Today's News: more comes every day

The latter half of the week certainly picked up some speed:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158720/remake_the_blob_vindt_regisseur

I'm not surprised this cult classic is getting another remake. The premise is just too much fun to ignore for more than a generation. Extraterrestrial ball of ooze wreaks havoc on Earth by devouring the population and growing ever larger: what's not to like? Of course, the Blob will only be as convincing as its FX and I doubt CGI will look as neat and realistic as the subject matter warrants. It sounds like the director just doesn't want to get his hands dirty on practical effects (and I reckon they would get very dirty indeed with the type of practical effects needed for a film like this). So as happens too often these days, computers prove to be the easy way out, but not the fun way. However, doing the Blob digitally this time around does set it clearly apart from its predecessors, making it a clear example of the zeitgeist, as befits the franchise. The 1958 version showed primitive practical effects and a lot of, by present day standards, redundant teen culture manifestations to woo the babyboomers to embrace the film (which they did). The darker Eighties' film showed quite a progression in terms of effects, but ideologically speaking it was a rather cynical film in which the government was even more sinister than the titular entity itself and a juvenile delinquent had to defeat the thing instead. Also, gore galore. And now comes the latest version, which has a Blob all CGI. Proof of the times indeed. It'll be interesting to see how it portrays humans though.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158680/amazon_wil_films_produceren

Of course Amazon wants to get in on the movie business. All of its competitors are starting to go down that route after all. It was just a question of when rather than if. Not surprisingly, this announcement doesn't follow long after Netflix spread the word it's doing the same thing. Amazon however, is still primarily known as a web store rather than a producer of television shows. Its name hasn't been established as strongly in terms of audiovisual production yet. That's likely also the basis for the decision to keep the movie industry happy by not offering their productions up for streaming simultaneously as releasing them in theaters, a convention Netflix was all too eager to break. Of course, audiences won't mind either way as long as the product proves to be appealing. Netflix does beat Amazon too in that regard, for the moment, thanks to making deals with the likes of Marvel. As for the future, we will see. It's too bad the Amazon execs haven't yet specified any of these upcoming movie projects of theirs, I would have loved to know what they're concocting for our pleasure. That is, if they've indeed already started production, rather than just making the announcement they will soon. If they're too release a dozen movies in the next two years, they better get started.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158704/world_war_z_2_in_de_maak

'Starting with a clean slate' sure sounds like a great idea for this sequel. The previous slate didn't resemble the source material much, and that proved a damn shame, as the original was not only shockingly different but also vastly more ingenious and innovative and made the movie feel dull and predictable by the inevitable comparison. Hopefully the writers take a closer look at Max Brooks' novel this time around. Which begs to ask the question whether that book could ever be translated to the big screen in a satisfactory way. Given the format it's written in, a two-hour movie just doesn't feel the right way to go. A TV (mini)series might allow for a closer adaptation, but the fragmentary, semi-documentary style the book dabbles in also doesn't seem too well suited for that either. There's simply too many stories and characters to make for a clear red line through it all. The only thing they all have in common is the interviewer gathering these distinct narratives and the living dead that star in them. Perhaps a series of webisodes would make for the best way to adapt these stories, but that's not a format that many audiences are too comfortable with, nor is it often used in a way to make the major bucks the studio is hoping for (which the movie did, despite its dissimilarities to the book). Oh well, whatever form it'll take, we'll always have the novel if things go south.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158734/ejiofor_gewild_voor_doctor_strange

Another talented, Academy Award nominated actor sought by Marvel to join its ranks. As to who he's playing, that's indeed the million dollar question. It certainly won't be Strange's loyal servant Wong. Aside from the fact that casting a minority in a role that traditionally was reserved for another minority is a route that many might deem offensive (and possibly rightfully so), it seems a waste of his abilities as an actor. Besides, this guy just spent Twelve Years playing a Slave, I doubt he's looking for another servantile role (though that would certainly be the stuff of irony). And now that his (rather exotic and easy to mispronounce) name is finally getting the attention it deserves in the industry, something more intriguing and major is needed to win Ejiofor over. So he's either going to play the adversary or the mentor to the protagonist, for sure. My money is on the former, also because I want to see him as a bad guy again, since he did so well playing one in Serenity (the creepy and ideologically singleminded Operative, remember?). I have no doubt his acting talents would be well suited in either capacity though.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158739/scodelario_gecast_in_pirates_5

I'm less interested in this bit of casting. Scodelario sure is a pretty girl and may have some decent acting capabilities under her belt (though not much of it was apparent in The Maze Runner), but it seems she's cast as just another generic love interest, kinda similar to Keira Knightley in the first Pirates of the Caribbean. We really don't keep watching these movies for those types of supporting actors, but for the catchy shenanigans of master actors Depp and Rush. It's Barbossa and Sparrow that the vast majority of the audience loves best, and that's not likely to change (though after four movies, their staying power is undeniably tested). Whatever scene from any of the previous Pirates movies first comes to your mind, it's surely not one starring Knightley and Bloom, I bet. Of course, that doesn't mean the studio should release a movie starring just the two ever disagreeable Captains (though I cannot help but wonder as to the result). New characters are obligatory to keep things (at least feeling) fresh. But it's the zany, outrageous pirate characters that make for the most memorable performances, not the bland star crossed lovers in the background. Scodelario is likely to do a decent job, but as for new characters, it's Javier Bardem playing the new pirate baddie that sounds most intriguing. Aarrrrr!!

Today's Column: why I love to go to the movies on Texel

After returning home from vacation, I penned this column for MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148701/column_de_cinefiel_op_vakantie

Call me lazy, since this is basically just an exposé about my sole cinematic experience on Texel this year, sort of hiding that I wasn't particularly inspired to write something more engaging/engaged because I was too busy basking myself in the sweet sunlight. Basically, I just couldn't be bothered. That said, I do believe there's something to be said for the more relaxed, calm and simple approach Cinema Texel takes to showing their movies, either consciously or unconsciously. It's just so different to the way we see movies at the bigger, really commercial theatre chains. It's a matter of independence most likely. They can programme their movies however they like since they don't have to cater to an a bunch of suits in an office 100 miles away (though I do realize the guy who owns this theatre also owns the one in Schagen, but does that constitute a theatre chain already?). Apart from going digital (and getting 3D-ed in the process), which they had to since 35mm movies aren't produced in the Netherlands anymore, little seems to have ever changed for De Vergulde Kikkert. Just the way I like it. I hope it stays this way forever over there. Now back to the basking.

Today's Mini-Reviews: Zombies, zombies everywhere!

World War Z: ***/*****, or 7/10

Huge big budget blockbuster adaptation, albeit loosely, of the Max Brooks novel of the same name. More serious in tone, the film explores the consequences of a viral pandemic that turns its victims into zombies, only driven by the urge to infect more people. A star vehicle for Brad Pitt, World War Z follows an ex-UN employee who is blackmailed by his former superiors into tracking down the origin of the plague in exchange for the guarantee his wife and children are protected from the terrors of the outside world. Unfortunately, it turns out it's not so easy to pinpoint just where the virus originated, necessitating him to travel around the globe whilst following various breadcrumbs in hopes of finding an answer, and if possible, a cure. Of course, this results in an array of close calls with ravenous zombies in various major cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Jeruzalem. The movie incorporates both close encounters with only a few zombies as well as major zombie offensives against large human populations as seen through Pitt's eyes. It's the former that make for the most suspenseful edge-of-your-seat moments, while the latter gobble up the vast majority of the FX budget, as we see zombie armies attacking helicopters and city walls in force. Such scenes look grandiose and work equally well as further examples of ever active post 9/11 paranoia, but ultimately feel hollow compared to Pitt's more personal experiences up close with the creepy undead. However, in those instances, these zombies just don't appear as frightening or disturbing as those of previous zombie flicks. In fact, if you're watching the TV-show The Walking Dead on a regular basis, World War Z offers little you have not seen before (save for zombie attacks on a bigger scope) and certainly isn't as poignant as a parable showcasing the failure of humans to work together for mutual survival, nor delivers it any moments of intense horror and gore that can match that show's contents. As an exploration of the legitimacy of our fears for pandemics, this movie also proves less effective as more scientific accurate fare the likes of Contagion: think of it more as the silly popcorn variety of that more intelligent type of flick. In addition, Brad Pitt is much too big a movie star to convincingly play the everyman out for basic survival and answers in a world overrun by the living dead. A less well known actor would have worked better for this movie's purposes, but in this day and age of ever increasing numbers of Hollywood flops, studios are afraid to make summer movies that cannot benefit from having big names to draw in audiences. World War Z witnessed its fair share of production problems, including a need for drastic rewrites and 20 million dollar reshoots of its entire third act. To the credit of those involved, you wouldn't think this film experienced such obstacles, as it has a fairly solid ending – including a surprising method of avoiding zombie contact – that still leaves ample room for an unavoidable sequel or two.

Warm Bodies: ****/*****, or 7/10

Zombies admittedly are having a big break on the silver screen this year. While World War Z is the sort of epic flick meant for the usual audiences blockbuster movies are made for, the zom-romcom Warm Bodies should attract crowds looking for more unusual horrific fare, and even – gods willing – teenage girls that want to fill the gap left by the finale of the Twilight movies by exploring similar themed films. Fortunately, the fact this movie combines thematic elements from the horror genre with all the qualities of romance is as far as the parallel between Twilight and Warm Bodies ought to be drawn, as the latter is a delightful off-beat comedy that hopefully will stay a one-shot instead of being milked for many more movies to come. The film follows R (Nicholas Hoult of X-Men: First Class and Jack the Giant Slayer fame), a teenage zombie male who does what zombies usually do: incoherently move about the place looking for people to eat, either alone or in a pack with his undead friends. One day he happens upon the brains of a living teenage boy, and after devouring them finds he is attracted to his girlfriend Julie (Teresa Palmer), the sole survivor of the zombie attack that claimed her boyfriend's life. Hiding her from the other living corpses, R soon displays amorous behavior towards her, or attempts at such as good as any dead boy could make, and because of these sudden feelings appears to regain his past humanity slowly but surely. Eventually the plot allows for a certain degree of romance between the pair which is developed compellingly enough to make it rise above its ludicrous premise. The problem the fledgling lovers face is how to overcome the prejudices dominant in a world where one group in society aims to eat the other. Matters are complicated by the fact Julie's father (John Malkovich) is the stern and uncompromising leader of the human survivors, while the rise of a subspecies of zombies named 'Bonies', zombies so far gone they have lost every shred of humanity and form a danger to both humans and regular zombies, also is cause for concern. Can R and Julie's mutual love for each other bridge the differences between both groups in time for man and dead man to overcome their hatred and unite against their common foe? As the movie draws towards its close, the plot focuses more on action and the expected preachy messages, but it's the first half of the movie that makes for a wonderfully funny viewing experience totally worth your while as R, via voice-over, details his dreary everyday life, illustrating a zombie's daily routine to hilarious results. While people who might fear the love affair between live girl and dead boy is not convincingly carried through, they're in for a nice surprise. In fact, it turns out there's not so much difference between the awkward experiences of young love as seen through a dead boy's eyes as there is from a living one. Few guys who tried to hit on girls in their teen years won't recall similar instances of acting odd in front of the opposite sex that made them wish they were dead, right?