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

This month's column is up!

Dag des Oordeels voor de Jurassic Park fanaat

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

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

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

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

Today's News: suicide Avengers code

This week's news, first batch:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158219/cast_dcs_suicide_squad_bekendgemaakt

Quite a stellar and diverse cast, but I see some possible problems here. The first addresses the casting itself. To my mind, casting Will Smith in an ensemble movie isn't your best bet. The man is a Hollywood superstar, they tend to demand attention too strongly to cope well with sharing the screen. Especially with actors that aren't in their salary class, as these other cast members simply aren't. Will Smith kinda has a bad reputation in this department since Wild Wild West (if set rumours are to be trusted, that is). Whether he'll readily accept having his face covered continuously in the role of Deadshot also remains to be seen. Of course, you can argue that The Avengers does a pretty good job joining various superstars together for a big epic project, but let's not forget most of them were made that famous because of the work they did previously for Marvel, well aware that they needed to reign in their temperaments in a joint venture soon enough. Their own movies more or less prepared them for that mission, as most of them followed the same strategy of becoming superstars and thus shared the necessary common ground. This is not the case for Suicide Squad, as most of these characters are totally new to the big screen and so they haven't been prepped in their own titles for the audience and neither have the people playing them. They get thrown in the mix together from the get-go instead, and it just very much remains the question on whether they have any affinity with the role at all, whether the audience accepts them in these parts and whether joining these characters and actors together is a good idea. Which brings me to the second issue: the Joker. Like Will Smith is a huge A-lister thrown in with a bunch of actors of a lesser profile (no offense, gang, but that's just the situation), the Joker is a villain much more iconic than the rest of them, especially after the well remembered terrific performance by Heath Ledger not so long ago. Is it really a smart move to introduce a new take on this character, one that is supposed to be around for at least a decade, in an ensemble movie like this, rather than setting him up in the more traditional way, as Batman's most recognizable antagonist in the Caped Crusader's own film? (An argument that can be made for the new incarnation of the Dark Knight himself just as easily, it must be noted.) Probably so. But then, the Joker doesn't adhere to logic like that, he's much too erratic to care. We'll just have to wait and see how this works out. At least the majority of the casting seems pretty nifty. It'll be very interesting to see what Jared Leto brings to the role of the Joker. And he even has his girlfriend Harley Quinn by his side this time. The more madness, the merrier.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158196/extra_opnamen_avengers_2_in_januari

Speaking of the Avengers, they just got some leeway to improve their sequel's scope just that much more. From the looks of it, it's not just the action scenes that get a bit more jibe, but also the characters, including a few we might not have expected to partake in this giant superhero flick. Both Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston have been revealed to be present in Age of Ultron. That is surprising, considering the story line mostly seemed to center around Tony Stark and his invention, the rogue robot Ultron, running rampant. A little HYDRA espionage plot spilling over from the Cap movies was also already known to be injected through the addition of Baron Von Strucker to the cast. So is there room for some Norse gods? Apparently Marvel is making room. Since more Loki is never a bad thing when Hiddleston plays the part, I'm certainly not complaining. I'm not counting on major scenes of divine exposition though. Probably just some hints at the bigger Thor picture to indicate that while the Avengers get into the usual mischief on Earth, trouble is still brewing in the background on Asgard to plague Thor in his next solo feature (aptly subtitled Ragnarok). Seems that universe building Marvel so excelled at in Phase 1 is now seemlessly flowing into Phase 3.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158220/source_code_krijgt_vervolg

More of Source Code I'm less positive about. Its whole take on time travel and temporal loops was already nothing new to me thanks to the likes of Star Trek, The X-Files and The Twilight Zone. Though it was still a fresh take on the notion and resulted in an enjoyable and intelligent movie, more of the same would spark a similar feeling of repetition I don't exactly welcome. Of course they can introduce a new main character and director - as they'll have to, since it strongly appears both Jake Gyllenhaal and Duncan Jones are not inclined to be involved, and I can't blame them - but even when tweaking the concept, there's only so much you can do with it. This announced sequel just has 'blatant cash grab' written all over it. Of course, that is hardly a novel thing in Hollywood. It's endless cycle of rehasing and reimaging concepts and franchises that once proved lucrative is quite similarly stuck into an ever revolving loop that knows no end. It's just that in this case, the audience is the poor subject that develops a gnawing, relentless sense of déja vu, the feeling of having experienced it all before. As they have.

Today's News: some catching up required

It's been a busy week what with Sinterklaas and the news surrounding the Jurassic World trailer (and that other trailer too, which I won't mention here since it's been picked apart frame by frame everywhere else already), so here's a belated crop of this week's news from my hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158131/nieuwe_trailer_the_interview

The more I see of this movie, the more I want to see it in theaters. I know I shouldn't get my hopes up since it's by all accounts a rather generic raunchy Hollywood comedy starring all the usual suspects, but still it has piqued my interest. It probably has something to do with my fascination - coupled with a healthy dose of abjection - for dystopian societies, even though this one is sadly all too real. Everything we hear about North-Korea, and not everything being as trustworthy as it is considering the various ideologies at work, makes it sound a very incredulous yet all too actual place. I would never want to live there, but it's so shady and abhorrent there's this vast web of projected fantasies and horror stories surrounding it that remains intriguing. Of course this movie doesn't pretend to tell the truth about the nation, nor does the country ever tell the truth about itself. But it's so inherently 'other' that it's hard to deny its fascination. Even when that's exploited for stereotypical Hollywood jokes. This trailer made me snicker on more than one occasion. Some of the jokes might very well hold an uncomfortable and alarming truth though. But then, so did The Great Dictator in its days, even though the truth in hindsight was far more sinister than the fiction and in many ways, painfully unfunny. It's unlikely The Interview will ever be considered as great a classic as that film, but it's definitely in the same league, though obviously more contemporary.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158102/waltz_als_blofeld_in_bond_24

Why the heck not? As Skyfall showed, the rebooting has already progressed quite far in the 007 franchise, now that old characters appear in new guises (M, Q, Ms. Moneypenny). Much as keeps happening to the protagonist himself in fact, and that has worked out pretty well so far. Why would the same principle not apply to Bond's primary nemesis Blofeld? There's no reason it shouldn't. Of course, the studio has its mind firmly set on a powerful actor who can elegantly balance the precarious line between too realistic and too campy, which is the route the franchise currently seems to be taking, as Skyfall indicated (strong drama and character conflict, but also an outrageous villain and a pit full of Komodo Dragons). Christoph Waltz perfectly fits the bill. It's not the first time he plays an evil character who feels both all too frighteningly actual and totally over the top (e.g. Inglourious Basterds), so he knows the drill. It'll be delightful to see what the new look of the character will be. I doubt the bald head and the facial scar will be as overtly present as on previous incarnations. Probably a toned down version of that. And will the cat stay? If not, it'll definitely be referenced. It should.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158148/nieuwe_trailer_dreamworks_home

For some reason, this just can't excite me. I can't quite put my finger on it, since it has some things going for it that I like, including a full scale alien invasion. Maybe it just looks too generic, maybe the jokes and the bleeding heart message are too bland. Maybe I'm kinda done with Jim Parsons playing a social outcast, even though this is not our society for a change. It could be the trailer just gives away too much of the plot for me to care about the final product. Perhaps the aliens look too much like cuddly toys aimed for selling to kids. I shouldn't judge ahead so strongly, I know, but on all accounts I'm guilty as charged. Wouldn't be the first trailer for which I did so this week, though that other trailer got it worse. Probably because it gave away so little of the plot by comparison.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158149/nieuwe_posters_kingsman_the_secret_service

This movie, too, doesn't excite me that much, but in this case I know where the fault lies. It feels repetitive. It's from the same comic book writer as Wanted, and it has a lot of striking similarities with that title. Both feature secret organisations fighting to keep the world in balance. Both recruit an unlikely regular guy as their new agent and pin a lot of hopes on him because he looks so ordinary  but he's oh so special. Both star some grand actors to suck us into the world of the piece. Both feature all kinds of outrageous gun fights and assorted action scenes. The only thing Kingsman apparently doesn't have that Wanted did, is a strong female character - 'twas Angelina Jolie in Wanted's case - learning the upstart the tricks of the trade and giving us a good butt shot in the process. This time we have to make do with the very British Colin Firth to introduce both the young protagonist and us, the audience, into this crazy world. These posters indicate there's still room for some neat female butt though. No firing curved bullets this time, but there's room for other far-out stuff like a hit woman with robotic legs. And what's with the pug? Truth be told, I didn't care much for Wanted, so this movie will be hard pressed to do better.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158164/vervolg_independence_day_definitief_aangekondigd

Don't. Just don't. Please. This movie featured a solid plot that didn't seem to leave much room for more, unless it's more of the exact same. And I don't need a plot regurgitated for me to appear in a new guise for a younger generation. The only way this could be a sequel is if it featured recurring characters, and so far the old cast doesn't seem eager to jump on the same bandwagon again to sing the exact same tune. Even the studio itself seems a little hesitant on this one. First, the production was rescheduled to a full year later. Second, the number of sequels has been lowered from two to just the one. What does that tell you? It just seems nobody's heart is in this. The original 1996 movie really does suffice. If the studio truly does feel like making more dough on this title, just re-release it for its 20th anniversary (preferably not in 3D, but that's not a likely scenario these days). That's really all the celebration we need, for it's still a great thrill ride of a blockbuster flick.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158174/nieuwe_trailer_shaun_the_sheep

Well, that just looks adorable! Not that I expected otherwise from Aardman, but am I glad their style remains consistent. From the looks of it, it's not the fairly basic plot that counts here, it's the fun to be had out of it, coupled with the wonderful style of animation Aardman always delivers. I do have this unshakeable feeling it looks aimed a little too much at a younger audience, which may mean there won't be a subtitled version in Dutch theaters, only a dubbed one. That would be a damn shame, so I hope it proves untrue. I for one am definitely up for more delightful British humour, preferably in their own language. Then again, language? The trailer doesn't offer any actual lines of dialogue. Nor does IMDb have a cast list available, as if there's no voice acting present. If that's the case, I need not worry about shitty dubbing at all, and everybody is happy. Excellent solution to save on dubbing and subtitling costs, Aardman!

Today's News: am I gaining on myself or getting further behind?

With new movie news being posted on nigh a daily basis, I'm gonna be hard-pressed keeping the topics current. Today's news items too admittedly aren't all too fresh, being nearly a week old by now.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157417/nieuwe_trailer_horrible_bosses_2

I gotta admit I still had a few laughs watching this trailer, even though I'm against the whole notion of doing sequels to Hollywood comedies, since they're nothing but blatant cashcows and creativity is usually not their forté. The idea of three nitwits formerly screwed over by their employers starting a business of their own is at least a narratively logical construction, though otherwise all the predictable story ingredients from the sequel are in place: the inaptitude of the protagonists, the rich bastard conning them for his own gain, the crime that is to be their revenge but backfires on them, etc. Many of the supporting characters return, even though not all of them seem genuinely warranted to do so - read: gratuitous appearances galore - to provide a familiar face for people who are off-set by all those newcomers (not that there's that many of those though). Surprises are not likely to be found here, looking at the story. A decent joke or two, most likely. Will this be as good as the predecessor? Let's consider the sequels to similar recent succesful comedies. Can you name one that was anywhere near as good as its forebear? I certainly can't. So I doubt this will prove any different.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157415/dominic_cooper_toegevoegd_aan_marvels_agent_carter

Not exactly a surprising bit of casting, but a welcome one nonetheless. Gotta love the consistency between the TV branch of Marvel Studios' enterprise and its theatrical counterpart. It also provides a good example that television and cinema are getting increasingly intertwined as actors known mostly for their movie roles have no qualms appearing in series, a situation which was once stated to be a signal of their career's demise. These days, the opposite seems through: actors that stick to one medium are old news, it's the ability to switch between media which keeps them hot and interesting. Though the show's star, Hayley Atwell, certainly is no stranger to the small screen (Pillars of the Earth, for example), Dominic Cooper's television career by comparison is still in its infancy. It recently kicked off with his portrayal of 007 creator Ian Fleming in Fleming, so it's off to a good start. And for Agent Carter, Cooper's recent brush with espionage is all the more convenient, as that's exactly what the series deals with (though with the necessary Marvel twists). In temporal regards the latter could almost be considered a follow-up to the former, as Agent Carter takes place shortly after the period in which Fleming is set. No wonder the studio was so eager to get Cooper back to reprising Howard Stark, he seems a perfect fit and for his own benefit, he could use a bit more of the television treatment.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157442/joaquin_phoenix_niet_in_doctor_strange

As a nice segue to the former topic, even the mighty Marvel can't get every actor they would like. Joaquin Phoenix proved too headstrong and too gung-ho for contractual independence for the House of Ideas. Probably for the better, as Phoenix has shown little interest in doing big studio productions over the last decade. Small independent features are his preferred territory, and it seems to work well for him, so why would he succumb to the restrictive studio system? It would likely only have hurt his performance. Though it could still have been a great one. Doctor Strange was probably the character best suited to Phoenix, considering he's in an offbeat niche all his own in the Marvel universe, namely the mystical one. The physical resemblances would only have been a bonus. Strange however has had little issues joining others in bigger ventures, as he's been a member of almost every big super team from Marvel's comics over the years, from the Defenders to the Avengers. Such joint enterprises really aren't Phoenix's cup of tea, and I'm not surprised and only slightly disappointed he didn't bite. I'm still hoping for Viggo Mortensen to take the part, though he's very much of the same mind and is at least as unlikely to accept, if not more so.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157414/zombieland_2_niet_langer_dood

Another Hollywood comedy sequel I'm not eagerly anticipating, though I admit this one offers more diverse story telling possibilities than most. I got the general idea with the first Zombieland though, which I found only moderately funny. I guess I prefer my zombies without comedy (like the far superior The Walking Dead, duh!). The studio seems adamant to make a franchise out of this one though, even though they already failed on telly in that regard, as the series didn't get beyond the pilot stage (I didn't bother to see it). Undoubtedly the studio sees something in this that I don't: money. I think most people however just watched the first film, had a few laughs and simply moved on, largely putting the title out of their mind (which would be hard to do with The Walking Dead, a far more gripping viewing experience). Zombieland simply doesn't seem compeling enough to prove a lasting franchise, but the studio insists on trying regardless. They're welcome to try, but if it doesn't work out again, don't say I didn't warn them.

Today's Double News: scorched by interview

Only two bits of news? Slow start of the week apparently.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157292/nieuwe_trailer_the_interview

So North-Korea is pissed off... at this? Only goes to show rude humour isn't that country's forte. You gotta put things into a relative perspective. Nobody is meant to take this seriously as anti-North Korean propaganda, it's too overtly rude and silly for that. It's not like the protagonists are the token Western good guys (far from it!), nor is the CIA portrayed in the most flattering light. Of course, the question is whether a similar approach taken to a movie about North Koreans plotting an assassination on President Obama would be equally funny (that is, if you think this trailer actually provides some successful jokes, which is all a matter of taste). How many North Korean movies make their way to the rest of the world for that matter? I wouldn't be surprised if there's plenty a movie with a similar theme in circulation in that part of the world already, we just don't hear anything about it. And I bet humour isn't their prime ingredient. Totalitarian states are by their very nature not particularly amusing. It would suit North Korea's own interests to stop making a fuss about this film, which only boosts attendance worldwide since everybody now wants to see for themselves what is ticking off Kim Jong-un so badly. I don't recall the Blessed Leader being so angry about another recent American movie which involves North Korea, the notable Red Dawn. In that much more seriously toned film, the American homeland is invaded in force by the stalinist state, which leaves a couple of heroic rebels (teenagers, for the most part, too) to wage guerilla war against the evil aggressor. Now that's what I call propaganda, but few people are even talking about that movie and most that do condemn it for its questionable political motives. The Interview, however, is just rude comedy. Of course, that doesn't mean 'anything goes' in the genre, but it does imply the audience should not take anything seriously, humourless dystopian agents with their own shady agenda included.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157313/vervolg_maze_runner_aangekondigd

Speaking of dystopias, those are always a blast in the pictures. The Maze Runner has shown not to be an exception in that regard, as it's doing quite well at the (North-American) boxoffice (it has yet to be released in most "foreign" territories). So the inevitable Hollywood conclusion is a sequel is warranted. And the word is we'll be getting one. Only one? Yes. Unlike with most contemporary sequel strategies, Fox is taking a somewhat more cautious approach to things by taking things one step at a time. I can only call that responsible planning. These days, studios tend to plan ahead several sequels and spino-offs over a decade before their predecessor has even properly hit theaters yet, and in many cases, that backfires on them financially (John Carter), or on us as an audience creatively (The Amazing Spider-Man 2). Still, studios don't seem to dare risk losing their momentum and so they inform audiences of their commitment to the franchise they hope to build by revealing too early what's in store. Same thing is currently happening with the suspiciously similarly themed Divergent, which already has three more movies lined up since it did well enough at the boxoffice (though certainly not as stellar as the superior equally suspiciously similarly themed The Hunger Games). Not so on The Maze Runner, which also has two books left to adapt, but there is as yet no word on filming the third (which I reckon their soon will be). So for now, only one sequel in progress. Release date: in less that a year's time. That soon?! Uh-oh, they better start running! Yes, that was a pun and a predictable one, but so is the fact movies dealing with teenagers stuck in a nasty dystopian future continue to sit well with their target audience of young adults. But that audience is growing up fast. Mark my words: that third movie will soon be up for an adaptation too, and it's undoubtedly split into two parts. Like I said, there is an momentum to consider and it may expire. And what's more, there's the potential of lots of money.

Today's News: loads of it

The haul of news from the last week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157156/nieuwe_trailer_oorlogsfilm_fury_met_brad_pitt

Last trailer focused on the action, this one's more about the drama. Can't say it looks any better when given more substance. Rookie soldiers faced with the moral burdens of battle has been done since time immemorial. Same goes for small bands of soldiers stuck behind enemy lines on suicide missions (Saving Private Ryan is just the tip of the iceberg there, you know). Heck, even Brad Pitt has dabbled in that before with Inglourious Basterds. Big change here is that particular persona of his didn't seem to mind his hard times as much as this one, even though in terms of character there don't seem to be that many differences between Wardaddy and Lt. Aldo Raine. I really hope there's more to the movie that what the trailers are showing us. Though if we're comparing notes, that certainly was the case with Inglourious Basterds, which turned out to incorporate a whole lot more to the plot than just the bloody retributions exacted on Nazis we were promised (though that element surely was also retained, to a lesser extent). On the other thand, there's the example to the opposite, in which the trailer promised more than the actual film delivered, like on the recent forgetabble The Monuments Men. Let's just say this tank can still roll either way.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157184/23_jump_street_aangekondigd

As the end credits for 22 Jump Street revealed, there's at least twenty more scenarios for the franchise's protagonists to get involved in. Of course the studio feels like trying out at least one more considering the success of that sequel. Will it be one of the outrageous possibilities offered by those end titles? Probably not, most of them seem a little too farfetched for any "serious" comedy flick. Doesn't mean there aren't enough possibilities for infiltrations taking zany turns left. Not that I need to see them. I have learned long ago that the number of sequels to successful comedies worth our while is pretty low indeed. Blatant regurgitation is their usual motto, a point the first film, 21 Jump Street (see the numerical pattern here?), already made both hilariously and painfully clear when the angry black police captain gave his poignant and speech about law enforcement officials just recycling old ideas ad nauseam, which was the movie at its most self-aware note. And here we have the prove studio execs do the same. Like we needed any proof...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157183/eerste_fotos_batmobile_uit_batman_v_superman

I approve of this Batmobile. Not too realistic, not too unrealistic. Not too tacky, not too slick. Fits right into Zack Snyder's new DC-verse, while containing many a nod to past works, most notable Nolan's Tumbler design from the Dark Knight movies. The bat motif is not too obvious or overt, but definitely there. This basically is exactly the badass type of vehicle an angry billionaire would patrol the streets at night with to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, rather than doing drugs, banging scores of prostitutes and not giving a damn about the rest of the world because he is loaded, like real world billionaires prefer to do instead. Of course, we have yet to see it in action and discover its various funky gadgets - does it, too, feature a built-in escape vehicle and a self-destruct option, for example? - but in terms of looks and style this is right up Gotham's alleys. Good thing Hans Zimmer is still doing the music for the epic DC movies. Just add his stormy, percussive Dark Knight theme and this car is good to go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157209/eerste_trailer_serena

Why change a winning team, the casting director of Serena must have thought? Cooper & Lawrence together have been the stuff of Oscars so far, and this movie clearly shows Academy Award aspirations, if the trailer is any indication. However, this movie is not directed by David O'Russell. Guess we'll find out whether it was the director that got the best out of his actors on Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle both, or whether it may have been the material after all. Susanne Bier certainly isn't a stranger in terms of character, since her movies often border on character studies, which equally seems to be the case on Serena. The language barrier doesn't seem to be present, as this is hardly her first English spoken film. This trailer definitely reaffirms the third time remains the charm.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157208/robert_downey_jr_mogelijk_in_assassins_creed

I'm starting to get a sort of 'Johnny Depp vibe' whenever Robert Downey Jr.'s latest project is mentioned. As Depp revels in playing quirky oddball types, Downey Jr. now seems to stick predominantly to playing witty, scienctifically considerate charmers (e.g. Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark/Iron Man) when it comes to big budget Hollywood movies. He does that well, so the part of Leonardo da Vinci seems perfectly suited to him. However, as has been the case with Depp for quite a while, it's getting a routine, which may lead to typecasting (though I bet Downey Jr.'s hefty pay grade will halt such thoughts on studio execs' minds). Of course, there's many other types of characters Downey Jr. plays in smaller films in-between blockbusters (the Oscar buzzing The Judge would be a current example), but those are not the ones most audiences will get to see so they'll learn to appreciate the diversity inherent in his talent. Considering he's now the highest paid actor in Hollywood, it is interesting to see him accepting a sidekick part for a change. Unless Da Vinci is actually the assassin, which I have a hard time believing, though there is some logic to that notion. But then, I never played the games so what do I know? Don't have time for games, too busy watching and loving movies. Like those starring Downey Jr., for example.

Today's Triple News: horrible witch terminators

More news posted at MovieScene this here few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157120/eerste_foto_vin_diesel_in_the_last_witch_hunter

As has been proven before on several occasions, Vin Diesel likes using social media to reach out to his fanbase (and movie news hungry editors like myself) about his current projects. It's good to see a Hollywood star keeping in touch with his followers himself rather than letting the Hollywood propaganda machine do that for him, though of course, we should not tell ourselves that anything Diesel posts isn't done with permission by the studios' promotional think tanks. This is the first we've seen of The Last Witch Hunter (not surprising, as it's still only half way through production). Doesn't show us much, but assures the Diesel fanatics their hero will play yet another gruff, masculine man of action, this time (partially) in a medieval setting. Whether the movie will be any good is hard to tell from just this single teaser image. The story doesn't seem all that inspired, combining ingredients from recent flicks like The Sorcerer's Apprentice (fantasy warfare in present day New York City) and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (witch hunters teaming up with good female witches to stop evil covens: plus the title of the film) without adding much novelty and seemingly swapping the element of humour for a more serious Gothic tone. The supporting cast seems decent enough, with the likes of Elijah Wood, Michael Caine and Rose Leslie. Especially the latter has her work cut out for her, as this is her first major Hollywood role. She had time for it apparently, now that her character didn't survive the last season of Game of Thrones.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157121/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_horrible_bosses_2

I'm still not convinced of the need for a sequel to Horrible Bosses by watching this trailer. There isn't any really, other than the fact the predecessor made ample money to tell the studio a sequel might do the same. And so we basically get more of the same story, just with situations added and rearranged to some extent to let the audience know they're not looking at exactly the same picture. Again we have the trio of incompetent protagonists screwed over by their employer and plotting a revenge. This time it involves kidnapping rather than murder. Enter Chris Pine as the victim. And re-enter Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey as two of the titular bosses from the original who are somehow woven into the new plot, even though their story lines seemed to have been over and done with at the climax of the first film. How ingenious the ways of Hollywood story telling, just to ensure enough characters return to repeat jokes and make the movie seem repetitive. At least we'll have one new boss, played by Christoph Waltz. There's something new for you, though not enough to make you feel the need to go to theaters to see this film. Seems more like the stuff of illegally downloading on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157130/terminator_sequels_aangekondigd

Another example of a studio getting way ahead of itself by planning multiple sequels based on the hopes the first film, which is what this will be somewhat as it's clear by now we're dealing with a rebooted franchise, will do well with audiences. Reboot or not, it still stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though the guy seems way too old to do the stuff he used to do on the first trilogy by now. Rumour has it he will not be a killer cyborg this time though. But as always, it would make much more sense to work off guaranteed success rather than spending millions of dollars pre-producing two sequels that may get scrapped if the box office results of their predecessor disappoint. And isn't this exactly what happened on the last Terminator film, Salvation? That movie, too, was meant to take the franchise into new directions 9without the Austrian Oak, mostly) and spawn a new trilogy, but disappointing financial grossing put a stop to such plans beyond this single project. Down the drain went that second trilogy, leaving a poor standalone film in its wake. It wasn't a total financial failure, but scored last in the list of released Terminator films thus far. The studio (that is, a different one, as the previous owner went bankrupt) appears to feel adamant that by bringing Schwarzenegger back in a prominent role, whatever it may be, that critical element that guaranteed box office success (which it did, in the Eighties) will do so again. It didn't work on The Expendables 3 though, so they ought not get their hopes up too much. But apparently, they do. Hollywood will never learn it seems.

Today's veritable cascade of news

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's Double News: Hercules into the wild

How's about sum' news, yo?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156010/nieuwe_trailer_hercules_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155999/opvolger_nieuwe_wildernis_in_de_maak

The rule that success at the box office guarantees a sequel is not limited to fiction films. When enough money is made, even documentaries require a follow-up of sorts by an insatiable studio. Of course, the 'of sorts' bit is what is most poignant here, as it's open to interpretation just how such a sequel should built on what came before. After all, a documentary dealing with a specific subject can basically cover everything there is to say about that and not leave room for more of the same about the subject, thus rendering a sequel a blatant redundancy. So it is with De Nieuwe Wildernis in my mind. The point has been made well enough: the Oostvaardersplassen are a beautiful nature preserve that doesn't actually preserve nature as it used to be, but nature as it can be, aided by humanity's graces. You can shoot more breathtakingly splendid shots of horses prancing about, foxes hunting or all manner of birds generally being pretty, but it would add little of consequence. A new angle is what makes it stand out, and it seems distributor Dutch Filmworks has found one. And so this sequel isn't really a sequel, just equipped with a title - the Dutch version at least - that creates all the right expectations from an audience that fondly remembers its "predecessor" and hopes to be dazzled by nature's beauty once more. And yes, it does show the Oostvaardersplassen again. But not solely that area, as it is incorporated into a mosaic of European nature in general. And since the movie is made by Frenchmen who conceived of their angle independently from De Nieuwe Wildernis, expect a different kind of documentary. It's good to know Dutch audiences will soon get the chance to be familiarized by the splendour of forests and wildlife outside of Holland too, so they'll know where to plan their next vacation. As for the possibility of a direct follow-up, I think it surely exists. There's other nature preserves in the Netherlands worthy of being immortalized on film, you know. How about National Park the Meinweg in Limburg? Or the Hoge Veluwe? Why not focus on the wacky antics of beavers in the Biesbosch, that ought to attract a crowd. An actual sequel to De Nieuwe Wildernis really isn't outside the realm of possibility. Just as long as people stay away from the depicted area after having been delighted by the film instead of going around trampling nature's beauty en masse, I'm all for it.

This second Hercules trailer makes me a bit more hesitant about the project that the first. Those fabulous Twelve Labours of his only form part of the background story apparently, so most, if not all, of the neat monster action seen in this trailer will not be featured as extensively as I had hoped in the movie proper. Instead, the plot will focus on Herc's latter days as a mercenary, saving a kingdom and a beautiful princess from tyrannical oppression. Sounds a bit too familiar a plot for my taste. Not much different from what The Legend of Hercules was all about earlier this year, except with a bigger cast and budget (good thing too, makes it look less than a crappy video game). Also fairly reminiscent of Dwayne Johnson's own The Scorpion King. Still good for a laugh no doubt, but not as spectacular as recanting all Twelve Labours in full would have been. And there's still no movie that does justice to that complete Hercules epic, it's always served in bits and pieces instead. This story would really be better suited for a TV series, also considering its rather episodic nature. I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen eventually (preferably on HBO with lots of nudity and gore and all the other niceties of life). But for now, we have to make the best we can with partial retellings of the myth, some good (hopefully), most not so much (like the last one). I remain skeptic as to what category this particular rendition will end up belonging to, though I can guess.

Today's News, and plenty of it

Time restraints prohibited me to repost some of my news items for MS on this blog, so today there's more than usual:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155538/mole_man_gecast_voor_fantastic_four_reboot

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155565/eerste_trailer_star_wars_rebels

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155587/frank_lammers_speelt_michiel_de_ruyter

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155616/spring_breakers_2_aangekondigd

Let's just start with the oldest bit of novelty and work our way to the latest, shall we?

Hopefully Nelson will fare better in this Marvel movie than he did in the last, where we only witnessed the beginning of his rise to supervillainy, but were withheld the result. Apparently Fox has bigger events in store for the seasoned character actor this time, already outing him as the Mole Man-to-be, though underscoring he won't be used as such in the first upcoming installment in the FF's reboot franchise. After all, Dr. Doom is slated to take centre stage as the primary antagonist for that film, as it ought to be, as he's the Fantastic Four's most appreciated and recognizable foe. The Mole Man is indeed a decent baddie for a later film, and since a second movie has already been announced, it's likely that's where we will first see Nelson assuming the mantle of the dimunitive underground monarch. Nelson is a bit taller than we're used to seeing the Mole Man, so either the studio fits the character to the actor - which may not be such a bad idea as an evil midget is the stuff of both political incorrectness and silliness - or Nelson will undergo a bit of a CG transformation to make his appearance adhere more to what the comic book fans will most likely expect.

As for computer generated imagery, Star Wars has had lots of it over the last fifteen years, but nowhere near as much as on the small screen in various animated shows. This fall, a new one will be added to the Disney XD channel, called Star Wars Rebels (no colon). This first brief trailer adequately shows it's from the same creators as The Clone Wars series, and as such the franchise stays consistent in terms of animation style on telly. However, this is the first Disney produced Star Wars show, and a dreaded feeling of childishness cannot be denied upon viewing the promo above. Bumbling droids and cheesy oneliners have been a staple of the franchise since its inception, though more frequent in use since the prequel trilogy. It seems Disney has no trouble continuing this trend to appeal to kids, though older audiences may not find it as agreeable. Of course, most adults were largely done with any new Star Wars material after Episode III, and those that remain hopeful of improvement will no doubt focus all of their attention on the next true event, the release of Star Wars Episode VII. Until such time, Rebels is as good a way as any to ensure Disney keeps its publicity running and guarantee the current generation gets indoctrinated into Star Wars, so they can be influenced to run to toy stores and buy every conceivable tie-in merchandise items Disney has licensed. And if Episode VII proves any good, the older generation will no doubt do likewise.

I wasn't aware a movie about the life and times of Michiel de Ruyter was in production, but as he's one of the most iconic Dutch historical heroes around, it had to happen sooner or later. Historical epics that tell of other chapters of Dutch history than the events in WW II have been kind of a trend since the successful Nova Zembla, though for every hit there is a painful flop to remind us of the challenge. Remember Kenau? Most likely you don't. Considering the abundance of naval battles De Ruyter fought, the producers have their job cut out for them keeping the budget in line. Which is no doubt why they had to let Yorick van Wageningen go. He was the perfect choice in my mind, but even the finest piece of casting is only a small piece of the whole the budget allows for. Frank Lammers is a fine second choice: he's fairly well known to Dutch audiences but hasn't had a breakthrough internationally, making him more affordable than Van Wageningen who has co-starred in various big Hollywood productions. Plus, Lammers has proven himself to be a capable, reliable actor, and not just for his role on Nachtrit for which he won a Gouden Kalf. If he can fight his way through taxi wars, naval battles should be an easy labor for him.

A sequel to Spring Breakers? That's the attraction of the less artsy elements of that particular movie, tits and ass and young Hollywood starlets, speaking. Those are no doubt the ingredients that drew in the majority of the audience for the first film. Nevermind the director's weird and hallucinatory montage and lighting, the dreamy visual quality and the simple plot of sex and violence, crime and drugs relaying the greatest imaginable culmination and therein the demise of the American Dream. Mr. Korine told his tale and presented his warning of lust and doom, and that suffices for him (apparently, as he's not inclined to participate in this sequel). Not so for the studio, who is now pressing for a second movie containing more of the same. Which is not to say there's not more to state on the subjects Korine discussed. Religion is certainly a subject that would fit in easily in a tale of Sodom and Gomorrah like this one. In fact, it was already lightly touched upon in the predecessor via one of the female protagonists who disappeared early on in the film (and for the better no doubt). There's more controversy to tackle in that department, plus a potential to bring back that character. Whether or not the studio cares about these possible ideological overtones or not, a Spring Breakers 2 could work. But considering most audiences thought of the first film as a disappointment (most of them probably just didn't get its intentions, even though this sounds horribly elitist of me to say), is there any public interest in a second coming? Then again, sex always sells. Isn't there another batch of former Disney starlets ready to exploit?

Today's Double News: Divergent fanbase can go ape

Today's batch of fairly fresh movie news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155049/derde_deel_divergent_opgedeeld_in_twee_films

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155032/nieuwe_afbeeldingen_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is getting old. But the trick keeps working in studios' favour, so why not repeat it ad nauseam since the target audience doesn't seem to mind being milked? When it was first announced that the last Harry Potter book would get a double finale, I rejoiced, since I felt there was way too much material for a single movie. I felt that way about books 5 and 6 too though. After that, every successful franchise aimed predominantly at a young adult audience took a hint from this strategy. The trick was repeated with The Twilight Saga, which I - and many others - don't care as much for as for the adventures of said young wizard (basically, not at all) and that time, I experienced it as a nuisance, since all those bloody teenage girls made a mess of my movie theater twice in a row, obnoxiously screaming like such female groupies tend to do. Now The Hunger Games: Mockingjay will undergo the same treatment. I haven't read that book in its entirety, but when I picked it up in a book store and browsed through the last few pages to spoil myself on who died and who didn't, the volume wasn't any thicker than its predecessors, making me wonder whether splitting the movie in two would result in a decent pair of movie. Divergent (or better yet, Allegiant, as is the title of the third book in Veronica Roth's trilogy), same story really. As nobody will deny, it's simply a way for the studio to make more money out of a lucrative franchise, postponing the end as long as they can. Makes you wonder why they don't bother splitting the second novel either. It's barely begun pre-production, so there's still time to do so. I wouldn't have mind if the fifth and sixth Potter installments were comparably chopped up, considering how much material from the books was brisquely swept aside. Why not go that extra mile and give the second Divergent film (Insurgent) a similar treatment? Go fully episodic! Oh wait, that kind of storytelling is what television exists for... Considering TV these days has proven a vastly superior medium in terms of storytelling, it's no surprise Hollywood studios take a hint from its narrative make-up. It starts with splitting up movies in half, who knows, maybe it will end with the return of the Thirties' serials. That's what you get if you chop up stories that might not benefit from being overdone this way.
Then again, Peter Jackson has succeeded in making a threesome of three-hour movies out of a book that is even less imposing in size than the Divergent novels...

At least the Planet of the Apes franchise doesn't have to worry about similar issues, as its origin can be traced back to a book so small in size you're finished reading within an hour. Didn't stop Hollywood from basing five (!) movies off it, though most of it they made up for themselves. And now that the reboot series is in full swing, Pierre Boulle's little novel is ignored altogether, as the new movies base their story off the later entries in the original movie saga, which had little to do with the original story by the French author. Doesn't matter in terms of quality though, as the first movie in the reboot franchise proved quite a solid film, making us forget the dreadful Tim Burton remake of ten years earlier. So far, word on the sequel is equally positive. These freshly released stills indicate that the second movie too incorporates its fair share of story elements from the original movie series for its own purposes. And thanks to the wonders of CGI (and the mo-cap performances of Andy Serkis and others, lest we forget), the apes look more photorealistic than ever. Even when they're riding horses or wielding guns. Now that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is deep in the post-production phase and FX shots are finished on a daily basis, we can expect a deluge of similar pictures in the next few months, showing off just how much animators can convincingly do with their apes nowadays. And if it's true director Matt Reeves has succeeded in balancing story and effects as much as his predecessor on Rise of the POTA, this series too might make it to five films. Or more. There's no restrictions based on the literary source here, after all.

Today's Triple News: sequels, fairy tales and super heroes

New news keeps pouring in on a daily basis, faster than I can discuss it here. Doesn't stop me from trying though:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154509/sofia_coppola_regisseert_mogelijk_the_little_mermaid_

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154508/disney_maakt_cars_3_en_incredibles_2

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154488/mangold_terug_voor_wolverine_2

People who think Coppola might not be suited for directing a fairy tale are overlooking the fact that the basic contents of The Little Mermaid are much like some of Coppola's earlier work, they're just packaged differently. Stories about teenage girls living in a fantasy world all their own and trying to have things their way which backfires on them doesn't sound so different thematicaly from the likes of The Bling Ring, Marie Antoinette or The Virgin Suicides to my mind. They just appear dissimilar on the surface. That said, the notion of doing a "kid-friendly" family film is probably what deters most people who prefer to see Coppola tackling more (young) adult oriented material, as she hasn't done a project like this yet. However, that's not to say she is not capable of making such a movie. Let's face it: Coppola's career as a director of feature length films spans nearly two decades but has only spawned five movies in total. That's not enough of an output to judge a director's capacities on, it's only an indication of what type of films he/she is particularly drawn to. As I have stated before, directors need change, and I'd say here's a chance for Coppola to prove her directorial versatility. She has two young kids of her own, for crying out loud; why wouldn't she be interested in a fun movie for the whole family, that still allows her to incorporate her signature themes to some extent? Even though I'm personally not all that stoked for this project - which definitely has something to do with the fact the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is the first movie I ever saw in theaters, and the second too - I think the studio might just have made the perfect choice with Coppola.

Speaking of Disney, they're steering Pixar, formerly known for their sublime creativity, into a rampant case of suffering severe sequelitis. Currently, the studio is working on only a single original project, The Good Dinosaur, which was already put on hold for a whole year. Other than that, it's all sequels for the next few years: Planes 2, an alleged Toy Story 4, Finding Dory, Cars 3, The Incredibles 2. People used to praise Pixar for doing something new every time, while their competitor DreamWorks was maligned for milking itself dry completely. They won't be doing that anymore, as by now the situation seems to have reversed entirely. It appears Disney decides to play it safe by counting on established multi-billion dollar franchises instead of letting original ideas take precedence. And if those sequels weren't enough, there's a few more 3D re-releases slated too, making the studio more money by pushing the same stuff on us again, just at higher admission prices. That said, I prefer a re-release, so we can all enjoy those classic Pixar movies again before they're totally spoiled by their unneccessary and undesirable sequels. However, Pixar proved with Toy Story 2 and 3 that they can do justice to the originals be making sequels that manage to actually surpass the quality of their predecessors, but ever since Cars 2 and the terribly uninspired spin-off Planes - at a point when Disney had taken over the company - the odds of that happening again are not in our favour. Let's hope The Good Dinosaur will at least live up to its name.

And the X-universe just keeps on Xpanding cinematically (see what I did there?). Ever since the mind boggling success of Marvel's The Avengers, rival studios that own a piece of the Marvel Universe have taken a hint as to how they ought to approach handling their properties to achieve similar success. Unlike Sony, which only manages a single big name and its various supporting characters, Fox has the luck of owning a big name tentpole franchise, X-Men,  that consists of a lot more characters and therefore a lot more possibilities for sequels, spin-offs and such, making for an easily growing cinematic legacy. Apparently the 'Avengers approach' is already applied in full swing with X-Men: Days of Future Past, a storyline which will continue into X-Men: Apocalypse (2016), the latter of which might actually deal with the infamous Age of Apocalypse mirror universe, or else with a variation on the established cinematic X-routine. Days of Future Past might end with its broken time line fixed or not, and still able to pave the way for coherently branching off into multiple temporal directions. X-Force (2016 or 2017) for eXample will certainly pick up where Apocalypse left off, as it deals with Apocalypse's primary nemesis Cable and his merry band of young mutant acolytes, but it can still take place alongside the regular X-storyline that we last saw in last year's The Wolverine, either being interwoven with characters we already know, in various possible iterations (future/present/alternate universe) no less. And now The Wolverine is getting a sequel too (2017/2018?), which most likely will continue on the events of Days of Future Past - as those were already foreshadowed in its mid-credits bonus scene - but could skip over Apocalypse altogether, while still relating to X-Force in a minor capacity. And if things aren't complicated enough by all these Xses being thrown around, Fox still has to think of how on Earth they're going to incorporate their other Marvel franchise, the Fantastic Four, into all this too, as they have stated to be their intention. Because of all the time travelling and alternate reality possibilities, directors working on this corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe might face a tougher job that those who work on Marvel's own, which is served more straightforwardly on a narrative level. James Mangold might just have his job cut out for him. Or he may ignore Days of Future Past, Apocalypse and X-Force completely and just have The Wolverine 2 follow his previous movie directly, focusing only on its titular character. For Sony, such a reliance on a single character is kind of a curse, but for Mangold it just might be a luXury.

Today's Double News: this year's Razzies and some potential future candidates

Again, two bits of older news I didn't have time to post until today. You can blame the Oscars for that, just intervening with my regular routine like they own this blog.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154145/movie_43_en_after_earth_grote_winnaars_razzies

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154137/_wachowskis_maken_mogelijk_nieuwe_matrix

You may not have been aware of it with all the Oscar festivities going on, as is the case every year, but there were some other movies around this weekend that got to win some awards. Not the ones they hoped for no doubt, but in both major winners' cases, I really like to think the makers of these films were self-aware enough to realize they would never win Oscars with these crappy products they were unleashing on an unsuspecting audience. If not, the Razzies should have unwarped their sense of reality. The only movie I felt won undeservedly was The Lone Ranger: it was far from perfect, but definitely not in the same league of shittiness as Grown Ups 2. No wins for Adam Sandler this time though, but let's face it, both After Earth and Movie 43 proved at least as abysmal as anything Mr. Sandler ever did, if not more so. Plus, maybe there was a little too much Sandler ripping going on at the Razzies and it was simply time for a change. Sandler must make do with the various nominations this time, and I'm sure that'll agree with him. I was unlucky enough to see After Earth and witness the devastating effect it had on appreciating humanity first hand. Since I too voted it my worst film of 2013 (so did the rest of the gang at MovieScene, and most everybody else), I wholeheartedly agree with these wins, and I hope those sequel plans will now go down the drain for good. On the other hand, I am fortunate enough not to have seen all of Movie 43: a friend of mine semi-forced me to watch a single scene - he had to share his trauma with others to beter cope with it, and who am I to turn down a pal in need? Though afterwards I decided to strongly reconsider my eagerness to help out needful buddies to spare myself future grief - and it was so painfully, embarrassingly and grotesquely unfunny I have yet to mentally get over it. It wasn't even so much the pure non-existence of humour, it was the fact that top actors like Kate Winslet and Hugh Jackman would debase themselves like this for all the world to behold. I don't buy for a moment the consideration that these folks thought they were shooting a scene of singular hilarity for a second. I know that actors who often star in heavy dramatic presentations feel the need to occasionally indulge in more lighthearted fare to stay sane, but there must definitely be limits. This excuse for a movie should be the type of film that breaks careers, and in Movie 43's film, there's a lot of excellent careers to shatter. I guess humanity just collectively decided to ignore the matter as best it could in the hope this film would vanish from memory, but that one single scene unfortunately has not exited mine. Thankfully there's other terribly lousy films to try and unremember too, hopefully rendering Movie 43 the stuff of grey memory matter, and there will definitely be more bad flicks in the future.

Like new Matrix sequels/prequels. Like anybody is actually wanting those. The Matrix trilogy ended over ten years ago and mankind has let it go since then. As it should, considering it was an exercise in how not to follow-up an instant classic, groundbreaking film. Okay, so Reloaded and Revolutions get bashed harder than they deserve on their own merits, but they're still not exactly good movies and showed there's little more worthwile novel stuff to mine from that fantastic first film. Of course, as this is a major franchise - or was, back then - there's always the opportunity for more cash to be milked out of its recognizable name, which is what the big Hollywood studios especialize in nowadays. And the prospect of precious money is undoubtedly the only reason the Wachoskis are on board this project. You can't tell me they honestly think more Matrix movies is a good idea themselves. Just look at that story proposal alone. It offers little new stuff. The emergence of the Matrix has already been explored in some detail in The Animatrix, while the rest of the concept is just a blatant rehash of the events of the first trilogy. Then again, maybe these rumours are indeed just that, and the story will focus on something else entirely. Nevertheless, you'll understand if I remain extremely skeptical about all of this.

Today's News: turns out there are more horrible bosses out there

Here's some more MS news from mine own hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150434/horrible_bosses_krijgt_vervolg

Apparently Horrible Bosses was so successful a sequel was warranted. I get why it made money, it was a fun comedy flick. Does it need a sequel, or does the audience want one? Not at all. But that doesn't stop Hollywood from ramming it down our throats, in the hopes of capitalizing on a name that makes us fondly remember one of the few worthwhile comedies in recent years that have come out of the studio system. It's The Hangover all over again. We get a good comedy and we award it by paying to see it. Afterwards the studio suits think we want more of exactly the same and they present us with one or more sequels that follow the precise same formula of the first movie ad nauseam, thus giving that good first film a sour aftertaste. Not every fine film ought to be turned into a franchise, but franchises are what keeps Hollywood alive these days. As for Horrible Bosses 2, though no official plot information has been released, so far it seems to be an exact carbon copy of the predecessor. The three oppressed employees are back (including, unfortunately, that terribly obnoxious Charlie Day, who ruined every attempt at comic relief in Pacific Rim) and so is the incompetent hitman offering them bad advice on how to terminate their employers. But who are the latter in this case? I'm hoping the writers will add some originality and turn the threesome of former wage slaves into bad bosses themselves as a nice little role reversal. But most likely some new employers will be found to terrorize our heroes, and they'll be played by equally surprising bits of casting (so not Colin Farrell again, but like him someone you wouldn't have expected to see in that particular role either). Though that too is to be expected now, as we're in all-familiar territory.

Horrible Bosses 2 is gonna happen, whether we want it to or not. If we're lucky, it turns out to be a pleasant experience after all. But don't count on that. If it is gonna end up a dud, best thing we can do is not spend our money on it in theaters so this would-be trilogy dies a quick death on its second attempt, sending a clear signal to Hollywood that this blatant enfranchisement needs to stop somewhere. And we ought to do the same thing when Bridesmaids 2, We're the Millers 2 or The Hangover Part IV hit theaters in the future.