'Third one is always the worst' says Jean Grey when leaving the theater after watching Return of the Jedi back in '83. She was right about that one, and conscious or unconscious (I doubt the writer intended for this movie to be the weakest in the second X-trilogy), she's also correct about X-Men: Apocalypse. However, also like Return of the Jedi, Apocalypse still is a whole lot of mutant fun for those who didn't expect the franchise to reach new heights anyway.
Granted, it's not the story that provides the mirth, since it's the stuff of repetition, variations on themes and lack of narrative evolution. Basically, another all-powerful mutant rears his head and threatens to destroy the world for mankind so that its stronger successors can take over. And once again, the X-Men, fighting for peace between man and mutant, must get together to stop this megalomaniacal scheme from becoming reality. This time, it's not Magneto who has hatched the diabolical plan, but rather a 5,000 year old ideological predecessor, an ancient Egyptian once worshiped as a god, with the modern moniker Apocalypse. Magneto, once more masterfully performed by Michael Fassbender, merely provides some muscle to help Oscar Isaac's semi-god with his evil shenanigans. Isaac does a decent job playing an age old villain, but he's no Fassbender and his Apocalypse is nowhere near as intimidating or intriguing as the much more relatable Magneto.
Still, the villain suffices for the cause of bringing together two generations of X-Men, the First Class lot and the new batch of young recruits, including novel takes on classic X-characters Cyclops, Jean Grey and Nightcrawler. Their performances and their chemistry make us hopeful for the future of the franchise, should the studio feel like using them for the next installment Apocalypse seems to be building up to. For although it's meant as a conclusion to a trilogy, the ground work is amply laid for more to come and these young stars succeed in making us curious about what lies ahead. The new additions to the cast are aided by snappy dialogue and light humour, making the shortcomings in the plot not nearly as blatant as they would have been in lesser hands. Nevertheless, it's clear director Bryan Singer, who has made his fourth X-movie with this title, has run out of ideas for the X-universe. Though we appreciate his work on both trilogies, new blood would be equally welcome in the creative room as it proved in the cast.
Shit, this is starting to look derivative... Robot cops, the fine line between men and machine interspersed with explosive action sequences, unique robots developing a personality and starting to display Saviouresque symptoms... What's new here? You'd think RoboCop and I, Robot never happened. However, they did, and judging from this latest trailer Chappie will add little of novelty to the robot repertoire. However, this is Neill Blomkamp we're talking about, so I do hope he's got some tricks up his sleeve so he might surprise us yet. If he does, I'm betting it resides in the area of social commentary, which is rather his forte. Execution of both District 9 and Elysium proved not devoid of flaws, but the heart and the action both sure were in the right place. It's not like the dystopian future of Elysium differed that much from previously portrayed divides between a small elite and a vast multitude of have-nots. And it was still a damn fine flick. Chappie will likely at least be that. I would have hoped for some more original storytelling besides that, but I'll take what I can get. It's not like there's that much intelligent Sci-Fi directors to go round these days, so I support the few folks that try. Unless they really miss the mark completely (eh, Nolan?).
So now we know when the devil gets his due. Even though actual footage of the series still has not been released (they better hurry with that, with only three months to go), the new poster sure sets the tone. This is definitely gonna be one of Marvels darkest projects. I wonder whether that is the best way to go when you're building a second shared Marvel universe for television. You'd think a lighter choice would be a better decision to reel viewers in. However, it's all in the name. You could start with light fare like Jessica Jones, but only the true Marvelites would know that name. Daredevil is more well known, partially thanks to Ben Afflecks crappy movie, though that was over a decade ago. Yet people likely still remember it. But the real strong name of course is Marvel. That suffices for most audiences. And if the company has its way, the same will soon ring true for Netflix, so a series like Marco Polo can count on a large enough number of spectators just because it has the Netflix logo attached to its credits. It seems to work well enough for HBO. And considering the quality the company offers thus far, I wouldn't mind if the same holds true for Netflix.
Another good movie gets a follow-up for television. There's a lot of that happening these days, and not all of the titles involved are justified for the small screen treatment. I would say Minority Report is among those. Sure, there's story a few possibilities remaining after the events of the movie. However, the issue is that it follows the movie directly and thus might spoil its deliciously undefined ending. The last half hour of the film can be interpreted in two very different ways, and I'd hate to see the series ruining the movie by picking the less ingenious of the pair. And even if the series opts to ignore the matter entirely and leaves us in the dark as we should be, I still feel no particular need of watching a follow-up to a by then 15-year old flick. Even if it doesn't tread the same paths as its predecessor. Though it at least beats the prospect of a full-on remake, like 12 Monkeys is currently undergoing.
Excellent poster and tagline to match, precisely portraying Big Eyes' narrative issue at hand while indicating a humourous, even whimsical tone. Not as Gothic as we're used to from Burton, which could be a nice reprief, since most of his films in that vein from recent years (Dark Shadows, Alice in Wonderland) failed to capture our imagination. Still, biopics are not new territory to the man, as he already made one of the finest I've ever seen with 1994's Ed Wood. Seems he has a thing for underdogs in the visual arts, though the exact finesse of that term is debatable when it comes to Wood's excessively amateuristic works. However, as that film illustarted and tBig Eyes might underscore yet again, it's all about the love and enthusiasm you put into the act of creation. Talent comes second, or sometimes sinply not at all. Burton also doesn't seem to rely on his usual actors this time, instead opting for new company (but fortunately for us, still delightfully watchable talented actors). Big Eyes in many ways seems like a change of pace for the director, though he's still not entirely leaving his comfort zone given the subject matter. I hope the film will reaffirm Burton is still one of the most unique and worthwhile directors in Hollywood.
I'm not familiar with Suicide Squad. Sorry, I'm just a Marvel guy, while DC never really did grab my attention (aside from Batman, naturally). Such as it is, I am quite familiar with X-Men baddie Apocalypse. And I think Hardy is a fine choice to portray that ancient genocidal genius. Of course he looks nothing like Apocalypse does in the comics, but that's what computers are for. With Hardy, you may not even need those. After all, the Bane from the comics is as much of a hulking behemoth as
Apocalypse, but Hardy's portrayal in The Dark Knight Rises, both physical and intellectual, made
us forget all about the source material. Hardy definitely possesses the necessary gravitas and determination to make Apocalypse work on screen, as he did Bane. Though not in the same vein as Ian McKellen's Magneto (no, no no sir! That's the very top level of acting!), Hardy's Apocalypse could surely be a tour-de-force in supervillain acting, if he does opt for Marvel of course. Maybe his prior experience working for DC, though unrelated in terms of the DC Cinematic Universe which does not inculde Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, will entice him to choose Suicide Squad after all. Marvel's loss would definitely be DC's gain. And I'm sure he would make for a formidable foe to whatever poor DC superhero crosses his path in that film (if any), but it would be a great loss for X-Men: Apocalypse. And that movie already has a few things going against it, what with Channing Tatum performing Gambit... Hardy would be a fine choice to balance the acting scales in that regard.
I'm generally not fond of the concept of horror sequels, particularly to movies that made a valuable contribution to the genre. But if you gotta cash in by repeating a concept, you damn well better get the man behind the concept itself. Especially if that man could be held responsible for revitalizing the horror genre - at least in terms of popularity and audience attendance - over the last decade. James Wan sure can be said to have done so with Saw and Insidious, though particularly in the case of the former franchise, all the money spent on its many redundant sequels could have been put to better, more creative use. Now history is sort of repeating itself with The Conjuring, except that its success had already spawned a spin-off - Annabelle, currently in theaters and reportedly not all that bad - prior to a direct successor. Wan understands horror in its various incarnations, and if any genre director is capable of making this blatant cash grab work for audiences as well as for money hungry studio suits, it's him. Is his heart in it? It just might, since time has proven that he keeps returning to his horror roots despite the occasional break in that routine. Such a break is currently in progress as he's finishing Fast & Furious 7, so after all the tedious car chrashes and chase sequences, he'll probably be up for a few more oldfashioned scare tactics. And if he does finally miss the horror mark this time around, there's always the possibility of an Annabelle 2.
Looks good. Looks positively final too. A sense of foreboding and imminent closure is clearly instilled with all the little hints at the show's ending found here. 'All Empires Fall', not very subtle, but it can't hurt to let the viewer know this grand show will soon come to an end. And am I gonna miss it. Boardwalk Empire is definitely on my Top-3 of currently running shows. Spectacular production values, compelling writing, intriguing mix of fiction and history and some of the loveliest acting you'll find on telly these days: what's not to like here? But as always, all good things must come to an end. Besides, I haven't even seen season 4 yet, so the finale is not so close for me as for most others. It's a nice thing the teaser makes it clear some of my favorite characters are still alive - some of them just had to be, according to the history books - but I can take a spoiler or two, as they are unavoidable when you're in a line of (unpaid) work that includes posting movie news. Nevertheless, as has become obvious throughout previous seasons (or indeed, most HBO shows for that matter), death still ever lurks around the corner for the characters we've come to appreciate. So we better enjoy seeing these folks interact with each other on screen for a final season, while we still can. For even if they do survive all the way up to the end, we won't be seeing them again anyhow.
There's no denying Sir Ridley Scott is the closest thing we have today to the Cecil B. DeMilles and David Leans of yesteryear. While most of his contemporary colleagues opt to film against mostly blue-screen backdrops on this type of epic film, Scott prefers to deal with the real thing as much as the budget allows. And thanks to his long list of past successes, his budgets tend to be fairly large. Hence his opportunity to shoot scenes on sets like the one above, which can best be described as 'lavish'. Which is not to say Scott has difficulty employing the use of digital trickery when tangible means fall short. There's still a Red Sea to part the blue way (or green, it's all the same). The appeal of lush visual effects, spectacular set construction and grandiose costume design aside, will this new retelling of the familiar Exodus story offer anything of novelty? Maybe Scott took a note from Darren Aronofsky's Noah, which told the Biblical tale in a more streamlined form (also to accommodate viewers of other persuasions, it cannot be denied). However, Scott is a much more straightforward director with a tendency to prefer the classical approach of storytelling. I very much doubt his take on Exodus will deviate much from previous incarnations, surely not as much as Noah dared to be different. Which may be for the better, considering the fairly uncomfortable, haphazard results that spawned (also thanks to studio interference).
And there's more ancient Egypt to go around in Hollywood these days. Which will not surprise audiences who knew better than to walk away before the end credits of X-Men: Days of Future Past had rolled completely. As Bryan Singer's tease of the treatment shows here, X-Men: Apocalypse will open more or less on the same note its predecessor left us, namely the backstory of the age old mutant En Sabah Nur, who will grow over the centuries to become the new X-nemesis Apocalypse. Spectators familiar with the comics won't be surprised by this particular bit of background story for the mutant megalomaniac, as it is integral to the formation of this big Marvel baddie and his 'not all mutants were created equal' philosophy. The scene also serves to flesh out his prime henchmen, the Four Horsemen, which may be of major importance to the various X-Men we're familiar with, as some of them will undoubtedly be chosen to represent Apocalypse - whether they want to or not - in the movie's present day and age. Or is Singer going to be very brave and ignore the events of Days of Future Past by diving directly in the alternate reality popularly known as the Age of Apocalypse? I would applaud that decision, but I'm sure it won't come that far, as the studio will be convinced it will needlessly confuse the general audience, which might have some difficulty accepting the notion of alternate universes which in the comics has become a routine ingredient of the X-franchise. It would also detract from the cinematic universe studio Fox is currently hoping to built (though Days of Future Past showed disappointingly little evidence of that, hinting at the studio's insecurity as to how to proceed on that front) if things were to be mixed up too much at this point. Lastly, Days of Future Past's overly cheerful ending, where a dark finale heralding the rise of Apocalypse seemed to have made so much more sense than the happy-happy joy-joy climax we were served instead, goes to show Singer too isn't so brave as to stir things up that aggressively. I don't expect to be surprised by X-Men: Apocalypse too much from a narrative perspective, as I'm not at all surprised by the hints dropped through this Instagram tease.
To be completely honest, I don't always stay for the entire run of end credits, unlike I;m suggesting here. Call me a hypocrite if you must. It's one of the perks working in a movie theater to know when stingers are attached and when they're not. And even if I know there's post-credits scenes available, chances are good I saw them prior to watching the actual movie itself. Of course, it's not all about stingers, though they're the most attractive part of end credit sequences. The creativity invested in the end credits, though not mentioned in this column (it was running overly long, as usual) is also of note in this regard. I can't imagine many people leaving during the wonderfully designed, stunning credits of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. If a credit sequence looks that good, you obviously stay. Paying respect to those who got the film to where it is now, in theaters for my enjoyment or amazement, should not be ignored as a factor. If a film is good enough I stay; if it's bad, mediocre or passable it depends on my mood and the time at my disposal. Since I tend to go to the movies after work predominantly, and I do not work so close to home as I would like, I'm usually eager to fetch my train and get home. Another element prohibiting me from staying or leaving is the score or soundtrack that accompanies the credits. If it concerns a good, solid, orchestral score I'm usually entranced to keep listening, and therefore, watching, accordingly. If however the producing powers-that-be attached some awfully loud and unattractive (for me, that is) song, as part of their synergy driven promotional campaign, the decision to hurry home is all too quickly made (unless it's a good song, which is not often the case). Nevertheless, that hilarious scene and poignant quote from Return of the Killer Tomatoes always springs to mind when the end credits advance. I bet most mothers of directors (and other production departments too) wouldn't take kindly to people so easily ignoring all the names of people who worked hard to deliver them their dose of entertainment. Or the dirctors themselves for that matter.
