Today's News: suicide Avengers code

This week's news, first batch:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158219/cast_dcs_suicide_squad_bekendgemaakt

Quite a stellar and diverse cast, but I see some possible problems here. The first addresses the casting itself. To my mind, casting Will Smith in an ensemble movie isn't your best bet. The man is a Hollywood superstar, they tend to demand attention too strongly to cope well with sharing the screen. Especially with actors that aren't in their salary class, as these other cast members simply aren't. Will Smith kinda has a bad reputation in this department since Wild Wild West (if set rumours are to be trusted, that is). Whether he'll readily accept having his face covered continuously in the role of Deadshot also remains to be seen. Of course, you can argue that The Avengers does a pretty good job joining various superstars together for a big epic project, but let's not forget most of them were made that famous because of the work they did previously for Marvel, well aware that they needed to reign in their temperaments in a joint venture soon enough. Their own movies more or less prepared them for that mission, as most of them followed the same strategy of becoming superstars and thus shared the necessary common ground. This is not the case for Suicide Squad, as most of these characters are totally new to the big screen and so they haven't been prepped in their own titles for the audience and neither have the people playing them. They get thrown in the mix together from the get-go instead, and it just very much remains the question on whether they have any affinity with the role at all, whether the audience accepts them in these parts and whether joining these characters and actors together is a good idea. Which brings me to the second issue: the Joker. Like Will Smith is a huge A-lister thrown in with a bunch of actors of a lesser profile (no offense, gang, but that's just the situation), the Joker is a villain much more iconic than the rest of them, especially after the well remembered terrific performance by Heath Ledger not so long ago. Is it really a smart move to introduce a new take on this character, one that is supposed to be around for at least a decade, in an ensemble movie like this, rather than setting him up in the more traditional way, as Batman's most recognizable antagonist in the Caped Crusader's own film? (An argument that can be made for the new incarnation of the Dark Knight himself just as easily, it must be noted.) Probably so. But then, the Joker doesn't adhere to logic like that, he's much too erratic to care. We'll just have to wait and see how this works out. At least the majority of the casting seems pretty nifty. It'll be very interesting to see what Jared Leto brings to the role of the Joker. And he even has his girlfriend Harley Quinn by his side this time. The more madness, the merrier.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158196/extra_opnamen_avengers_2_in_januari

Speaking of the Avengers, they just got some leeway to improve their sequel's scope just that much more. From the looks of it, it's not just the action scenes that get a bit more jibe, but also the characters, including a few we might not have expected to partake in this giant superhero flick. Both Idris Elba and Tom Hiddleston have been revealed to be present in Age of Ultron. That is surprising, considering the story line mostly seemed to center around Tony Stark and his invention, the rogue robot Ultron, running rampant. A little HYDRA espionage plot spilling over from the Cap movies was also already known to be injected through the addition of Baron Von Strucker to the cast. So is there room for some Norse gods? Apparently Marvel is making room. Since more Loki is never a bad thing when Hiddleston plays the part, I'm certainly not complaining. I'm not counting on major scenes of divine exposition though. Probably just some hints at the bigger Thor picture to indicate that while the Avengers get into the usual mischief on Earth, trouble is still brewing in the background on Asgard to plague Thor in his next solo feature (aptly subtitled Ragnarok). Seems that universe building Marvel so excelled at in Phase 1 is now seemlessly flowing into Phase 3.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158220/source_code_krijgt_vervolg

More of Source Code I'm less positive about. Its whole take on time travel and temporal loops was already nothing new to me thanks to the likes of Star Trek, The X-Files and The Twilight Zone. Though it was still a fresh take on the notion and resulted in an enjoyable and intelligent movie, more of the same would spark a similar feeling of repetition I don't exactly welcome. Of course they can introduce a new main character and director - as they'll have to, since it strongly appears both Jake Gyllenhaal and Duncan Jones are not inclined to be involved, and I can't blame them - but even when tweaking the concept, there's only so much you can do with it. This announced sequel just has 'blatant cash grab' written all over it. Of course, that is hardly a novel thing in Hollywood. It's endless cycle of rehasing and reimaging concepts and franchises that once proved lucrative is quite similarly stuck into an ever revolving loop that knows no end. It's just that in this case, the audience is the poor subject that develops a gnawing, relentless sense of déja vu, the feeling of having experienced it all before. As they have.

Today's Review: Edge of Tomorrow

Edge of Tomorrow: ***/*****, or 6/10

Remember Oblivion? Odd question, considering the meaning of the word, but chances are good you don't. It was a rather poor Sci-Fi blockbuster released last year, in which mankind has left the planet after a devastating war with an alien force, and now Tom Cruise is harvesting the last few natural resources. Or so he thinks, as things are not what they appear to be. Apart from Cruise, the movie co-starred Tom Cruise as several clones of the protagonist. That didn't save the movie from becoming overly convoluted. A cynic might be inclined to think Edge of Tomorrow repeats Oblivion's many mistakes, and he or she would not be fully wrong. Edge of Tomorrow, too, has a rather messy plot involving aliens in which Tom Cruise dies multiple times, at which point Tom Cruise takes over. However, Edge of Tomorrow utilizes a more tongue-in-cheek approach to its overall plot to, hopefully consciously, underscore the absurdity of the situation. Good thing too, as it is indeed all quite laughable and too serious a tone would not have worked in its favour. Too bad such a tone does creep in eventually, to the film's detriment.

Edge of Tomorrow is set in the not too distant future where a strange extraterrestrial enemy has rapidly conquered all of Europe and threatens to do likewise to the rest of the globe. Earth's human nations have banded together in an attempt to fight off the adversary together. All their battles have been lost, save for one, where metal armoured female soldier Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) made the difference in defeating the aliens. By applying similar combat harnesses to every soldier available and sending them en masse to invade France, humanity hopes to retake the continent and annihilate the enemy for good. Of course, things are not as simple as they seem, and the aliens have a few tricks up their sleeve yet. For one thing, time loops.

Enter the much dreaded Tom Cruise, who does a most unusual thing here: he plays against character. In this film, Cruise is not starring as the monotonously brave action hero as is his wont, but instead as a cowardly marketing agent for the military, who suddenly finds himself accused of desertion when he makes it clear he doesn't feel like covering the invasion to a stern and gruff general's face (Brendan Gleeson). Thrown in with a bunch of ragtag recruits – a merry band of comic relief characters, angry loudmouths and assorted personas that wouldn't fit in any regular regiments – Cruise is dragged off to battle and there left to fend for himself. Of course, he quickly kicks the bucket in a close quarter skirmish with one of the vicious alien monsters. And then he wakes up back at base, and everything starts over again, much to his dismay as he doesn't do better the second time. Or the third. Try convincing your commanding officer – a distinctly over-the-top Bill Paxton, now given command of a similar batch of marines he once belonged to himself in Aliens – of being stuck in a time loop ad infinitum. Needless to say he doesn't, so Cruise must find a way to discover what has happened to him and how to use it to his advantage, instead of continue dying without end.

So far so good, as the notion of time looping, a trite but true concept few audiences will be unfamiliar with thanks to movies as diverse as Groundhog Day and Source Code, is handled with enough confidence and fun not to feel repetitive (no pun intended). In fact, repetition is cleverly avoided after the first few loops, as Cruise's character remembers events and tries to alter them in differently enough ways so as not to get boring. This approach too causes problems in the long run, as Cruise dies so many times (hundreds, if not thousands, it is suggested) that the plot soon trots along and seemingly ignores the whole concept, just to further the ever more intricate story. The reason behind the time loops and the method of fighting the sinister aliens that caused it soon start to become so convoluted and ridiculous that the ingredient of fun which at first characterized it is ever more lost. What's worse, Cruise resorts to playing a more typical heroic role as the film progresses, while it's the sleaze bag aspect to his part that initially made him interesting to watch. At least his chemistry with the tough but emotionally unapproachable Rita, who faced a similar ability in the previous battle but lost her looping powers, is watchable enough as long as the Hollywood romance looming in the background is kept at bay. In terms of acting, Paxton's cocky performance suits the tone of the film best, which makes it all the more regrettable that the moment he's out of the picture, Edge of Tomorrow schizophrenically feels the need to get serious. Naturally it includes an all too predictable 'what the F!' type ending that suggests you need to think things over to see if it all fits, but unfortunately doesn't make you care enough to do so.

Until that time there's enough to make the viewing experience passable at best. Aside from Paxton, Blunt too does her bit with plenty of pizzazz as the strong spirited yet haunted and not too morally correct power girl, rife with entertainingly flamboyant demeanour. Nevertheless, it's the grandiose battle scenes that demand the most attention, as Edge of Tomorrow makes it progressively clear it intends to be an action movie more than the self aware comedy it could at first be accused of being, until the comic elements are just thrown out the window entirely. The notion of a futuristic landing on the beach of Normandy – not coincidentally reminiscent of the actual D-Day Allied landing in World War II – where men in battle armour fight weird alien creatures, proves hard to resist, but its execution leaves a few things to be desired. In many cases it's not easy to make out what exactly is transpiring, mostly due to the extreme detail and chaotic camera work, which do make the mass fights seem more realistic. The design of the aliens also doesn't help, as they keep violently moving about which makes it hard to see them as something other than a shapeless bunch of tentacles rolling around. It enhances the sense of battle immersion, but makes it difficult to appreciate the digital craftsmanship that went into designing what otherwise might have been epic scenes of war.

Edge of Tomorrow is a definite step up from the thoroughly forgetful Oblivion, but still a far cry from, say, Minority Report, Tom Cruise's earlier venture into the realm of science fiction. The movie sadly switches tones halfway through, without successfully having secured the audience's allegiance to accept such change. Worse, the more the plot progresses, the harder it is for the audience to remain focused, as things have to be taken with too big a grain of salt eventually, while the good humoured use of time loops ultimately gets lost in the mess of an incoherent plot. Cruise, always hard to take seriously as an actor due to his larger than life star status, pleasantly surprises the spectator in the beginning, before reverting to his standard performance. In this regard, you could state his career is caught in a similar loop; minor variations do occur occasionally, but he always reverts to his established routine.

Back to the Future Part III

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

Third and final entry in the Back to the Future trilogy adds a western element to the overall Sci-Fi feel of this set of films. Marty McFly tracks down his friend Doc Brown in the year 1885 to save him from his impending death at the hands of the nefarious outlaw Mad Dog Tannen, a murderous forebear of Marty's nemesis Biff. To complicate matters and add some romance to the movie, Doc has fallen in love with the local school teacher (Mary Steenburgen). This movie focuses a little too much on the western element and as such feels less connected to its predecessors, but is overall still a worthy watch, taking the parallels between the past and present to an even higher level and still delivering plenty of action and humour in the process. Overall, the trilogy's plot is wrapped up nicely, though the threat of a Part IV, which might hurt the story as a whole, has loomed for years.

Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Mary Steenburgen

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

USA: Universal Pictures, 1990

Back to the Future Part II

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Excellent sequel to the (still better) hit film sees Marty McFly travelling both forward and backward in time. First, Marty needs to help his son from staying out of jail in the future year of 2015, where he is again confronted by old adversary Biff and his psycho kid, which culminates in a fabulous hoverboard chase sequence. Upon successfully returning to his own time, he finds his home changed into a dystopic hell town, which warrants him to take yet another trip back to 1955 to set things right. Again. Though high in dynamic action and humour, with grand visions of a funky future and convincingly creepy images of an altered present (that is, the eighties), the movie lacks the overall narrative surprise of its predecessor, though the story parallels between the past, present and future are very well crafted.

Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

USA: Universal Pictures, 1989

Back to the Future

Rating: ****/*****, or 9/10

Instant classic Sci-Fi adventure film, one of the great signature films of the eighties. In 1985, teenager Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox), aiding the local lunatic inventor Doc Brown (delightful role for Christopher Lloyd), finds himself transported back to 1955 in a Delorean car equipped with time travel technology, where he jeopardizes his own existence when his then young mother accidentally falls in love with him. To make sure history plays out as it should, Marty needs to hook up his nerdy father with his mother, a job made harder by the continuous avances of his mom and the dangerous interference of town bully Biff (Thomas F. Wilson). Great Scott! One of the most fun movies ever made, utilizing the time travel ploy to great success without worrying too much about temporal paradoxes (but instead, making them work for the story of the next two installments of this hit trilogy).

Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Crispin Glover

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

USA: Universal Pictures, 1985