Not my finest piece of work, but hey, I'm on vacation so I 'tis not the season to be fully inspired. It's that time of the year to lie in the sun all day and wasting away the hours at your leisure, reading some smashing book or stuff. Which I did, when I wasn't taking country excursions, doing some local shopping or chasing stormy supercells and getting woefully drenched. There wasn't as much sun as I had hoped for, I must admit, but that severe thunderstorm made up for it a bit. At least it wasn't a regularly rainy day, but an exciting reminder of nature's awesome power and a death defying road trip to boot. Yes, this, too, one can experience at the beautiful quiet isle of Texel.
As for the non-issue addressed in my column, against my better judgment I took my new smartphone with me, to keep in touch with whomever I felt I needed to keep in touch with and check my mail more often than was necessary. I spent more time on my phone than I had hoped to, but mostly the slow loading time of Buienradar.nl is to blame for that. That site at least proved a useful tool, considering the erratic weather patterns. I didn't watch any movies on my phone, not even some silly YouTube shorts in some lost hour or two. I did visit Cinema Texel this time. I felt I had too, since my last visit was a year ago and I happen to really like this small but idyllic comfy venue. My movie of choice: Ted 2. Not the best choice, but at least there was a major Jurassic Park reference and the evil, greedy Hasbro toy company was made out to be the bad guy, so that scored points with me. This week's film program wasn't stellar to begin with, though at least the theater proved fortitious enough to skip showing that dreadful Fantastic Four movie (which I already had the sincere displeasure of seeing the week before). A light yarn was the best way to describe the time I had at the movies on this year's visit.
Nevertheless, this trip to Texel made it obvious that no movie can compete with nature's raw power and destructive beauty. And nature proved it is no match for smartphones, since despite almost drowning in torrential rainfall myself, my phone, which I brought with me to capture the stormy event on camera, returned home in better shape than I did. It appears it's kinda waterproof.
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 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.
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...
... 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.
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.
Looks like a fairly solid thriller with a cast to match. Too bad it's already been done - Citizen X, remember? - and thus isn't a particularly original project, even though this time it's based on a book about the historical murders rather than the historical murders themselves. Those ridiculously heavy Russian accents also don't help. Do audiences really need such reminders in dialogue to remember the story is set in Russia? You'd think the set-up, names and uniforms alone would do the trick. Other than that, this film looks like a decent thriller flick. Considering the current strained relationship of most Western countries with Putin's Russia, you cannot help but wonder whether this is an appropriate time to release a film about a psychopath running rampant in the Rodina aided by a corrupt system of bureaucrats defending an ideology that doesn't always have the best interest of its subjects at heart. I can imagine there will be some complaints from Russian citizens about the contents of this film, whether the film proves to be of good quality or not (probably more so in the case of the former, since then it will receive more attention). Since The Interview didn't spark WW III, maybe this will, though that's undoubtedly giving it too much credit in advance.
Once again Marvel leads and the rest follows. Now that the House of Ideas is firmly getting its grasp on the small screen, expanding its Cinematic Universe on telly too, other studios are eager to do the same. And so Fox plans an X-Men series accordingly. I don't mind, as the conventions of television offer a much broader narrative perspective on the vast X-realm with its many hundreds of characters, in a way the movies could only touch upon. Makes you wonder why they haven't tried this before (and I don't mean like the various animated series). Of course, a conservative studio like Fox likely needed someone more innovative to indicate it can be done successfully, which Marvel has now shown with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Since public interest in anything Marvel is at an all-time high, it seems the right time to produce an X-show. In fact, they better hurry before the popularity of the franchise goes into decline, which is an option I don't exclude, now that Channing Tatum is set to take over the reigns from Hugh Jackman as the leading X-protagonist (shifting the focus more from Wolverine to Gambit), a prospect I'm not looking forward to. I do hope there'll be room for a new creative route, rather than copying the style of the movies. The X-universe is a deliciously diverse place (as befits its message of peace and tolerance to those who are different), so it would behoove the series to reflect that fact and explore any X-citing angle imaginable.
Is it me, or is Chris Pratt everywhere these days? There's not a movie project goes by that doesn't at least once features his name attached, or so it seems. Sure, Pratt looks like a really likeable guy and he made a fine Star-Lord. But does that warrant the thought of 'Oh hey, we need a leading man for this project, let's ask Pratt because he's so darn kewl' all the time? Apparently that's the default casting thought going around Hollywood these days. Sure, put Pratt in Jurassic World. Go ahead and stick him in Indiana Jones. Just make sure the rest of those films looks as dashing and charming. As for recasting Harrison Ford, it was only a matter of time. I always imagined Indiana Jones a lot like James Bond. You can have him be played by any number of actors, as long as the movies continue to incite that same level of adventure and excitement as they always do. In Indy's case, I'm not one of those unrealistic and conservative types that sticks to the original ad infinitum, even though he was the most iconic in that role. I'm willing to allow other actors in that persona. But not Shia LaBeouf, please. Better ask Chris Pratt whether he feels up to it. Oh I forgot, they're already doing that...
Okay, so the jokes in this trailer mostly revolve around bodily excrements and random popcultural references, as is usual in Hollywood comedy nowadays. Bear with me (pun, yes). Do I detect a plot that may very well be too intelligent and too philosophical for a film like this? The question of sentience, what makes a human being a human being and the limitations human beings themselves arrogantly set as to what constitutes life that should be allowed to have the same rights as ourselves, that sort of thing. There's some definite 'Measure of a Man' level story opportunities involved here! And of course, none of it will matter much, as it will just prove interspersed between a flatulence joke here and a cameo by the guy who used to be Flash Gordon there. Still, I can't help but give Seth MacFarlane credit for at least trying. I bet 'The Measure of a Man' ranks among his favorite episodes of Trek. And I also bet this movie is gonna be your totally average run-of-the-mill raunchy comedy, the type you've forgotten the day after you watched it.
Unlike this film which, too, is mostly about sex but doesn't touch upon it in a comedic fashion. Madame Bovary is one of the most scandalous works of literature to come out of the 19th-Century. However, for a contemporary audience that watches too much HBO, it'll be hard to make it as impactful as once this story was. Sexual shenanigans outside of holy matrimony are an everyday occurrence in the dramatic arts now and are not likely to shock anyone. So what relevant meaning is there for today's audience? Probably not anything novel. Doesn't stop a decent collection of both seasoned and young actors from practizing their craft in a wonderful fashion, complete with rustic landscape shots and lavish period costumes. That sort of thing at least never gets old. And if the characters decide to ditch said costumes while fooling around in said rustic landscapes, if not shocked or flabbergasted at such audacity, we'll still be intrigued some.
James Franco by comparison is one of those actors who effortlessly seems to switch between raunchy comedies and serious drama. Or between acting and directing, for that matter. Hot off starring in The Interview, he's ready to direct a John Steinbeck novel, dazzling us with his versatility, if we hadn't become used to it already by now. I applaud such diversity, as well as Franco's taste in casting. He seems to have caught quite a few talented names for this latest project of his (and Selena Gomez, too). Even though he's been directing all kinds of stuff for a while now, I haven't yet had the pleasure of checking any of it out. Whether this will just add to that pile of unseen (by me) titles, time will tell. It's not like I ever read a John Steinbeck novel. But you can wake me for a performance by Ed Harris or Bryan Cranston any time (though preferably not when I'm asleep).
Jupiter Ascending is back with a vengeance. We've had zero word on the project since it was postponed a few months back, but it's certainly set to be the big film of February 2015. Which seems an odd time to release such an ambitious and expensive title, but at least it ensures there's not a lot of competition to go up against. In terms of visual effects and atmosphere it seems this is going to be quite a thrilling piece, but I have my doubt about the plot, which marries an element or two from Dune to bits and pieces of The Matrix and of course mixes the epic qualities of Star Wars in as well. Then again, I kinda dig the notion of humanity simply being bred as a resource for an extraterrestrial imperial dynasty's vain pleasures. It doesn't seem to emphasize the moral and existential 'specialness' such Sci-Fi films inherently attribute to our species, usually portraying them as the great wonder of the galaxy. Here, humanity is just a big herd of dumb sheep, ignorant to the bigger picture. Of course, this fairly rebellious notion is sure to be shattered by the character played by Mila Kunis. And speaking of Kunis, I'm not convinced of both her and Channing Tatum's ability in terms of acting to carry such a big blockbuster movie. At least there's a decent cast of supporting characters (Sean Bean, yay!) to make up for it if they fall short.
There's enough pride & prejudice in the Lannister family to be siphoned off by other projects for sure. Game of Thrones has also witnessed its fair share of zombies, too. Any excuse to get Headey and Dance showing off their considerable acting talents, on their own or together, is well worth the effort. Dance should have plenty of time on his hands, now that he's not likely to do much more work on GoT (and boy, will we miss him!). The cast for this movie grows ever more impressive, perhaps more so than its decidedly silly premise deserves. It's a clear sign all these grand actors, who usually deal with heavily dramatic performances, need a break at times, something lighter to keep from going insane. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies may be just what Headey and Dance need, to keep their mind of all the political intrigue, backstabbing and murderous family squabbling they've had to endure in recent years. It'll be great to see them bounce off such frustrations on the mindless hordes of the undead.
Here's another GoT actor who has time to spare for a big genre movie. Considering the series has progressed as far as the books with Littlefinger's particular story line (or Sansa's, to be more precise), I wouldn't be surprised to see he was used only sparingly in the next season. Which gives Gillen time for other things, like playing another villain (come, on, that's what Littlefinger is and you kow it!) in a hugely popular dystopian teen franchise. I have no doubt he'll excel at playing the part of the character called the 'Rat Man', even though, considering the pace with which The Scorch Trials is being produced (the deadline ends in less than a year from now), it seems he has very little time to prepare for the role. Good thing his experience on Game of Thrones comes in handy then.
Oh hey, they made a movie about my lack of a career! And Keira Knightley is playing me. Odd choice, but I'll take it. But seriously (if ever), this movie is just made to reflect on the many millions of people lagging in their lifes, of which I am only one. Hopefully it'll also provide a solution out of this mess that is my existence, other than the generic resolves of embracing adulthood and responsibility. Which wouldn't help me any further, as I do believe at least the latter element is perfectly honed in my case. But from the trailer it at least appears as if I would leave the theater in a cheerful mood, as the sizzling levels of feel-good juice are dripping off my computer screen when it's playing this preview of Laggies. Whether the movie will have the same effect, or whether I'm in for a painful confrontation with the hard, merciless truths of life remains to be seen. It's starring Keira Knightley, so the latter scenario seems unlikely.
More actors in for a change of pace and genre. These days, Liam Neeson is either starring in a slick but forgettable action thriller, or a comedy cannibalizing on his persona of a slick (and forgettable?) action thriller star. The latter was the case in Seth MacFarlane's previous zany comedy, A Million Ways to Die in the West, in which Neeson made quite the badass desperado. Seems both parties enjoyed their collaboration well enough to go at it again, though one of them is resorting to doing voice work only again (and it's not Neeson). Freeman is still wandering around completely at a loss as to providing any sensible exposition of what exactly went down in the unintelligible Lucy, and apparently hopes to do a better job explaining the still somewhat fuzzy science behind a living teddy bear. Probably easier to do than providing the many answers that come with a woman unlocking her mind to the max and turning into everything there is. Or stuff. I dunno. And neither did Freeman. No freckle added to his face for a job well done on that one, that's for sure.
Well, this looks simply adorable. And also quite un-Marvel for what is in essence still a Marvel movie. The subject matter obviously lends itself better to a regular Disney animated film, or so this catchy trailer would suggest. It does make for a less complicated Marvel movie that refrains from tieing into other Marvel movies for a change, diversifying the Marvel properties under Disney's control. Yet it remains faithful to the source material in keeping the (fictional) Japanese type of setting, though the characters don't seem all that South-East Asian, except for the robot himself which seems to come straight out of a Studio Ghibli film. This movie seems to do a great job of marrying the younger side of Marvel to the traditional Disney style, yet ensuring there's enough to enjoy for the adults in a way more reminiscent of Pixar. But what's up with keeping this one in the fridge for Dutch theaters for four months? That's just asking people - not me, I must say - to start downloading illegally! I thought Disney had learned their lesson on Up. Though waiting four months instead of six admittedly is a kind of progress.
In both cases we get a fascinating glimpse of how a studio plans its strategy for much anticipated blockbuster movies it has high hopes for (and in both cases I daresay the audience does too, though in one case more deservedly so than in the other). So Universal doesn't own the rights to Ted 2, apparently. No surprise really if you look at the Ted credits (on IMDb for example) and see that 'Universal presents' it only, which strongly hints at this major merely distributing (and marketing) the film which by itself was produced by a smaller company. This sort of thing happens all the time in the studio system. Big studios these days are mostly engaged in distribution and promotion of other studios' films rather than paying for production themselves. Not to say that distribution and promotion doesn't carry a risk financially too, considering how much money is being spend in those two departments today. If a movie flops, everyone loses money. Ted certainly didn't flop though, not by a longshot! It was quite surprisingly a runaway hit, earning over ten times as much as it cost (or at least, as much as its production cost: who's to say how much money was involved creating audience awareness?). Ted 2 will likely fare about as well if not better. So even though a final deal has not yet been struck between Universal and MRC, I would venture a guess the current release date won't change at all and the production is not in any jeopardy, despite what my overly sensational headline seemed to indicate (hey, I need attention just like every other human being!). In fact, Universal may have been attempting to force the issue by stating a release date in advance, so MRC can't allow itelf to lose face by not living up to this deadline (kind of a mean tactic, but nothing studios haven't done before). And why wouldn't the smaller company want to live up to it, considering how much money Ted 2 is likely to earn it and Uni both? Like any Hollywood studio would ever say no to the prospect of more precious shiny money!
As for Supes and Bats, it was known Batman vs. Superman wasn't a definitive title, just a temporary one. A temporary one that caught on though, as both fans and movie websites across the globe have embraced it vigorously. Nevertheless, considering this film is a sequel to Man of Steel (which also serves as a new set-up for the Caped Crusader and a possible new sub-franchise of his own), it's logical studio Warner Bros. would want to take advantage of the new and popular Man of Steel brand name, as opposed to the maybe too classic Superman name, by emphasizing the connection between that film and this one via the title. Of course, this title must also allow for room for the Batman character (whatever his exact moniker this time around), but if you don't use the term 'Superman' (as Man of Steel tried so hard to avoid for over two hours), why would you use 'Batman'? So you come up with more subtle titles, like this cascade of concocted credits illustrates, after they'd been exposed by alleged "secret" domain name registering. Like there's any room for secrets on the Internet... I wouldn't be surprised if Warner allowed these names to leak on purpose just to continue fueling the movie's hype, a process which will not conclude right up till the actual release of the piece. I'm not particularly fond of any of these proposed titles, I must admit. There's just something catchy and iconic about the title of 'Batman vs. Superman'. It says it all, doesn't it? Or are we being deceived, and will this movie not feature the two of them battling it out at all? Is it possible there's more truth to these Justice League rumours that are flying around the web than we thought there was, and other tentpole DC characters, like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, will also be of major importance? So many questions, but for now all of them are still being outstaged by the biggest one of them all: Batffleck, yay or nay?
