Today's News aplenty

Guess who's behind on commenting on his own posted bits of news this weekend?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156239/nieuwe_batman_mogelijk_in_2019

It would have made more sense to give a major character his own solo debut before throwing him in the mix with others, as Marvel did so successfully on The Avengers. However, Warner/DC are in a tremendous hurry. The superhero movie fad has been going on for over a decade now, the novelty will wear off and audiences will grow tired of all these superheroes saving the day ad nauseam soon. It's not unlikely we have already witnessed the height of the superhero silver screen craze by now. However, Marvel has shown its rivals the light and the financial rewards to be reaped, so a competing über-superhero blockbuster from that other major comic book publisher is in short order. And considering the success of the Dark Knight trilogy, plus the popularity of the Batman character in general for the last 70 years, it's safe to say audiences know the Caped Crusader well enough not to be in need of an origin story once again. Batman may really not need another introduction for a change. Let him meet Superman first and see how that works out for the both of them, and worry about retelling this particular take on the character later on. Of course, it's likely his background will be touched upon in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, though probably not in so much detail. I'm sure it can be skipped for a film or two, as Justice League too is scheduled to beat The Batman, as is the solo film's dull working title, to theaters. It may actually be good for the character's air of mystique to keep his origins in the dark for a while longer than anticipated by the general audience. And since the Dark Knight trilogy turned out so well, we can still enjoy it to the fullest for a few more years before the mantle is passed to another director, another actor and another universe for Bats to play in.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156258/rian_johnson_regisseur_star_wars_episode_viii

The hunt for talented young directors to shape Disney's Star Wars universe continues! Not that I consider J.J. Abrams either young (age: 48) or talented (mucking up Lost, sacking Star Trek). But his co-directors Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) and Josh Trank (Chronicle) sure fit that description. And Rian Johnson does too. His episodes of Breaking Bad were amongst the best of the entire series' run and proves he understands compelling characters and drama just fine, while Looper was simply a good watch (not flawless, but still a noteworthy Sci-Fi flick). Apparently Disney thinks the world of him, as he's not only directing Episode VIII, but also writing both that one and its successor, Episode IX. I bet there's a juicy, shocking cliffhanger involved that warrants the involvement of the same writer to make things run more smoothly from a plot point of view. So that makes five(!) Star Wars films currently being prepped, the greatest activity ever on the franchise. How much anticipation can the fans survive? And how much harder will the blow to them be if these films do not live up to the hype which is rapidly reaching insane levels? As all major film studios are, Disney is unmistakably in a hurry to capitalize on what it has. I hope it works out for everybody, studio and devotees alike. Fortunately, after the disappointment Star Wars' own creative father wrought on the franchise in the previous decade, most fans will know not to live in hope to much. But ever more of such promising names attached, the chances continue to rise we will be getting at least one good Star Wars movie in the near future.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156259/laatste_trailer_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_online

As for Planet of the Apes, that franchise already experienced a successful reboot with Rise of the PotA. So far the trailers indicate the level of quality is maintained for its successor, Dawn of the PotA. Thanks to this latest trailer I'm even more stoked for this movie than I already was. Okay, so the image of a chimp riding a horse while firing twin guns is a bit on the side of campy excess, all else seems solid enough. You've got intriguing characters, a fascinating post-apocalyptic state of affairs, excellent visual effects and some damn fine actors (Andy Serkis! Gary Oldman!) to make it all come alive. And things are not too black and white, as there's villains and heroes on both sides and there's something to be said for everybody's motivations. Of course we root for the formerly oppressed apes, but thanks to the virus that wiped out most of humanity, the stakes have been balanced to such an extent that the humans are not much beter off, which makes them sympathetic underdogs in a clever role reversal. There's room for that gray area between man and beast to be explored, the trailer suggests, even though much of the movie obviously consists of acts of violence committed by both parties. And unlike in the original movies, the lines between the three species of apes - chimpanzee, orang-utan and gorilla, if you recall - are not so clearly delineated as before, so there is opportunity to make use of those differences too. It's not as simple as chimps good, gorillas bad, as in the Seventies. Nor is it apes good, humans bad, as was the case for most of the previous movie. As the trailer shows, and hopefully the film itself will too, everybody is still all too human and peace is our only option for mutual survival.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156264/sinister_regisseur_schrijft_outer_limits

Derrickson sure is getting busy lately. He still has to finish another horror flick, he's busy prepping Doctor Strange for Marvel, and now he's tackling The Outer Limits inbetween. I hope he does it justice, as his remake of the classic The Day the Earth Stood Still didn't prove him to be a science fiction genius. The choice to base an entire movie off a single episode also is no cause for optimism, especially if it's a feeble one (no offense to Harlan Ellison). I question the choice to adapt this TV-show to the big screen, since the latter just doesn't fit its format all too well. The same can be said for its friendly competitor, The Twilight Zone. Anthologies are beter served in weekly succession on the small screen where viewers can grasp the concepts more easily than they can if they encounter them in theaters only every three years. After all, if a movie proves to be received well by its audience, it will expect a direct sequel in terms of story, rather than an entirely different story altogether. Imagine if I, Robot was the first Outer Limits movie and the sequel wouldn't deal with robots at all: would that have sat well with spectators? It just so happens that that particular tale was first used in the original TV series before Will Smith made it his own star vehicle in 2004. If there was no Will Smith in its successor, people might have been ended up disappointed. The only other workable solution is to fit multiple short stories into a single movie, as done in the Eighties' Twilight Zone movie, not to great effects despite the involvement of several notable directors for each segment (including Steven Spielberg). To me, the silver screen just doesn't seem to be suited to unrelated short stories packaged under the same title. Theatrical limits are just a little too far beyond the outer limits the show handles.

Movies gone by: the continuation of the continuation of etc.

Today I'll briefly discuss a few more movies I missed discussing in the past few months due to unfortunate circumstances, again. This task is made harder by the fact I still keep seeing new movies every week, but eventually I'll catch up and I'm back on schedule once more. Here's a few good movies for y'all.

Looper: ****/*****, or 7/10

Fairly imaginative Sci-Fi thriller. In the not too distant future, time travel allows crime bosses to send undesirables back in time to have them shot and cleaned up by 'loopers', hitmen of thirty years past specializing in taking out the future's trash. The catch: these assassins ultimately also have to take out their future selves and so 'close their loop'. A particularly efficient looper, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, one day fails to eliminate his older counterpart (Bruce Willis) and ends up on the run to stay out of his former friends' hands. Meanwhile, his almost doppelganger sets out on a scheme to kill the top crime lord of the future, still a kid in this time. Will the young looper team up with himself, or will he try to kill him after all to make up for his failure? A good premise but the movie fails to fully deliver on it in the second half of the film when things quiet down a little too much as JG-L arrives on a farm and falls in love with the mother of his future employer (Emily Blunt). Also thrown in the mix are this little boy's mutant telekinetic abilities, a fairly random feeling addition to overly complicate the plot further. Nevertheless, strong performances throughout (especially the boy (who is one of the finest child actors I've ever seen) and Gordon-Levitt seamlessly incorporating Willis' mannerisms to make for a more believable connection between the pair), some solid action scenes, a harrowing punishment scene (where another failed looper is slowly shown cut into pieces) and a typical but still effective mindfucking temporal conclusion make for a certainly decent watch.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: *****/*****, or 9/10

Ah, the big epic conclusion of the already splendid movie year 2012! I could easily write a 3,000 word review of this (and should have) but for now this little bit must suffice. I can safely say I haven't had this much fun since Return of the King in 2003. This is about as successful a return to Middle-Earth on Peter Jackson's part as we could have hoped for, and he more than makes up for his abysmal failure The Lovely Bones (2009). Still, this first installment of the Hobbit trilogy is not up to par with the superb Lord of the Rings trilogy, mostly due to a different tone, courtesy of the original novel. This does make for a more lighthearted and warm spirited film, which is not necessarily a bad thing since it does not make the film feel like a retreat of LotR and gives it an identity all its own. The story is known all too well of course. Carefree Hobbit Bilbo Baggins (excellent Martin Freeman) is suckered into setting out on a long journey by wizard Gandalf (excellent Sir Ian McKellen) to the Lonely Mountain Erebor to help a band of Dwarves, led by the noble Thorin Oakenshield (excellent Richard Armitage), reclaim their home and treasure from the giant dragon Smaug (only shown in bits and pieces in this film). On the way the group has to deal with Goblins, Elves, Trolls and Orcs: especially the latter, led by the giant warrior Azog, have no intention of making it easy on the brave travelers. A wonderful revisit of Tolkien's world in full cinematic glory, the movie encompasses old characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and most impressively of all, Gollum) and locations (the Shire, Rivendel) as well as many new ones. PJ and friends have added a lot of material taken from the appendices of the original LotR novels to get this new trilogy and the previous one more in sync with each other, which does make for longer movies (and even longer extended editions, yay!), but not necessarily worse results. Though the scenes created specifically for this film (Galadriel's relationship with Gandalf, the White Council meeting and such) prove somewhat lacking in terms of writing, it's more than agreeable to see such beloved familiar faces again, and it might prove to be worth it as these subplots are further developed in the next two films. In regard to look and feel, this movie is perfectly in line with the Middle-Earth we have loved for over a decade, also thanks to the contributions of all of PJ's old accomplices (including composer Howard Shore who again delivers a fine score). If the upcoming two Hobbit films are as decent as this one, we have little to worry about. Except maybe spiders.