_films_grote_kanshebber_razzies

Few surprises here. It seems ripping on Michael Bay's movies - though often justified - is simply the socially expected and obligatory rather than the objective thing to do. As usual, the GRAF makes little secret of her disdain for the movies and actors she disses (though most of them deservedly so). When you list a title as 'Age of Ex-stink-tion', you can't be said to refrain from any emotional bias. I guess that just comes with an Award foundation that doesn't treat the movies it nominates, or itself for that matter, any serious. Maybe a more objective and refined sort of Worst Movies award foundation is in order to properly serve as a balance for the Oscar circus. Not that the likes of Michael Bay would care much: this particular object of movie mockery doesn't worry in the least about any damage to his reputation the Razzies may cause, considering his ongoing success at the boxoffice still has made him filthy rich and powerful in Tinsel Town. However, I would like to see some Razzie nominations that don't include Bay, Adam Sandler or Jennifer Aniston for a change. I guess the new category of Razzie Redeemers at least is a step in the right direction of the GRAF preventing making too strongly a mockery of itself.

And I'll also take a shot at predicting the winners:

Worst Movie: Transformers 4: Age of Extinction

Worst Actor: Adam Sandler / Blended

Worst Actress:  Cameron Diaz / The Other Woman en Sex Tape

Worst Supporting Actress: Nicola Peltz / Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Supporting Actor:  Kelsey Grammer / Expendables 3, Legends of Oz, Think Like a Man Too en Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Director: Michael Bay / Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Screen Combo: Transformers: Age of Extinction

Worst Script: Transformers: Age of Extinction / Ehren Kruger

Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel: Annie

RAZZIE REDEEMER AWARD: Ben Affleck (from GIGLI to ARGO and GONE GIRL)

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 Double News: Flashy new Hobbit name

Here's a double bit of recent movie news for y'all:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155362/derde_hobbit_krijgt_nieuwe_naam

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155325/fox_produceert_remake_flash_gordon

You can't keep a legendary Sci-Fi franchise down forever. Interest in it waxes and wanes, and always it comes back, though it may take a few decades. Flash Gordon is about as classic a name in the genre as they come, currently celebrating his 80th birthday no less. Still, most members of the contemporary audience will probably recognize the name only from being (lovingly) made fun of in Seth MacFarlane's recent comedy Ted. Admittedly, I have never seen or read any of the various incarnations myself (for shame!). I guess I should at least check out the 1980 movie, which is arguably the most well remembered version on the character's tale around. From what I know about the adventures of Flash, the most important aspect of a potentially successful remake is not to make it feel corny and kitsch. Though it cannot be denied that the character has had a great impact on popular culture and the Sci-Fi genre in particular - Star Wars owes more than a few of its narrative make-up to the 1930s' space hero - its familiarity also caused the genre to be looked at with disdain for decades. It was just hard to take this space opera seriously - can you blame it with silly names like 'Planet Mongo' and 'Ming the Merciless'? - and it wasn't until the Fifties that science fiction pictures based around intelligent premises instead of the attractive exoticness of special effects and alien locales started to make their mark on (the cinematic front of) the genre. Ever since then, Flash has had a tough time truly connecting with an audience other than avid fanboys. The 1980 movie failed to built a continuing franchise of movies around the concept, and even the 2007 TV-series proved shortlived. Maybe the wondrous sense of adventure of the space opera is just too outdated and old-fashioned by now, as spectators demand more intelligence form their science fiction these days. After all, John Carter is a very similar sort of space hero, and look how poorly he did at the box office only two years ago. Will Flash Gordon do any better? It may take a few new Star Wars movies to get the public interested in space operas again, but it's safe to say Gordon will return in one form or another even if this new project fails to find an audience. He always has. Hopefully the same will ring true for John Carter...

Now fantasy, that still works. In fact, if you say it's more popular a genre than ever, you may not be wrong. It keeps scoring with the audience, as Game of Thrones reaches new heights in terms of audience ratings (and download ratings too). And at the same time, The Hobbit trilogy carries on, slowly but surely nearing its end as Peter Jackson is in the process of finishing that third and final movie. Which just got a new name, like it or not. There and Back Again it is called no more, as it has received the novel subtitle The Battle of the Five Armies. Can't say I'm a big fan of that one. Granted, it covers the movie's contents well enough, as this is what most of the film will deal with. I'd say it's too blunt a title. The Lord of the Rings movies may already have had their subtitles picked out for them by the source material, but The Hobbit is not so fortunate. Can you imagine the second LotR movie being named The Battle of Helm's Deep? Surely not, as The Two Towers has a more ominous and poetic, less direct quality to it. So I thought it was with There and Back Again, as the book did not provide a catchy enough subtitle itself (The Clouds Burst? Nay!). PJ argues it would have fit a two movie adaptation, but not a three part series, as Bilbo was already 'there' in The Desolation of Smaug. True. But he's still 'there', and he is destined to go 'back again'. So in my mind, it's not a relevant argument. The Battle of the Five Armies is simply too direct, though not without merit of mystery for a lay audience. Whose forces make up these five armies? And how does the dragon, which at one point seemed to be what this series was all about, fit in exactly? Predictable questions that would not arise with There and Back Again, but will not entice the audience any more than the last movie already would have. Truth is: The Battle of the Five Armies sounds like a cheap video game title. I would have preferred something with a little more literary charm to it. Even the other suggested new name, Into the Fire, sounded more intriguing. But hey, I'm not making these movies, I'm only paying to watch them (well, not really) so why should I care about the titles as long as the movie proves as entertaining (or more so) than its predecessors? It's not like fanboys revelled in the second movie's name either. Or even the first. I guess it takes an actual fantasy writer slash linguist to come up with something really iconic. It surely would have helped if Tolkien had split up the original novel in three parts himself.

Today's Double News: less than yesterday

Let's resume posting news in the usual frequency, shall we?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154917/marvels_dreadstar_wordt_bioscoopfilm

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154916/nieuwe_uitgebreide_trailer_godzilla

I had only vaguely heard of Jim Starlin's Dreadstar, which is not surprising as it didn't get a Dutch translation, unlike many other Marvel comics. It's not a part of the regular Marvel Universe, instead being featured on the pages of Epic Illustrated, a semi-independent Marvel imprint where creative talent could show off their own ideas and keep more of their royalties accordingly. Now that Marvel is a really, really hot brand, it's a no-brainer studios, big and small, are looking for as yet unexploited Marvel properties, even in more obscure corners. It's good to see lesser known franchises are also eligible for cinematic adaptations, though in Dreadstar's case, it's hard to sell to a financier since the story is so unlike the existing Marvel movies, not to mention wholly outlandish and definitely expensive to produce. Audience expectations of super heroism when hearing the name Marvel might also work against the project, as this is totally different conceptually from the Marvel style people have come to know and love from the movies. Don't expect crossovers with already established characters, even the cosmic ones like Thor or the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy. Dreadstar is a whole different animal. Which is what makes it exciting as a movie project, but a tough sell for the small studios that now own the rights. Whether Dreadstar will truly make it to the big screen only time will tell. I'm hoping there's room for unusual Marvel off-shoots like these though. There's more to Marvel than superheroes, you know? I can live without an adaptation of Millie the Model though.

I could also live without another American remake of Godzilla, but Hollywood is presenting us with one of those regardless, and I gotta say, it doesn't look so bad. Considering how few of the original Japanese movies can actually be called 'good', that's not so hard to pull off. This new 'extended look' isn't as extended as you might at first be inclined to think, and basically serves as yet another trailer, with about half of its material shown before and the other half new stuff to keep us interested. And since Breaking Bad, I'm always interested in Bryan Cranston, even is he is playing second fiddle to a giant digital reptile. It seems the trailer is telling us that the human element to the story is not neglected - good thing to, if you have an actor of Cranston's stature on your payroll - though of course the creature is still of greatest interest and therefore, not shown as much as you would like, confined to shapes and silhouettes. It keeps the audience in suspense as to what this latest incarnation of the King of Monsters will look like. Though those who really want to find out need only take a look at the movie's merchandise, which has already been released. Wanna see what the new Godzilla looks like? Click this link. That's right, he's fat. And his spikes are rather small. And there's a million other things fans might hold against this design, but hey, at least he doesn't look like his silly Sixties' Japanese counterpart seen here, which could be seen merrily cavorting in kids' movies, dancing around and such. You wonder how this beastie could have grown so iconic despite doing a bunch of these terrible kiddie pictures.

Today's Review: RoboCop

RoboCop: ***/*****, or 5/10

If there's one thing the 2012 remake of Total Recall taught us, it's that Paul Verhoeven's movies are not easily redone. Nevertheless, studio MGM felt like trying with Verhoeven's first Sci-Fi spectacle, by reimagining the genre classic RoboCop (1987) for the audience of today. Brazilian director José Padilha, known for his action thriller hit film Tropa de Elite, scored this thankless job and he gets credit for trying, but the fact can't be changed the Total Recall curse is adhered to, as this new RoboCop proves yet another remake that is inferior to its predecessor.

Nevertheless, the movie opens on a strong note, when it tries to embrace the satirical touch of the original and apply it to the modern state of affairs. Set in 2028, rightwing political TV commentator Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson playing the part just right with apparent delight) publicly laments not deploying robots at the homefront for keeping America safe, while such products are otherwise keeping the peace the world over. Cut to Tehran, where the local population is intimidated into submission by robosoldiers patrolling every street. When suicide bombers protesting their presence attack the automatons, their ruthless efficiency is made clear, as is their lack of human calculation and reasoning when they gun down a boy armed with only a small knife. Novak calls it a success because no American personnel of flesh and blood died, but for the public it is clear these robots still leave something to be desired. And so the OmniCorp multinational decides to combine the organic with the mechanic to construct a more acceptable, friendlier product for keeping the American streets clean. And this is where the promising political comments on today's affairs, ever a welcome food for thought in science fiction flicks, also sadly end.

Enter police officer and family man Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), who is caught up in undercover operations and suspects his colleagues' corruption. When his car explodes and he is on the brink of death, OmniCorp sees the perfect test subject in him for their 'RoboCop' programme. Saving only the most essential of body parts, sympathetic scientist Norton (the always reliable Gary Oldman) sticks him in a high tech body armour. Controlling his body is one thing, but keeping his mind in check is another matter entirely. The corporation swiftly finds out it's not so easy to confine a man to the status of a product that bows down to its manufacturer's every whim. Eventually they opt to basically brainwash him so the software controls his behavior, rendering him every bit the robot, much to the chagrin of his wife who wants her husband back (as if that's possible when all that's left of him is his head, heart and lungs). Fortunately for her, Murphy's psyche is still alive inside, and it's determined to break out to get his revenge on those that killed him before and return to his loving wife and son.

The main problem this remake suffers from is finding the right balance between action and intelligence that characterized Verhoeven's film. Hellbent on not simply being a mindless remake, the movie spends much of its time exploring the dichotomy between man and machine. Where does the man end and the machine begin? Can the mind truly be mechanized? Such questions the film attempts to answer in more detail than feels obliged, without drawing sufficient conclusions either, as it's clear from the get-go where this RoboCop is mentally going. All the talk of the complications of mind versus matter fail to hit a chord due to the predictable progression of the plot which is devoid of surprises to make the film's philosophy reach any narrative fruition. The overabundance of talk is also the cause of the movie feeling overly light on the action which the title by association with the original film promises. Though the occasional crime fighting delivers what we hoped for, though in portions too small to satisfy, the bland battles between the 'tin man' and his fully machine counterparts just prove less than entertaining. And unlike the original it's all PG-13 stuff, only decreasing the emotional impact.

Another issue working against this film as opposed to the original is the lack of gravitas Kinnaman displays as the titular character. As a regular human being he feels emotionless already – never making you believe husband and wife care that much for each other as the movie would have us think later on – while in his later automatic shape he doesn't strike us as effectively intimidating or commanding. Though it must be said there's little to hold against the new RoboCop armor, or Kinnaman's look when he wears it, it's his performance that simply fails to deliver the right note. At least the movie fares better in terms of acting thanks to veterans like Oldman and Jackson, while decent character actors Michael K. Williams, Jackie Earle Haley and Michael Keaton also do their best to make things work, but miscasting the main character is an error not so easily remedied. At least the movie proves more convincing in the art department, the various environments and robots, including RoboCop's famous antagonist ED-209, making up a little for Kinnaman's human flaws.

The new RoboCop is a watered down version of the original that isn't as smart as it thinks it is, nor provides the amount of action it should. Most vexing is it never gets near the witty, sardonic levels of Verhoeven's satirical approach to the original, despite definitely giving it a decent try at first, too quickly abandoning such thoughts for more conventional action fare for the rest of the film, except there's just not that much notable action to speak of. It goes too far to say it's totally boring, especially for those who never bothered to see the original (which they still should do regardless). Nevertheless, it would have done well to feature less talk, more action; an argument not often heard for this type of movie. At the same time, it becomes painfully clear there's only ever going to be one RoboCop, and his name is not Joel Kinnaman.

Today's Triple News: bad guy, bad guy, bad directing choice?

Another threesome of news updates I posted on MS, one of them less than two hours old:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154135/nederlandse_regisseur_voor_remake_the_birds

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154127/donofrio_speelt_schurk_jurassic_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154091/adam_driver_in_beeld_als_star_wars_schurk

Two bits of news appear almost identical except for the difference in names. Two bad guys cast (one close, at least) for major tentpole movies, and one director hired to direct a much dreaded remake of a much loved classic film. A Dutch director redoing a genre classic sounds eerily familiar to The Thing fiasco from only a few years back, where a rookie Dutchman (Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.) with hardly any directing experience got to direct a movie few people were looking forward to anyway. Needles to say that movie flopped: in fact, it lasted only two weeks in Dutch theaters. Was it the director or was it the idea of the remake on its own that made people opt for screening different fare? Probably a combination of both. Nevertheless, history now seems to be repeating itself, except the movie being remade is an even bigger classic from a truly legendary director. The project had been in the work for many years but nobody really dared to get it fired up until now. I'm not surprised, considering the producers involved. Michael Bay for instance, whose name alone should make people think twice about this film (will the birds explode?). Two other producers attached have been involved with nearly all of the recent remakes of various Eighties' horror franchises (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), all exercises in blatant redundancy. That's also not a good sign, considering The Birds is not that kind of horror flick, despite retaining a certain horrific element that does have the potential for bloody mayhem. Van Rooijen seems sure to take on more than he can handle, but unlike Van Heijningen, he does have more credits under his belt. Creating and directing the acclaimed Dutch TV series Penoza is probably his best card to play (I wouldn't know whether it's any good because I rarely watch Dutch series), though he has also done a few moody thrillers in the same vein as The Birds. Nevertheless, in all other respects he seems like yet another example of a foreign director being hired to direct an unneccessary, unwanted remake of a well remembered film that American directors won't touch for obvious reasons (José Padilha's RoboCop serves as the most recent adequate comparison). Time will tell whether Van Rooijen will do any better than those that went to Hollywood before him and came back with their tails tucked between their legs, instead of merrily continuing to exploit their success on home soil.

Two villains cast. One to battle dinosaurs (or is it vice versa?) and one to tackle Jedi. I cannot recall Adam Driver from seeing him in Lincoln (it was only a small part), but he certainly has a distinctive face. Comparing his upcoming role to the iconic Darth Vader is total studio rubbish of course, since nobody will ever come close to that again. They shouldn't even try and just go in their own direction, but that's not something I consider J.J. Abrams capable of doing. And when Abrams says Driver was his first choice, I tend togo in 'I don't care mode' straight away. Turning down great actors like Hugo Weaving and Michael Fassbender in favor of this guy is yet another telltale sign of Abrams' rampant mental instability. But admittedly I might just not have seen enough of Driver's past performances to make a balanced decision on whether he's right for joining the Dark Side. I am very likely clouded by my strong dislike for Abrams, who after raping Star Trek and shamelessly getting away with it does not feel like the best choice for the Galaxy Far, Far Away in my mind. Maybe Driver just happens to actually be a good actor and as such a decent choice for whatever this villain role is going to be. It's hard to deny he has a sinister face. Yes, you might justifiably accuse me of calling him ugly, sorry.

Now Vincent D'Onofrio I know at least. He's played a memorable villain before in one of my childhood favorites, Men in Black, where he played the grotesquely big bug in the Edgar-suit. That was one baddie that freaked me out as a kid! Also knowing his talents from playing Orson Welles in Ed Wood, I can say I know D'Onofrio has a rather diverse range as an actor, so I'm sure he can pull off playing a character of a similarly savoury nature in Jurassic World. I hate to resort to the term 'villain' when JP is concerned, as so far the Jurassic Park movies haven't featured true villains yet, only regular human beings driven by greed and profits. Of course, those are the true villains of our time, but compared to the regular notion of a movie villain they're just as human as the rest of us. The nature of D'Onofrio's part is still kept secret as most things JW are, most notably the dinosaur casting. A human rogue is good as a secondary element, but it's the dinosaurs the audience craves to see endangering the protagonists. I'll definitely not use the term 'villain' in connection with dinosaurs, as they are supposed to be animals acting natural (insofar as we think they might have done) or lashing out because they're driven to acts of aggression by human indecency. The only exception might be the Velociraptors, who, due to their supposed superior intelligence, are capable of making a seemingly rational choice between acting as villains or sticking to being mere animals instead. Whether such philosoraptors are again thrown in the mix in the case of Jurassic World remains to be seen, as rumours are going around their niche will soon be filled with Troodon instead, an even smarter species of small, pack-hunting predatory dinosaurs. I'm sure T-Rex will again return triumphantly though, for sure. Whatever choices of dino-casting director Colin Trevorrow makes, I'm positive 'safety is not guaranteed' (pun!) for D'Onofrio's character. That's what you get for playing a bad guy I suppose.

Today's Poster: the big G returns to do what he does best

I found another neat new poster to post on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153929/nieuwe_poster_godzilla

This is how you do a good poster, at least in the case of a remake (which is sort of what this movie is, though there's plenty of room for new material). You refamiliarise your audience with the character in question, in a setting that brings about a shock of recognition. It reminds you what you remember most about what you liked about the original character, which is thrashing cities in Godzilla's case. If you like Godzilla at all, that is; which a lot of people apparently do, considering the 28 original Japanese movies and the two American remakes, this being the second. It's a giant monster movie staple, but spectators still get a kick out of seeing human habitat laid to waste at the feet of some ferocious, titanic creature. Especially if the city being demolished is familiar to them (hence why these movies usually tend to favour big landmark cities, obviously). At the same time, this movie makes you curious enough not to get overly negative about this iconic character being milked again for a new generation, by adding the element of curiosity. What are those falling lights above Godzilla's head? Is he gonna get mixed up with alien lifeforms with nefarious schemes again, maybe? This poster also adequately displays what Godzilla is all about (or at least, should be), functioning as the ultimate nuclear nightmare destroying human lives by the thousands after having been resurrected by man's folly of playing with powers too big and volatile for his control or understanding. Nevertheless, if Godzilla will indeed fight extraterrestrial antagonists or rivalling giant mutations, he may also be mankind's only hope. Whether 'Kaiju' enthusiast Gareth Edwards (Monsters) will opt for either take on Godzilla, or just go for both, remains to be seen. That he gets Godzilla however seems clear from this poster. Plus, unlike what happened to the previous Godzilla, he honours the original Japanese design by staying close to it, instead of giving him a giant make-over as occurred in 1998. That also can't hurt.

Today's Mini-Review: Death Race

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

Starring: Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Ian McShane

Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson

USA/UK: Universal Pictures, 2008

A good remake keeps the message of its predecessor intact, just altered to fit and reflect the times that influenced its own production. Since Paul Bartel's and Roger Corman's original exploitation movie Death Race 2000 didn't pretend to have a message to speak off, but instead aimed to be a simply entertaining action flick hellbent on giving spectators a gory thrill ride filled with absurdist jokes making fun of politics for the heck of it, there was room for negotiation in that regard when the time was deemed right to tell the story again. The good-humoured gags and slightly satirical and subversive elements were brusquely traded in for a more serious approach, as the new Death Race is set in a bleak world where the economy is in such a shambles the huge masses can only be appeased by watching other people, worse off than they are and pushed into a life of crime, engage in excessively risqué driving behavior. Inmates are offered a chance to reclaim their freedom in return for surviving a race where they must win by avoiding lethal obstacles and more importantly, each other as the goal is to viciously dispatch other contestants. Enter Jason Statham, who by now is well known for playing tough characters who won't tolerate such conditions and fight back with a vengeance.

Statham plays Jensen Ames, an honest man skilled in driving who lost his job and subsequently his wife, quickly framed for her death and sent to serve for life in jail. The wicked warden of the prison, an ice cold Joan Allen, obviously with a sinister agenda of her own, offers him a potential way out by competing in her 'Death Race' programme under the guise of a recently deceased racing legend called Frankenstein, a favorite of the crowd. Of course Ames turns out just as efficient a driver as he works his way through the game, brutally taking out many an adversary along the way and annoying his most fierce opponent, Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson). As he discovers there's more to his inclusion in the race than simply his established skill set and the warden may have been involved in the murder of his wife, Ames' objective evolves from winning the race to escaping it. Names and a general premise are about as much as this film and its Seventies' counterpart have in common. Very different in style, the modern version is an effective popcorn flick of an action film, but lacking a character of its own and feeling a tad generic overall. No poking fun at politics here. Prison clichés cannot be avoided, as is the case of sidekick typecasting (an old mentor, a nerdy technician, a hot dame as co-driver, you get it). About as inventive as the character set-up gets is Joe's status as a (black) homosexual, a notion with which nothing is done in the course of the film. Why would it anyway? The film is all about racing kick-ass cars making kills.

What Death Race lacks in terms of characters it more than makes up for when it comes to its real stars, the four-wheeled (or more) monstrous machines that form its main attraction. Various grizzly hot-rods adorned with all kinds of deadly accessories have been assembled by a clearly enthusiastic design and stunt team, guaranteeing quite the spectacle as they are pitted against each other in road racing, asphalt blazing fury. The plethora of grotesque vehicles – including an impressive monster truck loaded with ingenious weaponry – steering and hacking their way through a course of rusty, rundown warehouses makes for an eerie, hopeless post-industrial look reminiscent of such classic action fare the likes of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, except with the constant attention of the panoptical media at its back dominating every move of the race to ensure audience attendance. And despite the blandness of their characters, the cast does a solid job making this grim world feel convincing, Statham doing what he does best (and we wouldn't have it any other way). However, under the direction of action specialist Paul W.S. Anderson (not that Paul Anderson, as this one is not known for his carefully balanced quality storytelling), the movie never conveys the idea that it might revolve around more than just decently dynamic action scenes. If it's butch cars you want, it's butch cars you get, might as well have been the film's tagline. All else is merely secondary.

As a whole, the major differences between this latest Death Race and the original are the result of a bigger budget and scope. A true message is still not a thing of note. The 2008 version simply looks cooler and feels slicker because it had the money at its disposal, but it plays it safe by staying in its comfort zone, solely delivering action while devoid of surprise, instead of throwing oddities and black humour in the mix like the original could afford for being a smaller, independent production. Nevertheless, its tactics proved successful enough to spawn two direct-to-video sequels, and so the premise returned to its more exploitative roots (just not in a particularly good way).

And if you don't like disturbing race car driving, there's always this new Game of Thrones Season 4 trailer to drool over:

 

Today's Mini-Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still (remake)

Rating: **/*****, or 4/10

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Jadem Smith

Directed by Scott Derrickson

USA: 20^th Century-Fox, 2008

The thing about remakes is they need to retell a story of old (or at least apply its general concepts) while giving it meaning that reflects contemporary society, instead of carbon-copying the meaning of their original counterpart to little avail in a changed world. In that regard, the remake of the Sci-Fi classic The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is spot-on, replacing a warning against the dangers of nuclear weapons for an ecological message against man's carelessness where the health of the world's environment, and thus his own, is concerned. In most other respects, this new The Day the Earth Stood Still feels like a redundant exercise in how not to redo a well remembered movie.

Like its predecessor from the Fifties, the film revolves around an extraterrestrial visitor, with a giant robot in tow, who is met with hostility and fear on our planet. Darker and grittier than the original, there is good cause to treat the stranger (an aptly emotionless (as always) Keanu Reeves) with aggressive caution, as he's not here delivering an ultimatum telling us to change our ways for the better, but has instead come to eradicate the human infestation from the face of the galaxy in an attempt to save all other life forms spawned by Mother Earth. Life, he says, is rare in the vast limitless of space and therefore a precious thing, but life endangering all other life must be swiftly dealt with: the ends clearly justify the means. Arriving in a sphere (as opposed to a saucer, like before) the alien called Klaatu has come not as a Christ figure like in the original film, but as an Anti-Christ, hellbent on unleashing his own weapon of mass destruction upon our not so innocent world. Said weapon proves to be his artificial companion Gort, who appears to be a metallic giant in humanoid shape, but actually consists of huge numbers of nanites capable of devouring everything they come into contact with. Thankfully humanity has its on secret weapons to combat Klaatu's convictions, namely a smart and strong female scientist (played by Jennifer Connelly) who manages to dissuade the alien from his destructive plans, backed up by the effective reasoning of an aged professor (John Cleese) who morally convinces him humanity must be allowed to make its own choices in the natural process of its evolution. Even though Klaatu's frozen heart is thawed and his role is turned around a full 180 degrees so Keanu can once again play the Messiah (e.g., The Matrix trilogy and Constantine), his original point is amply illustrated as the military tampers with his devices in a botched attempt to destroy them, only unleashing their horrors as nanites swarm the land and the FX department is given the opportunity to go all-out so as to obscure the fact this version of The Day the Earth Stood Still hardly proves as emotionally compelling as its forebear did.

Aside from an update in themes and special effects, this remake offers little improvement over its predecessor. Religious overtones are obviously still to be found: aside from Klaatu's messianistic role, there is the notion of 'space arks' for example, small spheres evacuating all animal species off-world before being engulfed by a sea of nanites. The movie walks a fine line between being too obvious and too subtle, but the representation of religion is the least of its problems. This new The Day the Earth Stood Still has a hard time convincing the spectator that an alien intelligence can so easily be persuaded to alter its agenda, which from the start felt so ruthlessly unalterable thanks to Reeves' emotionless portrayal. What's worse, his turnaround is accomplished through interaction with the scientist and her kid, a terribly obnoxious and ungrateful little brat (Jaden Smith, ofcourse), the latter more often given the audience the impression Klaatu was right from the start and humanity really is a plague better wiped out for the universe's sake, than making it easy for us to accept the otherworldly being is starting to appreciate contact with mankind and suddenly considers humans worth saving after all. The talents of both Connelly and Cleese remain underused in favor of this irritating child character, while it's they who deliver the truly valid arguments as to why humanity is just not so black and white as Klaatu feared. Meanwhile, being a big winter release, the current The Day the Earth Stood Still all too eagerly uses the tools at its disposal thank to the wonders of digital technology by adding many a bombastic scene of computer generated imagery fighting soldiers, reducing the film to the level of the average type of big FX driven action flick, instead of ending up as a smart and sensible science fiction drama like the far superior 1951 incarnation. Nowhere does this film feature either the intellectual impact or the trend setting production design the original was blessed with. Instead, its eco-message is delivered in a bland and forgetful new groove, the impression the film leaves as tiny as the nanites it showcases.

A retooling of the original film where the phrase 'nuclear weapons' would simply have been substituted with 'global pollution' would probably have made for a more agreeable and certainly cheaper way to update that film for today's public, as the 2008 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still adequately illustrates that changing the message to fit the times while throwing huge sums of money at the project to give it that slick blockbuster feel coupled with ignoring the character aspects that ought to make us care doesn't make for a good film, let alone for an effective means to convince the audience of the value of the themes addressed.

And Happy Birthday, Sis!!

Today's Triple News: monsters, apes and cunnilingus

No less than triple news today, another first!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152339/eerste_posters_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152305/nieuwe_poster_nymphomaniac

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152306/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_godzilla_online

A lot of posters these last 24 hours. The Holidays are nigh so studios want to promote their upcoming projects more vigorously than usual to make sure all those cinemagoers (and I know from experience there will be lots of them!) will get a glimpse of their product. Except for Lars von Trier, who just wants to shock and amaze everybody, Holidays or no. He certainly succeeds with his latest Nymphomaniac poster, which is even more unsubtely explicit than the previous batch. If we didn't know what to expect from that particular film, we know now. I must say, I find this movie ever more amusing, thanks to its promotional campaign. These daring and original poster concepts are effectively catching my attention, as I know they attract others too. I wonder whether any of these will actually be seen in theaters anywhere, they seem to be so risqué they're only suited for online marketing. Say what you will about a stubborn troublemaker like Von Trier, he certainly knows how to cause a scandal that can only benefit the movie getting noticed. Whether people will go and see it is another matter and whether those that do will actually like it is an even more poignant question. But even if Nymphomaniac fails to be a compelling piece of exploration of human sexuality/erotics, its promotion is a definite success!

The other marketing material I posted is more standard fare. The Apes posters tease, they do little more. You get little new plot information from them other than the return of Caesar and Koba, the addition of two novel ape characters (including a new gorilla), and the fact the shit is about to hit the fan because of their grim look and war paint. Doesn't matter, I was already looking forward to this movie. I liked the previous reboot Rise of the PotA, as well as all the originals (some more than others). However, I'm not going more ape over this film now than I already did.

That said, I am getting more excited over the Godzilla remake. It seems it takes the simple basics of the Japanese originals, introducing a giant mutated dinosaur (?) and pitting him against the military, without bothering with an accompanying plot too much. That's good, because there is little more to Godzilla than that. Sure, there is the warning against nuclear weapons, but that's hardly a new message. And unlike the dreadful 1998 American remake, this Godzilla actually looks like his Japanese counterpart. Though story isn't the most pertinent issue, at least there's some terrific actors present (Gary Oldman. yay!) and a director who knows and respects the subject material (as he demonstrated with his Kaiju hommage guerilla film Monsters). And action doesn't appear to be something this movie lacks. It seems there's little here that can go wrong making this as good a Godzilla film as any of them. Which doesn't mean it will be a masterpiece (nonono!), but it will be good monster-stomping-cities fun, which is all you could hope for in a big G film. Except for the appearance of other creatures to fight Godzilla. I don't see any here, but earlier promotional material ensured us that's thrown in as well.

Today's Double News: rebuilding the Addams Family, with Lego

Two more little bits of news posted by me on MS:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151330/addams_family_film_in_de_planning

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151331/nieuwe_trailer_the_lego_movie

So the Addams Family is brought back to life once more? Figures. It proved a success in the past on multiple occasions, so Hollywood is convinced it can do so again. Even though we already had a very similarly themed movie in last year's Dark Shadows, which didn't turn out so well. So at least there is room for a macabre family done right. Animated though? It wouldn't be the first time this creepy family unit has been featured in animation, so it's not necessarily a bad idea, even though most people will still consider a live-action version, whether it's the classic TV-series or the Nineties' films, first and foremost when they hear the (in)famous theme song. At least a writer is involved who knows her way around eerie,Gothic, digitally animated movies (though they're hit and miss in terms of quality in her case, so this could swing either way). Let's wait and see whether MGM actually manages to acquire the rights to this franchise and starts casting before we start judging this project too much in advance. Which also hides the fact that I've hardly ever seen any Addams Family in my lifetime. I guess I either missed it as a kid (it was probably on cable telly), or I just discarded it as 'not my thing' and I can't remember anything else about it.

Speaking of animation and stuff that is my thing, a stop motion Lego movie surely qualifies as such. And so The Lego Movie gets a second trailer, an official one this time as opposed to a mere teaser (see below). I must say, the teaser was able to whet my appettite more thoroughly. I start to wonder whether watching talking, moving Lego minifigures for ninety minutes or more is something that doesn't get dull after a while. YouTube shorts is one thing (or thousands upon thousands, really) but a full length film is quite another. At least there's a decent voice cast (though a bit heavy on the comedy stars maybe): who would ever have thought the likes of Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson would voice characters like these? And what's up with all the DC superheroes? Getting the Justice League on the big screen sooner than expected it appears, just not the way we were meant to think it would pan out (but hey, no Batfleck here!). Too bad there's no Marvel heroes too to balance things a little neatly, after all there's plenty of Marvel themed Lego sets as well. I guess Marvel is too busy making "real" movies instead of playing with toys and dreaming of bigger things.