Today's News: a bit of everything

This week's crop of news, courtesy of yours truly and the Internet:

Nieuwe trailer Ted 2

Little is added to what we already knew of this film's plot, but a big can of raunchy jokes has been opened here. Makes you wonder how much more of this we're in for when the actual movie hits theaters, since all manner of bodily fluids and sexual positions have been adressed in this three minute red band trailer alone. One thing this preview makes amply clear is that we shouldn't expect too much from the plot; as if we did. Yes, it's pretty intriguing from a philosophical view point, basically being a retelling of that classic episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Measure of a Man. To what extent does artificial intelligence qualify as 'life'? And what are its rights under the law as dictated by man? All wildly fascinating stuff, make no mistake. But hey, we're talking about a live teddy bear in this case, so forget about any of it sticking for very long. It's not meant to be taken seriously by nobody. The only sticky stuff present in Ted 2, as overtly indicated by this trailer, will be sperm and alcohol.

Butterfield favoriet voor Spider-Man

Butterfield is as good a choice for a younger Peter Parker as any, to my mind. His name certainly sticks out from the others on the shortlist, him having had the most big screen production experience and critical accolades that come with it. That said, do we want a younger Peter Parker? This is Spider-Man after all, not Spider-Boy. True, but in most every incarnation of the character, he started out at high school. He also did in both the Raimi trilogy and the recent Amazing Spider-Man reboots, but in both cases, the actor that portrayed the wallcrawler definitely felt older than the character was supposed to be (since in both cases, he was). So maybe it's about time we let the younger generation try its had at webslinging. No kids on the current Avengers slate, so let's diversify a bit and add one. It's sticking close to the Ultimate Universe the Marvel Studios movies have a knack of imitating. It might make the impact of the upcoming events in Captain America: Civil War hit home harder. Restricting superhero activity is one thing for adult superhumans, but what about teenagers? Requiring them to register their powers to the government, thus limiting their life options from an early age, does feel rather harsh. Hopefully a teenage Spider-Man played by an actual teenager does add some such intriguing new layers of superhero logistics and laws, if played right. And I'm fairly confidant Butterfield can play it right.

Nieuwe posters Fantastic Four

I'm still not convinced these four are right for their respective parts, though. And from the buzz online, it appears I'm not alone in that hesitation. So far the responses to the trailers and other promotional material has predominantly been on the negative side. Maybe it has something to do with Marvel's apparent campaign of smearing the quartet's name because Marvel Studios doesn't own the rights to the franchise anymore. That would be quite cynical and detestable, considering the FF's illustrious history at Marvel since 1963. However, I haven't followed most of the recent FF stories, so I don't know if rumours are true. I just know what I see, and I see these trailers and I'm simply not feeling overly excited by them. Other than the lack of chemistry of the actors and the characters I'm fearful of (which hasn't been proven yet), I can't quite put my finger on it. The actors are fine in their own right, and I know from readint the comics there's plenty to like about the characters in general. Maybe it's the director? Rumours again are not kind. Josh Trank apparently isn't the most easy of directors to work with. Which forms a decent segue to...

Trank stopt met Star Wars

... this bit of news. No more Star Wars for Trank. Much like Gareth Edwards and Rian Johnson, he seemed like a fine choice. A talented young upstart, fresh from his first critical and commercial success. And therein no doubt lies the problem, as other than Chronicle, Trank has nothing to his name just yet. Sure, he directed a likable indie superhero flick, but handling a big blockbuster movie, especially one that comes with high expectations and related pressure, is another thing entirely. Word is things didn't go so smoothly on the set of Fantastic Four. So that might have made the right folks at Disney/Lucasfilm a tad nervous. You're not giving Star Wars to someone who can't even emotionally handle a small property like FF. Especially when there's ample time to find a successor. So the second entry in the Star Wars Anthology series is now in need of a new director. But what about Fantastic Four 2? Fox has already been planning that sequel for some time, with Trank slated to direct it. There's no word yet on whether Fox and Trank will part ways. Which again makes you wonder how much of these rumours are true. A grain of salt is a good thing to take with all this stuff for sure. The Internet may be playing Jedi mind tricks on us.

Eerste teaser Fifty Shades Darker

And here's a mind trick for the members of the female audience who're into this sort of thing. A thirty second tease of Jamie Dornan putting on a tux and a silly mask, followed by a moaning sound. Not very subtle but it will do the trick. Less than two years to go until the release! Make sure to note it in your agendas and plan your lives accordingly, ladies! Even though nobody will honestly accuse Fifty Shades of Grey of being a good film, I'm sure the womenfolk will gobble up the sequel vigorously. But hey, men do the same with "their" franchises like Fast and Furious and all those darn superhero movies, so let's not get overly sexist here. Just remember, guys: in about three years time this will all have blown over and we can resume the everyday course of life as it nothing happened. It's not like anybody is talking about the Twilight movies and books anymore these days. Thankfully.

Today's News: A threesome of trailers

Trailer! Trailer! Anyone want a trailer?

Tweede teaser Star Wars: The Force Awakens

With every little bit of info released, the hype for this film is building. Though so far scepticism reigned supreme in my case, I cannot help but now feel a rising level of optimism as well, against my better judgment. There's only so much iconic imagery of the original Star Wars movies against the backdrop of an intriguing new setting you can give a guy before he breaks. That shot of the downed Star Destroyer just looked too cool to ignore. The first teaser lacked such sweeping images, but now that the release date is approaching, successively splendid shots will be revealed. Still, I'm not too high on some other old cards being played. An aged Han Solo doesn't get me nearly as excited, even though I love(d?) the character. It's just exemplary of the rehasing of old glory that's currently driving Hollywood, usually to lackluster results. Whether it will work for Star Wars is very much the question. At least Ford is still a capable actor we can take serious, but what of the likes of Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill, who've made a career making fun - lovingly, but still - of their characters of old? That's the good thing about Chewbacca or R2-D2, they don't really rely on the people inside them to convince us. So for the moment, I revel more in the visual effects than in the acting, but that's a Star Wars staple anyway. The old stuff aside, what to make of the elements new to the Star Wars series? A mysterious chrome Stormtrooper, a beach ball Droid, novel characters and locations we need to learn to love (or not)... There's still plenty that can go wrong, but I can't help but feel there are definitely things going right.

Eerste trailer Scream: The TV Series

You gotta admit, this trailer is quick to make the statement most people will when they see it: 'you can't do a slasher as a TV series'. Doesn't stop this show from trying though. Being selfreflexive is of course one of the trademarks of the Scream series of movies, so it's good see this quality wasn't lost on the producers. But it's going to take spectators a little more than that to convince them to bother to watch this show. In all other respects, it doesn't seem to have much going for it, at least nothing the movies didn't show. Teens, murders, humour, that sort of thing. On the big screen, it worked well enough to spawn three sequels over the years, but on a TV show, even for a single season, you risk getting repetitive pretty darn soon. Unless the series still has cards to play this trailer doesn't reveal. Even if it does, as we are currently living in the Golden Age of Television, we have plenty of excellent programs to pick from, and I doubt many would opt for a slasher series based on a worn out series of movies. Unless it's raining very often and hard outside on those dreary afternoons.

Nieuwe teaser trailer Ant-Man

Posted above is the actual trailer for Marvel's latest flick, rather than the teaser mentioned in my article. At the moment of posting, I didn't take the different time zones State side into account, so the full trailer wasn't released the next day, but rather a few hours later, making my bit of news redundant even sooner than I had anticipated. But then, redundancy is the key term for teasers of trailers anyway. Other than the true Internet nerds who will end up seeing the movie in theaters anyway, nobody will really bother to watch such teasers, certainly not the paying "general audience" as it has come to be known as. In my mind, there really is little point to crafting trailers into events of their own in this manner, as trailers are a means to an end rather than the end itself, which is the final film. Where will this madness end? Teasers for teasers for teasers for trailers for movies? I'm making a stand to put a stop to this. Give me a teaser, then a trailer or three and then release the damn film. Release a bunch TV spots too, if needs be, but nothing more in the audiovisual department. As for this full lenth trailer for Ant-Man, as is the case for Star Wars I'm progressively liking what I see. It's always a hard blow when one of your favorite directors - Edgar Wright, in this scenario - departs a project, but in this case, the successor took a hint or two in terms of humour, resulting in at least one hilarious Wrightian gag (you'll know it when you see it). Hopefully the final film will echo more Wright, though I wouldn't expect the new director to ignore his own personality entirely, that would be unfair to him. And even if there's little more Wright to discern, it's a Marvel film, how bad can it be? *cough*IronMan3*cough*

Today's News: we interrupt this program to bring you something far more interesting

I've been real busy this past week, so posting news took a bit of a hit. There was plenty going round, but all I got was this:

Teaser True Detective Seizoen 2 online

Thankfully HBO provided a plot synopsis, since there isn't much of a story to discern in this teaser. It's basically a rapid succession of shots of faces. But some very intriguing faces, I'll admit. Colin Farrell certainly looks every bit as corrupt a cop as you can imagine, though that may be saying more about the sterotypical look of corrupt law enforcers in television. Can Vince Vaughn finally rid himself of the B-comedy stigma he has gained over the last decades? Taylor Kitsch still needs to make most audiences forget about his flop John Carter, which I personally liked a lot, but in that regard I place myself into a distinct minority. This cast is less of a safe bet than the likes of Season 1's ensemble, which proved spot on in every regard. But then, this show isn't playing it safe on most other levels. A totally different story line each year, with a whole new cast and new directors? That's not the usual way television gets produced, nor how audience loyalty is instilled. It worked well enough on the acclaimed first season, but making viewers wait twice as long for the second season and hope they'll accept the sweeping changes is quite a risk. In most regards, this isn't one show at all, it's a steady collection of mini-series in the same narrative style and genre under the same titular umbrella. For as the released synopsis makes all too clear, the more things change, the more they stay the same. A fixed number of protagonists stars in a story about the wheelings and dealings in the ever ongoing conflict between the underworld and the justice department, where the latter isn't portrayed in too flattering a light. No serial killers this time, but mobster battles instead. Other than that, the formula persists. And hopefully so will the quality, since the first season left some pretty big boots to fill.

Damon en Affleck produceren Incorporated

A movie about the ever more deeply embedded evils of multinational corporations, produced by two acting big shots in the giant corporate Hollywood machine? That's ironic to say the least. But then, there's a lot of messages depicted in the movies that from any executive's viewpoint are only relayed with the goal of making money. Just look at Avatar and its promotion of environmental awareness and techno-skepticism, made with the very latest technology available. This is commonplace in Hollywood. Left and liberal on the outside, the executives running Hollywood are nothing like the words their factory of dreams opts to spread. But if you want your message to reach a global audience, you have to sell some pieces of your soul to the devil. And so the story about a world run by corporations and the struggle of the individual to free himself of their grasp is presented by an industry of Big Money. Will that affect the message hitting the right chords? Not neccessarily. Stronger j'accuses than this have come out of Hollywood over the years. Will it affect the quality? It's Hollywood, when is the last time you saw a decent movie with an urgent message on the disturbing state of the world and the ever increasing loss of self? It's opium for the masses, it is! It's keeping us dumb and contented and without the desire of expression by delivering mindnumbing dreck that suggests an intelligent message but designed to keep us from rising up against the system, and...

...the first four episodes Game of Thrones Season 5 have leaked...

Excuse me for a few hours. Hold that thought, I'll post the rest of last week's news when I've had my fix of Thrones. I need my fix, I can't live without it. And now my watch begins...

At least television keeps hoi polloi from rebellion by delivering quality goods. Dragons and titties and incest and such, you know. The fun bits of life.

Today's News: spin-off, remake and sequel trailers galore

Catching up on the news of the past week(s), here's a bunch of trailers for y'all.

Teaser Bondfilm Spectre online

Lots'o tease indeed. No big action showing Bond what he does best (bedding ladies, recklessly driving vehicles and violently offing baddies), just setting the tone and atmosphere and providing hints at the bigger plot without offering explicit explanations as to the how and why. If this teaser was a summary of the final product (unlikely, but you never know), you'd definitely know Sam Mendes returned to the director's chair, after the equally introvert and slower paced (but all the same very good) Skyfall. Nevertheless, the sense of an upcoming big confrontation is felt throughout this preview. British Intelligence up against a criminal rival of equal strength and proportions led by the always infectiously nefarious Christoph Waltz, there's gotta be blood. More major characters up for the block then? I doubt that, as most of them have just been introduced in the previous installment. There's definitely a side character or two eligible for being sacrificed for some emotional conflict. Or maybe Mendes will surprise us all again and kill off Bond himself. So the studio can move on with Idris Elba in Daniel Craig's place, seeing as those perpetual rumours circling the web just won't die. After all, dead or not, James Bond always returns, in whatever guise.

Nieuwe trailer Mad Max: Fury Road

The same can be said for Max Rockatansky. Though he definitely returns less often than 007, as he's now at four films in 36 years as opposed to 24 in 52 years. But in many ways, this franchise is very similar to the James Bond movies. You've got a tenacious, lethal and handsome protagonist that doesn't necessarily have to be played by one single actor, stuck in a world full of ever ongoing violent political intrigue (just over cruder resources, like water and fuel) providing explosive action with gun fights and car chases and what have you. And he, too, occasionally gets laid (just not nearly as frequently). The new trailer again makes Fury Road appear like an epic film, though finally a bit more plot is added to the many fabulous shots of chase and fight scenes in beautiful desert vistas. That plot does bear a bit of a resemblance to The Road Warrior, it's hard to deny. But that was kinda to be expected. After all, reintroducing the character and his environment with a new main star after 25 years does lean towards the makings of a reboot. So story wise, I don't expect too many surprises on a narrative level. But hey, it beats a fullblown remake. At least enough variation is offered to make the movie feel fresh and new enough for the fans as well. I just hope the same can be said for the two sequels Mr. Hardy already signed up for. I've already seen him do the Thunderdome thing - you know the drill; two men enter, one man leaves - with Batman, after all.

Nieuwe trailer Poltergeist

This appears less fresh and new. But this of course is a total remake. Of a fairly classic genre film that has since spawned its fair share of inspirations, sequels and rip-offs. Which begs the question what this new Poltergeist movie has to often, other than its recognizable franchise name which the studio no doubt hopes will be enough to convince audiences to pay for it in theatres. Going by this trailer, I'll skip this remake. I just don't see anything worth my while that I haven't seen before. The plot of a family being haunted by ghosts up to no good has scared itself to death at this point. There have been good variations on the theme (The Conjuring springs to mind as the most recent example), but a much larger number of shitty versions plagues the horror genre. I'm surprised to see good actors like Sam Rockwell and Jared Harris jumping on board of this remake though. Were they in need of money, did they have time on their hands, or is there just more to this remake than meets the eye? I don't know, and I'm not likely to find out upon this film's release. I don't usually dabble in horror remakes, I find the whole concept just too scary.

Titel tweede Walking Dead serie onthuld

Eerste teaser Fear the Walking Dead

Here's another scary thing, a second Walking Dead series. First and foremost, it must be said that I love the currently running show. It's utterly compelling television exploring the human condition under the toughest of circumstances, rife with all manner of grizzly ghouls out for human flesh and exciting action scenes to match. But what is the need for a second show? I can only imagine it offering more of the same concept. The only thing that makes it stand out against the original show is the time frame, which explores the infection from the get-go. And I'm not sure whether I'm too keen on the revelation of that mystery, as it proved simply irrelevant in the current series. We really don't need to know why the world has gone to hell, as The Walking Dead is all about showing how people react to that fact of life (or better, death). As far as I'm concerned, the cause of the infection can remain a mystery indefinitely, we're simply not encouraged to want to know, plus its revelation wouldn't add to the story, more likely just take away from it. Fans can come up with all manner of funky theories as to the how and why of the situation, but when it has aired on theories, that's that over with. Other than that, Fear the Walking Dead (I do kinda like that title) is likely to follow an all too similar scenario of plot lines as its concurrent show features. Which means it will be fun and thrilling to watch at best, just not nearly as inspired or innovative. But maybe I'm just entirely wrong and the show proves as catchy and exciting as its predecessor. After all, AMC pulled the same stunt with Breaking Bad, and I hear Better Call Saul turned out to withstand most initial skepticism. Here's to hoping...

It's finally happening!! Jurassic World is coming...

Breaking news, as far as I'm concerned. I only had to wait 13 years for new JP footage after all...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158089/eerste_teaser_jurassic_world?cache=false

Normally I tend to look at teasers and trailers with a more dispassionate, objective viewpoint. In this case, I simply can't. I can only hope my faith in director Colin Trevorrow is not misplaced. He's still inexperienced, as this is his first Hollywood movie. But from the looks of things, he's a fan too. And this little teaser sure is for the fans. Thanks, Universal Pictures!

Now if only the toys look half as promising. The first Lego Jurassic World dinosaur sure looks sweet:

2015 is gonna be a year to remember...

Today's Triple News: pure evil, corrupting the law and Inhuman

To boldly post news that no one has posted before (except on other movie sites):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156865/ed_harris_gecast_in_hbos_westworld

Westworld's cast keeps growing ever more impressive. That is to be expected, as talent draws talent and when you've got Sir Anthony Hopkins on your cast list you can get basically everyone. Ed Harris for example. Good choice. He's had experience in both westerns and Sci-Fi, and has played major villains before, so why not combine the three for him? I am worried about this 'Man in Black' character, who's supposed to be the definition of utter villainy. Aside from the fact that I don't recognize such a character decision from the original Michael Crichton movie, I know this exact same concept didn't pan out so good on another J.J. Abrams produced TV show, which 'lost' its quality the moment this aspect started to dominate the series. Westworld does deal with the philosophical rhetoric of good and evil in distinguishing artificial morality from our own and reflect our all too human flaws in the process, but why make it so literally black and white by adding a purely evil character into the mix? And what part does he play narratively? If he's dressed in black, my first bet would be the infamous Gunslinger (Harris does look a bit like Yul Brynner after all). But he's not intended to be purely evil; he's just driven by his original programming after shortcircuiting, doing what he was designed to do (shooting folks), but without the convenient security of an off-switch. Or will this series maybe also delve with the poor sequel Futureworld, in which there was a silly sinister ploy of replacing world leaders with robotic replicas? Could this Man in Black be behind a similar scheme? Many questions abound, but the quality of acting won't be in dispute. It's the writing we may have to worry about. Still human work, you can't hire robots for that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156864/eerste_teaser_better_call_saul

Ten seconds of footage, that's what I call teasing. And we learn nothing new about plot or characters from this clip. Basically, it only confirms Saul Goodman is once again played by the impeccable Bob Odenkirk, who perfectly balances charming and conniving for the part. So far so good. Reading the basic plot description makes me a little hesitant though. There's more than just a few major parallels between this series and its glorious parent, Breaking Bad. Both follow the rise of small-time everymen who turn their respective talents into a way to make money, but find their humanity degraded in the process, hurting those around them for personal gain. And both shows co-star Jonathan Banks. Big difference is there's no clock ticking here, as the main character isn't dying. In fact, knowing he won't risk kicking the bucket before long (or better yet, at all) might also form an obstacle for being sucked into this story as much as we were into its predecessor. However, it's too soon to let cynicism run rampant and state Vince Gilligan is just repeating the success of Breaking Bad by merely tweaking its premise for Better Call Saul. I bet he has a few surprises in store for us yet. And if he doesn't, I won't go so far as to sue him for not living up to my expectations.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156880/maakt_marvel_inhumans

Seems Guardians of the Galaxy hit the right accords in terms of connecting with the audience, considering its swift and immense success. No wonder Marvel seeks to expand the cosmic part of the comic book universe for expanding its cinematic equivalent. Inhumans might work out just right for them. It's a whole other thing from the merry, rogueish Guardians, these ancient super powered Terran outcasts opting for self-imposed exile from their home planet in order to keep them from butting heads with humanity which would lead to great loss of life on both sides. It's basically 'X-Men on the moon', which is a good thing for Marvel as they're not allowed to introduce the term 'mutant' due to potential copyright infringement. Inhumans is the next best thing, different enough from similar premises. It's a more serious, darker corner of the Marvel universe though, so that might not sit well with the folks who were drawn in by Guardians. Or it will, just because of its differences. Personally, I was never a big fan of the Inhumans, they're a little too ethereal and devoid of humour for my taste. Their long history and ties with both terrestrial and extraterrestrial life seems hard to tell in a two-hour movie in a way that makes you really care about their plight. We're gonna have to wait and see whether Marvel can overcome such hindrances and make Inhumans work a good as they did the Guardians.

Today's News times five

Anyone care for a bit of news? Even though some of it is days old by now...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156322/teaser_hunger_games_mockingjay_online

I like this sort of teaser. The kind that could easily have been an actual part of the movie proper - maybe it still will be - and expends on the story as a whole, though it can as easily be missed (in defiance of the contemporary tendency of viral marketing campaigns to divulge certain plot information that would have been better served appearing in the film itself where the addressed matter is irritatingly left open (I'm looking at you, X-Men: Days of Future Past!)). Of course it works only for those who have seen the previous two installments of the saga, as those who have not can only wonder what all this is about, nor do I think this theaser convincing enough to tempt them into seeing the first two films pronto. Like all teasers, it serves to forewarn the imminent arrival of the film in question into theaters, while this one also hints up front at the fate of poor Peeta Mellark now that the sinister President Snow has his hands on him. The video shows us what we already knew (if we indeed witnessed the previous films), that the Capitol of Panem will not take kindly to rebellion. There's been enough Games, now it's time for war, as this intimidating speech makes perfectly clear. Unless those insubordinate districts get in line before their insolence rains destruction down upon them. Fat chance.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156323/predator_krijgt_reboot

This news has already seen an update since I posted it, in which Shane Black stated the new Predator movie would not actually be a reboot, but more of a soft sequel. In many ways, it doesn't really matter much, considering the differences between both terms are negligible. As the sequels Predator 2 and Predators, as well as the occurrences of the violent trophy collectors from outer space in the duo of Alien vs Predator spin-offs, already showed, there's only so much you can do story wise with extraterrestrials hunting humans for sport. Since it would have been unlikely this new movie would follow the events of the first movie directly, a reboot seemed the better choice, reintroducing the Predators as they go about their usual gory business, but not hunting the same people twice (though considering Arnold Schwarzenegger's interest in repeating past successes, he might very well be up for anouther round). It's pretty much a given a 'soft sequel' will manage the same type of story. In this day and age of post-postmodern hyperintertextuality, no doubt both ways would have contained their fair share of references to past installments (and probably dragged the Xenomorphs into this mess for a gag or two as well). Whatever you call it, it's the same thing. I do like the irresistable irony that the guy who, as an actor, was the first to get mauled on-screen (though not as explicitly as some of the victims that followed in his footsteps) by one of the murderous creatures in the very first movie from 1987, now is chosen as the director to breath new life into the franchise. I do hope that goes to show his heart is in it and he means to make this a kick-ass horror/action gorefest of a thrill hunt, like the franchise started out to be. So far his track record as a director isn't enough to convince me of his capabilities in that department. I for one thought Iron Man 3 was the most disappointing Marvel Studios' flick thus far. But I'm not ready to hang him high in a jungle three just for daring to tackle Predator for that. Unlike the evil alien did himself back in '87.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156317/eerste_trailer_oorlogsfilm_fury

A rather standard trailer for what appears to be a rather commonplace WW II movie. After all the initial fuss about this movie and Brad Pitt's lead role in it, I was expecting something more than this fairly basic war drama. All the usual ingredients are there: an isolated group of men on a dangerous, seemingly hopeless mission, a battle hardened, gruff commander who cares first and foremost about the troops under his command, a rookie soldier's first time into battle and the emotional distress that comes with this initiation into manhood, tension amongst the camaraderie when faced with increasingly insurmountable odds, etc. I don't see any stand-out elements convincing me of the need to go see this movie. Brad Pitt alone doesn't cut it for me. I already saw him fighting WW II the American way in Inglourious Basterds: another thing entirely of course, which was also what made it so memorable compared to more typical movies like this one. Of course, it's only a trailer, and trailers can be deceptive to say the least (like the trailer for, again, Inglourious Basterds, which made the movie look like something it ended up not being for the better part). There's no particular appealing names in the rest of the cast, while Shia LaBeouf's presence serves more as a deterrent from watching this film for me. Fury doesn't look bad per se, it just doesn't look furiously good.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156374/eerste_trailer_dracula_untold

Another trailer which doesn't look as good as it ought to be is this debut preview of Dracula Untold. A fairly good cast and a somewhat intriguing, though hardly novel, plot notwithstanding, this trailer screams 'B-movie' all over. The cheap Gothic imagery and the poorly executed effects work doesn't bode well for the Prince of Darkness' origin story as told by total newcomer Gary Shore. Coupled with the fact this movie will open, in IMAX nonetheless, in a month plagued by the absence of attractive features (IMAX or otherwise) in theaters, its themes cannot help but remind me of the dismal action adventure flick I, Frankenstein earlier this year. It's regrettable IMAX feels the need to turn to visually unimpressive substandard budget fare that is not suited to the excessively big screen experience it boasts, to ensure there's always some title available in the format, even in slow seasons. The moody posters gave me hopes for this movie, but the trailer takes some away. As said before, trailers are no fair indication of the completed movie viewing experience, especially when heavy FX work is involved. Undoubtedly some of the shots seen in this preview remain to be polished before the film's release, even though it's not produced on the most stellar of budgets. But aside from the visuals, there's still a thing or two to be said against this film based on what this trailer show us. Or is that indeed Charles Dance playing the demonic character? That would sure help pull me in a bit more!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156372/releasedatum_pacific_rim_2_bekend

If Guillermo del Toro says he wants to make a movie, it gets made. Even though it's a sequel to a not all that profitable predecessor. It happened on Hellboy - thankfully, as Hellboy II was a heck of a lot more awesome than the already not so bad first installment - and it seems history is repeating itself on Pacific Rim. The fact overseas box office turned out far more lucrative than the disappointing domestic sums the movie garnered sure helped the studio suits to greenlight a sequel. I don't mind, as I like Del Toro - a nerd turned director is always something that agrees with me - and I generally like his movies, some more than others obviously, but so far he hasn't made a single one that I consider to be bad. Pacific Rim sure sat well with me as the ultimate hommage to the Japanese Kaiju genre, which outdid nigh all of the entries the Japanese themselves made into that phenomenon. Monsters are my forte, giant or otherwise, so another round between titanic creatures and ditto robots sounds neat enough. Can't say it's particularly inspired, but an hommage doesn't have to be. Though I would welcome something new in a second film, but I'm sure Del Toro can come up with something before the 2017 deadline that suits my desires for giant monster/robot mash-ups.