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.

Today's many little bits of news

Someone has been a busy little bee posting movie news these past few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156058/nieuwe_poster_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is a poster I'm going ape over. So that's not a very original pun in this context, I know. Nevertheless, it fits the bill. The more I see of this sequel to the already surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the more I feel it's gonna be very much worth our while. Top notch, groundbreaking visual effects notwithstanding, there's a definite heart and soul to the story of man's (and ape's) incapability of coexisting alongside beings that on many levels should be considered equal (read: other humans with different points of view). Such intolerance can only lead to our own demise in violent revolt, for which we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Of course, apes make the same mistake as humans (ape shall not kill ape; yeah right!), showing that they're truly not so different. This poster hearkens back to the climatic events of the previous installment very nicely, even though the bridge portrayed on the one-sheet doesn't seem to be the same as in that final showdown. Apes on horesback wielding firearms are new to the (rebooted) franchise though, and just shows how far primate progression has come since. Or more aptly, just how much they resemble us now, considering their eagerness to carry weapons to purposefully harm others and subject animals to do their heavy work. Since mankind has been largely wiped out in this flick due to the pandemic set up in the credits of the previous film, both sides are now on equal footing in terms of strength. Will this incarnation of Planet of the Apes devolve into mutual annihilation as did its Seventies' predecessor? Or will a more hopeful outcome prevail instead to demonstrate such violent times have passed? Considering a third movie is already in the pipeline, don't expect an answer too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156034/marvel_will_derrickson_voor_doctor_strange

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156075/marvel_overweegt_hardy_of_cumberbatch_voor_doctor_strange

While Ant-Man is still stuck without a director (at least five candidates have passed the job over the last few weeks), Marvel is quickly moving forward with Doctor Strange regardless. In fact, at this rate it feels like the latter will beat the former to theaters, which might work too if the Marvel scribes shuffle their various set-up pieces for the larger Cinematic Universe around to accomodate these production problems. Strange has landed a director - Scott Derrickson, with the lousy Day the Earth Stood Still remake on his resumé, but also a recent tendency to deliver decent horror flicks - and consequently the studio is now focusing hard on finding a lead actor. The most promising name once attached to the project, Viggo Mortensen, is not on Marvels mind anymore, sadly. Instead, they choose to opt for 'hotter' names and at the moment that list has been narowed down to two: Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy. Both solid actors with a diverse enough background for me to realize they could adequately play this supernatural character. Both careers flawed by their involvement with much lamented Star Trek projects, as Hardy portrayed Picard's angry clone Shinzon in the feeble Star Trek: Nemesis, while Cumberbatch wasted his time and talent boringly repeating an unrepeatable Khan in the even worse Star Trek Into Darkness. I'll forgive those sins, as they have proven they are still very capable actors since. If it indeed has to come down to either one of these two, Cumberbatch would be my pick. The characters he has played usually prefer mind over matter, his unsurpassed take on Sherlock Holmes being the prime example. By comparison, Hardy's roles have tended towards men who let their muscles do the talking: not mindless necessarily (e.g. Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, who is both very strong and extremely intelligent), but still more driven by their physical attributes. The Sorcerer Supreme is very much a being of the mind. Sure, there is a physical aspect to him, with all his silly gesturing when uttering spells and whatnot, but otherwise his intellect takes precedence, his mind literally leaving his body when voyaging on the astral plane to keep humanity safe from supernatural harm. I'd feel more comfortable seeing the lean and elegant Cumberbatch in that capacity than the bulky built Hardy, as there's enough overly muscled Marvel heroes prancing around on the silver screen already. But still, I would have preferred Mortensen entirely.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156042/wachowskis_jupiter_ascending_uitgesteld

An unexpected move, but an understandable one for such an FX heavy film. At least the film was already announced to be in 3D, so unlike G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which witnessed an eeriely similar dramatic push in release date, this movie is not being postponed because the studio wants to pressure a 3D release on us. Nevertheless, Jupiter Ascending has all the hallmarks of a big summer blockbuster (popular stars for both male and female demographics, a recognizable pair of directors, epic effects, fairly typical plot), so to reduce it to a February release seems an odd move. It's likely the studio wants to ensure it has little competition at the box office, as it previously had to compete with equally big movies like Transformers: Age of Extinction, Hercules, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and the not so dissimilar Guardians of the Galaxy. Currently, the only film slated for February remotely in its league is the fantasy spectacle Seventh Son (which features less stellar names, a rather unknown director and also underwent its fair share of production problems and release postponements, as it was shelved for a year or two). Even though the late winter season isn't most noteworthy in terms of financial success, if there's few other big movies to contend with, the higher your attendance numbers will be. Or so the studio hopes. Time will tell whether they're right. I kinda hope so, since this movie looks rather promising. Even though both Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis far from get me stoked, I'm always in for another space opera as too few of those are produced to my liking.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156059/watts_en_kim_gecast_in_insurgent

Divergent is another one of those franchises that tries to narrowly avoid blockbuster season by appearing in theaters just before the storm of big movies hits. Understandable, as the first film wasn't quite a big film itself, though considering its success its sequel, Insurgent, seems better endowed in that respect. Jupiter Ascending now steers clear of that one too, appearing some six weeks beforehand. The Divergent movies so far have still to rely on their popularity with the young adult female demographic for the most part, which worked so well for the books aimed at the same target audience. The first film was ambitious, but had a reasonably low budget and only one big name (Kate Winslet) to speak of. Now that the ice has been broken and an audience for its successors seems guaranteed, the studio is expanding its scope. The series seems to follow the Hunger Games blueprint in that regard: for good reasons, as its audience and its thematic contents are largely identical. However, the second Hunger Games film (and the upcoming sequels) dared to enter the winter blockbuster season to establish a clear breakthrough to the top (to great effect), something Insurgent still avoids. A bigger budget is a given though, and names to match are swiftly added to the project. Octavia Spencer was already on board, while Winslet remained too. These two Oscar winners are now joined by a third, Naomi Watts. A lot of strong, talented actresses apparently. Good thing too. Hopefully the young women that form the core audience will take hints from them instead of the rather bland teen leads whose adventures they follow.

Today's News: multiple directors interested in Marvel's strange project

Another older bit of news from my hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154380/meerdere_regisseurs_in_de_race_voor_doctor_strange

If the top boss of Marvel has a personal favorite, it's only a matter of time before said character gets himself a movie. Doctor Strange has been rumoured and reported on for a few years now, so it's about time the project really got going officially. So far most "news" has addressed the issue of who should play the titular character, with many names suggested (most interesting to my ears would be Viggo Mortensen, but fat chance of that happening!), but over the last few weeks the matter of a director has taken precedence instead. Marvel CEO Kevin Feige has so far shot down almost all possible contenders, but not the latest trio of rumoured names up for the gig: Mark Andrews, Scott Derrickson and Jonathan Levine. Each of them has dabbled in the fantastic, the horrific or the supernatural before, so all of them seem like they might fit the bill for directing a film about the Sorcerer Supreme battling various mystical, otherworldy adversaries that seek to claim humanity's souls or its dimensional territory. Levine is known for both horror and comedy (Warm Bodies, 50/50), applying both of them in a decently offbeat approach. Derrickson was responsible for one big winter blockbuster movie (the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still) which did well enough at the box office but proved disappointing for both audience and critics: he has shown more substantial skills in directing horror films though, which is not a bad thing considering the interdimensional terrors and grizzly ghouls among Strange's many antagonists. Andrews has only done one movie and it was animated (Brave), but it was the most lucrative of the bunch and also a definite work of fantasy and sorcery, bordering the substance of Doctor Strange the closest thematically. My money is on Andrews. It wouldn't be the first time a Pixar director went on to do a major motion picture, though the financially disastrous John Carter, directed by Finding Nemo/Wall-E veteran Andrew Stanton, is probably not an example studio execs want to be reminded of. Nevertheless, Andrews brought in the most dough and knows the genre best. However, since Doctor Strange is unlike any other Marvel project, the studio might very well decide to do things differently and pick the least expected director for the job. I gotta admit, the term 'unlike any other Marvel movie' keeps coming back, having prior been used to describe both Thor and the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy. The more movies get made that are 'unlike any other Marvel movie', the less impact the phrase carries. With a moniker like 'Marvel', you can always expect the unexpected after all. Doctor Strange may be a weird character, he's no more implausible or odd than Norse gods in present day America or talking interstellar raccoons and trees. Now hopefully Mortensen will see that too and decide playing such a strange role is right up his alley.

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!!