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.

News, news and news some more!

Nothing can stop this constant flow of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155834/jessica_chastain_mogelijk_hoofdrolspeler_true_detective_seizoen_2

Fits right in with the current trend of highly respected and multiple award winning Hollywood actors to accept television roles, something which used to be "beneath their stature". The times have changed though. Television now is where all the critical acclaim goes, as it is also the place where the most interesting characters and stories, and thus the most challenging assignments for actors, are found. HBO sorta started the rise of contemporary quality television at the opening of this century, so it's not surprising to find the most high profile actors starring in their shows. Jessica Chastain would be a fine addition to the ranks of Steve Buscemi, Anna Paquin, Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey, the latter pair preceding her on doing True Detective. As this is an anthology show, they're out as their story is about done (or so I've heard, as I have yet to see the show: too much good telly, too little time to spare), and there's room for a new story and fresh blood accordingly. Making it female-centered is not a bad idea to differentiate the next season from its predecessor; in my mind there's not so (good) many female detective shows as there ought to be anyway. As for the Brad Pitt rumour, I'm inclined to think that stays a rumour. Yes, TV is attracting bigger and bigger names ever more, but there's still a vast difference between solid actors and huge movie stars. The latter category is not something I soon expect to see exploring the wonders of working on television. For one thing they're too short on time, even for a 'ten episode a season' show like this, plus they would be downright inaffordable. Playing challenging parts aside, the money motive still rules supreme. Movie stars tend to do the same thing over and over again, as that is their niche, what the audience expects from them. But no doubt this routine too will witness a major paradigm shift one day (aren't we all bored by Tom Cruise's one-note career for example?). Just not this soon I reckon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155838/batman_vs_superman_krijgt_officiele_titel

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Such a long title, feeling the need to set up both Supes, Bats and the Justice League. The good thing about Batman vs. Superman was its catchiness, which was helped by its fairly short title. Just look at The Avengers: title says it all in two words (you could even do without 'the', in theory). Adding the Dawn of Justice bit might give audiences that are not as much in the know a clue as to what's in store for them in future years, though it also kinda spoils the fun for those who weren't yet aware of Warner's plans for their DC Cinematic Universe. As the new title indicates, the common Internet name for this project was successful enough not to really change it, merely to add to it. Except for the rather useless ditching of the 's' - the loose 'v' looks silly - it's still the same. It also reveals what many fans already anticipated, namely that the Man of Steel and the Caped Crusader indeed will go head to head with each other. As is the common tactic in superhero stories, you can't get to fully appreciate your fellow vigilante without fighting them first. Do you think both characters will beat up Wonder Woman when they meet her in this film too? There always seems to be this sexist line of chivalry that is not to be crossed when it comes to the interaction between male and female superheroes, even when it's common knowledge the women are as strong, brave and intelligent as the men. As for the logo of this film, the Man of Steel logo has hardly changed as the film also serves as a sequel to last year's Superman reboot. However, the Batman logo needed a bit of a makeover to differentiate it from the Dark Knight movies' iconic look. The slick, pointy, sharp edged bat logo of the last decade is now replaced by a more rounded variation where the various appendages aren't as pronounced as usual. It kinda looks fat by comparison. Altogether, this logo kinda reminds me of one of those perverts in the park that flashes his genitals when he opens his raincoat, except this is a superhero revealing another superhero under his wings. There's an occasion to insert sexual innuendo here, but people have been doing that ever since these two heroes wearing their underpants over their leotards first hooked up in the comics. So I'll just leave it at that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155854/nieuwe_posters_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for

Character posters, who would have expected that? It's a traditional marketing recipe for films like these, one that the previous Sin City film also exploited to great avail. Considering the size of this film's cast, I doubt the studio will stick to only these five one-sheets. Nor should they, since these are rather awesome me thinks. They honour the source material by their comic book style and sensibilities and they make you want to check out what the rest of the cast looks like when 'SinCitied'. Of course we already know what they look like when it comes to the returning characters (four of those here, though one played by a new actor), but it's the newcomers we are most curious about. Or the sexy dames. You didn't think they wouldn't make a saucy poster of Jessica Alba again, did you? The previous poster showcasing her stage talents was soon elevated to the early 21st Century's equivalent of the infamous Raquel Welch poster from the Sixties. Of course the novelty has worn off by now, so I don't think this second attempt will turn out just as iconic in Alba's case. Maybe the titular 'dame to kill for' will outdo her in this regard? Expect Eva Green's Ava Lord to be featured on a similarly sizzling poster all too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155866/edgar_wright_stopt_als_regisseur_ant-man

Wow, this is quite a downer... Ant-Man was practically Wright's pet project. He stood up for the character even when nobody else, the studio included, saw any potential in it. Apparently, the studio no longer stood up for him, citing the age-old 'creative differences' routine as the cause of the director's dismissal. Spokespersons for both parties have stated they parted amiably, but I have a hard time believing that. Wright invested nigh a decade of work in this film and actual shooting was already underway. Being sacked at that point in production would hurt anybody tremendously. I really hope studio and director can still make amends of some sort, as I love Wright's work and I would have very much liked to see his take on a Marvel character, any of them. If not Wright, then his writing partner Joe Cornish is probably the best way to go, as he has displayed a very similar style of directing in his feature debut, which is still the only movie directing credit on his resumé. It's not unheard of for Hollywood to hire new talent based on only a single previous directing job though, even one of very low budget by the standards of the majors.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155869/gareth_edwards_regisseert_star_wars_spin-off_en_godzilla_2

Case in point: Gareth Edwards. He went from shooting a guerilla Sci-Fi/horror/action flick on a shoestring budget to directing a Star Wars film in only five years. Of course, it was his affinity with monsters that got him there via Godzilla, and he's also not done yet with the Big G. Not surprisingly, considering his reboot of the King of Monsters is smashing box office records everywhere as easily as a guy in a rubber suit smashes cardboard cityscapes in the original Japanese Gojira films. It's very gracious of studio Legendary to allow Edwards to do Star Wars first and their Godzilla sequel second, even though they're no doubt anxious to get underway, considering how well Godzilla is currently doing. Apparently, that mystic, near deified quality Star Wars once carried over all other Hollywood films still hasn't worn off completely. Few studios would dare interfere with the production schedules of the joined corporate powers of Disney and Lucasfilm, or the plans they harbour for their directors. I hope Edwards knows what he's getting himself into, as he's still rather new to the Hollywood game. It would be a damn shame to see him losing the Star Wars gig in a similar way Wright stepped down from doing Ant-Man. I'd hate to see J.J. Abrams take over that project as well.

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.