Today's Review: Logan

Weinig filmsterren zullen hun doorbraakrollen zo trouw zijn gebleven als Hugh Jackman. De acteur kruipt in Logan voor de negende keer in de huid van de mutante mannetjesputter Wolverine. Hij heeft deze rol zo'n zeventien jaar lang gedragen, te beginnen met X-Men, de film die de aftrap vormde voor het niet meer uit de bioscoop weg te denken superheldengenre. Sindsdien hebben we zo veel superheldenfilms voorbij zien komen dat de beperkingen van het genre zich opdrongen. Logan bevestigt die beperkingen maar haalt ze eveneens hard onderuit, in een film die het 'super' uit haar superheld haalt, maar daarmee paradoxaal genoeg een nieuw hoogtepunt vormt voor de superheldenfilm. Hugh Jackman speelt de onsterfelijke mutant voor de allerlaatste keer, als nooit tevoren. Hij bewijst daarmee dat we Wolverine zullen missen.

Anno 2029 is de maatschappij er niet al te best aan toe. Postapocalyptisch is het nog net niet, maar fijn is anders. In deze naargeestige wereld slentert een gebroken Logan door het Texaanse landschap. Hij zuipt, hij vloekt en heeft weinig op met de wereld om hem heen. Hij slijt zijn dagen met een lullig baantje en het zorgen voor een stokoude, dementerende Charles Xavier (die andere grote X-veteraan, Patrick Stewart). Zelf is hij fysiek niet veel beter af: zijn genezingsgave geeft langzaam de geest, de ouderdom haalt hem rap in. Vechten voor de goede zaak is niet meer aan de orde, de andere X-Men zijn dood en het mutantenras is vrijwel verdwenen. Als het mysterieuze meisje Laura zijn hulp nodig heeft, wijst hij haar nors de deur. Wanneer Logan geconfronteerd wordt met de Reavers, een groep cyborghuurlingen onder regie van een schimmig geneticaconcern, blijkt dat het kind behept is met bovenmenselijke krachten die beangstigend veel op de zijne lijken. Vervolgens slaat het trio op de vlucht met de onvermurwbare schurken in hun kielzog, die vastberaden zijn ook deze laatste mutanten uit de weg te ruimen.

Wolverine was altijd al een ruige kerel, maar in Logan is hij lomper en asocialer dan ooit. Hugh Jackman speelt diens laatste aria met meer bezieling dan ooit. Al die jaren heeft hij zich feitelijk moeten inhouden, maar nu mag hij helemaal los gaan dankzij een voor de X-franchise ongekende leeftijdskeuring. Die 'R rating' (tot en met zestien jaar uitsluitend toegang onder begeleiding van een volwassene) is volkomen terecht. Liefhebbers van het explicietere hak-en-snijwerk komen ruim aan hun trekken; de ledematen vliegen ons om de oren en het taalgebruik is grover dan ooit. Zelfs de altijd zo correcte Xavier maalt niet om een krachtterm meer of minder (tot zichtbaar plezier van Stewart). Logan lijkt wat dat betreft geïnspireerd door het vorig jaar verschenen anarchistische Deadpool, met het verschil dat hier een serieuzere toon wordt gehanteerd. Ouderdom is immers niet om te lachen en in deze grauwe toekomst is sowieso weinig ruimte voor relativerende humor. Laat staan voor superhelden.

Regisseur James Mangold heeft weinig op met de stereotiepe superheld. Ook in voorganger The Wolverine toonde hij meer affiniteit met de menselijke kant van Logan dan met diens krachten. Als Laura hoop put uit X-Men comics - een originele sneer naar het bronmateriaal - spot Logan hiermee door te beweren dat het allemaal een verzinsel is, geen realiteit. Superhelden bestaan niet. Toch werpt hij zich op als haar beschermer, in een parallel met de meermaals geciteerde klassieker Shane. Logan voelt inderdaad meer als een western dan als een superheldenspektakel, wat nog onderstreept wordt door de zuidelijk-Amerikaanse setting vol stof en kogels. De twee genres laten zich onder Mangold treffend kruisen. Uiteraard kent Logan de nodige shootouts met de bad guys, hoewel de eenzame strijder gewapend is met klauwen in plaats van een revolver. Die booswichten laten zich overigens erg makkelijk in stukjes hakken. De Reavers zijn dan ook bijzaak voor Mangold, die niets opheeft met clichématige malle schurken zoals cyborgs.

Logan is bovenal zijn eigen ergste vijand. Zijn haperende genezingsfactor zorgt voor een langzame adamantiumvergiftiging en zijn eigen bloed wordt tegen hem gebruikt door hem te klonen. Het is dit diep persoonlijke conflict met zichzelf dat Logan zijn meerwaarde geeft, want de film weet met haar plotlijn over een bedrijf dat gekloonde mutanten als supersoldaten wil inzetten een gevoel van déjà vu niet te vermijden. Dat gegeven zagen we alleen al in de X-films tig keer voorbijkomen. Logan teert niet op het wat voorspelbare plot, maar vooral op de menselijke personages. Beide generaties gooien hier hoge ogen, want de jonge Dafne Keen geeft formidabel tegengas aan Jackmans heerlijk onsympathieke ouwe knar. De verwantschap tussen Laura en Logan is onmiskenbaar, het stokje mag gelijk aan het jonkie doorgegeven worden. Toch is het Jackman die de meeste indruk achterlaat, voor het laatst in de rol die hem groot maakte, maar hier zo anders gespeeld dan gebruikelijk. Schrijnend, dat we juist dankzij diens zwanenzang toch meer van Wolverine willen zien.

Today's Review: X-Men: Apocalypse

Still behind on all the stuff I wrote, but slowly gaining.

X-Men: Apocalypse - Recensie

'Third one is always the worst' says Jean Grey when leaving the theater after watching Return of the Jedi back in '83. She was right about that one, and conscious or unconscious (I doubt the writer intended for this movie to be the weakest in the second X-trilogy), she's also correct about X-Men: Apocalypse. However, also like Return of the Jedi, Apocalypse still is a whole lot of mutant fun for those who didn't expect the franchise to reach new heights anyway.

Granted, it's not the story that provides the mirth, since it's the stuff of repetition, variations on themes and lack of narrative evolution. Basically, another all-powerful mutant rears his head and threatens to destroy the world for mankind so that its stronger successors can take over. And once again, the X-Men, fighting for peace between man and mutant, must get together to stop this megalomaniacal scheme from becoming reality. This time, it's not Magneto who has hatched the diabolical plan, but rather a 5,000 year old ideological predecessor, an ancient Egyptian once worshiped as a god, with the modern moniker Apocalypse. Magneto, once more masterfully performed by Michael Fassbender, merely provides some muscle to help Oscar Isaac's semi-god with his evil shenanigans. Isaac does a decent job playing an age old villain, but he's no Fassbender and his Apocalypse is nowhere near as intimidating or intriguing as the much more relatable Magneto.

Still, the villain suffices for the cause of bringing together two generations of X-Men, the First Class lot and the new batch of young recruits, including novel takes on classic X-characters Cyclops, Jean Grey and Nightcrawler. Their performances and their chemistry make us hopeful for the future of the franchise, should the studio feel like using them for the next installment Apocalypse seems to be building up to. For although it's meant as a conclusion to a trilogy, the ground work is amply laid for more to come and these young stars succeed in making us curious about what lies ahead. The new additions to the cast are aided by snappy dialogue and light humour, making the shortcomings in the plot not nearly as blatant as they would have been in lesser hands. Nevertheless, it's clear director Bryan Singer, who has made his fourth X-movie with this title, has run out of ideas for the X-universe. Though we appreciate his work on both trilogies, new blood would be equally welcome in the creative room as it proved in the cast.

Today's Review: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

It's been a while, but I finally wrote another review for FilmTotaal. And this time, for a particularly big blockbuster movie, my first for this movie site:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - recensie

FilmTotaal is the biggest movie website in the Netherlands (no, really!), and in its case, users actually respond to critics' reviews. Often not in the most gentle manner, as there's quite a few trolls and/or generally loudmouth, obnoxious people haunting the site. Reviewers posting their opinion of overhyped blockbuster films like this one usually know they can expect to be firmly hated upon. However, for BvS, I gotta say there's only a few posts illustrating strong disagreement - to put it mildly - with what I wrote about the film. In fact, it seems the majority of users agrees with me: BvS is rather a disappointment. Not entirely bad (it still looks great and there's some good performances and lovely action, you know), but definitely a letdown.

Maybe the cause of its shortcomings is its director, Zack Snyder. He's been known to favour heavy topics surrounding flawed, traumatized characters living in unpleasant worlds filled with violent death. Even though he usually flavours said realms with a visually appealing, grandiose style of filming and fabulous artistry and dressing. Man of Steel, the movie to kick off this new DC Cinematic Universe which is meant to deliver some heavy competition at Marvel's doorstep, fit that bill perfectly, making the generally colorful and optimistic Superman a brooding alien refugee given near omnipotent power over his new neighbours, the human race. I liked Man of Steel. It made this God like character that much more identifiable by focusing on his lacks rather than his strengths. In its many philosophical moments, Man of Steel felt less like a superhero movie and more like a character study of a God living among man and contemplating his relationship with those who in all respects are so obviously inferior to him. Of course, that relationship is still explored in BvS, as the world now needs to cope with the existence of this powerful presence, a potential saviour to man. However, another type of hero has already been active for decades, it turns out.

For in BvS, the DC universe is supposed to be up and running for decades already. No starting from scratch here, as was the case for Marvel. For every character introduced, there is a long backstory that is teased, which in many cases frustrates more than it intrigues. Ben Affleck's Batman has been fighting crime for twenty years, and it has only made him darker. Crime has not been reduced, while his war on bad guys preying on the everyman has cost him dearly. No wonder he's grown so angry he's not averse to maiming and even killing criminals left and right. The Batman we've grown accustomed to was never a true killer, but Snyder's Caped Crusader has no such moral qualms anymore. And now there's this all powerful extraterrestrial policing the planet. A being Batman holds responsible for the invasion that laid waste to Metropolis and cost him employees and real estate. Affleck does a fine job portraying the sombre, disillusioned vigilante, but it cannot be denied that his explicit aim of killing Superman, who has since amply demonstrated he's on the side of justice, just feels wholly unjustified.

Meanwhile, as if the lethal rivalry between both tormented good guys was't enough to fill a two hour movie, Snyder introduces a younger version of classic villain Lex Luthor to pester them both. This evil tycoon, too, is haunted by a trauma involving his father, which is not enough to fully explain his demonic machinations in this film. What's more, Jesse Eisenberg's performance in the role is devoid of the 'wow' factor we would have hoped for. Applying a typical neurotic hyperactivity, Eisenberg is basically playing a nefarious version of his own Mark Zuckerberg. It doesn't make for a convincing baddie. Nor does Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman leave a lasting impression, which is also due to a lack of screen time (though 151 minutes certainly makes for a long piece already). Again, a shady past is implied but not explored. And so she leaves us confused by her transformation from uncaring socialite to warrior princess fighting for good.

Of course, with a subtitle like 'Dawn of Justice', adding more spice to your duo of core characters for a broader context is expected. So we also get this evil genius and a strong female heroine. But wait, says BvS, there's much more yet. A number of other super heroes is teased. But for ow, we simply cannot care. Worse, the still fairly investing story line of the titular protagonists is hindered by awkward attempts to set up bigger things to come, including an Apocalyptic nightmare of Batman wherein he's plagued by visions of a ruined world ruled by Superman (including insect warriors, I kid you not). Succeeded by a scene in which that same Batman is confronted with a temporal vortex and a warning from the future to stop someone doing something, totally out of the blue. Pointless material, as we already knew Batman was out for Superman's blood and this doesn't motivate him any more. Despite all the useless interruptions provided by DC's self-advertisement for coming attractions (to which we simply are not attracted), it's amazing we still at least care about the two iconic superheroes battling each other.

And their fight proves quite spectacular. Brutal, despite a lack of blood (PG-13 rating and all). But oh so dark and serious. Even Nolan's Dark Knight films, also not particularly light, optimistic fare, never lost sight of the need for a bit of humour and witticism. But Snyder tells such a gritty tale, there's simply no space left for those elements. Unfortunately, after the epic Batman/Superman throwdown, he however feels there is space left for another half an hour of three good guys battling an ugly digital monster. But this climax never feels near as climactic as the fight we expected to see and at least felt somewhat gratifying. As is usual for his approach, Snyder goes over the top much further than we would like him to have gone. Maybe he's not fully to blame for BvS' many shortcomings, a fair bit of it can likely be chalked up to DC interference for setting up the future. But that future does involve Snyder to a great extent, as he's already working on Justice League. We better hope he takes the failures of BvS to heart and lightens up a bit. There's gotta be more to the DC universe than angry heroes beating each other up...

Today's News: New Black Underworld

This is all I have to show for this week, since there wasn't much news to begin with, plus I had to deal with a minor illness.

Fox maakt X-Men spin-off

Technically, Fox already was making an X-Men spin-off with Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool, but most fans wouldn't want to be reminded of the connection between the two names after the dismal way the character was handled in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. By any rate, this new project has far more ties with the X-Men proper to warrant the designation 'spin-off'. Same school, even some of the same characters, but mostly new faces. Younger ones, too, though the "true" X-Men are already undergoing a sort of rejuvenation with the younger cast currently assembled for X-Men: Apocalypse. But hey, that's likely a different time line, so that's where that comparison ends. Interestingly enough, reports indicate the studio opts for a standalone approach to this film, even though it offers much material for expanding the X-lore, which would help in building that cinematic universe Fox previously seemed eager to get going. Maybe they wisely let that thought go. It already seems they abandoned plans for a crossover between the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, and now even their X-titles will refrain from intertwining. Maybe Fox had a look at the manner in which rival studio Sony mishandled the Spider-Man franchise despite initially harbouring great plans for an epic fleshing out of the character's world. That failed, and Sony felt the need to work together with that other rival, Marvel itself, to recraft the character into something the fans do appreciate. It's not inconceivable Fox is attempting to keep the same from happening to their X-verse, so for now, they're taking it one step at a time again. It only takes one piece of the puzzle of a cinematic universe failing to fit in to get the house crashing down after all, and with six Marvel movies currently in the works, that's something Fox would want to deter. Besides, in the case of New Mutants, not much effort is needed to let the spectators know this story is taking place in the same realm as the X-films they've already seen. The name Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters and the often dropped term 'mutants' are dead giveaways if ever we saw them. You don't need many recurring characters - apart from Xavier himself, perhaps - to understand the connection.

Regisseur voor Black Panther gevonden?

I find the notion of hiring a director based on the colour of his/her skin or her gender to fit the profile of the protagonist of the piece somewhat disturbing. It makes more sense to go for the quality of his/her work first and foremost, other attributes being a bonus rather than an obligation for the job. I thought it had already been disproven that only black people can direct other black people, and only women understand women. This is the 21st Century, shouldn't we have grown past such levels of discrimination? Even though, admittedly, it does benefit getting said minorities in the directing chair, since I won't deny the number of black and female directors for Hollywood blockbusters is still meagre at best. So sure, give Ava DyVernay the directing gig of either Black Panther or Captain Marvel, she's shown ample skills in making movies to deserve it. Considering her previous film, Selma, already dealt with what in a sweeping instance of generalization on my part can be termed "black issues", I would prefer to see her tackle Captain Marvel, just to show she can avoid limiting herself in terms of topics. However, Black Panther is definitely of historical significance to the coloured community - or at least, it ought to be - so as to avoid any potential black backlash, I can't blame Marvel for wanting a black director. At least Black Panther isn't a female character, so having a woman directing a male superhero is worthy of some notice. But I would have preferred it entirely if Marvel had shown some true guts and had stated they wanted DuVernay for something not related to her as a person, like Thor: Ragnarok. A black woman directing a blond, blue eyed male thunder god, now that would be progress.

Beckinsale terug voor Underworld 5

And here's a female's return to the big screen I could have done without. The Underworld movies can be categorized in the same type of film as the likes of Resident Evil, mindless action flicks that have a total B-movie vibe around them but still get surprisingly major releases. And both franchises are running for a lot longer than people usually realize. I wasn't even aware there was a fourth movie. Still, some people apparently keep paying to see them, so the studio keeps making more. All good and well, I understand the way the world works, even though I would have preferred to see that money spent on  more original projects. Kate Beckinsale isn't hard to look at anyway, though that's totally sexist of me. Her acting suffices for the subject matter, but is otherwise simply forgettable, few would disagree. Apparently, she wasn't expected to revisit this particular character again, but the odds turned out in Underworld's favour. Maybe she's hoping this franchise will develop in similar lines as the Fast & Furious franchise, which also seemed to be in decline halfway through, and then against expectations got bigger and better all of a sudden, to become the eagerly antincipated blockbuster series it is today. I doubt fate has that in store for Underworld, but that's what people undoubtedly said about F&F back in the days. Playing an undead character sure doesn't hurt Beckinsale's chances.

Today's Column: anybody want a Dark Claw movie?

This month's column went up early. Superheroes again. They keep me talking it appears.

Disney, koop DC alsjeblieft!

Of course the tone of this piece is meant somewhat sarcastically. Sure, I'd love to see a Dark Claw movie or any other feature related to the wonderful Amalgam universe, but it's definitely not gonna happen. Ever. And I don't think all movie studios owning superhero copyrights joining together, either out of their own volition or because they're bought up by a larger corporation, would be a preferable solution. One studio owning all the superhero franchises isn't a monopoly we would want. Say what you will about various studios owning various pieces of the various superhero universe puzzles, it guarantees some diversity. If Marvel hadn't sold the rights to Spider-Man and similar large, popular and well known properties, we likely wouldn't have gotten Iron Man, Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy, and seeing as how well that turned out, that clearly would have been a great loss. Now that Spider-Man has returned to Marvel's fold, we have yet to see whether he's not gonna reap too much of other characters' glory, even though the fact Marvel is still working on titles like Captain Marvel, Inhumans and Black Panther is reassuring to some extent, as they seemingly mean to keep the diversity flowing.

But what about the fanboys' dreams of 'interpublisher' crossovers between characters belonging not only to rival studios, but also to rival publishers? They'll stay dreams. I doubt that would change even if a major player like Disney managed to buy the rights to the DC characters after all. Which certainly isn't inconceivable, considering the various properties they bought up in recent years. It often feels with all these companies buying companies, you'll one day end up with one humongously big fat supercompany on top, controlling every franchise. Maybe that'll be Disney in the not too distant future (they don't own the business genius of Scrooge McDuck for nothing, you know). But seeing as how they have yet to do crossovers between Indiana Jones and Marvel, or between more similar brands like the Muppets and Disney's own iconic characters, I doubt they'd go so far as to do a DC/Marvel crossover, let alone Amalgam. (Then again, there already is a comic book which serves as a crossover between Star Wars and Indiana Jones, courtesy of Harrison Ford's presence in both of them.) But if it ever happened, would it be good? An Amalgam adaptation, maybe. It's hard to mess up a fabulous hybrid notion like Dark Claw. A giant crossover between the Avengers and the Justice League? No way, far too many characters and their assorted baggage to make for a sensible plot line. Only the hungriest fanboys would understand it completely, but general audiences couldn't make heads or tails of it all. Let's see whether DC knows how to join its own characters together with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice first. Not to mention it has yet to be determined whether Marvel can pull a similar trick with having more than one group share the screen, as will be the case when the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy join forces in Avengers: Infinity War Parts I & II.

And otherwise, let's just keep dreaming about these little fanboy fantasies of ours. I'm still dreaming of the release of more than only two Dark Claw comics...

Today's News: Dinosaurs avenge Lego Huntsman

This week's load of news. Some bits felt a little repetitive.



Nieuwe poster Avengers: Age of Ultron

Nieuwe posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

Meer character posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

How many characters can you cram on a poster without it looking too crowded? Marvel put ten Avengers on one poster and added a bunch of homicidal robots too, and the result is a one-sheet that looks a little too busy for its own good. Just look how poorly the new characters are reflected, insultingly pushed into the corners. Heck, Hulk's arm muscles are printed in greater close-up than the much anticipated sibling mutants genetic test subjects. Good thing there's the nigh obligatory character posters available to remedy this injustice. So far, no character posters featuring those new characters have been published though. It likely will still happen, after all there's six more weeks before this film opens (eight in the USA even). So until we get to see the final posters for Vision, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, we have to make do with the old line-up of superheroes. Cool characters, but rather conservative and bland posters though. I doubt anybody is getting any more hyped up from these one-sheets than they already were thanks to the trailers. Maybe Downey Jr's upcoming 'big announcement' can get that hype to pick up more momentum perhaps. What could it be? Spider-Man references in this second Avengers flick? Or maybe something a little closer to home, like him stepping down as Iron Man, or that character getting killed off entirely? It's unlikely the last two scenarios would be announced before the film opens, that would be highly spoilerific. I guess we just have to be patient for both this impending news flash and those last few character posters then. Oh, the hype...!

Regisseur gevonden voor Lego Movie 2

I've probably seen a bunch of episodes of Community the new director for Lego Movie 2 helmed, though I can't recall them specifically. However, Community's quirky, whimsical humour is also to be found in the first Lego Movie, so on that note the guy seems well suited. No feature films on his resumé though, but that's not exactly uncommon in directing animation. Besides, he's directed Community's tribute to the classic G.I. Joe cartoon from the Eighties, which means he has both experience in animation and with adapting a toy line into an audiovisual feast. The Lego Movie 2 could have done worse for a director. But how about the Lego Batman spin-off, which is supposed to hit theaters first, but doesn't seem to be as deep in pre-production at this point? Anybody with experience directing toys, animation and superheroes in a humorous fashion? That's a much tougher call, so it's logical to see potential directors have to be screened more thoroughly for that one. How about one of the guys from one of the Toy Story films (Buzz Lightyear sure counts as a superhero in my book)? That would be striking little gold bricks for sure!

Chastain gecast in The Huntsman

Oh Jessica, why would you bother? Snow White and the Huntsman was a decent flick, but not the stuff of sequels. This separate Huntsman movie is just a cash grab that only features a character or two from the first movie and most of the team involved in its production has moved on to more original projects. So why would an Oscar-nominated A-list actress waste time and talent on this flick? The money is probably good. I doubt she'd do it because it'll prove such an acting challenge or because she wants to be closer to Chris Hemsworth's robust manly six-pack. Oh well, the audience only benefits from terrific actors, that means the film is secured of decent performances, even if all else may prove forgettable. So far three damn fine actresses signed on for this flick already, Chastain herself, Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt. So at least Hemsworth flexing his muscles and mumbling his way through the movie will have some actual talent to go up against. Otherwise, this movie, rife with development problems so far, simply doesn't get my hopes up.

Dinosauriërs Jurassic World onthuld

Look at me, spoiling this most anticipated movie of 2015 for myself in the name of duty... Oh well, I've already seen the toys so I know what the dinosaurs will look like. Besides, half the dinosaurs shown here won't make it into the final film, hence the paleoart covering their appearance, rather than the CG rendered models. Sucks that the hand drawn creatures look far more appealing and much more paleontologically accurate. They're putting their movie brothers to shame. Pronated hands, feathery bits and splendidly vibrant colours; quite the opposite of the bald, scientifically incorrect and blandly coloured animals we'll see in the movie. Far more exotic species too, but the audience wants to see T-Rex and Raptors, because that's usually all they know. Forget about the more intriguing, poetically named likes of Metriacanthosaurus or Microceratus, those names don't have the star power or the necessary 'sexy' quality to them needed to entice audiences. Or so the studio thinks. Velociraptor and Dilophosaurus weren't exactly house hold names before JP came around. At least we'll have some new species, like Dimorphodon and that genetically engineered bastard that's going to be the main baddiesaur. It's a Hollywood movie, so we shouldn't expect any realism. As further illustarted by the size chart that shows a huge Sauropod like Apatosaurus to be smaller than T-Rex. At least the kids will know better, they might educate their ignorant parents a bit on the subject. As for me, I refuse to let this bring down my enthusiasm for a new Jurassic film. I've had to wait too long for one and I need my dinosaur fix. It's not like there's such a thing as an accurate portrayal of a dinosaur anyway. We simply can't know.

Today's Column: will Spider-Man be our new Iron Man?

Told you I'd write that column? Well, here it is:

Wordt Spider-Man de nieuwe Iron Man?

What, another column in only two weeks, you may ask? Well, I had the time available to pen one and there was an opening because the guy who was supposed to deliver one this week didn't do so (for shame!). Plus, my editor recognized this as a current topic that needed to be posted before the news felt too far in the past. So, good for me.

As you might be able to discern from this overly long piece, I don't believe Spider-Man joining the ranks of Marvel Studios is a bad thing at all. I just know there's a lot of factors to take into account to make it work properly, without getting the feeling the webhead is hogging all the glory from his fellow superheroes (something Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man felt to be doing at times). And I have faith that Marvel will consider all possible angles, while my gut tells me they had it all worked out already, as they're champions in planning their universe thoroughly ahead. That said, I do believe re-introducing the audience to the beloved webslinger in the next Captain America movie is not the smartest move. It feels too much like 'oh, Spider-Man played a pivotal role in the Civil War comics, so let's use him in that screen adaptation to stick closer to the source material and earn points with the fan base' or a similar thought along that line. But this is not necessarily the Spider-Man we've come to know. It won't be Andrew Garfield. It's a new guy, which - unfortunately - does require a bit of an origin story to make it flow seamlessly. And such a story is better suited in his own film, rather than in somebody else's. Even though I recognize audiences have grown tired of Spidey's origin story, which has been retold a little too often in recent years. But you still gotta have it if you're talking about a new Spider-Man. A younger Spider-Man. Might they even consider going a vastly different route and eliminating Peter Parker for the new webhead on the block Miles Morales altogether? Now that's an interesting thought. Though definitely one that would polarize the fan community and make for quite some heavy flame wars all over the web. Whose side are you on? That's inspiration for another column right there.

Today's Review: Big Hero 6

Told you there was more where that came from?:

Big Hero 6 - recensie

Well, this movie was totally fun! But I cannot say in all honesty it was any bit original. Much of the story and character development felt formulaic, but that never got in the way of the fun to be had. Especially since it was the Marvel formula. Heck, at times the movie nigh made fun of its own narrative make-up - best example: when the nerdy character exclaims 'ooh, it's an origin story!' - but I doubt much of the audience would care they might have seen most of this stuff before. Especially the target audience of kids won't mind, inexperienced with the inspirational material as they likely are. Interestingly enough, despite being a (successfully Disneyfied) Marvel adaptation adhering to a typical plot routine, the characters differ an awful lot from their comic book counterparts. In fact, the excessively cute articial Baymax, the character that singlehandedly raised this film from a three-star flick to a four-star sensation, looks nothing like the dragonlike droid from the original source. Major characters like Sunfire and Silver Samurai are missing, since Disney doesn't own the rights to those (they're presently part of Fox's X-universe). Thankfully, we're getting a new one in their place, namely the fictional city of San Fransokyo, which immediately suggests the uncanny mix of American and Japanese animation styles present throughout and makes for a wonderful looking backdrop for these characters to have their little adventure in.

But above all else, Baymax makes this movie work. The apparently minimalistically but on closer look brilliantly animated character provides the beating heart of the movie, as a healthcare robot created by the protagonist's deceased older brother, who finds himself ever more transformed into a heavily armoured battlebot by the main character out for revenge, until the emotionless but caring robot reminds him there's more to life than abusing your talents for mindless anger. Plus, he makes for 80 percent of the jokes and they all work. And that's even despite his hilarious attempts at catching a football from the trailer didn't make in into the final cut. Don't expect to be surprised by Big Hero 6, but like Baymax and his ball, just roll with the robot for good times' sake.

Today's News: a threesome of trailers

The first trailers for 2015 are in!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158543/eerste_trailer_ant-man

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158536/eerste_poster_ant-man

2015's first big trailer of course had to come from Marvel Studios. The ant-icipation for Ant-Man is slowly building, now that most fanboys have had time to get over Edgar Wright's departure. Seems Ant-Man as a project is still doing alright and traces of its original director's touch remain to be felt. The trailer sure hints at Wrightian humour, quirkiness and the necessity not to take this subject too seriously, which is reflected on the rather silly but appropriate minimalist teaser poster. Other than that, it appears a fairly thirteen-a-dozen superhero flick, with distinct overtones of a heist movie. The notion of the villain being equipped with the same powers as the hero is hardly a novel approach for Marvel, when the likes of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are taken into account. I guess any really new ideas that ought to set Ant-Man apart from his fellow superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have to spring from his questionable personality and his resulting status as a former delinquent. None of the other superheroes have had a criminal record thus far. Of course, we have seen flawed characters, Tony Stark's being a prime example (being an arms merchant sadly doesn't come with a criminal record). Ant-Man's strength may lie in introducing a very unheroic hero, the kind that comes home after saving the world and abuses his spouse (as per the comics). I doubt Marvel has the balls to go as far as the hilarious Irredeemable Ant-Man character on the big screen - also because that persona is a whole other character, just with the same name and powers - but there's still ample opportunity for shying away from the superhero routine here by making the titular figure a recnognizable all-too human human being. And otherwise, we'll have to make do with his talking to ants to spice things up a little.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158525/nieuwe_trailer_peanuts

This really isn't my thing. Peanuts never intrigued me much as a kid, nor does it do better in my adult years. This trailer, too, just seems to appeal too much to kids, feeling rather childish throughout, without containing any gags that would win over more mature audiences. The style of animation appears hardly enticing and not on par with contemporary animated films, though that may have something to do with the selfimposed limitations set by the producers to acknowledge the supposedly iconic style of the original comic book strips. I have to give the creators of this film credit for honoring the original work at least, rather than going all-out and making it look nothing like the Peanuts everybody knows. Maybe I'm just biased against this film because I'm a cat person.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158545/nieuwe_trailer_the_lazarus_effect

Zero fascination for this film results from watching this trailer, either. There just doesn't appear to be anything new to this premise, other than that it combines the age-old Frankenstein routine of 'don't play God and resurrect the dead just because you can' with a sort of demonic horror element where the scientists in error are picked off by some ghostly apparition one by one. The PG-13 rating also won't help, since it won't allow the movie to go for particular strong moments of scare. Heck, Frankenweenie looks more scary and original than this bloodless B-flick! You wonder why the studio thought it would be a good idea to waste a budget on this film, or why decent actors like Mark Duplass, Olivia Wilde and Evan Peters would bother performing in this one. Maybe there's just more than meets the eye here, and the trailer tells us it's one thing while the actual product turns out to be quite another. I very much doubt that though. I don't think I'll wake up for this one.

Today's News: 2015, first catch

Happy New Year everybody! Let's just pick off where we left off, I'd say. So here's the first few bits of news for 2015.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158505/blomkamp_onthult_concept_art_alien_film

This is some mouthwatering concept art. Clearly the product of someone who harbours great love for the Alien movies, especially the first (and finest) few installments. However, it's obvious this is more of a fanboy having a ball for his own pleasure than a workable first attempt at another Xenomorph infested film. It clearly has designs to directly follow Aliens, considering the presence of Michael Biehn (who ingloriously died in the first few minutes of its successor, Alien 3). The fact that the mythos has since been watered down by two more sequels, a prequel and two spin-offs, plus taking into account the age of both Biehn and Sigourney Weaver (not to mention the likely possibility both actors would not really be interested in doing another one), doesn't make for good chances of making a movie out of these doodles, no matter their fabulous look. A graphic novel of course is not an impossible option, so who knows what the future holds? Probably nothing in this regard, as Blomkamp has stated he did this mostly for fun and has since moved on working on real projects. Too bad, but maybe it's for the good. Let's face(hug) it: this imagery mostly hearkens back to the success of the first two films by applying iconic imagery and actors from those films. But applying them to what? No story is presented, nor even a medium in which it might otherwise be told. These images are completely empty of context, except for the love Blomkamp and us Alien fans bring to it ourselves. The first teaser for Star Wars: The Force Awakens comes to mind, which uses an all too similar tactic without delivering the necessary context of a narrative. At least in this Alien case, we'll never have to lament the fact that such great artistry was used for such a disappointing final product, which I continue to consider a very likely scenario for that upcoming Star Wars flick. Yet still, if there's ever gonna be another Alien movie (and I mean an Alien movie proper, not the upcoming Prometheus 2), Blomkamp would be my first choice for the directing chair.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158499/stallone_onthult_aankomende_films

As for directing, Sly Stallone is doing that in 2015. And acting. And writing and producing too. He sure is keeping himself busy. Too bad there's so little original projects involved, it's mostly him building on his past glories of Rocky and Rambo. At least with Creed, he's acknowledging his age by playing a mentor figure rather than an actual price fighter. Not so with the fifth Rambo movie, which is basically Stallone blowing off steam on camera and making money at the same time. To show he's keeping things up to date, this time he'll singlehandedly wipe out a whole Mexican drug cartel. If only that sort of thing would happen in the real world. The only one out of these three projects currently in the works that gets me the least bit excited is the one that seems to be most original. Then again, there's ample biopics about mobster bosses already, so it's hardly a unique concept. I doubt Scarpa could ever turn out as memorable as the likes of The Untouchables, Scarface or American Gangster. Doesn't really matter if it doesn't though. You just do your thing, Sly.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158507/cast_foto_serie_powers_onthuld

Also not a wholly original concept is a team of detectives investigating crimes that involve superpowered individuals. Remember The 4400 for example? Heck, even Agents of S.H.IE.L.D. often dabbles in that particular premise. Of course, the notion of setting it in a world where superhumans are a fairly everyday occurrence is more innovative, as is introducing an ex-superhuman as a cop character. That does make for some interesting novel story possibilites, and I hope Powers will utilize them to maximum effect. The cast sure helps, too. Casting Sharlto Copley is like striking gold, and I'm also happy to see Noah Taylor again. However, it's Michelle Forbes in a silly, sexy superheroine outfit that gets me most excited (in dual fashion, I must admit). The new TV division of the PlayStation Network seems to have a solid first show on their hands. Hopefully they didn't opt for this project simply because it's based on a comic book series about superpeople and those are currently hot. That sort of thinking is currently killing their mother company Sony's Spider-Man franchise, because they don't know how to proceed handling the character but because of his strong brand name they exploit him all the same. You need something more than just a popular character to win the audience over, preferably including a good story that keeps spectators hungry for more. Powers could have that in spades, and might very well deliver proof that there is still talent to be found amongst Sony's ranks where comic book adaptations and superhumans are involved. Or so we can only hope at this point.

Today's News: more and more

News just keeps piling up. At times it seems like I'm the only one posting any on MovieScene lately. Which is one of the reasons my blog is witnessing a decrease in updates. Oh well, at least all this news means there is always something to post on my blog when there is time available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156615/marvel_voegt_nog_vijf_films_toe_aan_huidige_planning

Seems overkill, to announce movies so far ahead without anything to go on but a title (at least, I hope Marvel has some to fill in those release dates, though they're not spilling those beans just yet), and of course, a plan. However, this is not so much about the movies, as it is a show of strength and confidence. Marvel flexes its muscles to let the world know they're totally prepared to accept DC's recent challenge in annual cinematic universe crafting. DC has so far revealed they're planning ahead up till 2019, now Marvel does the same. You didn't think it was a coincidence this latest planning of the House of Ideas ran until 2019, did you? Plus, DC so far sticks to one movie a year, while Marvel eagerly doubles that amount, and in case of 2017 even triples it. With this slate of release dates, Marvel is making a statement they mean to stay the biggest player in terms of superhero movies. And backed up by the ever expanding might of Disney, they can make good on it. However, unlike DC, Marvel hasn't named any properties yet that can fill those slots. They better put their money where their mouth is soon, because (most) people don't remember release dates, they remember names. Like The Batman in 2019. I wonder what marvel hero gets to go up against that one, DC's strongest franchise still. Ant-Man 2 maybe?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156632/nieuwe_comic-con_poster_jurassic_world

The first real Jurassic Park poster since 2001. And it's both beautiful and bad news. Of course, this is a great mix between the old - the thrashed Explorer vehicle, the beloved Velociraptor, the Isla Nublar setting - and the new - Jurassic World being built on the bones of the previous park in the background, but it also displays a disturbing, deeply rooted conservative attitude towards the JP dinosaurs. This is 2014. No respectable paleontologist will back that retro dinosaur as being an accurate representation of a Velociraptor. It worked in the early Nineties, but today's Raptors don't have arms like that and they are covered in feathers. However, Colin Trevorrow seems more adamant to recapture the glory of the first Jurassic Park film by reintroducing that vintage dinosaur look than by adhering to one of the elements that made JP great: making realistic animals of what otherwise would have been typical movie monsters. Say about Jurassic Park III's narrative quality what you will, at least it dared to show progression by adding feathered dinosaurs, and thus up-to-date science, to the mix. It would be a definite step back if Trevorrow chickened out on that just because audiences didn't think that much of JP III. Why? Because JP's representation of dinosaurs resonates strongly through popular culture. It's basically the dinosaur franchise that all others tend to copy. So if JP gets it wrong (and they admittedly have a few times), others will copy those mistakes and audiences are spoon fed the wrong notions about actual dinosaur looks and behavior. After two decades, Dilophosaurus is finally showing signs of ridding itself of that nonsensical neck frill and venom spitting action in the collective mind of the general audience. Does Trevorrow mean to reuse such silly concepts too, just because they look cool? If so, Jurassic World's dinosaurs are just that indeed: living theme park monsters, not actual animals. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions here though. I know that Raptor image on the poster is copied from a still of the kitchen scene from the first movie. It's probably too early to apply one of the final dinosaur designs for Jurassic World on any promotional material yet. So for now I'll keep my faith in Trevorrow. And I want one of those posters, but I'm not gonna get it as I don't care to visit San Diego just to pick one of these up.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156631/eerste_trailer_the_imitation_game

Benedict Cumberbatch adds another socially awkward genius to his repertoire. This time it's Alan Turing. And once again he excels in playing such a character, it would appear. This trailer makes me very interested about the actual movie. There's some terrific actors in there and a fascinating historical background to serve as a dramatic narrative. I'm not at all familiar with the director - the Norwegian Morten Tyldum - but this type of film seems to suit him. Or the studio's had some great trailer editors working on it, that's also a possibility. And already there is Oscar buzz generated around this film. Kinda obvious; solid actors, war story, gay emotional conflict, all typical Academy Award ingredients. I'm always put off by people dropping the word 'Oscar' around a movie that is still so far from its release date. It goes to show just what a political game the Oscars are. Then again, people suggested Oscar buzz for The Monuments Men well in advance too, but they haven't been doing that again since its release. Was it because it was a disappointing movie, or maybe because there was no homosexual aspect to any of it? Nevertheless, this trailer suggests a good film to me, so until I see it in theaters, that will suffice. But I'm not prematurely jumping on the Oscar bandwagon until the nominations are in. I am increasingly getting in on the Cumberbandwagon though. Ever since Sherlock, I developed a much more appreciative sentiment towards the man, and I'm even willing to forgive him his transgressions partaking in the further exploitation of the Star Trek franchise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156643/nieuwe_trailer_star_wars_rebels

Speaking of exploitation, Star Wars has experienced that ever since 1978. And since Disney has bought the franchise, exploitation has been turned up a few notches. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Disney scrapped the then running animated series The Clone Wars and is now replacing it by Star Wars Rebels, which is... another animated series from the same creators! And it's set only a few years after Clone Wars, allowing the series to reintroduce some of that show's characters (like Obi-Wan Kenobi, as this new trailer shows). Other than that, the sense of adventure in a war torn galaxy remains the same, though this series does go for a slightly younger target audience. However, both this show and its predecessor feature a young Force sensitive protagonist, while the style of animation hasn't changed a bit. It basically makes you wonder why Disney didn't just pick up with Clone Wars where it left off. It makes little difference to me. I didn't watch Clone Wars, I have little interest in Rebels either. I prefer to stick to the big screen, even though I'm dreading what J.J. Abrams is doing to the franchise.

Today's Triple News: Dawn of Superman's Odyssey

News! News! We got news here!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156430/eerste_foto_superman_in_batman_v_superman

We already got a small tease of Ben Affleck's Batman (with Batmobile!) for DC's upcoming superhero extravaganza, now it's the Man of Steel's turn. Good timing, as fanboys were about done nitpicking over every conceivable little detail of that one released picture, so now they can drool over another one for a month or so. There's little to go on here though, as the only really bit of news it contains is that Superman (Henry Cavill again) will visit Gotham City. A likely event, considering the title Batman v Superman (Dawn of Justice, etc.). Of course, you can argue that Batman might have traveled to Metropolis (which he still may), but Superman is the once who's faster than a speeding bullet which allows him to travel the globe in the blink of an eye so it's easier (and proably less strainful on the budget) for him to do so. Otherwise, not that much of note here. The Superman costume has scarcely changed from the previous movie. Gotham looks a bit bleaker and more Gothic in appearance than it did in Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but that was to be expected, as this movie would turn more to the pages of the comics in an attempt to set itself apart stylistically from those exquisite films, as well as from the sunnier, brighter city of Metropolis with which it will share the screen. The big question this picture hints at first and foremost is one of a story nature: what is Superman doing in Gotham? Once again turning to the title (as there's little else to go on at present), the most in you-face answer is he'll be getting into fisticuffs with Batman. Next question then is, why will they fight? And that leads to more questions, and so on and so on. Which ensures fans will have plenty of material to debate until the next photo is released. Good thing too, as they still need to wait two more years for the definitive answers.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156416/stalingrad_regisseur_maakt_odyssee

Interesting director's choice in this politically tense day and age. Art adheres not to the borders of man, especially when loads of money are involved. Will it be good art though (if there even is such a thing)? Bondarchuk's epic love story Stalingrad met with rather mixed reviews, though its accoloades include highest grossing film in Russia and first non-American film shot in IMAX 3D, thanks to its impressive visual effects which thoroughly suit that format. So, strong box office results for prior work, innovative international use of technology and experience with big budget spectacle, coupled with a chance to win favours with the Russian industry, all come with Bondarchuk, which are enough reasons to sway studio executives to hire him. In terms of story, the Odyssey has proven itself to hold up for several milennia, so it can survive this latest attempt no doubt. As for the execution, the visual side seems secure as far as the budget allows. As for the character side, therein lies the greatest challenge. I would suggest casting a solid, capable actor in the title role (as the movie is called Odysseus), and his name is Sean Bean. His take on Odysseus was one of Troy's redeeming features and I would love to see some more of that. Then again, it might not be such a good idea for Bondarchuk to suggest his film is a sequel to Troy, which it's not intended to be. Even though I get the feeling that final product was right up his alley in terms of directorial execution, as it was maligned for much the same reasons Stalingrad was (except for the absence of Orlando Bloom's poor acting skills).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156428/trio_korte_films_slaat_brug_tussen_apes_films

I was already stoked for Dawn of the PotA (first few reviews are fortunately showered in praise!), so these three short films (collectively titled Before the Dawn) miss their mark in convincing me to go see a film I was already convinced to go see. Considering they are rather short on apes - silhouettes and sound effects is all we get - I don't think anybody watching them that didn't know another PotA film was coming feels the sudden urge to get in line for admission tickets. Their primary purpose seems to assure confused folks that missed the connection between both films have something to fall back on to enlighten them as what caused the abrupt and expansive change in status quo for both apes and humans. However, as is the case with any good viral marketing, this backstory can be missed when considering the movies proper. The information provided here serves as a decent background that does not need to be seen specifically to enjoy the motion picture experience. Nevertheless, they do add a little bit of sense and character to the rebooted Apes universe as a whole, even though the quality of these three films varies. The idea of staging the demise of human society over different time periods since the outbreak of the devastating simian flu plague is infective (obvious pun there, sorry). The first film is easily the weakest, just a quick piece intended to be emotionally charged but ending up rather dull. The second one spices things up considerably by comparison, showing just how seriously everyday life has changed in a brief timespan, while also introducing a new threat to the survivors that was absent from the first short but is of course what we'll all go and pay to see with most anticipation (apes, I mean). The third film, which is longer than the other two combined and therefore might be accused of having an unfair advantage to hook us in the most, is the most chilling, disturbing and dramatic of the trio. Which is a mean feat, considering it deals with an object more than it does with people, be they human or primates. It's a very imaginative and subtle yet effective way to show how much one side has deteriorated while another has risen, with both sides ending up in an existential state of balance. I doubt any of the characters introduced here, human or artificial, will end up playing a substantial role - more than a cameo, that is - in the upcoming theatrical movie proper, but they don't need to. Before the Dawn is just a neat and helpful bit of background story but if you don't know it's out there, it's not likely to diminish your viewing experiece of the movie it serves.

Today's Triple News: magic Aquaman of the galaxy

There's news, and then there's more news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156134/meer_character_posters_voor_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Got a mail from my editor at a quarter to midnight. Marvel posted the last two character posters online and he though I should finish what I started by posting them on MovieScene. I couldn't agree more, even though I was about to go to bed instead (that'll teach me not to check my e-mail at so late an hour!). All part of the job, even though it's only a voluntary position. This pair of posters continues the eye catching colourful, flashy and distinctly space opera vibe carrying trend the earlier two (of Rocket & Groot and Gamora, if you recall) started. Drax ominously has his back turned to us, amply revealing his daggers, while enemy warships approach in the distance. It obviously isn't the most inspired piece of advertising (compare the final poster for The Chronicles of Riddick for instance), but it looks decent enough and adequately showcases his muscles and (to my mind, lousy) war paint. In Star-Lord's case, battle has commenced and he's resorted to using his futuristic double ray gun in the heat of battle, his ship flying in the background. Am I glad Drax already is the muscleman on this film, so we don't get to see a topless pin-up of the protagonist in an attempt to cater to the female demographic too obscenely. Of course the obligatory shirtless scene will follow somewhere in the course of the movie, as it's all part of the Hollywood strategy to draw girl audiences to what is otherwise (unjustly) considered a largely male attracting movie experience. At least the trailers indicate Gamora can't keep her shirt on all the time either. They better keep that bit in to ensure a sexually equal atmosphere.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156165/game_of_thrones_schrijver_pent_magic

If you've done one fantasy gig you can do another. I bet that's what Hollywood was thinking in this scenario. Of course, there's an epic difference between Game of Thrones and this upcoming Magic: The Gathering movie. One's based on a series of books, the other on a roleplaying card game. One is better suited for television, while the other gets the silver screen treatment. One has conquered the hearts and minds of a global audience, while the other still needs to prove it can attract bigger audiences than just its loyal fanbase, shedding its 'nerd' stigma. The latter starts with a good writer, and at least Cogman has proven himself just that on Game of Thrones. Still, his resumé is more or less confined to those writing credits only, so he can't be called the most experienced of screen writers. You'd think he'd feel like doing something other than fantasy for a change, but apparently he prefers to stay in that comfort zone, even though this is a wholly different kind of fantasy (or so I think, since I don't know jack squat about the Magic card game; are there any cards with depictions of twincest or overtly gruesome dismemberment?). Or maybe he's just not comfortable or interested yet in expanding his so far genre restricted mindset. Could be for the best, since there's still a fair bit of writing on Game of Thrones to finish and we wouldn't want him to be distracted by the real world too much.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156168/jason_momoa_mogelijk_aquaman

Someone who has seemingly already finished on Game of Thrones - he's not the only one - is Jason Momoa. Khal Drogo has been dead for three seasons now, so Momoa has moved on, and as it appears, in the right direction career wise. His involvement with some DC project or other has been the stuff of whispers and speculations for seven months now and it's doubtful he can maintain claiming ignorance for much longer. Is he gonna be Aquaman? That seems most likely, though other characters have been suggested too. Momoa certainly doesn't look like Aquaman, but in this digital age that is not much of an obstacle to speak off. Bradler Cooper doesn't look like Rocket Raccoon after all. I'm sure an expert make-up job alone would suffice to mask any dissimilarities with what fanboys perceive to be the 'good look' for Aquaman. I'm more worried about the many character set-ups that are currently slated to appear in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (such a unnecessarily lengthy title!). If I'm not mistaken, this now makes three additional super heroes in a movie that largely revolves around two others. And then there's still the supervillain(s) to contend with. Already feels like an overly padded and crowded movie, which unfortunately is a prevailing tendency in contemporary comic book adaptations, done by studios driven by grandiose ideas of universe building. Several recent Marvel movies suffered in terms of quality due to these tactics, and as DC is in haste trying to keep up with its rival, the same mistakes appear to be made in the process. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to take a note from Game of Thrones when the number of characters becomes too large to manage properly? Though it would be a bit unfair to Momoa if he suffered a similarly untimely demise once more.

Today's Triple News: it's a Marvelous world

Here's a few more news flashes, all Marvel related (coincidence, or a sign Marvel/Disney is slowly but surely taking over the world):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156092/eerste_character_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Character posters! Always fun! Attractive pieces of marketing and usually very collectible in the long run. Not often very imaginative though (all they need to do is display a character after all, without giving too much plot away), and this one proves little different. It does what it needs to do, showcasing a dynamic pose of an intriguing pair of characters in this case, designed to entice the audience to go see the movie to learn what their deal is. We're talking about a talking tree and dito armoured raccoon, so I suppose there's quite a deal to be talked about here. Otherwise this poster leaves little clues as to the movie itself. You can wonder about the affiliation of the two different types of star fighters in the background, but that would be a bit too nerdy even for me. This is one fine piece of advertising, but it doesn't make me want to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy movie any more than I already did. The new Gamora poster however... check back later for more on that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156083/ant-man_vindt_nieuwe_regisseur

Sick and tired about all the Ant-Man buzz of late? So was Marvel I guess, and that's why they finally settled on a director. The job goes to Peyton Reed, reponsible for such noted classics like Bring It On and Yes Man. That's a joke of course, as those are not at all memorable movies. Decent enough fare for gloomy Sunday afternoons perhaps, but not something people will talk about in twenty years time. Nevertheless, if the whole departure debacle of Edgar Wright on this project showed, Marvel does not want visionary directors for their films. They want stooges that know how to direct a decent film but also know when not to interfere with studio planning, especially when it concerns long term universe building the like Marvel is currently engaging in. Wright likely did not fit in as much as Marvel at first had hoped, having too much ideas of his own that might not have sat well with the studio (came you blame the guy, he worked for nigh a decade developing this project!). Wright just isn't a gun-for-hire as much as all his potential successors, including Reed, are. They all have a background in directing contemporary basic comedies, but none of them share Wright's distinctly British finesse, or in fact, any sign of true character. However, they do know how to follow studio orders no doubt, as is the case with the majority of the Marvel directors thus far. Louis Leterrier, Jon Favreau (before he got too big for Marvel after having done two Iron Man movies, at which point he was replaced), Shane Black, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston, the Russo Brothers... all capable directors, but none of them fan faves because of their originality, likable offbeat approach or signature style, unlike Wright. The only exception to the rule seems to be Joss Whedon, but who knows for how much longer? I'm also a little disturbed by Marvel's tendency to actively search for a comedy director only for Ant-Man. Does a movie about a shrinking superhero talking to ants have to be a comedy per se? After all, this is a man with a very serious and dark side to him. He beats his wife for crying out loud! Please don't let that comedic element dominate the others. The last thing we need is the Avengers' very own Jar Jar Binks.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156114/vincent_donofrio_gecast_als_daredevils_doodsvijand

What we do need is an enemy that gives the devil his due. In the case of the Daredevil comics, that has always been Kingpin. Sure, the stupendously obese mobster plagued Spider-Man on many occasions, but he was not his most recognizable or memorable villain (I'd say that would be Doctor Octopus, like or not). Daredevil himself may not be as recognizable or memorable a superhero as Spidey, but most people that don't know him from the source material will know him from the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, where he was also confronted with the might of the Kingpin of Crime, then played by the late (and surprisingly, African-American) Michael Clarke Duncan, who proved more fun to watch in that role than Aflleck as the titular character. This time a white guy has been casted (casting another black man would probably have invited accusations of racism, not wholly unfounded) and it's Vincent D'Onofrio. He's shown he knows how to pull off comic book baddies, if you recall the hideous Edgar (the bug) in Men In Black. Of course, Kingpin is a whole different animal. Decidedly human, supremely intelligent but utterly ruthless, cold and calculating, shadowy, out for monetary gain but still not adverse to taking over the world in a fashion... that's all Kingpin. Fortunately D'Onofrio has done enough episodes of Law & Order to know the workings of those on the opposite side of the law through and through. A fine bit of casting if you ask me, less likely to stir fan feelings in both directions than casting a Brit as an American superhero.

Today's News: we have a Thanos but when will we see him?

One of MS's latest scoops was posted there by my reliable self:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155978/josh_brolin_speelt_marvelschurk_thanos

The biggest revelation in this bit of news is not that Marvel has enticed yet another powerhouse actor to play a major villain role (and in terms of baddies, they don't come much bigger than this one!), but more so the fact that we still won't see him in this, his next "appearance". The message is clearly that Brolin, for now, will be limited to voice acting Thanos in Guardians of the Galaxy only. Of course they didn't cast him solely for his voice talents, evident as they may be, but with plans to make more overt use of his acting capabilities for later projects. Just when we will get to see those remains unclear. Certainly not in Ant-Man. Likely not in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, where Earth's Mightiest Heroes already have bad guys Ultron and Baron Von Strucker to contend with. They may tease him in the post- or midcredits stingers in that film, but, as was the case with the first Avengers film, it will reamin limited to a teaser so not much will be shown of him. Other future Marvel projects are still a bit sketchy thus far. Thanos doesn't seem the stuff of Captain America 3 or Dr. Strange. My money is on The Avengers 3 at the soonest, and that won't be until 2018 at the least. Gives Brolin a lot of time to prepare for the role, while Marvel is allowed the opportunity to make the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy coherently join forces to fight this cosmic evil together. At least, it sure seems like that is the studio's intention, as they're teasing him in both their respective movies, and if Guardians of the Galaxy turns out to appeal to the audience, that's the type of überteam-up the fans will be aching for.

As for Brolin, he's solid actor, capable of playing a wide range of characters, in projects as diverse in range and scope as The Goonies and Planet Terror to No Country for Old Men and Milk. So I have no doubt he can do this splendidly. I'm more concerned with how they're gonna pull him off other than by Brolin's acting. No doubt the voice will be changed, probably lowered in volume, to accomodate the expectations that come with such a heavy, bulky and larger-than-life extraterrestrial character. As for his physical appearance, I'm quite convinced it's gonna be CGI. If I'm not mistaken, he already was a digital character in The Avengers, and we only got to see the side of his face in that one. Motion capture seems the way to go, giving Brolin more to do and exploiting his talents to their fullest. They would be building on Guardians' character Groot in a technical aspect, who is similarly brought to life by Vin Diesel supplying both voice and bodily motions. Not to mention Marvel's expertise on doing the Hulk, who's very similar in terms of body proportions to Thanos. But all of this is speculation and conjecture at this point and will remain so for quite a few years longer. Let's just wait what Thanos sounds like first. We'll get to know him bit by bit at this rate, before the big final reveal, whenever that may occur.

Today's Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: ***/*****, or 6/10

Now that Marvel Studios' long term strategy has shown to pay off in the most lucrative manner imaginable, it's no surprise to see rival studios owning their own pieces of the Marvel pie try their luck with a similar concept. As such, Sony faces the most challenging job at universe building, as they own the rights to a franchise based around a single character: Spider-Man. Fortunately for the studio, Spidey has a wide array of friends and foes, allies and adversaries, to choose from in order to construct a larger shared realm which may at some point include movies that do not need the wallcrawler's presence to stand on their own feet. However, such characters, good guys and bad, will need to be introduced first to familiarize the audience with their personalities and groom them for their own solo debuts in later years. And so the crafting of a larger Spiderverse begins with The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which hosts a plethora of new characters and a threesome of rogues to enrich Peter Parker's life. Problem is, for a freshly rebooted franchise which, after a single movie that can be described as 'adequate' at best, still needs to prove to the audience the validity of the rebooting process, the time to start such universe building simply isn't ripe just yet. As a result, the second Amazing Spidermovie feels like a convoluted, incoherently structured piece that aims to be more than 'amazing', while the audience still waits for that moniker to make good on its promise.

In the sequel, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) has come to terms with his powers and responsibilities acting as New York's superhuman guardian, haunted by the vision of Captain Stacy, as he struggles to uphold his promise to the deceased father of the love of his life, Gwen (Emma Stone), to stay out of her existence in order to keep her safe from the harm that comes with being Spider-Man. A strong-spirited and intelligent young woman, Gwen is determined to embrace the dangers involved with dating Peter, or otherwise to move one with her career and leave him in the cold. This results in many a scene of fairly engaging and recognizable lovers' quarrels that reveal director Marc Webb's strengths in directing the identifiable romantic affairs of the younger generation. The chemistry between Garfield and Stone is still solid, though the same cannot be said for the writing of the former, as Peter has moved on from being a socially awkward nerd to a rather self-absorbed punk. Though his red-and-blue clad alter ego is modelled after his comic book counterpart more closely and convincingly than ever – webslinging moves, wisecracking puns and all – Peter feels like he has changed in character a little too much too fast, his occasional dickish behavior courtesy of a new team of writers. While Stone's performance remains a joy to behold, Garfield's oftentimes evokes more irritation than affection.

Spidey's knack for getting those he cares about in trouble is quickly proven as he's confronted by no less than three new villains in this movie, each with his own personal baggage and history that needs some exploration (especially if they are to be found worthy of reprising their roles for later projects). The main antagonist, the volatile and hotheaded Electro (Jamie Foxx), is given the most balanced bit of background, in which he is revealed kind of as Peter Parker-gone-bad. A lonely and socially isolated geek, his involuntary plunge in a vat of genetically engineered electric eels (if you feel this sounds silly, ask yourself whether it would if it involved spiders instead) grants him powers beyond his wildest dreams, but as he hopes to finally stand out from the crowd, those masses that worship his idol Spider-Man reject him, forcing him to go on a electrostatic rampage aimed at New York's favorite webspinner to get back at the world. Though Foxx's performance, some times over-the-top while at others more contained, leaves something to be desired, as does his rather two-dimensional anger directed at Spider-man, Electro's colourful but lethal sparkle shows make for a fancy visual style not seen in a Spider-Man movie before.

What has been seen before however is Harry Osborn, Peter's long time friend and occasionally Spidey's nemesis. In Raimi's trilogy of movies, Harry was given an arc all his own over the course of three movies, building up to the conflict to be and Spider-Man's emotional disarray that came with it. Not so in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, where the same story is roughly being told in a single film, in a much abbreviated form that does not do justice to the many decades of comic book lore in which this close friendship annex hateful rivalry slowly but surely evolved. When his father Norman (Chris Cooper), the head of OsCorp Industries, dies as a result of a degenerative illness that runs in the family, Harry (Dane DeHaan) gets reacquainted with his childhood friend Peter as he offers his condolences. A more elaborate backstory is inferred, but as it is only the subject of the briefest conversation it is hard to truly care about the relationship between Peter and Harry. The latter swiftly becomes CEO of OsCorp where he finds himself thrown in an arena of board intrigue and backstabbing conspiracies to remove him from office, as he tries to find a cure for what killed his dad and all too soon will end his life prematurely too. The only thing standing between him and an untimely demise appears to be the blood of genetically engineered spiders, company property that was deemed lost, so Spider-Man's blood appears to be the only cure still available. As the disease starts to corrupt both his body and mind, Harry's friendship with Peter turns sour when his buddy will not help him get in touch with the wallcrawler to acquire that pivotal transfusion. Eventually more drastic measures must be taken for survival and Harry transforms into the maniacal Green Goblin, hellbent on wrecking Peter's life, especially when he discovers his secret identity. DeHaan proves quite up to the task of portraying the sympathetic Harry, who grows ever more frustrated as his quest to save his own life is thwarted by both those on his payroll and his oldest friend. He also visibly shows to have had a blast playing the crazed Goblin, making DeHaan's contributions to the acting front more sizable than Garfield's haphazard performances, though both characters are admittedly driven by less than stellar writing.

Last and least of the trio of baddies is Rhino, a Russian criminal played by Paul Giamatti (who also makes it abundantly clear he's enjoying himself tremendously), whose presence feels more of an afterthought added by the studio to get that universe building going, as he adds little of relevance to the plot otherwise. Appearing only in the beginning of the film as a violent smuggler who's ridiculed by Spidey, and at the end donning stupendously large battle armour, the character proves the finest example of how not to introduce characters meant to form part of a larger whole later on, if you want the audience to invest in them. It is made clear in the climax of the film Rhino is the first member of Harry's team of villains meant to destroy Spider-Man, a plot line which is already stated to carry over in the next entry into the series, as well as in the announced Sinister Six spin-off. However, this attempt to foreshadow such future fare backfires on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 as a film on its own. 

 

If you compare the first few trailers with the final product, you'll notice the film feels to be lacking not only many scenes but also entire story threads that would have driven the plot into a very different direction. Scenes between Harry, his father and Peter promised much more intricate relations between the characters than what was ultimately seen on screen. Likewise, characters' scenes were filmed but dropped, including the introduction of Mary Jane, while others were shortened dramatically, like Harry's secretary Felicia Hardy (who fans will know as Spidey's love affair/part time enemy Black Cat) suffered. The undeniable fact is, with multiple foes, a tumultuous love life and relationship with assorted family, plus a continuing search for his roots and the fate of his parents carried over from the predecessor, there was more than enough going on in the plot of the film already without the studio's obvious insistence of setting up future films as well. As a result, few of the many plot lines get their chance to stand out amidst the convoluted whole that now is The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Of course, there's some fine action scenes and shows of superhero spectacle, while the webslinging never looked better. But in most other respects, the film too often feels like coming up short considerably. Arguably, Sony will make more time to craft the upcoming films into a more coherent and consistent whole, as the element of universe building was rushed into this movie's plot while production was already underway. For now however, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has ended up a Spider-Man film that quickly branches off into an advertisement for upcoming Spider-Man films, hurting its own ending, despite the otherwise tragic climax, which under less padded conditions might have made this the emotionally most powerful Spiderfilm as yet. Robbed of its right to exist as a separate entity, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 failed in that regard, nor does it bode well for Spidey's future.

And to make matters worse, some viewers will be treated to a version of the film with end credits containing a scene for the next X-Men film, which causes this movie to feel even more like a commercial for future superhero flicks, even wholly unrelated ones...