Today's Double News: dinosaur robots and neo-noir strip routines

I got some more stuff up on MovieScene yesterday and managed to post it here today, as ought to be the natural routine I have increasingly less time to adhere to, alas.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154236/nieuwe_fotos_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154235/eerste_trailer_transformers_age_of_extinction

This is so typical. I loathed the previous threesome of Transformers flicks, yet I still keep looking forward to the next installment even though I know it's gonna suck robots balls (and that these robots even have genitals is something unfortunately established in the second movie). I should know better by now. Maybe it's because this time there's dinosaurs involved too? Yeah, like that makes a difference for the overall (lack of) quality as long as Michael Bay is still directing! If I didn't care for supposedly paleontologically correct dinosaurs in the recent Walking with Dinosaurs 3D flick, robot dinosaurs also doesn't exactly sound like stuff right up my alley. I guess I've become too picky as I've grown old and sour. Trading in Shia LaBeouf for Mark Wahlberg is also less than a stellar improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. As was the case with the previous Tranny films, there's some good actors around, but this is not the type of films that revolves around acting. These are eye candy movies for immature audiences, where half the movie consists of overly loud, endless action scenes with explosions every other minute and the rest of the time is filled with hot chicks bending over socially sexualized vehicles while utterly cringe worthy poop jokes are produced. Inbetween there is something of a story line to discern but it makes little sense and is otherwise completely forgotten when the credits end rolling. There are visual FX driven movies that provide a singularly memorable, thoroughly absorbing viewing experience, like Gravity, and there is its exact opposite: Transformers 1 through 3. Fourth time is the charm? I don't think so. Yet I will still end up torturing myself as I go and see it (for free, obviously: torturing yourself and paying for it is just too much pain). It will probably be another bad film, but at the very least robots morphing into dinosaurs can't be worse than robots shapeshifting into cars. It just can't, I refuse to believe it...

And then there's the type of VFX movie where the effects form the setting, dominating the visual style but not driving the story per se, as that is still up to the actors. Like Sin City. And its sequel, A Dame to Kill For. In the case of such films, acting is a quintessential ingredient, and the actors find their capabilities tested to their absolute limits acting against nothing but blue (or green, it varies) all around them. Some actors don't do so well in this scenario, as Rosario Dawson and Jessica Alba showed in the previous adventure taking place in the City of Sins. Hopefully they've grown and prove more up to the task in the sequel, as both of them are back for more. As are characters like Hartigan (Bruce Willis) and Marv (Mickey Rourke), despite both of them kicking the bucket before. As this movie takes place before the events of the first film, that ought not be an issue. In fact, this film will answer questions raised by its predecessor. For one thing, why did Dwight have to change his facial appearance (from Sin 2's Josh Brolin to Sin's Clive Owen)? With exactly the same people both in front and behind of the camera, I have full faith in this project, though I agree it doesn't score points in terms of originality. If the quality of the movie gets anywhere near the level of the first installment - still a much appreciated entry in my personal Top-29 of 10/10 rated movies - you won't hear me complaining. Even if Alba once again takes out her no-nudity clause and keeps her clothes on while playing the stripper, despite the graphic novel the movie so faithfully reproduces for the big screen revealing quite a lot more black&white skin.

Today's News: a dame to kill for teases us

Another poster I posted on MS the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152398/eerste_poster_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for

This is about as teasery as a teaser poster can get. You got all the basics you need to titillate the audience about your movie, but next to nothing on what the film itself is about except for those few clues the title provides. There's a captivating visual image to raise the spectator's curiosity, in this case a stylized pair of red lips with cigarette smoke emanating from them against a bleak, dark rainy background. Then there's a title, a long list of cast names (both big shot names and some of less established actors, as well as returning actors and new additions in this sequel's case), a director's credit, or two in this movie's case, and a release date so audiences know when to expect this film to arrive in theaters (subject to change of course: as this movie saw its fair share of pre-production delays, this current release date may also not be wholly safe just yet). What will this movie be about, a viewer not familiar with the previous installment may wonder? Though an ominous lady will be present in a shady town where hardboiled men will fall under her dangrous spell, there's nothing more to go on except for the mental imagery of sin, lust, passion, death and betrayal this particular picture evokes. And since those were more or less the exact ingredients of the first film, this teaser poster seems to have gotten it all right.

Today's News: City of Sins on the small screen too?

Totally hot off MovieScene (really, just a matter of minutes!):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152046/weinstein_company_wil_sin_city_tv-serie

A Sin City TV-show? Seems like the comic book craze moving from the silver screen to the small screen is already getting overdone, now "more prestigious" comics (or graphic novels, depending on your definition of the latter) are also under consideration for TV projects, after the news of more Marvel shows and a Gotham TV series broke. A Sin City TV show doesn't actually sound like a bad idea, considering the episodic nature of the original works, loosely linked to one another. However, there's only so many of them, and I definitely can't see this as a running show. A miniseries, yes, 10 to 13 episodes max. That could work. But beyond that, the visual film noir gimmick that drives it would feel exhausted and what remains would be mostly gratuitous sex and violence (HBO maybe?). Plus, what about the movies? Producing a TV-show on the heels of a movie implies a connection between the two. Will there be, other than Rodriguez and Miller also being involved somehow? It's too soon to tell. However, considering the success of the first film - already eight years ago, can you believe it... - and the anticipation for the upcoming A Dame to Kill/Die For (title depending on what territory you live in), it's hard to believe audiences will swallow a second Sin Cityverse so soon. This whole notion of Weinstein's to further exploit films that need not be exploited (The Mist, which is excellent) or that have already been fully exploited (Scream, milked dry after four movies) reeks of rampant sucking money out of past glory. Though any or all of these proposed projects might result in good television, there's no need for them other than studio execs wanting more money. Which is how the movie/TV business works anyway, so in that regard this news comes as no surprise. If we look at Dimension's repertoire, there's no doubt the possibility of series based on the likes of Piranha, Mimic, Equilibrium and Spy Kids too.