Today's Review: Alias Maria

The number of reviews written for FilmTotaal still grows:

Alias Maria - recensie

Director José Luis Rugeles has nothing but the best intentions with Alias Maria, but he tries a little too hard to show the full horror of being a young girl growing up in the FARC guerrilla movement. Of course there's little joy to be had and mostly despair to feel, but ninety minutes of watching nothing but misery without offering the tiniest shred of hope makes the audience equally miserable. We can do nothing but sit back and cry injustice about the horrors inflicted upon both women and children in the Colombian jungle, so we end up numb to the entire issue by the time the credits start rolling.

Part of our inability to feel for the plight of Maria, the young female protagonist who ends up pregnant in a society where babies are forbidden save for those of the man in charge, is first time actress' Karen Torres own inability to properly emote. It's laudable Rugeles opted for realism by using people who have lived through some of the same ordeals as their characters, but in terms of acting, it simply backfires. Torres' continuing stoic gaze and the few lines bestowed on her character throughout the piece, don't aid us in rooting for her or her unborn child. Like ourselves when watching this film, she simply undergoes everything that happens with little hope of changing her situation for the better. She and the other FARC guerrillas are like the ants Rugeles highlights throughout the piece: little soldiers with no discernible will of their own who fight and die for the only thing they know. In what few moments of reflecting upon their life Rugeles offers Maria and her fellow drones, contemplating a life outside the terrorist movement never seems to be considered a realistic option.

And their lives doesn't count for much as it is. Children are not allowed to be children here. If they can carry a gun, they are soldiers and so they fight. Same rules apply to them as to their older brothers/sisters in arms. Whoever refuses is shot on the spot, no matter their age. Needless to say, we witness quite a lot of death in Alias Maria. Rugeles doesn't go for excessive gore and violence, but there's still a few moments that show or at least suggest enough to make our stomachs turn. Children are obviously not spared. You'd think an organization that sees its losses mount on a daily basis would be happy with whatever new recruits babies eventually offer. But that's not the case, as baby noise proves to great a risk, even in the dense jungle. Rugeles' point that the FARC has no future, and nor do those who grow up in it, is hammered home quite adequately for his purposes, but at the end, we have simply grown as tired of all the suffering as Maria must be. But lucky us, we can simply leave all her misery behind us and go home...

Today's veritable cascade of news

 

So much news, so little time to comment on it all here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156573/lionsgate_maakt_film_over_boston_marathon_aanslag

A typical post 9/11 tale of inspirational courage and the folly of terrorism, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with that, just a fairly predictable event. We've seen movies like these before, and we'll witness them again after each attack on everyday America. I must say, they wasted no time on this one. The Boston Marathon bombing occurred just over a year ago and a movie is already in the works. Can you imagine how quickly the novel it was based on was written and released. By comparison, movies dealing with 9/11 took a lot longer to arrive in theaters, with the best known examples, United 93 and World Trade Center, both being released in 2006. That's a five year gap right there. No offense to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, but 9/11 was naturally a much more shocking and emotionally costly experience for the majority of the American population. Maybe Americans have since gotten used to this sort of thing - which nobody should, of course - and thus need less time to personally deal with the shock of the aftermath of such atrocities. Or maybe Hollywood just takes less time to capitalize on homeland terrorist attacks. For no matter how respectfully and sensitively they handle the subject matter, it's honestly not all about spreading the word of hope when movies like these get made. Money remains ever an objective.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156575/brochure_jurassic_world_onthult_nieuw_park

Here I go again, spoiling a much anticipated movie for myself by posting new news about it online. Comes with the territory, I won't deny. I'd be pretty lousy at my job as a news editor (voluntary though it may be) if I skipped out on certain bits of news just because I don't want to know about them myself. Especially if they seemingly give away much of the plot of a movie many are anxious to see. Which appears to be just what this bit of marketing for Jurassic World is doing. You've got a list of dinosaurs that could - though not necessarily will - make an appearance, as well as various locations and set-ups that will be seen throughout the movie as the prehistoric inmates chase their human snacks around. And you have the final confirmation of Isla Nublar as the place where it all goes down, as such firmly establishing a link to the first Jurassic Park movie. It's now up to the fans to speculate what areas and species will and won't make it into the final product. I think it's safe to say Metriacanthosaurus won't make an appearance... again, as its existence was also hinted at in the original 1993 movie when Nedry stole its embryo: I'd say this is just a neat little nod to the original film on the writers' part. Similarly, Baryonyx and Suchomimus look so much alike, at least one of them won't make the cut (or maybe both, as each of them also looks a lot like JP III's Spinosaurus). The only species nobody can deny will be used in the final film is Mosasaurus, as the brochure also reveals it has its own underwater observatory, which is just too cool a notion not to make use of. Plus, marine reptiles is something none of the previous movies utilized, so it would make for an action scene the like of which has not been seen before. Of course you can complain about the logistics of acquiring Mosasaur DNA, which I won't (as I know a way they could have gotten hold of that, do you?). Compared to this Jurassic World Lagoon, it's likely we won't be seeing the Aviary, as that concept was already made use of in Jurassic Park III, which would make it repetitive in this scenario. This also makes it less likely we'll be seeing either Pteranodon or Dimorphodon. What we will be seeing is T-Rex, that's a given. Maybe eating rich tourists on the 18-hole golf course, that might be fun. For everything this brochure spoils about the movie, there's an equal amount of information that is left out. For one thing, the genetically enhanced theme park monster super predator - the 'Diabolus Rex', as it was called in previous rumours - discussed by director Colin Trevorrow on earlier occasions is not mentioned here. It's likely they try to keep that a secret for as long as they can, at least to those who have missed the director's notes of two months past. And where's our good ol' pals the Velociraptors in all this?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156583/eerste_fotos_ultron_voor_avengers_2

And there's another spoiler for you: the look of the titular villain in the second Avengers installment. Though, if you're a fan of the Marvel comics, it is not that much of a spoiler, as the cinematic Ultron apparently doesn't differ much from the one seen on paper since 1968. More surface detail has been added, making him kinda look like a Michael Bay Decepticon, though most anthropomorphic killer robots tend to look like that, but otherwise he appears to be similar in shape and size to his comic counterpart. Unless he's holding four additional arms or something behind Cap and Iron Man's back, but let's not run rampant in speculation about what we don't get to see based on just this one preview. For in Ultron's case, we'll have to make do with just this single picture for now (nevermind his minions in the background). A few more official movie stills were simultaneously released in this issue of Entertainment Weekly, but they contain little new noteworthy information. We already knew what Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - the second one on the big screen, and admittedly it's gonna be hard to make us forget Evan Peters' fabulous take on the character in X-Men: Days of Future Past - looked like. We didn't know Don Cheadle was in the film though, likely not only replacing his role as Jim Rhodes, but also as his armoured alter ego War Machine. That's another Avenger to add to the mix, making for a confirmed total of ten. Coupled with at least two baddies (Ultron and Baron Von Strucker) and the continuing S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans of Nick Fury, it looks like this is gonna be another crowded superhero epic. But in an ensemble movie, that is to be expected. As long as this movie delivers the same amount of fun as the previous flick did, I can live with some characters taking a backseat. I'm more concerned of weaving the story of Von Strucker's HYDRA plots, which involves the Maximoff twins, seemlessly together with the otherwise apparently unrelated story about Tony Stark designing a robot to assume his mantle of Iron Man, with that thought seriously backfiring on both him and humanity. Which in itself is a fairly natural flow from the events in Iron Man 3 and adequately alters Ultron's origins, as there's no Hank Pym around in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as of yet to design the genocidal android, as happened in the comics. I think the writers turned that story in the right direction though, as it now makes sense following on from Iron Man 3. And so far it looks like they're not gonna mess up Ultron as they did the Mandarin. Thankfully!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156585/nieuwe_poster_sin_city_2

Good new poster, keeping in touch in terms of style with its predecessors the way we like. Art is not the issue here, connecting the stories is. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is both a prequel and a sequel to the original 2005 movie. On the one hand it tells the story behind Dwight's facial alteration, which precedes his story line in Sin City, where his character was played by Clive Owen as opposed to Josh Brolin, pictured above. On the other, it deals with Nancy's quest for vengeance after Hartigan's demise. As you can see from above, Nancy already took a few hits killing her way to the corrupt top levels to expose the Roarke empire's crimes. At the same time, Hartigan is also seen on the poster, despite his death previously. Judging from what little we saw in the trailer, he's a spectre of his former self, plaguing Nancy's mental health. Marv (Mickey Rourke) is back as well, even though he too failed to live through the events of the previous movie, hinting he'll be part of Dwight's back story, or possibly his own. How to make narrative sense of this all? It seems tough, and as a result I think this movie will serve better as a compendium piece to the first movie than as a standalone film (sucks for new audiences). But hey, as long as the visual flair is as stunning as before and there's plenty of pretty dames and tough men doing some sinning, eh? Let's hope that will be enough. Remember a not so positively received little movie called The Spirit that seemed to think the same thing? You probably don't, nor should you.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156609/derde_deel_the_ring_aangekondigd

Do we really need this? Do we really want this? 'No' on both fronts, but does Hollywood really care what we think if there's the possibility of making a little bit more money out of the franchise? There's another 'no' for you. Besides, the Japanese original Ringu had three sequels, so we're still two behind. It's been nearly ten years since the last activity on the American Ring franchise, so it seems overly late for a sequel or a prequel. A reboot seemed more obvious, though I'm glad they didn't opt for that (though they still might). I would have been more glad if they spend their money and effort elsewhere altogether on something more imaginative, but sadly, studio executives always fail to ask me for my opinion first. So far, this has all the makings of a studio cash cow as opposed to an honest attempt of making a worthwhile successor (or predecessor, in terms of story) to the previous two movies. I'd be very surprised if we'll end up seeing Naomi Watts reprise her role for this one. Though that is probably why it's gonna be a prequel, so she won't have to. Smart thinking.

Today's Review: Das Wochenende

MS posted this review of mine today (a day later than usual for reviews of new movies):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156070/das_wochenende_-_recensie

Quite a dull watch in all honesty. It's not the subject, nor is it the acting. It's the poor dialogue and unrelenting petty squabbling that get the better of this movie. If you have nothing to do during the weekend, better watch something else regardless. There's better movies featuring the (German) RAF out there, as there are more appealing films involving family bitterness exploding.

Today's Mini-Reviews: downfall of the rich and powerful

Iron Man 3: **/*****, or 5/10

Most disappointing of the Marvel Studios movies so far. Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) took over the director's chair from Jon Favreau who did the first two installments. Maybe it's Black's tendency to go over the top a bit too far, maybe the writers and producers just got terribly lazy in the creative process after the sucess of the predecessors, but Iron Man 3 proves a dud. Tony Stark finally has found a decent equilibrium between his eccentric playboy life and his public role as the armored superhero Iron Man, but soon his world is turned upside down after he deliberately picks a fight with the vicious terrorist leader Mandarin (“played by Sir Ben Kingsley”) who wounded his former bodyguard Happy (still performed by Favreau himself at least). The Mandarin comes down hard on Tony, destroying his mansion and seemingly obliterating his various armors. With only his wit, his engineering skills, his insufferable character flaws – he was never more irritating than he is here – and the aid of some kid in a shack, he soon turns the tables and confronts his new nemesis and his silly army of exploding people, only to find out the situation is not what it appeared to be, as the Mandarin is just a fraud (way to ruin a classic bad guy, Marvel!). Another adversary, A.I.M. leader Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) is behind it all, out to revenge himself on Stark, literally for making him cry ten years earlier (now that's what I call a solid motivation for aiming to conquer the world!). During the film's climactic showdown, Tony can fortunately count on his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to save his ass, plus he had another 40 armors inexplicably hidden up his sleeve. Iron Man 3 pretentiously delves into semi-philosophical territory when it keeps asking whether the suit makes the man or vice versa, but the fact is we simply don't care. All we knew was that Robert Downey Jr. made Iron Man and now sloppy writing has allowed him to be unmade, for which Downey reportedly received the sum of 50 million (!) dollars, probably for looking the other way as it happened. At least Stark is basically still the same after four films, as it was clear what audiences wanted and expected from the get-go. The same can't be said for the Mandarin, whose presence was alluded to in the prevous two Iron Man films, but all of a sudden proves to be someone else entirely halfway through the film. Don't trust the trailers for this film that insinuated that we were in for a major epic villain played by Kingsley, since that's all a lie and you'll end up disappointed. Blame it on the Chinese involvement, as Iron Man 3 was co-produced with Chinese studios to cut costs (Downey's salary had to come from somewhere after all). And in such a case, you simply can't afford to have a Chinese villain claiming to be after the destruction of western civilization. Interestingly enough, the Chinese market received a slightly different cut of the film including scenes not seen in the regular version, to make it even more attractive for Chinese audiences. Iron Man 3 bodes ill for the rest of Marvel's Phase 2, but there's gotta be better upcoming movies to make up for this huge letdown. Ant-Man maybe? 

 

The Great Gatsby: ***/*****, or 7/10

Another visual feast by Baz Lurhmann (Moulin Rouge, Australia). The fifth version of the classic book by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and definitely the most extravagant, as we would have expected from Luhrmann, who always tends to lavishly overstylize his films. This is his first foray into the realm of 3D, and fortunately it's a successful one at that. From a narrative viewpoint, the movie predictably feels less intriguing. In the early Roaring Twenties, war veteran Nick Carraway (a rather dull Tobey Maguire, as is the norm) moves to Long Island, next door to a giant mansion belonging to the seemingly incredibly wealthy but enigmatic Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio, another one of his hugely rich and influential but emotionally tormented big screen souls). Drawn to the unreal world of fabulous upperclass decadence, Carraway soon gets his taste of high society as he attends one of Gatsby's unbelievably amazing parties. Gatsby soon purposefully reveals himself to Nick and recruits him to arrange a meeting between himself and Nick's attractive cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), a long lost love of Gatsby from before the Great War whom he lost contact with and who has since gone on to marry a rich but quite dislikeable land owner (Joel Edgerton). Hoping to respark their love thanks to Nick's involvement bridging their past, Gatsby and Daisy soon reunite and haphazardly start an affair that can only end in tragedy. But despite his attempts to basically bang a married girl, you hope Gatsby succeeds as he is a sympathetic character, once a boy who came from nothing but worked himself up to incredulous heights, while still favoring the lower class folks who live decent lives worth living, instead of engaging in the monotony of endless partying. Gatsby appears to make a stand for the poor, hard working labourers with his understanding attitude and actions, which can only lead to his downfall from the rich ruling classes and their corrupting power over everything and everyone. But what a downfall it is, shot with such dynamic vibrancy and wild colour schemes, presented in three jaw-droppingly beautiful dimensions! Nevertheless the blatant melodrama at the core is hard to be effectively sugarcoated, even in Luhrmann's elaborate ways. The Great Gatsby emulates its titular character, in the sense that it's packed with bombastic bravoura and laced with visual flair throughout, detracting you from the lack of a refined, satisfactory plot, which is notably absent if you care to see beneath the mask of its sensational appearance. Beneath the surface it's all fairly hollow, but not without a certain charm. This movie is a feast to behold as much as the parties it depicts would no doubt be a thrill to attend, but ultimately, it proves a fairly forgetful experience in the long run. And so Hollywood can keep remaking Fitzgerald's novel once every few decades to ever more spectacular results.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10

Twee uur lang fijn spelen met actiefiguurtjes

Na het grote – maar toch niet helemaal verdiende – succes van Transformers is het niet verrassend dat speelgoedfabrikant Hasbro op zoek ging naar een nieuwe franchise om het kunstje nog eens te herhalen en opnieuw bakken vol geld binnen te halen. G.I. Joe was de voor de hand liggende keuze, want Hasbro heeft al 45 jaar de rechten op deze merknaam die uiterst succesvol bleek in media als tekenfilms, strips en uiteraard de actiefiguren zelf, maar tot dusverre nog niet de logische volgende stap naar het witte doek maakte. Transformers mag dan een kassucces en grootschalig actiespektakel zijn geweest, een erg bevredigende film leverde regisseur Michael Bay er niet mee, en hetzelfde gold nog minder voor het deplorabele Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen die deze zomer de bioscoop teisterde (en desondanks opnieuw Hasbro's kas flink spekte). Een vertaling van speelgoed naar het grote scherm, kan dat überhaupt een goede film opleveren? G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra geeft nog geen definitief bevestigend antwoord op die vraag, maar pakt in ieder geval een stuk leuker uit dan beide Transformers-vehikels.

De regie ligt in handen van Stephen Sommers, die met onder andere twee delen The Mummy al aangaf een bekwaam actieregisseur te zijn. Sommers laat overduidelijk merken dat G.I. Joe het hoofdzakelijk moet hebben van een flinke hoeveelheid lol en weinig anders, wat Bay ook probeerde met Transformers maar daar vooral bij het tweede deel jammerlijk in faalde. De balans tussen actie, humor en karakterontwikkeling is in G.I. Joe gelukkig een stuk beter uitgewerkt. Serieus te nemen valt het geen moment, maar dat mag de pret niet drukken.

In de nabije toekomst ontwikkelt een gewetenloze wapenfabrikant (een enge Christopher Eccleston) het ultieme wapen: 'nanomites', microscopische robots die metaal opvreten en hele steden in de as kunnen leggen als ze in kernkoppen worden gebruikt. Soldaten Duke (stoere Channing Tatum) en Ripcord (Marlon Wayans als komische noot) krijgen opdracht de raketlading veilig te vervoeren, maar worden belaagd door de geheimzinnige terreurorganisatie Cobra. Een elite-team soldaten genaamd G.I. Joe helpt ze uit de brand, waarna het duo besluit zich bij deze topgeheime militaire eenheid aan te sluiten. Samen met een bont gezelschap nieuwe collegae, waaronder de zwijgzame ninja Snake Eyes (Ray Park) en de kittige roodharige dame Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), valt het team vervolgens van de ene verbazing in de andere, als blijkt dat er een grootschalige samenzwering gaande is die moet leiden tot Cobra's overname van de wereldmacht. Bovendien hebben sommige terroristen, zoals de felle Baroness (sexy Sienna Miller) en de dodelijke Storm Shadow (Koreaanse superster Byung-hun Lee) nog een persoonlijk appeltje te schillen met de 'Joes'. Het resultaat is een aaneenschakeling van groots opgezette, spectaculaire actiescènes, inclusief de nodige 'martial arts' demonstraties, vuurgevechten en enorme explosies.

Sommers serveert het geheel zonder gêne, zonder de pretentie dat G.I. Joe meer is dan twee uur fijn vermaak. Als ze actie willen, dan kunnen ze actie krijgen, lijkt zijn motto. Van begin tot eind dendert G.I. Joe voort met slechts af en toe een adempauze om de personages de noodzakelijke achtergrondinformatie te verschaffen. Het script heeft hen gelukkig van precies genoeg ontwikkeling voorzien om ons tussen al het lawaai in toch afdoende met hen mee te laten leven, en de persoonlijke kanten van hun situaties naar voldoening tot uiting te laten komen. De liefde tussen Duke en de Baroness bijvoorbeeld, die door de dood van haar broer onder Dukes bevel vervormde tot intense haat van haar kant, voelt zodoende niet potsierlijk aan, maar geeft de personages dat beetje noodzakelijke persoonlijke karakter, en krijgt extra emotionele lading als blijkt dat haar broer nog in leven is en zonder haar weten ook de partij van de schurken heeft gekozen. Tussen al het cartooneske geweld bevindt zich een degelijke hoeveelheid relativerende humor, en gelukkig geen overdaad aan slechte grappen, wat Transformers 2 qua geloofwaardigheid de das omdeed.

Ondanks de actie, karakterontwikkeling en humor moet G.I. Joe het voornamelijk hebben van de grote hoeveelheid fantastische gadgets, waarin we een geslaagde hommage aan de thematische verwante James Bond-films aantreffen. Naast de eerder genoemde minuscule robotjes (waar overigens daadwerkelijk wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar verricht wordt) mogen zowel de 'good guys' als de snoodaards rondrennen met een hoeveelheid amusante uitvindingen, variërend van sonische kanonnen tot onzichtbare uniforms. De film gaat echter nooit te ver in het tonen van technische hoogstandjes maar blijft volstrekt binnen de grenzen van de in de film gepresenteerde realiteit.

Het valt te begrijpen dat de schrijvers er voor gekozen hebben om van deze incarnatie van G.I. Joe een internationaal elite-team te maken, in plaats van de 'real American heroes' waar de eenheid tot dusverre uit bestond. Immers, buiten de Verenigde Staten zit niemand te wachten op nog meer patriottisch Amerikaans militarisme. Ook is het verfrissend om eindelijk weer eens een actiefilm te zien waarin de terroristen geen religieuze motieven hebben, maar zoals vanouds streven naar het overnemen van de hele wereld.

Hoewel G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra een zeer vermakelijk actiespektakel is geworden, is het overduidelijk nooit meer dan dat, en meent het zelf niet meer dan dat te moeten zijn. Na het volstrekt onleuke Transformers 2 is het een hele verademing te zien dat er op basis van een reeks actiefiguren en met een ervaren regisseur wel degelijk een geslaagde actiefilm gemaakt kan worden die ons weer het gevoel geeft kleine jongetjes (of meisjes) te zijn die de dolste capriolen met hun speelgoed uithalen. G.I. Joe zal ongetwijfeld niet heel lang blijven hangen, maar levert tenminste twee uur ongegeneerd plezier. Hasbro kan tevreden zijn.