Today's Review: Nerve

Hoewel het weergeven van socialmediafenomenen in films doorgaans met een paar jaar vertraging plaatsvindt vanwege het productieproces, kon Nerve in Nederland niet op een toepasselijker moment uitkomen. Terwijl de maatschappelijke ophef over Zaanse treitervloggers het kookpunt nadert, presenteert deze thriller een vergelijkbaar scenario waarin losbandige jongeren via social media de regels aan hun laars lappen. Hoe verder over de schreef, hoe beter, alles voor die felbegeerde 'likes'. Dat dergelijk gedrag al snel omslaat in terreur voor de lijdende voorwerpen komt nimmer als een verrassing, want Nerve is er uiteraard niet op uit om zulk anarchistisch gedrag goed te praten. Maar dat de producenten de huidige jongerencultuur begrijpen, is voor de doelgroep al een hele verademing.

'Nerve' is anno 2019 een schimmig online spel, waarin betalende kijkers deelnemers volgen als die uitdagende opdrachten trachten op te lossen, uiteraard tegen betaling maar met vooral 'instant fame' als beloning. Voor menig jongere lonkt roem en avontuur, maar de keerzijde is niet mis. Wie faalt, maakt zich publiekelijk belachelijk. Wie te verbeten is op het winnen, riskeert lijf en ledematen. En wie het waagt uit de school te klappen over het spel, wacht een nog gruwelijker lot. Ondanks de negatieve gevolgen waagt Vee Delmonico toch de gok, want het meisje heeft niet alleen geld nodig maar wil ook onder de schaduw van haar door het spel geobsedeerde boezemvriendin uitkomen. De eerste opdracht oogt onschuldig, als ze in een bar een onbekende moet kussen en zo in aanraking komt met de charmante Ian. Niets is echter wat het lijkt, en al snel raakt Vee steeds steviger verstrikt in het snode spel, waarvoor ook Ian een duister geheim herbergt.

Nerve maakt er vanaf de opening geen geheim van gericht te zijn op de jeugd van tegenwoordig, de stereotiepe tieners die niet los te koppelen zijn van hun mobieltjes en voor wie een 'like' van groter belang is dan een goed rapportcijfer. Misschien niet het meest genuanceerde beeld, maar dat een groot deel van de doelgroep in dit straatje past, is een feit. Inhoudelijk verschillen de tieners van nu echter weinig van hun voorgangers, want ook in Nerve spelen gebruikelijke ingrediënten als groepsdruk en identiteitsvorming een hoofdrol. De muizige Vee ziet in Nerve een financieel redmiddel en een manier om haar vrienden te laten zien wat ze in haar mars heeft. Met haar ontwapenende naïviteit gaan de kijkers snel overstag, zeker als ze chemie vertoont met hunk Ian. Die chemie is gelukkig ook voelbaar tussen hoofdrolspelers Roberts en Franco, die allebei geknipt zijn voor hun rollen, hoewel zeker de laatste eigenlijk niet meer tot de generatie behoort die Nerve groot heeft gemaakt. De standaard tienerromance en puberintriges die hun relatie kenmerken zijn herkenbaar voor het beoogde publiek, maar het is de goed getimede maatschappijkritiek die Nerve interessant maakt voor de oudere toeschouwers.

Want met Nerve blijken regisseurs Joost en Schulman, hoewel zij het plot baseren op het gelijknamige boek uit 2012, een sterk begrip te hebben voor de aantrekkingskracht van social media op jongeren, maar ook op hun keerzijde die haast elke dag in de krant belicht wordt. Wat ben je bereid op te offeren voor digitale roem? Is die hevige maar kortstondige glorie het conflict met vrienden en familie waard? Hoewel het opgeheven vingertje op den duur om de hoek komt kijken, maken de regisseurs wel duidelijk dat zij de sociale dilemma's van hun publiek doorhebben. Hun onvermijdelijk negatieve oordeel richt zich hoofdzakelijk op digitale openheid. Alle gegevens van de deelnemers liggen op straat, hun accounts op social media zijn voor niemand veilig. De kijkers gebruiken elk stukje persoonlijke informatie tegen hun pionnen, in volslagen anonimiteit. Daarmee wordt de schuldvraag ontweken als het fout gaat – wat natuurlijk gebeurt – want niemand dwingt de deelnemers fysiek en noch de kijker, noch het spel zelf zijn te traceren door het gezag. Mentaal vormen Vee en Ian echter een vlieg in een spinnenweb in het steeds dodelijker spel.

Het maakt Nerve tot een vaardig gemaakte thriller, die weliswaar niet verstoken blijft van een voorspelbare voortgang die culmineert in een climax à la The Hunger Games, maar onmiskenbaar stof tot nadenken oplevert. We nemen het voor lief dat het plot soms wat gemakzuchtig in elkaar steekt, zoals wanneer Vees beste vriend tot een hackerscollectief behoort dat haar uit de penarie kan helpen. Visueel is de film designtechnisch dik in orde met haar aanstekelijke neonlichtgebruik, maar de hectische montage wekt, ondersteund door een soundtrack vol herrienummers, toch irritatie op. Nerve heeft iets te veel weg van een lange videoclip. Ongetwijfeld gericht op de jeugd, die hier minder bezwaar tegen zal maken. Nerve kan, ondanks zijn tekortkomingen, een generatiebepalend cinematisch pamflet worden. Maar dan moeten diens potentiële volgers wel eerst losgeweekt zien te worden van hun social media, voor Hollywood helaas al jaren een te moeilijke opdracht.

Today's Review: Chinatown

Het klinkt als een lugubere grap, maar feitelijk was er een moord nodig voor het befaamde einde van één van de beste misdaadfilms uit de geschiedenis. Toen Sharon Tate in 1969 door de Manson Family op brute wijze werd omgebracht in haar huis in Los Angeles, leek het onwaarschijnlijk dat haar echtgenoot, regisseur Roman Polanski, ooit nog een voet in Hollywood zou zetten. Een ijzersterk script van scenarist Robert Towne was nodig om hem te overtuigen dat toch te doen. Alleen het einde bleek niet naar Polanski's zin, die het aanpaste met een bittere sneer naar wat hem vijf jaar eerder was overkomen. Zo werd een onsterfelijke klassieker geboren, die niet alleen nog steeds staat als een huis, maar zelfs weinig aan actualiteit heeft ingeboet. EYE heeft het meesterwerk Chinatown nu digitaal gerestaureerd.

Polanski's klassieker blijft de ultieme haat/liefde-verklaring aan Los Angeles, het Hollywoodland dat we dankzij haar filmindustrie zowel als zonovergoten paradijs en als oord des verderfs kennen. Het is de stad waar Polanski zijn grootste triomf vierde met Rosemary's Baby dat hem definitief op de kaart zette als meesterregisseur, maar ook de plek waar hij zijn hoogzwangere vrouw verloor. L.A. geeft, L.A. neemt. Een boodschap die de film noir een paar decennia eerder al volop verkondigde in klassiekers als Double Indemnity en Sunset Boulevard, die een inspiratiebron voor Chinatown vormden. Hoewel het zwart/wit van zulke invloeden anno 1974 begrijpelijkerwijs moest wijken voor de pracht en praal van de Technicolor, laat Polanski er geen twijfel over bestaan dat onder de felle zonneschijn aan de Pacifische kust een duister Sodom en Gomorra schuilt, waar de misdaad heerst en waar fatsoenlijke mensen het keihard moeten ontgelden. En protagonist Jake Gittes is niet eens een fatsoenlijk mens.

Gittes is, zoals de film noir het wil, een cynische privédetective die op het spoor komt van een schimmig zaakje. Zijn specialisatie is het blootleggen van huwelijkse ontrouw, maar op een dag blijkt het aantonen van dergelijke intrige slechts het openen van een bodemloze beerput, waarbij niemand te vertrouwen valt, zeker de als fatsoenlijk geachte ambtenaren niet. Terwijl L.A. geteisterd wordt door ernstige droogte, wordt de hoofdingenieur van de publieke waterwerken dood aangetroffen. In zijn speurtocht naar de waarheid stuit hij op een femme fatale met een verontrustend geheim, corrupte wetsdienaren en een samenzwering zonder weerga. Allemaal gebruikelijke ingrediënten in het genre, maar in Chinatown virtuoos verweven tot een meesterlijk geheel door een door Los Angeles getekend man, die maar al te goed bekend was met de aantrekkingskracht van de stad en de keerzijde daarvan.

Sindsdien is er niet eens zoveel veranderd. Het gebied rond Los Angeles wordt nog regelmatig geplaagd door watertekort, waarbij heftige conflicten ontstaan met de inwoners van het omringende land, die moeten aanzien hoe de stad al het water opzuigt. De lange geschiedenis die Los Angeles kent met corruptie vormt nog steeds een dankbaar onderwerp voor de filmindustrie van haar eigen Hollywood: van L.A.Confidential tot het recente Gangster Squad en The Nice Guys. Het niveau van Chinatown werd echter nooit overtroffen. Dat is ook te danken aan de formidabele prestaties van de hoofdrolspelers, Jack Nicholson voorop als de aanstekelijk slinkse schavuit Gittes, met stip gevolgd door diens tegenspeelster Faye Dunaway als ogenschijnlijk kwetsbare weduwe die gebukt gaat onder een schokkend geheim, maar daar ook een onmiskenbare kracht uit put waardoor ze de dwarse Gittes effectief tegengas geeft. Om nog maar te zwijgen van de legendarische John Huston als de machtige Noah Cross, die alle touwtjes in handen heeft. Diezelfde John Huston die in 1941 als regisseur debuteerde met The Maltese Falcon, ook al zo'n voortreffelijk stukje film noir dat Chinatown voorging.

Met deze vers opgepoetste kopie voegt EYE opnieuw een essentieel stuk filmgeschiedenis toe aan haar catalogus. Visueel is er wederom vakwerk afgeleverd. De Technicolor spat van het beeld, waarbij de brandende zon in de lucht van Los Angeles sterker dan ooit contrasteert met de onheilspellend schaduwrijke ruimtes binnenshuis die Gittes afstroopt in zijn ontrafeling van het zinderende moordmysterie. De zweetdruppels parelden nimmer zo tastbaar over Nicholsons voorhoofd, terwijl fatale vrouw Dunaway nog nooit zo glamoureus belicht werd als nu. Het geluid had daarentegen nog wel wat extra bewerking kunnen gebruiken, want de achtergrondruis is voor goede oren nadrukkelijk aanwezig. Aan de andere kant draagt dat slechts bij aan het onreine aspect van Los Angeles. Hoe dan ook is Chinatown beslist nog de moeite waard voor elke filmliefhebber, zeker diegenen die het meesterwerk nog niet aanschouwd hebben. 'Forget it, it's Chinatown', klinkt het na tweeënveertig jaar wederom, maar Chinatown is nog altijd onvergetelijk.

Chinatown: 9/10

Today's Review: White Bird in a Blizzard

Wrote another review for MovieScene this week. After all, I had some catching up to do in that department:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157936/white_bird_in_a_blizzard_-_recensie

From director Gregg Araki, we both got what we expected and we didn't, in this film's case. White Bird in a Blizzard contained all his usual themes - surrealism, teenage social issues, sexuality, death - but it lacked his usual energetic visual style. It never got recognizably 'Arakiesque'. Usually it's a not a bad thing per se when you can't tell who the director is from looking at the picture, but in this case, it's no flattery at all. White Bird is a visually unimpressive, bland picture that in many ways feels like a missed oppurtunity on this director's part. You might say he preferred to stick to the source material, this being an adaptation of somebody else's novel, but considering he did change a fair amount of things already, it would also have suited him to get the film more in line with his signature style to feel less detached and make us care more about the characters.

At least performances are good throughout the piece. Shailene Woodley makes a better impression than usual. However, it's Eva Green who steals the show while playing her mother. That too, doesn't help the movie much, as it's not her show (hence the proverbial 'stealing'). In fact, it's much more about her absence than it is about her presence, but when she graces the screen, the movie lightens up considerably. Green does an excellent job portraying a seemingly perfect house wife, sizzling with the frustrations of a wasted life and unfulfilled desires just underneath the facade. Her unhealthy relationship with her daughter makes for the most emotional scenes, thoroughly uncomfortable yet mesmerizing to behold. However, the moment she's out of the picture, literally and figuratively,and  the story fully centers around Woodley's character just hanging out with her friends, having sex and going to college, our attention wanes. And then it uneasily evolves from a typical coming-of-age drama into a thirteen-a-dozen thriller in the second half and all the predictable dirty secrets come out. But we care too little, too late at that point.

White Bird in a Blizzard will always be compared unfavorably to that other adaptation of a literary work Araki directed, Mysterious Skin. That movie too featured all his themes (including a visually sober look), but fared a lot better combining teen angst, creepy sexual relations and a thriller component, as the movie unraveled in a way that did make us interested in the questions of what happened to whom. White Bird in a Blizzard sadly feels repetitive and redundant on Araki's resumé. But at least Green is not at fault.

Today's Triple News: dark equalizer games

It took a while for worthy news to appear online, but after a week of not posting any, I got back in shape:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157083/nieuwe_trailer_monsters_dark_continent_

Wow, the scope of this franchise certainly got a lot bigger. In fact, we can finally speak of a franchise now. Not that these are positive developments per se. It's happened countless times before that a cheaply produced movie that connected with an audience got one or more unwanted sequels that failed to do so again. Even though Monsters made its money back (it was hard not to, considering its shoestring budget) and its director, Gareth Edwards, has since gone on to dabble in big budget, heavy FX films like Godzilla and now Star Wars, I doubt many people will be familiar with the original movie when the sequel hits theaters. In fact, I kinda suspect this will be released straight to VOD and the home video market in the Netherlands. It hasn't got much going for it to warrant a theatrical release here. There's no big names in the cast, it's not released by a major studio and the Monsters franchise won't ring a bell to so many people. Apart from the home cinema market, this is really the stuff of film festivals and such (bet we'll be seeing this on Imagine 2015!). Considering Monsters: Dark Continent, too, is done on not that large a budget (though still considerably more than the peanuts its predecessor cost), that doesn't necessarily mean the movie is doomed in tersm of boxoffice. Wouldn't surprise me if this too made enough dough to excuse a third installment. Again without Edwards, who will be slaving away on Godzilla 2 in Hollywood by that time.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157093/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_the_equalizer

Though there's some good people in the cast, this movie doesn't excite me in the least. Man with a shady past and a talent of getting things done the violent way turns vigilante and fights the mob on his own. Nothing new here. Except maybe it's the Russian mob ingredient, as muscle flexing Russians are kind of a thing in the media right now. Denzel Washington seems very capable in the lead role. Also not a surprise, as this character bears similarities to his persona in Training Day, which, under the guidance of the same director, won him an Oscar over a decade ago. Seems like actor and director figured they might find similar success again doing a similar thing. At least Marton Csokas looks positively creepy as the Russian mob boss (which I know perfectly well he's capable of, as he's an underestimated character actor in my mind) and Chloë Grace Moretz sheds her Hit Girl image a bit by playing the victim for once. She makes a cute underage prostitute, enough for any middle-aged man to get sentimental over when she's taking punches in public. Of course, this movie will do well enough because people keep falling for runaway vigilantes effectively fighting a one-man war against crime. That's what we all wished we could do when it came down to it, eh? I bet Washington will succeed in his noble quest in The Equalizer, as there don't seem to be many surprises here otherwise. He'll probably die in the process though, or something like that. Unless they want to keep an opening for a second film. Remind me again, why did this typical action flick take precedence in IMAX over the visually much more intriguing The Maze Runner?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157114/eerste_poster_katniss_voor_hunger_games_mockingjay

It took a while, but there's finally a Mockingjay teaser poster for Katniss Everdeen too. Virtually the entire supporting cast had preceded her until now, either in Capitol prisoner gard or full-on revolutionary soldier gear. Now that the main character has been added to the teaser campaign, it's high time the visually more enticing one-sheets were rolled out. If Catching Fire's poster campaign is any indication, it seems like Mockingjay will easily outdo it. Recurring theme of course being the Mockingjay itself, which already made its presence known on virtually all of the earlier ad artwork. It's done more subtly on this latest teaser poster though, but the message is pretty clear as it leaves little to the imagination that once again the nature of Katniss as a symbol for rebellion against tyranny (whether she likes it or not) is emphasized. And Jannifer Lawrence's backside looks good too, as always.

Today's Triple News: bad guy, bad guy, bad directing choice?

Another threesome of news updates I posted on MS, one of them less than two hours old:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154135/nederlandse_regisseur_voor_remake_the_birds

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154127/donofrio_speelt_schurk_jurassic_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154091/adam_driver_in_beeld_als_star_wars_schurk

Two bits of news appear almost identical except for the difference in names. Two bad guys cast (one close, at least) for major tentpole movies, and one director hired to direct a much dreaded remake of a much loved classic film. A Dutch director redoing a genre classic sounds eerily familiar to The Thing fiasco from only a few years back, where a rookie Dutchman (Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.) with hardly any directing experience got to direct a movie few people were looking forward to anyway. Needles to say that movie flopped: in fact, it lasted only two weeks in Dutch theaters. Was it the director or was it the idea of the remake on its own that made people opt for screening different fare? Probably a combination of both. Nevertheless, history now seems to be repeating itself, except the movie being remade is an even bigger classic from a truly legendary director. The project had been in the work for many years but nobody really dared to get it fired up until now. I'm not surprised, considering the producers involved. Michael Bay for instance, whose name alone should make people think twice about this film (will the birds explode?). Two other producers attached have been involved with nearly all of the recent remakes of various Eighties' horror franchises (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), all exercises in blatant redundancy. That's also not a good sign, considering The Birds is not that kind of horror flick, despite retaining a certain horrific element that does have the potential for bloody mayhem. Van Rooijen seems sure to take on more than he can handle, but unlike Van Heijningen, he does have more credits under his belt. Creating and directing the acclaimed Dutch TV series Penoza is probably his best card to play (I wouldn't know whether it's any good because I rarely watch Dutch series), though he has also done a few moody thrillers in the same vein as The Birds. Nevertheless, in all other respects he seems like yet another example of a foreign director being hired to direct an unneccessary, unwanted remake of a well remembered film that American directors won't touch for obvious reasons (José Padilha's RoboCop serves as the most recent adequate comparison). Time will tell whether Van Rooijen will do any better than those that went to Hollywood before him and came back with their tails tucked between their legs, instead of merrily continuing to exploit their success on home soil.

Two villains cast. One to battle dinosaurs (or is it vice versa?) and one to tackle Jedi. I cannot recall Adam Driver from seeing him in Lincoln (it was only a small part), but he certainly has a distinctive face. Comparing his upcoming role to the iconic Darth Vader is total studio rubbish of course, since nobody will ever come close to that again. They shouldn't even try and just go in their own direction, but that's not something I consider J.J. Abrams capable of doing. And when Abrams says Driver was his first choice, I tend togo in 'I don't care mode' straight away. Turning down great actors like Hugo Weaving and Michael Fassbender in favor of this guy is yet another telltale sign of Abrams' rampant mental instability. But admittedly I might just not have seen enough of Driver's past performances to make a balanced decision on whether he's right for joining the Dark Side. I am very likely clouded by my strong dislike for Abrams, who after raping Star Trek and shamelessly getting away with it does not feel like the best choice for the Galaxy Far, Far Away in my mind. Maybe Driver just happens to actually be a good actor and as such a decent choice for whatever this villain role is going to be. It's hard to deny he has a sinister face. Yes, you might justifiably accuse me of calling him ugly, sorry.

Now Vincent D'Onofrio I know at least. He's played a memorable villain before in one of my childhood favorites, Men in Black, where he played the grotesquely big bug in the Edgar-suit. That was one baddie that freaked me out as a kid! Also knowing his talents from playing Orson Welles in Ed Wood, I can say I know D'Onofrio has a rather diverse range as an actor, so I'm sure he can pull off playing a character of a similarly savoury nature in Jurassic World. I hate to resort to the term 'villain' when JP is concerned, as so far the Jurassic Park movies haven't featured true villains yet, only regular human beings driven by greed and profits. Of course, those are the true villains of our time, but compared to the regular notion of a movie villain they're just as human as the rest of us. The nature of D'Onofrio's part is still kept secret as most things JW are, most notably the dinosaur casting. A human rogue is good as a secondary element, but it's the dinosaurs the audience craves to see endangering the protagonists. I'll definitely not use the term 'villain' in connection with dinosaurs, as they are supposed to be animals acting natural (insofar as we think they might have done) or lashing out because they're driven to acts of aggression by human indecency. The only exception might be the Velociraptors, who, due to their supposed superior intelligence, are capable of making a seemingly rational choice between acting as villains or sticking to being mere animals instead. Whether such philosoraptors are again thrown in the mix in the case of Jurassic World remains to be seen, as rumours are going around their niche will soon be filled with Troodon instead, an even smarter species of small, pack-hunting predatory dinosaurs. I'm sure T-Rex will again return triumphantly though, for sure. Whatever choices of dino-casting director Colin Trevorrow makes, I'm positive 'safety is not guaranteed' (pun!) for D'Onofrio's character. That's what you get for playing a bad guy I suppose.

Today's News: Hounsou en Reedus getting some air, blowing off steam

Here's another newsflash, two days old by now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153886/reedus_en_hounsou_in_hoofdrollen_air

Sources informed me this is a low budget production, and the script sure seems to suggest it, considering this doesn't exactly sound like an original idea. People go into suspended animation because of some catastrophic event, and those few unlucky souls left behind to keep their cryogenic tubes up and running start to unravel mentally, becoming a danger to themselves and their mission, and thus to everybody else. As is the case with many a Sci-Fi plot, I've already seen this concept on Star Trek. Twice, in fact. Remember that episode of Voyager where the ship passes through a lethal nebula and the whole crew is put in stasis except for Seven and the Doctor, and ultimately she is all alone and goes bonkers big time? Or remember that episode of Enterprise where the ship passes through a lethal nebula and the whole crew is put in stasis except for Phlox, and ultimately he is all alone and goes bonkers big time? Well, there you basically have the same plot as in this movie called Air. Circumstances are different, a post-apocalyptic event - in this case, a lack of breathable atmosphere - is added to up the ante a bit, as befits a movie as opposed to a TV show, where everything is bigger, including the stakes involved. As is the case with most post-apocalyptic films, it mostly revolves around the few survivors interacting with each other and ending up unable to cooperate for mutual benefit, so everybody gets screwed over by that unfortunate human tendency.

Dramatically, the most interesting aspect in this regard is the increasingly tense situation between the parties involved, slowly but surely getting ever more hostile until the shit hits the fan. Man simply cannot coexist with his fellow man, even if his life depends on it, is what this type of films usually informs us. But we sure keep enjoying to watch decent actors go at it and reach that intense crescendo. Norman Reedus definitely is no stranger to this subject matter, as he's experienced his fair bit of post-apocalyptic survival troubles playing Daryl on The Walking Dead. However, Reedus' experience as a film actor is so far limited, which is where Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator, Amistad, Blood Diamond) fits right in. The latter's involvement in a low budget picture like this is somewhat surprising, considering his resumé of big budget Hollywood bluckbusters (he's currently got Fast and Furious 7 and Guardians of the Galaxy on his slate), but maybe he just needed a break from all that in favor of something smaller, and probably more challenging. I have faith in both actors's capability to play characters who at their core are good, but will go to any length when survival is at issue. Both have a habit of playing tough, strong characters who take crap from nobody, so they're rather evenly matched. Since both gentlemen are also terrific actors I'll enjoy seeing what they make in this Trek plot rehash, but otherwise this movie doesn't sound particularly noteworthy.

Today's News: here's a dreadful trailer for ya

Got this up at MS yesterday:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153800/eerste_trailer_penny_dreadful

I hadn't heard of this new series yet, but I must admit it looks rather interesting. The beauty and squalor of Victorian era England, a time of refined culture, daring exploration and unapologetic conquest, the dark nature of literary characters from that period like Dorian Gray and Dracula, games of psychological misconduct and sexual manipulation, and a few good actors and writers/producers to make it all seemlessly come to life... what's not to like here? Maybe for some, the fact it sounds like an adult version of the film adaptation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which is a movie I, unlike most others, hold little umbrage against). As opposed to getting into fisticuffs with each other, in this upcoming Penny Dreadful they seem to jump into bed together and do the nasty instead. Or so it would appear, but as always, trailers can be highly deceiving. Just what these personae are up to and what the role of characters specifically written for this show might be all remains somewhat obscure from just this trailer. The show aims to be a mystery thriller serial (not unlike, say, HBO's Carnivale, which it appears to resemble in tone and mood), and in that regard the trailer delivers that aspect just sublimely. Whether the show itself will be any good is far too early to tell, but I like to think there's room for a gritty unusual terror/noir piece like this on contemporary television. And I have faith in the writers/producers, who have delivered mostly good stuff before (I'll forgive showrunner John Logan for his involvement in Star Trek: Nemesis, as he has redeemed himself with grand movies like Skyfall, Hugo and The Aviator). As for the actors bringing the characters and their strengths and flaws to life, they seem to be a mixed bag. Though I'm always pleased seeing sultry dame Eva Green, suffering Josh Hartnett's blank apathic stare on the small screen for hours on end is not something I hunger for, but I can live with it if needs be. And ah, Timothy Dalton... I sincerely hope this show will turn out as fascinating as the trailer suggests it will be, as the subject matter certainly has potential. In fact, it may just render that announced LXG TV-series redundant.

Today's Double News: Game of Gotham, a Foreshadowing

This just in from MS, by me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153685/nieuwe_lange_preview_game_of_thrones_seizoen_4

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153660/ben_mckenzie_gecast_voor_gotham-serie

15 minutes of previewing GoT, can it get any better? Sure, watching the actual new season itself instead of being hyped to death. Unlike most other (shorter) teasers for the upcoming season, this one proves really worthwhile. Sure, you got the cast and crew joking around a bit, showing they're just people too, but considering all the death, dismay, dismemberment, decapitation, dicks and dragons these folks deal with each year while working on this magnificent show, it's obvious they are in need of such simple diversions to stay sane. Plus, it's always a blast to see the actors, whose performances you utterly love (yes, you do! Even if they're evil people!), had a great time filming this. Of course HBO wouldn't dare show the bad days - and I reckon there are some, up in the frozen wastes of Iceland and the soaring heat of Croatia - but at least nobody is actually losing any body parts. And even if silly shenanigans and zany dance routines are not your thing, there's plenty of actual new footage to get that mouth of yours watering for more sword & sorcery & sex. There's an epic new dragon shot (my, those beasties are growing rather large!) as well as a first Meereen cityscape, which looks splendid and distinct from the Slaver's Bay cities we witnessed so far. Too bad it makes its throne room look somewhat underwhelming (small for a throne rooom really), but with such compelling performances and terrific drama (and loads of naughty bit cleverly intermixed) we won't even begin to notice such trivial trifles. Winter may still be coming after three seasons, but Seven Hells be damned if this show doesn't stay as formidable as ever.

And now for something completely different. Or not really actually. Just a different setting in a different universe. But a similar game of thrones will soon be played on the small screen in Gotham City, as cops and crooks struggle for power of this metropolis. Not to mention a certain Caped Crusader, though since he's still a kid here I wouldn't bet on seeing much of him anytime soon. Which means Gotham's Finest have to make a stand against crime running rampant on its own. Fortunately James Gordon is on the job, and this week news broke that Ben McKenzie has been cast in that role. I have never heard of him, as I haven't watched anything he's in. Not on purpose of course, it just never popped up in my path. I'll be sure to watch a bit of Gotham though, even if just to see whether that town is anywhere near as interesting without Batman as it is with. Considering many ingredients that make the Dark Knight so enduring are present here, and the story unfolds around many of the same characters, except younger, chances are good it'll prove compelling material. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time revamping a franchise completely with a younger cast severely backfired (at least in my opinion, though not necessarily in those of others). But at least J.J. Abrams is not involved with this one. Good thing too, since there's someone I'd really liked to see Batman beat up.

Today's News: Hannibal sinks its teeth in a new future victim (500th post!)

Posted another scoop on MS late last night. Posting it here as my 500th post:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153489/michael_pitt_voegt_zich_bij_cast_hannibal_seizoen_2

Now that's he's sleeping with the fishes on Boardwalk Empire, Pitt has joined the cast of another show where you know for sure things are gonna end up badly for him. We've already seen the gruesome results of the meetings between Lecter and Verger on Ridley Scott's baroque Hannibal movie from 2001, and the TV show will now demystify how the appalling facial mutilations came to be for our enjoyment. Do we even want to know? It's not knowledge we particularly need, but any excuse to see Mads Mikkelsen psychologically toy with other people before proceeding to ruthlessly dispatch them, be it to their own private version of a mental hell or to the afterlife, makes for intriguing and intelligent television. If you can stomach such gruelling subject matter of course. Hannibal is certainly not for everybody. Even though the actual kills are most often not wholly explicitly shown, the amply present visual imagery of horribly disfigured bodily remains, intercut with lavish feasts of usually unidentified dinner ingredients (we're to decide whether Hannibal is engaging in his trademark cannibalism for ourselves, but it was stated early on in the show that he never eats a vegetarian meal), effectively cause a continuous feeling of queeziness and emotional unease. In short: this is a most disturbing show, successfully balancing attraction and abjection. You don't really want to watch it, but you can't turn it off either. Pitt's performance on Boardwalk was no different, as he portrayed a formerly good soul corrupted by war and coaxed into crime by his screwed-up family relations (his mother was only a kid when she had him for crying out loud!), ultimately bringing him to an untimely but foreseeable end. His personal demons were the main cause of his downfall, as is the case with Mason Verger who wouldn't have ended up the way he did if he hadn't condemned himself to his eventual deranged emotional state, something Hannibal feeded for his own nefarious purposes. The results, as illustrated before by Gary Oldman in heavy facial prosthetics, were pretty bad. It'll be interesting to see just how it came about, even if we already know what's gonna happen later down the road. Predictability so far hasn't been a detrimental issue on Hannibal, as we already know what's gonna happen to most of these characters (and the ones whose fate remains unknown are not particularly the people we're watching this show for). The talented cast and generally sickly but savoury atmosphere have made for a compelling first season, and Pitt's addition to the series is only an indication season 2 wont be any different. Plenty of interesting but abhorrent courses to follow, it seems. Don't watch this show while you're eating.

That's right: eeww! Just the sort of stuff you want your readers to see when reaching 500 posts.

Today's News: are we ready to see this now?

Today for a bit of more recent news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153322/eerste_poster_fifty_shades_of_grey

No Nymphomaniac type of shenanigans here. No suggestive imagery, orgiastic mug shots or full fledged revealing sexual material as in the case of that erotic movie's (excessively titillating) marketing campaign. Just a simple, respectable teaser of Christian Grey's respectably dressed backside. The only thing causing arousal here is what spectators bring to it themselves based on their own expectations, or for those who have read the infamous novel, experiences. For those familiar with the original writings, the poster may exude the promise of financial wealth - not everyone can afford such a splendid Seattle cityscape view after all - in the service of a handsome (?) young billionaire who owns a major company. There's quite a lot of potential for steamy sex right there, considering men with money are generally huge turn-ons. But if you don't know about the novel's (and thus the movie's) premise, this poster simply looks bland and not particularly exciting. 'Mr. Grey will see you now', the tagline states. But are we willing to see Mr. Grey?

Isn't the whole hype surrounding Fifty Shades of Grey since its very cinematic inception (which already is quite a while ago by now, considering all the casting troubles) causing us to spawn expectations that this film simply won't be able to live up to? Considering the recent news that the movie will contain less sex scenes that the book, for fear of overdoing it and thus making the movie feel like its droning on, I don't think this movie is gonna be especially arousing. Those who have read the book will no doubt complain about the lack of steamy sexy material, while those that are new to the franchise will wonder what all the talk was about. Or maybe it's a fact this movie, like is often said about the book, has a target audience that is simply limited to 'housewives': mature women dreaming about sexual escapades with younger men and experiencing them by proxy via this novel, which most other audiences would consider a dull read. If that's true, the movie has found its perfect director in 46-year old Sam Taylor-Johnson, who stopped just thinking about having sex with younger men and fullfilled that fantasy by dating and eventually marrying young Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Kick-Ass, Nowhere Boy), less than half her age. Oh well, as long as they're happy who are we to judge... Whether Taylor-Johnson will satisfy viewers equally with her direction of Fifty Shades of Grey remains to be seen, and this poster is certainly not at all indicative of the film's eventual success or failure at the boxoffice. Fans will either get wet because of this piece of promotioanl imagery or consider it a boring start. The rest of us will wonder just who the hell this Mr. Grey is and why we should care in the first place.

Today's Mini-Review: Dial M for Murder 3D

Dial M for Murder 3D: ****/*****, or 8/10

If you think the contemporary 3D craze is a new phenomenon, think again. Though the current output of 3D movies far surpasses those of bygone eras, there have been two previous waves in cinema featuring the addition of a third dimension to draw audiences away from their television sets – first from the sets themselves, the second time from the choices offered by VCR technology: these days it's a combination of high quality television production, the relatively large size of the home cinema screen and the ease in digital technology for users to watch whatever they fancy that threatens audience attendance – the previous one during the Eighties, the very first one in the Fifties. Then, like today, some high profile directors, fascinated by the narrative and visual possibilities offered by the three-dimensional aspect, tinkered with the technology to see what it could accomplish and add to the overall viewing experience. During the short lived fad of the Fifties, the most notable director to explore the new dimension was Alfred Hitchcock, who used it only once, for his 1954 crime thriller Dial M for Murder. Though its 3D release was almost as brief as the interest in 3D technology itself in that decade, it cannot be denied the 3D version of this classic film still makes for a fascinating watch, both with regards to the use of the third dimension and the story itself. Thanks to the EYE Filmmuseum in Amsterdam, I got the opportunity to experience this film as Hitchcock shot it, in a beautifully restored print that utilizes the modern 3D techniques, which also benefits the vividly rich Fifties' colour palette that would have been absent in the original 3D print with its notorious red & green glasses.

It's clear upon watching the film Hitchcock made ample use of the added layers of depth 3D offered, as we get a clear sense of persons and objects in the foreground, the middle and the background of the frame, the depth perception shifting as another person or object moves into frame prominently on a closer layer. Considering most of this Kammerspiel type film takes place in a single room, 3D actually comes in quite handy to make the environment feel more alive and diverse than it otherwise would have felt. Especially notable is the scene where two characters are in mid-conversation and a vase enters the shot, basically right in our faces as we see the two men continue to talk behind it, though separated (both visually and in terms of their narrative interests) by the vase which is positioned in the middle of the shot composition. Of course, a few more typical in-your-face shots are also present, and these work far better than the ones we have grown used to, outstretched arms feeling almost tangible as they seem to hover right in front of us. Also charming to behold is the blue matte lines that appear around characters as they are in motion: the modern 'high frame rate' technology might have been of benefit to avoid such visual oddities, but in this case it makes the movie feel even more historically intriguing from a technological viewpoint. Nevertheless, after the first hour it seems Hitchcock was running out of ideas as no particularly noteworthy new use of 3D is witnessed and the novelty of its sensations wears off. Until that point, this film makes some of the finest use of 3D to this day. The incomparable Grace Kelly never looked more beautiful than she does in all three dimensions in this remastered 3D print.

In terms of story Dial M for Murder is simply a little outdated, through no fault of its own. The problem is it has been emulated, copied and parodied for almost sixty years. Though Hitchcock's famous mastery of suspense and the delivery and timing of his actors' dialogue is still of the highest order, it cannot help but make the movie feel like its dragging its feet just a little too long. The moment police inspector Hubbard (John Williams; not that one) enters the crime scene and displays just how brilliantly deductive the mind of a British inspector works as he spends the next 30 minutes explaining the details of the murder attempt for longer than we care to hear it (we got the point!), while occasionally touching his moustache in every conceivable clichéd manner, the movie drones on a little too much. Until that time though, the exciting plot offered by a man (Ray Milland) who means to murder his wife (Kelly) by blackmailing a former schoolmate who has fallen on hard times (Anthony Dawson), only to have the assassination gone horribly awry, makes for s striking crime drama of the highest order, good for many a scene of emotional tension like only Hitchcock managed to deliver. 1954 proved a good year for Hitchcock, as the celebrated director released his even more highly acclaimed (and superior) suspense masterpiece Rear Window – also starring Grace Kelly – only a few months later.

Today's Mini-Review: Gravity

Gravity: ****/*****, or 8/10

It is rare these days to encounter effects in movies that look so astounding that they pull the audience in completely and won't let go until the credits roll. After twenty-odd years of increasing overuse of CGI, it seemed positive that everything had been done, also owing to the plethora of home video releases containing behind-the-scenes footage that reveals in detail the tricks of the trade, thus enhancing the audience's expertise on what is real and what is not when watching a film. It has diminished the emotional impact of the contemporary blockbuster, which often tends to rely heavily on such big budget effects work, because we spectators think we've seen it all and know it all by now. But once in a while a movie comes along that does manage to sweep us off our feet entirely and immerses us completely into the world its director has envisioned for our viewing pleasure. In such uncommon cases, the often derogatory term 'effects film' turns out both wholly justified and incorrect: the effects it contains do not make a film, but instead engage us into a full fledged cinematic experience we cannot help but be captivated by so strongly that all we can do is undergo it until it releases its grip on us. And then we still sit back in awe for a while longer, with that most pertinent of questions firmly on our minds: how on Earth did they do that?! Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) has crafted just such a fantastic experience with Gravity, a superior science-fact feature that adheres to the laws of physics but constructs its own laws in terms of what you can accomplish cinematographically these days. From a narrative point of view it's simply the struggle of two astronauts (George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) to survive in our planet's orbit after their space shuttle has been devastated by space debris caused by the demolition of a Russian satellite. In every other regard, there is nothing simple about Gravity. 
 

It is most definitely one of the greatest accomplishments in the field of visual effects and 3-D technology in recent years and an incredible tour-de-force on the part of both actors whose capabilities are put to the most extreme test imaginable. In fact, you are pulled in so deeply you neither have the time nor the interest to agree the story is pretty bare and the few attempts at introducing deeper levels of character development – including Bullock's character still trying to cope with the death of her young daughter – don't add all that much to the protagonists' plight. We run with them because we cannot help but feel we are one of them, and we too must get out of this ordeal in one piece before time (and oxygen) runs out. Applying his signature use of the 'long take', Cuaron opens the movie on a quiet, peaceful note as we witness “our fellow astronauts” working on a telescope, a job that suddenly turns extremely hazardous as the debris field hits their workplace hard, cutting them loose, adrift into the endless black ocean of space: all in a single, apparently uninterrupted shot (though few will actually consider that fact as we are already engaged fully by this point). We're slowly introduced to their Zero-G environment, but soon must deal with intense camera movements as we float around the shuttle in fast motions at first, and soon almost unchecked as the mission is spiralling out of control. Their spacecraft lost, our fellow pair of astronauts must make its way to the ISS before it too gets hit by the rubble, and before they run out of breathable air, if they ever hope to get back down to Earth. Unfortunately physics don't make it easy on them and reaching their goal appears ever more hopeless. All to our benefit, as we are treated to some of the most spectacular visual imagery seen on the big screen in years. Gravity is a prime showcase of what 3-D can add to a film other than a higher admission price. Not only is the cinematography breathtaking, we feel part of a three-dimensional environment at all times, surrounded by pieces of space rubble on every side, or Bullock's sweat and tears when we are locked in an escape pod with her in very close quarters. The intricate shots of floating equipment and people going up, over and around each other adds a layer of depth that is not likely to be surpassed in film any time soon. Even though the lack of sound in space deprives us of an auditory experience the likes of Star Wars, the immersive visuals make us forget all about any lack where other sense are concerned. Credit is also due to the seasoned actors, Bullock in particular, that make the whole experience feel that much more convincing – though the effect the film has on our stomachs does half their work already – by delivering excellent performances few of their colleagues could have matched as they play off against each other and... yes, against what else, exactly? How much, if anything, of what we seen on screen was there to aid them? Even for a trained eye, it's nigh impossible to tell where the real setting ends and the fictional construct begins. Yet we never get the feeling we are watching visual effects, which is of course exactly the trick such effects aim to pull off: don't let the audience know you are only an effect. The result is a staggering, completely compelling cinematic experience, one best seen on the big screen as it is doubtful its full physical and emotional impact is done justice on a home cinema release, though hopefully the latter can tell us just how Cuaron and his team managed to accomplish this extraordinary feat. One thing is for sure, Gravity is gravitating towards well deserved Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography Oscars.

Today's Mini-Review: Borgman

Borgman: ****/*****

Alex van Warmerdam's darkest and most disturbing film to date is also his best, perfectly balancing black humour and psychological terror. After having been rooted out of their carefully hidden underground lairs, a group of strange vagabonds led by the calculating and enigmatic Camiel Borgman (fabulous performance by Flemish actor Jan Bijvoet) slowly but surely infiltrates the life of a well-to-do family. The titular character himself manipulates his way into the house of a rich but bored married couple (Jeroen Perceval and Hadewych Minis) by getting himself brutally beaten up by the husband, after which the wife, driven by both guilt and curiosity, secretly invites him into their lives. The stranger's mystique grabs hold of her more and more, until she begs him to stay when he tells her he is leaving. After that moment, there is no turning back for the family, as Borgman and his co-conspirators stop at nothing to take over, with deadly consequences. The result is an hallucinatory film that holds the middle between being an absurd comedy and a nightmarish horror movie about the seemingly familiar but ultimately inexplicable 'Other' permeating everyday life completely until it has utterly changed into something else entirely. It's 'them' versus 'us', the unknown world outside corrupting the familiar surroundings inside, but which side we are (supposed to be) on is never clear: do we go with this bizarre revolution of the dispossessed have-nots against the haves that live in luxury, or will we choose the side that lives a safe but dull life of complacent banality and conservative conformity? Bijvoet's Borgman is a terrifically played cold, unfathomable force of nature, a subtle instigator of change who will stop at nothing to achieve his goal, though it's never clear just what his aim is. Equally compelling in her performance is Minis, who believably relays and builds on her character of a woman torn by a sense of dread and a burning desire for this strange man that can pull her out of her dull family life, while realizing there will be potentially devastating consequences if she lets him in. Opening with a citation we are to assume is Biblical – '…and they came down to Earth to replenish their ranks', which in the end is exactly what has transpired – the film suggests Borgman and his minions (which includes Van Warmerdam himself in a supporting performance) may be something other than human. You might even be inclined to think they may not even be there at all, existing only as cruel manifestations of the wife's psychological angst, but they are also destructively active outside of her direct environment as well (as her gardener and his wife discover, much to their dismay and our amusement). It's this surreal confusion about the protagonist's goals and existential status, combined with outrageous but thoroughly hilarious instances of dark humour and sombre witticisms that make Borgman an unusual but intriguing horror story, which despite its overly loose and offbeat third act is most definitely one of the finest Dutch films in many years.

Today's News: Gotham City gets its own TV show... without the Caped Crusader

This just in from MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150349/batman_spin-off_serie_gotham_op_fox

With all the buzz surrounding Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it comes as no surprise other studios are looking to cash in on the continuing popularity of comic book adaptations on the big screen by exploring other potential venues for the universes their franchises are set in, like the small screen. If one studio can pull it off successfully, why not another after all? Not an illogical (or very original) line of thinking, but Gotham is gonna have a tougher time convincing the audience. After all, Fox may have bought the rights to the city, but not to the city's illustrious protector, which is of course what people want to see the most, and what many will expect to see. At least in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. there is the possibility to occasionally have major tentpole characters - like Iron Man, Thor or Captain America - that people are familiar with from the movies guest star on the show, though the odds of this actually happening are slim, since the actors playing them have likely grown too big to consider a quick telly appearance worthwhile. We may be in for a pleasant surprise somewhere down the road, but don't count on it yet. Not so on Gotham. Especially since the show also excludes the option of introducing Batman from a narrative viewpoint. The vigilante simply doesn't exist yet in the time frame this show will be set in. At best, we may get a cameo or something from a very young Bruce Wayne. Still, that would make us feel like watching Harry Potter without Harry, or Jurassic Park without dinosaurs. That said, even without the Dark Knight, someone is watching over this cesspool of scum and villainy and his name is Jim Gordon (but not played by Gary Oldman this time, obviously). He's been with us for 74 years, so there must be some interesting stories to tell about him. And there's still the chance we might get to see Bats' other acquaintances, both friendly and adversarial. There's a few of his allies already around in this period (Lucius Fox for example), and a notable bunch of baddies as well. Of course, just how their copyrights are settled will remain to be seen. Nevertheless, I'm quite convinced Gotham City can be a fascinating place without Batman too. Especially when it was written by the guy who brought us Rome! After all, that particular city was still very intriguing without Julius Caesar.

Today's Double News: Now the Panopticon Sees You

Here's two bits of news I posted on MovieScene yesterday:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/149192/now_you_see_me_2_in_de_planning

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/149193/tarsem_singh_regisseert_sci-fi_film_the_panopticon


Panopticons! I like panopticons! I used the term in my master thesis on science fiction films between 1968 and 1977 (with Hal 9000 as the prime example of a panopticon, but certainly not the only one from that era). From the plot synopsis given of this film, I don't see the panopticon yet (it might be the protagonist himself, but if so, he has forgotten it), but I'm pretty sure it'll be made clear in the movie itself. I'm looking forward to this film, I have liked Tarsem Singh's films so far, or at least the two I've seen, The Fall and Immortals (but then, he hasn't made many movies at all). Granted, he's all style over substance, a visual artist though not so much a narrative genius, but his visuals are gripping and evocative enough to keep intriguing me. It'll be fascinating to see him do some more science fiction-ey fare no doubt. So far there's little more to say on the topic, since all we have is a director and a brief plot breakdown. I'll keep track of this one for sure though.

I still haven't seen Now You See Me. I wish I had that one night at Pathé de Munt, where they launched 3,000 euros in 5-euro bills into the theatre when the same thing happened in the actual movie, as a promotional stunt. Now that is what I call a convincing 3-D effect! Nevertheless, the mixed things I heard about this movie have kept me from seeing it so far in favor of other films and I'll probably miss it entirely as it's on its last legs here. It seems the movie doesn't need my money though (if it were to get any at all, since I don't have to pay for my dose of movies anymore, like the regular audience does), it's doing well enough without me. But that doesn't justify rushing a redundant sequel into theatres, though the term 'redundancy' is itself redundant when Hollywood smells money. They better be careful not to go overboard in terms of budget like the big blockbusters Now You See Me is currently beating at the box office. After all, the film may not have been that expensive - though 75 million dollars isn't exactly cheap either - but it has a surprising abundance of big names (Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Jesse Eisenberg, Melanie Laurent and Mark Ruffalo among them), and if those need to be back for the second installment, they'll want more money: it's an inescapable natural law. Of course they can go the alternative route and reintroduce the same concept with a new cast of characters, but I doubt the audience would take kindly to that if it's really titled Now You See Me 2, which also remains to be seen. In fact, just like is the case with The Panopticon, there's not enough confirmed information to go on just yet in order to either discard this sequel as a bad idea (though many, if not most, sequels are), or to hail it as a welcome addition to the first film. Right now, we simply see nothing yet.

Today's Mini-Review: Kapringen

Kapringen: ****/*****, or 7/10

Harrowing tale of a hijacked ship's crew on one side and the ship's company negotiators on the other. A Danish cargo ship is commandeered by Somali pirates who demand 15 million euros ransom. The company's CEO (Søren Malling), against sound advice from a hired expert in hijacking, decides to engage in negotiations with the pirates himself and soon finds himself in too deep where his personal emotions are concerned, which increasingly causes escalations in this dire situation. Meanwhile, the crew of the ship, including the cook Mikkel (Pilou Asbæk), must cope with psychological and violent abuse by the Somalis, while also suffering months of boredom and unhygienic living conditions, including a severe lack of food. However, they form an unlikely bond with their captors, who don't prove to be so inhuman at all (and rather hungry too), just poor, uneducated people driven to extreme action for the most part. Tense scenes of Mikkel being forced to cook for the pirates at gunpoint are interspersed with surprisingly uplifting scenes of the hostages and the Somalis engaging in boisterous song and dance to celebrate the capture and cooking of a fish. However, director Tobias Lindholm makes it perfectly clear that every act of sympathy and generosity the captives receive can be taken from them just as swiftly by their captors due to the ever prolonged negotiation procedures the CEO makes them live through, as he is stalling for time in an effort to bring down the amount of money demanded by the pirates to a more affordable level. Of course the uncertainty suffered by the hostages' families and his decreasing levels of success soon make even him hesitant about a happy outcome, as negotiations seem to rapidly spiral towards a boiling point. Kapringen is a terrific and terrifying movie, executed very realistically. Despite the solid performances this distills from the lead actors, at times realism does hinder the movie's pace since little happens, as it would over the course of four months sitting on a ship that goes nowhere while negotiations have turned so sour that both parties hardly communicate anymore. Nevertheless, the ever more critical situation onboard ship, where the crew has to deal with bored and impatient pirates, does result in many a suspenseful scene, made all the more disturbing by Asbæk's compelling acting. This film is made by the creators of the Danish hit series Borgen and, apart from the good writing of course, it shows: half the cast was featured on that TV-series, so occasionally you start asking yourself, why isn't Danish prime minister Birgitte Nyborg getting herself involved in this affair to save the day?

Today's Mini-Review: Trance

Trance: ***/*****, or 6/10

Danny Boyle's attempt to mindfuck us, which proves only half successful, witnesses the weaving of a stylistically elaborate mosaic but a less well conceived narrative that turns increasingly less gripping. The first 40 minutes delivers a good set-up, as we follow an art heist at an auction, where a small band of robbers led by Vincent Cassel (always a good choice to feature as a bad boy in any movie) makes off with a painting by Goya that has just sold for over 27 million pounds. At least, they thought they got away with it. In a sweeping bit of exposition the protagonist, the mentally troubled auctioneer James McAvoy (who does a fine job mixing his usual physical attractiveness with a somewhat unhinged and erratic personality), has just directly educated us, the audience, in the veritable impossibility of stealing paintings at auctions, partially thanks to the well timed expertise of art protectors like himself. Thing is, he's in on the ploy. But not really, as he has a hidden agenda all his own. That severely backfires on him as he gets hit in the head after hiding the painting prior to the robbery, thus forgetting its location, much to the chagrin of his fellow conspirators who do not take this failure lightly and soon have no choice but to turn to a cold and professional hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson, doing a better job than usual) when their own physically uncomfortable methods of persuasion fail to reveal the knowledge they seek. Dawson all too easily gets drawn into their shady world of plots and doublecrossings, by her own testament because she's bored of the dreary routine of her work, but obviously because she's fascinated and possibly charmed by McAvoy's pained art thief. And that's when things start to go from an intriguing premise to an ever more disappointing pay-off, as we soon find something else entirely is going on, and this whole movie was never really about stealing art so much as it was about an ex-couple with an alarming past reconnecting thanks to Dawson's mental machinations (think of it as the crime thriller version of Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, just not nearly as compelling). The problem is, the art theft plot intrigued us much more than this renewed lover's quarrel does, but soon gets snowed under in favour of the latter plot line. At least strong performances throughout and the occasional solid action sequence and moment of mental shock (i.e., gore) provide some distraction from ever more jumbled and chaotically structured plot development that just can't seem to be able to let us reconnect with the movie itself when the damage is done. And just where was that darn painting? For all we care, it might as well have been shoved up Dawson's clean shaven beaver, which we get to see in close-up twice. Lucky us, but this movie would have had more resonance in terms of being memorable if it had also featured a more carefully balanced plot that doesn't end up in blatant melodrama that you can't, and don't truly care to, wrap your mind around.

Today's Mini-review: The Imposter

The Imposter: ***/*****, or 6/10

Semi-documentary centered around the unbelievable case of a French con man who posed as a missing American boy and almost got away with it. 13 year old Nick Barclay disappears in Texas in 1994, seemingly reappears a few years later in Spain, but looks nothing like the original (natural ageing not withstanding). Yet on return in the States, he is hailed by “his” family as the actual missing child, until the web of lies on both sides just can't do anything but unravel completely. The imposter is outed as a French swindler who has been passing himself off as missing children before, despite being in his late twenties. The real questions the film then tries to answer revolves around the ease with which the family accepted the con man. As their preferred explanation, the filmmakers suggest the possibility someone in the family was involved with Nick's supposed death, which his relatives tried to cover up. No hard evidence for this theory is presented though. The film consists of interviews with the various parties involved, intercut with re-enactments of what they claim transpired. This movie in a lot of ways emulates the mischievous protagonist himself, posing as a documentary and even being accepted as such, while obviously heavily fictionalized. Still, in many instances it's quite unclear where the truth ends and the fiction begins. This could have made for a more intriguing film were it not for its overreliance on talking heads, which soon gets tedious (especially when they repeat themselves). The failure to account for what really happened to poor little Nick also makes for a frustrating ending: though this cannot be contributed to the filmmakers, their emphasis on their own speculation regarding Nick's death at the hands of his family, which is investigated quite thoroughly near the end of the film and then briskly discarded as a mere theory, also makes for an unsatisfying climax. This film undeniably applies an interesting format to tell its incredible story, but the number of narrative lies employed to make it more tense end up doing some injustice to its contents.

Batman's bane: pain and hope

The Dark Knight Rises: ****/*****, or 8/10

Say what you will about the shocking event of a lunatic dressing up like The Dark Knight's Joker and shooting dozens of people in a movie theater in the USA, at least it indicates that character as played by Heath Ledger (1979-2008) has become iconic in only a short space of time. Of course, that does cause a problem for the next installment in the franchise, since it has a lot to live up too. Not surprisingly, expectations for The Dark Knight Rises have risen to extreme heights in the last few months, every rumour involving the project mindlessly taken for actual truth, every tidbit of news meticulously examined by legions of overexcited fanboys, every newly released still picture undergoing major scrutiny and investigation as to how it might fit in the movie and its overall plot. With such hyperactive hype, it seems unlikely the film will hold any surprises for the die-hard fans that have looked at all the available evidence and undoubtedly know the movie by heart before they've even seen it as a whole. And now the final product has finally arrived in theaters everywhere, so everyone can go and watch it and we can at last put the hype behind us and look at the motion picture objectively. Simply said, Nolan struck gold again, though not as amazingly rich as before.

Warning! Spoilers! Set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, its successor first sees Bruce Wayne (still played by the overly serious Christian Bale) in the midst of a deep depression, still mourning the loss of his childhood friend and the love of his life Rachel Dawes, who fell prey to one of the Joker's diabolical shenanigans. Living alone as a hermit at Wayne Manor, only in the company of his faithful butler Alfred (again played impeccably by the ever reliable Sir Michael Caine), he has hardly set a foot outside since his alter ego Batman took the fall for the faults of the maniacal Harvey 'Two-Face' Dent, after which the Caped Crusader himself also left the scene indefinitely (and still nobody can't figure out the identity of the masked vigilante). However, when a mysterious cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway playing the ever infamous Catwoman, though never referred to as such) steals a family heirloom from right under his very nose, he's intrigued enough to pursue the matter personally, not so much for the stolen goods as for the identity of this intriguing female thief. However, he soon finds she's just the tip of the iceberg in a much larger, lethal scheme that once again puts his beloved city of Gotham at the hands of a mad terrorist plot, instigated by the excessively intimidating mercenary leader Bane (Tom Hardy fully muscled up and wearing a slightly silly mask). And so, the Batman is forced to come out of retirement to battle the forces of evil once more over the fate of his city, despite having been out of it for quite a while, but still equipped with all the right martial arts moves, clever detective skills and above all, fabulously cool gadgets ranging from bat shaped throwing stars to his own private stealth jet. Problem is, against Bane, it turns out it's just not enough...

As he did before to great critical and fanboy acclaim, Christopher Nolan fully manages to apply a full range of motivations and pathos to all his major characters, at times making the movie feel more like a Shakespeare play than a superhero blockbuster, but he's ovbiously fully aware this is his final Batman movie (to many audience members' chagrin, including mine) and he should close things off accordingly, deliveringly one last action extravaganza to completely blow his loyal spectators' minds in every respect. Resulting in a 164 minute film, he's definitely gone all out, but at times it feels he's just gone overboard a little too much, considering the excessively epic setpieces, including a city wide occupation that lasts for five months, armies of thugs and police officers duking it out on the streets and a nuclear explosion to neatly tie all ends up. It all feels a little too large scale for a Batman film, considering he's usually restricted to smaller, more personal vendettas. Fortunately, the movie acknowledges this aspect too by giving Batman plenty of personal issues to deal with, from a double love affair – with Selina on the one hand and philanthropist-with-a-secret Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) on the other – ending in betrayal and near death, to the admiration of rookie cop and wanna-be pupil Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and most importantly, Bane's ties to mentor-nemesis Ra's Al Ghul, thought killed in action in Batman Begins, which makes The Dark Knight Rises refer to the first movie with the proper respect, even having Liam Neeson return for a small bit part as the sinister Ducard who tutored Bruce in the ways of a shadow warrior. With so much on Batman's plate, this film has plenty of fascinating material to cover already. Just consider the epic action scenes a nice little bonus, aiding an already grand finale to this trilogy by giving it some additional visual flair that neither helps nor hurts the already satisfying experience that forms the whole.

With so many characters, many of them new additions to the cast and thus terra incognita, it's a wonder the many plot lines involving them don't get in each other's way, though it must be said, both Michael Caine and Gary Oldman (playing Batman's long time ally Police Commisioner Gordon again) are out of the picture for longer than we would like. The new characters all get a decent set-up and the necessary background information is supplied (though some retain a fair amount of mystery), but the main villain Bane and the delightful rogue Catwoman get the lion's share of attention. The former opens the movie with an instant classic action scene, where he is bound and held on a plane by the CIA, only to quickly have things revealed to be totally under Bane's control as he turns the tables on his supposed captors, demolishes their plane spectacularly and forcefully takes what he was after. Bane is in essence a one-man army, much like Batman himself, with all the right training, fights skills and gadgets, except more prone to violence. Hardy, exceptionally beefed up to make him larger than life, plays him with believable bravoure, lack of subtlety and genuine scariness to make you believe that if anyone can break Batman, mentally and physically, this is the guy who would, and he does just that, snapping the Dark Knight's back upon their first encounter, taking all his assets, overrunning his town and reducing it to total anarchy and banishing his enemy to a creepy prison pit that nobody but Bane himself is said to have escaped. With regard to the latter, this literal hell hole feels a bit out of place in Nolan's vision of the Batman legend, surrounded by mysticism and located in a desert environment, but with such a contradicting feel to the dark streets of Gotham it serves adequately as a place where the defeated Dark Knight can rise, surviving his ordeal and returning to his home town with a vengeance to have another go at his new archnemesis.

You might ask, 'why so serious?', and the answer would be that Bane just doesn't joke around. He's no Joker out for general chaos, he's Gotham's reckoning, out to finish what Ra's Al Ghul started in Batman Begins, razing the city to the ground, reducing its citizens to utter desperation and destroying their dark protector in every way possible. However, he's also no Joker in the way he just doesn't have the same impact as a villainous character, despite the havoc he wreaks on poor Batman. It's likely due to his somewhat grotesque appearance, wearing a goofy breathing mask that distorts his voice but still leaves room for a funny accent. Of course the Bane from the comic books looked worse, but in hindsight Nolan would still have been allowed to change the character's look to make him less comic-y and more realistically a bad guy.

Fortunately the much needed levity is found in the character of Catwoman. Hathaway portrays her as the typical sultry “feline fatale” we've come to love in all her incarnations (with maybe one blatant exception; eh. Halle Berry?). She's obviously more interested in her prize than the men she deceives to get what she wants and she features catchy dry wit and major seductive talents, though there's also a certain level of fragility mixed in: her origins remain to be revealed but it's clear she didn't grow up in a happy place, making her only care for herself and her blonde (girl)friend Jen, seeking to escape the world and aiming for a clean slate. She may look cheerful in her devil-may-care attitude but there's an undeniable level of fright and trauma present. Plus, she's extremely spiteful of rich people, making the chemistry between the nonchalant billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne – who's really loosing up from his personal demons when meeting her – and Selina a surprise to herself and a blast to watch for the audience, surpassed only by the even more charming and wittier chemistry between both their masked alter egos.You root for the pair of them, though Selina's bad history makes it seemingly impossible for them to ever affectionately exchange anything other than wisecracking dialogue as they fight Bane's henchmen together. While Bane is the movie's major antagonist, it's clearly Catwoman who steals the show.

Nolan completes his masterpiece trilogy by addressing yet another major theme that forms an integral part of the Batman persona. Whereas Batman Begins revolved around fear and The Dark Knight was all about chaos, The Dark Knight Rises' focal point is hope, though in every character's event it's born out of pain. Selina hopes for a chance at a new life to escape her gloomy old one, whereas Bane, suffering from terrible pains only controlled by his mask, hopes to exact revenge for Ra's Al Ghul by breaking his mentor's wayward pupil. Bruce Wayne has lived in pain for nearly a decade and finally learns to let go of it in getting involved with Catwoman and Miranda, but their betrayal leads to even more pain, as he is exiled to an abyss and forced to watch as Bane cuts of his city from the rest of the world and threatens to destroy it in a nuclear explosion, making Gotham's citizens hope for a champion to end this reign of terror. The good guys eventually rise above their pain and face their tormentors to liberate Gotham from its ordeal. As with all of his movies, Nolan injects his story and the characters inhabiting it with a great amount of psychological issues, delivering an action film that doesn't just go for high adrenaline spectacle and sensational sights (though it does feature plenty of both) but also contains thematic values and insights that make it rise far above the average summer blockbuster, yet still consists of many excellent moments making it a successful popcorn movie too, especially when Batman goes all out on fighting crime with his array of awesome vehicles. When the Caped Crusader finally hits the screen in full regalia on his Batpod in the middle of a wild chase scene between cop cars and thugs on motorcycles, accompanied by Hans Zimmer's memorable booming orchestral score, the audience can do nothing but cheer and fully immerse itself in the gripping action.

It might as well be called a fact Ledger's untimely death gave The Dark Knight and his own performance as the Joker a mystique that could never be duplicated, and Nolan doesn't bother to try, going so far as to never even mention the Joker in The Dark Knight Rises. While the regrettable Aurora incident will certainly give this film a macabre place in film history all its own, and it will undoubtedly break a number of box office records as any film this highly anticipated would, Nolan's Batman-movie-to-end-all-Batman-movies cannot surpass the superior The Dark Knight, despite Nolan's best efforts. Like the Bane character, it's simply larger than life a little too much and it could be called too epic for its own good. However, it's doubtful anybody ever expected it to top its predecessor, no matter how much people looked forward to it. As a conclusion to Nolan's superhero trilogy as a whole, it succeeds in its purpose, resulting in a grand finale for the much beloved and acclaimed franchise ending on a bittersweet note that still allows hope for more to come (which Nolan states is not gonna happen: maybe for the best). Were it not for the studio already in the process of revamping the character and rebooting the franchise yet again (after all, there's simply too much opportunity to make more money here), Batman could finally retire for real this time. In any event, Nolan's Batman will always be fondly remembered as the ultimate take on the Dark Knight.

And watch the trailer here

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknightrises/