Today's Review: Logan

Weinig filmsterren zullen hun doorbraakrollen zo trouw zijn gebleven als Hugh Jackman. De acteur kruipt in Logan voor de negende keer in de huid van de mutante mannetjesputter Wolverine. Hij heeft deze rol zo'n zeventien jaar lang gedragen, te beginnen met X-Men, de film die de aftrap vormde voor het niet meer uit de bioscoop weg te denken superheldengenre. Sindsdien hebben we zo veel superheldenfilms voorbij zien komen dat de beperkingen van het genre zich opdrongen. Logan bevestigt die beperkingen maar haalt ze eveneens hard onderuit, in een film die het 'super' uit haar superheld haalt, maar daarmee paradoxaal genoeg een nieuw hoogtepunt vormt voor de superheldenfilm. Hugh Jackman speelt de onsterfelijke mutant voor de allerlaatste keer, als nooit tevoren. Hij bewijst daarmee dat we Wolverine zullen missen.

Anno 2029 is de maatschappij er niet al te best aan toe. Postapocalyptisch is het nog net niet, maar fijn is anders. In deze naargeestige wereld slentert een gebroken Logan door het Texaanse landschap. Hij zuipt, hij vloekt en heeft weinig op met de wereld om hem heen. Hij slijt zijn dagen met een lullig baantje en het zorgen voor een stokoude, dementerende Charles Xavier (die andere grote X-veteraan, Patrick Stewart). Zelf is hij fysiek niet veel beter af: zijn genezingsgave geeft langzaam de geest, de ouderdom haalt hem rap in. Vechten voor de goede zaak is niet meer aan de orde, de andere X-Men zijn dood en het mutantenras is vrijwel verdwenen. Als het mysterieuze meisje Laura zijn hulp nodig heeft, wijst hij haar nors de deur. Wanneer Logan geconfronteerd wordt met de Reavers, een groep cyborghuurlingen onder regie van een schimmig geneticaconcern, blijkt dat het kind behept is met bovenmenselijke krachten die beangstigend veel op de zijne lijken. Vervolgens slaat het trio op de vlucht met de onvermurwbare schurken in hun kielzog, die vastberaden zijn ook deze laatste mutanten uit de weg te ruimen.

Wolverine was altijd al een ruige kerel, maar in Logan is hij lomper en asocialer dan ooit. Hugh Jackman speelt diens laatste aria met meer bezieling dan ooit. Al die jaren heeft hij zich feitelijk moeten inhouden, maar nu mag hij helemaal los gaan dankzij een voor de X-franchise ongekende leeftijdskeuring. Die 'R rating' (tot en met zestien jaar uitsluitend toegang onder begeleiding van een volwassene) is volkomen terecht. Liefhebbers van het explicietere hak-en-snijwerk komen ruim aan hun trekken; de ledematen vliegen ons om de oren en het taalgebruik is grover dan ooit. Zelfs de altijd zo correcte Xavier maalt niet om een krachtterm meer of minder (tot zichtbaar plezier van Stewart). Logan lijkt wat dat betreft geïnspireerd door het vorig jaar verschenen anarchistische Deadpool, met het verschil dat hier een serieuzere toon wordt gehanteerd. Ouderdom is immers niet om te lachen en in deze grauwe toekomst is sowieso weinig ruimte voor relativerende humor. Laat staan voor superhelden.

Regisseur James Mangold heeft weinig op met de stereotiepe superheld. Ook in voorganger The Wolverine toonde hij meer affiniteit met de menselijke kant van Logan dan met diens krachten. Als Laura hoop put uit X-Men comics - een originele sneer naar het bronmateriaal - spot Logan hiermee door te beweren dat het allemaal een verzinsel is, geen realiteit. Superhelden bestaan niet. Toch werpt hij zich op als haar beschermer, in een parallel met de meermaals geciteerde klassieker Shane. Logan voelt inderdaad meer als een western dan als een superheldenspektakel, wat nog onderstreept wordt door de zuidelijk-Amerikaanse setting vol stof en kogels. De twee genres laten zich onder Mangold treffend kruisen. Uiteraard kent Logan de nodige shootouts met de bad guys, hoewel de eenzame strijder gewapend is met klauwen in plaats van een revolver. Die booswichten laten zich overigens erg makkelijk in stukjes hakken. De Reavers zijn dan ook bijzaak voor Mangold, die niets opheeft met clichématige malle schurken zoals cyborgs.

Logan is bovenal zijn eigen ergste vijand. Zijn haperende genezingsfactor zorgt voor een langzame adamantiumvergiftiging en zijn eigen bloed wordt tegen hem gebruikt door hem te klonen. Het is dit diep persoonlijke conflict met zichzelf dat Logan zijn meerwaarde geeft, want de film weet met haar plotlijn over een bedrijf dat gekloonde mutanten als supersoldaten wil inzetten een gevoel van déjà vu niet te vermijden. Dat gegeven zagen we alleen al in de X-films tig keer voorbijkomen. Logan teert niet op het wat voorspelbare plot, maar vooral op de menselijke personages. Beide generaties gooien hier hoge ogen, want de jonge Dafne Keen geeft formidabel tegengas aan Jackmans heerlijk onsympathieke ouwe knar. De verwantschap tussen Laura en Logan is onmiskenbaar, het stokje mag gelijk aan het jonkie doorgegeven worden. Toch is het Jackman die de meeste indruk achterlaat, voor het laatst in de rol die hem groot maakte, maar hier zo anders gespeeld dan gebruikelijk. Schrijnend, dat we juist dankzij diens zwanenzang toch meer van Wolverine willen zien.

Today's Review: X-Men: Apocalypse

Still behind on all the stuff I wrote, but slowly gaining.

X-Men: Apocalypse - Recensie

'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.

Today's News: New Black Underworld

This is all I have to show for this week, since there wasn't much news to begin with, plus I had to deal with a minor illness.

Fox maakt X-Men spin-off

Technically, Fox already was making an X-Men spin-off with Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool, but most fans wouldn't want to be reminded of the connection between the two names after the dismal way the character was handled in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. By any rate, this new project has far more ties with the X-Men proper to warrant the designation 'spin-off'. Same school, even some of the same characters, but mostly new faces. Younger ones, too, though the "true" X-Men are already undergoing a sort of rejuvenation with the younger cast currently assembled for X-Men: Apocalypse. But hey, that's likely a different time line, so that's where that comparison ends. Interestingly enough, reports indicate the studio opts for a standalone approach to this film, even though it offers much material for expanding the X-lore, which would help in building that cinematic universe Fox previously seemed eager to get going. Maybe they wisely let that thought go. It already seems they abandoned plans for a crossover between the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, and now even their X-titles will refrain from intertwining. Maybe Fox had a look at the manner in which rival studio Sony mishandled the Spider-Man franchise despite initially harbouring great plans for an epic fleshing out of the character's world. That failed, and Sony felt the need to work together with that other rival, Marvel itself, to recraft the character into something the fans do appreciate. It's not inconceivable Fox is attempting to keep the same from happening to their X-verse, so for now, they're taking it one step at a time again. It only takes one piece of the puzzle of a cinematic universe failing to fit in to get the house crashing down after all, and with six Marvel movies currently in the works, that's something Fox would want to deter. Besides, in the case of New Mutants, not much effort is needed to let the spectators know this story is taking place in the same realm as the X-films they've already seen. The name Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters and the often dropped term 'mutants' are dead giveaways if ever we saw them. You don't need many recurring characters - apart from Xavier himself, perhaps - to understand the connection.

Regisseur voor Black Panther gevonden?

I find the notion of hiring a director based on the colour of his/her skin or her gender to fit the profile of the protagonist of the piece somewhat disturbing. It makes more sense to go for the quality of his/her work first and foremost, other attributes being a bonus rather than an obligation for the job. I thought it had already been disproven that only black people can direct other black people, and only women understand women. This is the 21st Century, shouldn't we have grown past such levels of discrimination? Even though, admittedly, it does benefit getting said minorities in the directing chair, since I won't deny the number of black and female directors for Hollywood blockbusters is still meagre at best. So sure, give Ava DyVernay the directing gig of either Black Panther or Captain Marvel, she's shown ample skills in making movies to deserve it. Considering her previous film, Selma, already dealt with what in a sweeping instance of generalization on my part can be termed "black issues", I would prefer to see her tackle Captain Marvel, just to show she can avoid limiting herself in terms of topics. However, Black Panther is definitely of historical significance to the coloured community - or at least, it ought to be - so as to avoid any potential black backlash, I can't blame Marvel for wanting a black director. At least Black Panther isn't a female character, so having a woman directing a male superhero is worthy of some notice. But I would have preferred it entirely if Marvel had shown some true guts and had stated they wanted DuVernay for something not related to her as a person, like Thor: Ragnarok. A black woman directing a blond, blue eyed male thunder god, now that would be progress.

Beckinsale terug voor Underworld 5

And here's a female's return to the big screen I could have done without. The Underworld movies can be categorized in the same type of film as the likes of Resident Evil, mindless action flicks that have a total B-movie vibe around them but still get surprisingly major releases. And both franchises are running for a lot longer than people usually realize. I wasn't even aware there was a fourth movie. Still, some people apparently keep paying to see them, so the studio keeps making more. All good and well, I understand the way the world works, even though I would have preferred to see that money spent on  more original projects. Kate Beckinsale isn't hard to look at anyway, though that's totally sexist of me. Her acting suffices for the subject matter, but is otherwise simply forgettable, few would disagree. Apparently, she wasn't expected to revisit this particular character again, but the odds turned out in Underworld's favour. Maybe she's hoping this franchise will develop in similar lines as the Fast & Furious franchise, which also seemed to be in decline halfway through, and then against expectations got bigger and better all of a sudden, to become the eagerly antincipated blockbuster series it is today. I doubt fate has that in store for Underworld, but that's what people undoubtedly said about F&F back in the days. Playing an undead character sure doesn't hurt Beckinsale's chances.

Today's News: a lot of stuff to round up January

The second half of the week yielded quite a bit of little news items:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158768/eerste_trailer_child_44

Looks like a fairly solid thriller with a cast to match. Too bad it's already been done - Citizen X, remember? - and thus isn't a particularly original project, even though this time it's based on a book about the historical murders rather than the historical murders themselves. Those ridiculously heavy Russian accents also don't help. Do audiences really need such reminders in dialogue to remember the story is set in Russia? You'd think the set-up, names and uniforms alone would do the trick. Other than that, this film looks like a decent thriller flick. Considering the current strained relationship of most Western countries with Putin's Russia, you cannot help but wonder whether this is an appropriate time to release a film about a psychopath running rampant in the Rodina aided by a corrupt system of bureaucrats defending an ideology that doesn't always have the best interest of its subjects at heart. I can imagine there will be some complaints from Russian citizens about the contents of this film, whether the film proves to be of good quality or not (probably more so in the case of the former, since then it will receive more attention). Since The Interview didn't spark WW III, maybe this will, though that's undoubtedly giving it too much credit in advance.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158748/fox_maakt_x-men_serie

Once again Marvel leads and the rest follows. Now that the House of Ideas is firmly getting its grasp on the small screen, expanding its Cinematic Universe on telly too, other studios are eager to do the same. And so Fox plans an X-Men series accordingly. I don't mind, as the conventions of television offer a much broader narrative perspective on the vast X-realm with its many hundreds of characters, in a way the movies could only touch upon. Makes you wonder why they haven't tried this before (and I don't mean like the various animated series). Of course, a conservative studio like Fox likely needed someone more innovative to indicate it can be done successfully, which Marvel has now shown with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Since public interest in anything Marvel is at an all-time high, it seems the right time to produce an X-show. In fact, they better hurry before the popularity of the franchise goes into decline, which is an option I don't exclude, now that Channing Tatum is set to take over the reigns from Hugh Jackman as the leading X-protagonist (shifting the focus more from Wolverine to Gambit), a prospect I'm not looking forward to. I do hope there'll be room for a new creative route, rather than copying the style of the movies. The X-universe is a deliciously diverse place (as befits its message of peace and tolerance to those who are different), so it would behoove the series to reflect that fact and explore any X-citing angle imaginable.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158769/disney_wil_pratt_als_indiana_jones

Is it me, or is Chris Pratt everywhere these days? There's not a movie project goes by that doesn't at least once features his name attached, or so it seems. Sure, Pratt looks like a really likeable guy and he made a fine Star-Lord. But does that warrant the thought of 'Oh hey, we need a leading man for this project, let's ask Pratt because he's so darn kewl' all the time? Apparently that's the default casting thought going around Hollywood these days. Sure, put Pratt in Jurassic World. Go ahead and stick him in Indiana Jones. Just make sure the rest of those films looks as dashing and charming. As for recasting Harrison Ford, it was only a matter of time. I always imagined Indiana Jones a lot like James Bond. You can have him be played by any number of actors, as long as the movies continue to incite that same level of adventure and excitement as they always do. In Indy's case, I'm not one of those unrealistic and conservative types that sticks to the original ad infinitum, even though he was the most iconic in that role. I'm willing to allow other actors in that persona. But not Shia LaBeouf, please. Better ask Chris Pratt whether he feels up to it. Oh I forgot, they're already doing that...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158799/eerste_trailer_ted_2

Okay, so the jokes in this trailer mostly revolve around bodily excrements and random popcultural references, as is usual in Hollywood comedy nowadays. Bear with me (pun, yes). Do I detect a plot that may very well be too intelligent and too philosophical for a film like this? The question of sentience, what makes a human being a human being and the limitations human beings themselves arrogantly set as to what constitutes life that should be allowed to have the same rights as ourselves, that sort of thing. There's some definite 'Measure of a Man' level story opportunities involved here! And of course, none of it will matter much, as it will just prove interspersed between a flatulence joke here and a cameo by the guy who used to be Flash Gordon there. Still, I can't help but give Seth MacFarlane credit for at least trying. I bet 'The Measure of a Man' ranks among his favorite episodes of Trek. And I also bet this movie is gonna be your totally average run-of-the-mill raunchy comedy, the type you've forgotten the day after you watched it.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158809/eerste_trailer_madame_bovary

Unlike this film which, too, is mostly about sex but doesn't touch upon it in a comedic fashion. Madame Bovary is one of the most scandalous works of literature to come out of the 19th-Century. However, for a contemporary audience that watches too much HBO, it'll be hard to make it as impactful as once this story was. Sexual shenanigans outside of holy matrimony are an everyday occurrence in the dramatic arts now and are not likely to shock anyone. So what relevant meaning is there for today's audience? Probably not anything novel. Doesn't stop a decent collection of both seasoned and young actors from practizing their craft in a wonderful fashion, complete with rustic landscape shots and lavish period costumes. That sort of thing at least never gets old. And if the characters decide to ditch said costumes while fooling around in said rustic landscapes, if not shocked or flabbergasted at such audacity, we'll still be intrigued some.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158812/franco_verfilmt_steinbeck_

James Franco by comparison is one of those actors who effortlessly seems to switch between raunchy comedies and serious drama. Or between acting and directing, for that matter. Hot off starring in The Interview, he's ready to direct a John Steinbeck novel, dazzling us with his versatility, if we hadn't become used to it already by now. I applaud such diversity, as well as Franco's taste in casting. He seems to have caught quite a few talented names for this latest project of his (and Selena Gomez, too). Even though he's been directing all kinds of stuff for a while now, I haven't yet had the pleasure of checking any of it out. Whether this will just add to that pile of unseen (by me) titles, time will tell. It's not like I ever read a John Steinbeck novel. But you can wake me for a performance by Ed Harris or Bryan Cranston any time (though preferably not when I'm asleep).

Today's News: planning, casting, piloting and trailing

Look at the news these last few days yielded:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158580/nieuwe_trailer_chappie

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?).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158557/netflix_onthult_plannen_daredevil_en_marco_polo

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.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158583/casting_buzz_jonge_acteurs_voor_x-men_apocalypse

More younger versions of X-characters, more talent needed to fill their boots. Though the majority of the actors and actresses mentioned in the original article I am not familiar with, I do believe there's some fair choices here. I'm divided between Team Turner and Team Ronan. Turner does a fine job on Game of Thrones, and the populairty of that show definitely gives her a mean edge. However, Ronan has a far more impressive resumé which encompasses a wide array of dramatic roles, some of them which proved quite heavy but she pulled them off admirably. Unbiased by the GoT sympathy for Sansa Sophie, I'd say Ronan should get the part. However, GoT does make me prejudiced against any actors who didn't star in it, so I won't deny I'd love to see what Turner could do with the character of Jean Grey. Hailee Steinfeld has a similar background to Ronan, so I would not mind her winning the part either. I'm glad it didn't go to Moretz though; I like her work, but I'd hate to see her get typecasted as 'that comic book girl'. She's got Hit-Girl, let it end there. As for the guys and girls up for Cyclops and Storm, for the most part I can only say 'who the heck are all these people?'. I only know Tye Sheridan from Mud, in which he performed quite well. Here too, there's a sympathy vote working its magic, as Taron Egerton currently has buzz because of Kingsman. The fact it was directed by Matthew Vaughn who, as the director of X-Men: First Class, could pull some serious strings also adds in his favour. But then too he'd end up with a comic book stigma, even though X-Men and Kingsmen at least are wildly different, far more diverse in nature than Kick-Ass and X-Men. There's just so many elements to consider here. Since I have zero influence in the whole casting process anyway, I'm just going to let this one roll on and I'll bitch and whine about the final choice when actually one has been made. Still, I can't help it: Go Sansa!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158585/pilot_voor_minority_report_serie_in_de_maak

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.

Today's News: back on schedule!

Finally managed to catch up with commenting on my own news today, thanks to a drought of news this first half of the week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157621/eerste_poster_tim_burtons_big_eyes

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.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157620/tom_hardy_beoogd_voor_x-men_en_suicide_squad

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.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157667/james_wan_terug_voor_conjuring_2

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.

Today's Triple News: an exodus of empires at the Apocalypse

The quest to post new news continues:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156389/eerste_teaser_boardwalk_empire_seizoen_5

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.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156408/nieuwe_fotos_ridley_scotts_exodus

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).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156405/singer_onthult_details_opening_x-men_apocalypse

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.

Today's many little bits of News

Here's a few scoops I posted on MS in recent days. They just keep piling up, don't they?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155773/eerste_teaserposter_minions

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155772/nieuwe_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155749/trailer_monsters_dark_continent_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155708/channing_tatum_wordt_x-man_gambit

Channing Tatum as Gambit? I vehemently object to this, though I get the reasons why he might be considered suitable for the role. Gambit is girlbait, he's a rogue (get the pun there?), he's charming and sultry, and these are all qualities the female part of humanity generally agrees Tatum possesses. The argument Tatum 'understands Gambit because they're both from the American South' is baloney: there's a vast difference between Gambit's home state of Louisiana and Tatum's native Alabama, even though they lie next to each other. My major issue with Tatum's casting is they didn't ask my opinion beforehand.

No, that's not it.

It's what Tatum brings to the franchise in terms of starpower that vexes me. Tatum by now is a firmly established hot moviestar that mostly appeals to the female demographic (not X-Men's main audience for sure), more so for his looks than for his ability to act. X-Men by now is a firmly established hot movie franchise that mostly appeals to the male demographic (age 12-35 or thereabouts). Obviously adding Tatum to the mix is a tactic by the studio to attract new audiences, and given Tatum's status he's very likely gonna play a major role (he'll no doubt take a major salary too). So far, the franchise hasn't resorted to casting big Hollywood stars. Sure, Hugh Jackman is one now, but he wasn't when he first started playing Wolverine. Plus, Jackman cares about his character, which is why he keeps coming back to play him even though he has no contractual obligations or acting challenges in store for him to do so. That's character loyalty. Tatum has gone on record stating he's not all that much into X-Men, though he claims to like Gambit. Duh, otherwise he wouldn't have accepted the part. But this is likely just promotional bull. I doubt he read the comics or watched the cartoons just because Gambit occasionally appeared in it. I fear Tatum is gonna detract audience attention away from what really matters about X-Men. In Gambit's solofilm this is not that big an issue (though Wolverine's solofilms left a lot to be desired compared to the proper X-movies). But in X-Men: Apocalypse, you need a strong ensemble of characters performed by team players who don't mind taking a backseat if the plot demands it (Anna Paquin's Rogue being scrapped from Days of Future Past without the actress complaining because it's for the greater good is a good example of taking one for the team). That's not something I think Tatum easily accepts. Also, the movie is likely to be built around Tatum (and Jackman too, still) to accomodate his star status. Certainly for X-Men: Apocalypse, that doesn't bode well, as this story deals with a team of mutants more than ever instead of it centering around a single character (apart from Apocalypse himself in a way). It seems a wrong time to start calling special attention to one character, especially one that was seen before but played by another actor (Taylor Kitsch). I would much prefer it if Gambit was re-introduced in his own film first, then appeared in a group effort later. Kinda like The Avengers, from which every studio owning Marvel property takes a page these days. In this case, the wrong page I'd say.

Monsters was a small film shot on a low budget in a guerilla style of filmmaking. It seems the sequel Dark Continent takes a different route. I didn't even think this unusual creature feature got enough audience attention to warrant a successor, but on that small a budget, profit isn't hard to accomplish and so a sequel is a given by the rigid laws of Hollywood. Obviously on a bigger budget, considering the visual effects (and this is still only the trailer too). It seems that's where most of the money went, since the plot feels fairly generic and there's no big names attached (playing a bit part in Game of Thrones gets you noticed but doesn't make you an instant star, Joe Dempsie). I don't think a second film was needed or desired by those who saw the first film, and it seems the original director Gareth Edwards agreed with me, as he's hardly involved with the production of Part 2 at all. He's listed as 'executive producer', but that's saying nothing. Stan Lee is listed under the same credit for virtually every Marvel movie, only for coming up with the characters back in the days, but otherwise doesn't do a thing, other than appearing in his cameos for fun. Edwards of course traded a shot at directing the sequel to his baby in for doing the remake of Godzilla. Good thing too, since you'd need a monster enthusiast to get the King of Monsters right, which I hear he has done. It seems there was little more to add to Monsters though, and so far the trailer for Monsters: Dark Continent proves just that.

Now that's what I call a bitchin' poster! Okay, so it's in many ways identical to the previous posters for Marvel Studios' movies, save for the different setting and characters of course. For now, I like to think of that as studio consistency, which is something Marvel excels in as it's continuously expanding its Cinematic Universe. And it works on this poster better than ever. There's also more than a little resemblance to the way Star Wars posters were composed (especially the classics by Drew Struzan), and that's also not a bad thing to say about promotional material for an ambitious space opera like this. This poster is colourful, appealing and otherwise just plain badass. I hope the movie delivers on the goods promised here.

The first poster for Minions, that's a different thing entirely. All it shows are a few characters, a title and a date set against a plain white background, but nothing else is needed for a teaser poster. At the sight of the minions, kids will know enough. And their parents who will pay for seeing the film in theaters too, poor things. But is a film about the minions themselves a good thing? Don't they work better as supporting characters? I see a kind of Smurf motive here. Other than the fact these little creatures already feel similar to the Smurfs by their simple but easily recognizable colour coding and their own invented language, the Smurfs first appeared in a comic album in which they were not the main characters, but they soon came into their own and few people remember the names of the characters in whose story they co-starred (naturally, I do). Since then, they have taken popular culture by storm worldwide. I doubt the minions will witness a similar fate, but it's hard to deny they steal the show in these Despicable movies. It's up to the first Minions film to prove they can do without their evil master in the future. And if they fail, we still have the Smurfs.

Today's Double News: X-creed

Two bits of movie news I wrote for MS:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155455/justin_kurzel_gaat_assassins_creed_verfilmen

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155407/fox_overweegt_x-men_tv-serie

An X-Men TV-show, why the heck not? In fact, why not try this years ago? There's so many characters, locales, powers and motives in the many decades of X-comics, the movies have barely even scratched the surface. Plus, the film franchise insists on a small ensemble of characters as the core team, while most other mutants presented are relegated to bit parts instead. A TV-show would be able to flesh such underused characters out neatly, while also keeping the franchise from becoming overly convoluted to the general audience, as the film series tends to risk just that in the next few years due to Fox's insistence on copying Marvel proper via excessive crossovering. That said, I agree with Kinberg that a show revolving around superpowered individuals is in danger of breaching budget limitations which always plague the realm of television. But these powers don't have to be so in-your-face as seen in the source material. It's not the first superhuman TV-series after all. Just consider the likes of The 4400, Heroes and Alphas, who in many ways incorporated everything X-Men would have to do, except they were lacking the big X-Men name to draw audiences in initially. Granted, FX on these shows weren't always convincing (Heroes far from it in fact), but the technology keeps pushing the limits and grandiose effects are getting ever more affordable. Of course, at its heart, X-Men isn't at all about the superpowers and the cool visuals, it's about the characters and the social commentary. We are living in the golden age of television, where such ingredients are almost a given, so that also need not be an issue. However, as with Marvel's current series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., audience expectations in terms of characters might be an obstacle to overcome. These days, thanks to the X-movies, the term 'X-Men' will immediately bring to mind associations with a very select group of characters, including but not necessarily limited to Wolverine, Professor Xavier, Magneto and Mystique. Considering the high profile actors, if not outright Hollywood stars, playing these parts, it's not likely these hugely popular characters will make an appearance, unless recasting is in order (which won't sit well with many fans no doubt). To me, Xavier is the only true must-have, as he's the guy responsible for all the X-ing about. Other than that, there's plenty of personas, protagonists and antagonists alike, to pick from. You just need to convince the audience quickly of the quality of the show and the characters involved before they start to miss those X-characters they've come to love. Of course, if the TV-show is running alongside the movies, things are different, and probably only more difficult to pull off in terms of making the show stand on its own instead of being a mere appendix of the movies. As you can see, there's many elements to take into consideration in creating this show, which is undoubtedly why Fox hasn't greenlighted anything yet. I think it's harder to make a TV-show based off a film series work than the other way around. But then, if Fox had started the franchise on television instead of on the big screen in 2000, it's unlikely the superhero movie (especially those carrying the Marvel brand) would have been as popular as it is today.

As for Magneto, I highly doubt we'll see either Sir Ian McKellen or Michael Fassbender in that role on telly. We will be seeing Fassbender in other capacities though, most notably as the popular titular assassin from Assassin's Creed, in the upcoming big budget movie adaptation of the video game. The project will reunite him with director Justin Kurzel, with whom he recently worked on an adaptation of that Scottish play, MacBeth. Considering Fassbender is also producing Assassin's Creed, he'll probably have had a hand in hiring his director. Such loyalty is a good sign the relationship between star and director is strong and effective and will likely spawn positive results for Assassin's Creed. Good thing too, as expectations for this video game movie are no doubt high considering its success on the game market and its recognizable name. Even though the "curse" on video game adaptations has softened somewhat over recent years, it sure as hell hasn't been lifted wholly, and any movie based on a game is still met with quite a lot of initial scepticism accordingly. At least the movie will star a solid actor we know can play any part including this one easily.

Today's Triple News: amazing dragon jobs

Let's put an end to MovieScene news posts by my hand accumulating indefinitely right here, right now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155304/danny_boyle_beoogd_regisseur_voor_biopic_steve_jobs

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155276/eerste_vijf_minuten_how_to_train_your_dragon_2_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155262/x-men_in_aftiteling_amazing_spider-man_2

Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.

Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to  computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.

Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.

Today's Trailer: a very X-citing final X-trailer

As promised, here's the latest and apparently last trailer for X-Men: Days of Future Past:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155150/laatste_trailer_x-men_days_of_future_past_online

Any doubts I had about this film when watching the previous few trailers have disappeared: this film looks like a total blast! What it relays the most pressingly, compared to its predecessors, is the sense of a coherent story line; always welcome in a movie involving time travel. Even though it does kinda feel like a gratuitous set-up to have the original X-Men's X-Men and their recent First Class past counterparts hook up. It's definitely a step away from the original comic book story, wherein there was no past, only the present and the abysmal future that would have occurred if the X-Men hadn't halted certain events in said present. This time it's the past that needs to be altered for the good of both mankind and mutantkind, while the future serves as an alternate present, considering the characters from previous X-films do not appear all that much older (okay, so Iceman grew a beard: whoop-dee-doo!). Despite all the techie stuff involved, this grizzly future seems to takes place around the same time as our present (roughly stated, 2015-2020), making it a future only for the past.

More intriguing is what happened to the 'first class' of X-Men, who seem to have disbanded, making for a rather disheveled and depressed Xavier. There's definitely some explaining that needs to be done there. As happened in First Class, the need to form a new team is imminent, and this time it's Wolverine (Hugh Jackman playing that part for the seventh time, and still he's up for more: that's loyalty!) who must do the job. Question is: is this the actual future Wolverine transported in time, or has the older Xavier somehow mentally instructed the past Wolverine to do so through time? As seen in the marketing campaign, though not something easily picked up in this trailer, both the boney claw Wolverine and his adamantium wielding equivalent will be spotted in this movie, but will they share the screen, thus making for two different Wolverines in one film? This is still left a little vague, as can be expected from a film involving temporal mechanics. In the original story, Kitty Pride (Shadowcat) was the one doing the time travelling, but she didn't do so physically, as her present counterpart was mentally picking up future events sent to aid her in forcing a change that should prevent that bleak future from ever happening. Shadowcat makes an appearance in this movie, but since Wolverine is still the most popular X-Man, he now has taken over her role, and apparently reduced her character to mere cannon fodder. The notion of seeing two Wolverines onscreen simultaneously is a wonderful concept and I wouldn't mind exploring that avenue. But then, there's still plenty of fascinating character moments bound to pass, judging from the trailer, as Wolverine is confronted with past versions of fellow mutants he has come to know and love, or in other cases, hate.

And of course there's mindblowing action with Sentinels and all kinds of mutants and crashing football stadiums and stuff. Good to know, but in this case more than ever there's a great opportunity for getting to know these characters, some of them established is two different ways, from fresh and unexpected angles. Bryan Singer has previously proven to work well with large ensembles, giving everyone their appropriate due and I have full confidence he won't let us down in that regard once more. I was somewhat sceptical about this film thanks to the first two trailers - and the fact this movie deals with what is arguably the most classic and well loved X-tale of them all - but this trailer has gotten me X-cessively hyped for this latest X-travaganza. And those to follow, since Days of Future Past will have great consequences for various X-projects to follow, like X-Force and X-Men: Apocalypse. Seems the X-future will be at least as X-citing as the X-past!

Today's News: introducing a new breed of X-Men

Here's a bit of news I posted on MovieScene earlier this week. Related news soon to follow, but not yet posted on that site.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155100/openingsscene_x-men_days_of_future_past_online_geplaatst

This is a common occurrence for big budget blockbuster movies, to post finished clips of the actual movie in the few months leading up to its theatrical release. They usually stick to material from the film's opening to intrigue the audience as to the exact cause of events (which is left in the dark well enough for them to be enticed) and to prohibit giving too much away from the actual plot, which the studio prefer to keep to itself until the movie hits theaters. I recently posted a clip of Captain America: The Winter Soldier on MS that adhered to the same marketing strategy. Of course, some movies go even further and post way more than just a few scenes from the movie's first half: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 currently has so many clips up online you might puzzle together the whole movie from those. That's no fun for the nerds that actually attempt to do just that and end up spoiling the final viewing experience for themselves completely. Fortunately I'm not that determined.

This one minute scene begins and ends in medias res; you might accuse it of missing context, but then, the context is provided by the rest of the film this early released clip wants you to go and see soon. There's a lot of characters in this dynamic scene, half of whom fans will recognize from previous X-movies (Colossus, Shadowcat, Iceman). The other half consists of new characters, who appropriately get to show off their powers which define them. Even though we don't get much on their character background here as yet, we learn what they can do and how well they act as a team in a dire situation like this. We're also introduced to the nightmarish future world wherein these mutants have become the hunted, as well as their enemy, the ominous and ruthless future Sentinels. We learn little about those genocidal robots from this clip, which also pushes us to want to see the movie to learn just how dangerous they are to our heroes and what role they played in bringing about this Apocalypse. Deducing from this scene, Bryan Singer once again revels in his craftsmanship when it comes to making the audience acquainted with lots of characters, while not sacrificing the pace of the movie. It helps that the spectator is already familiar with many of the personas present in this movie, but there are many characters left to explore and all need ample screentime. If needs be, established characters are pushed to the background, as happened to Anna Paquin's Rogue, who was almost cut from the movie entirely, though word has now reached us that she will at least make a cameo appearance. Singer knows that in a movie with so many characters as this one, there is a serious risk of the story getting padded to the detriment of the film as a whole, so sacrifices have to be made. I expect these mutants to serve as canon fodder in their attempt to escort Wolverine to the past where most of the story takes place though. No problem, as long as Singer makes us care about their demise. If there's one person who excels at bringing together large ensembles without confusing the audience needlessly and making them empathic about all of them, it's Singer.

Tomorrow: final trailer for this same movie. X-celsior!

Today's Column: are we tired yet of the Avengers-approach?

After yesterday's sad events, spirits may be lifted a little bit with an extra lengthy column I wrote for MS this week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154600/column_zijn_we_al_moe_van_de_avengers-aanpak

My point that Marvel might be endangering its own construct by relying on its star actors too much was fortuitously underscored this week, when word leaked that Chris Evans means to quit the acting business altogether in favor of turning towards directing, as I posted in this bit of news last week:

 http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154691/chris_evans_wil_stoppen_met_acteren

Fortunately he's under contract at Marvel and he still has two movies to go (Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America 3 it seems), so there's still time for Marvel to avert a crisis. For now. Phase 2 seems secure, but it seems a sure thing Evans will not return for Avengers 3. So what's Marvel to do without the iconic Star Spangled Avenger? Recasting is an option, as is killing off his character. But it's just one actor among many who may jump ship earlier than Marvel would like, and you can't recast or replace them all without potentially annoying or needlessly confusing the audience. But let's find out how the viewers will respond to two different takes on the same character (Quicksilver) first. Maybe it will go unnoticed by all but the avid comic book fans, maybe people will understand not all Marvel superheroes belong to Marvel Studios proper in terms of copyright (fat chance!), or maybe they will simply not care about the whole matter (the wisest choice no doubt). But it seems a given that even Marvel's ambitious 'Avengers-approach' to building a coherent cinematic universe will be in need of a reboot somewhere down the line, and maybe earlier than anticipated.

Today's Double News: Days of Future Past fully covered

As always I prove to be particularly drawn to posting superhero news on MS, and consequently reposting it here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153410/marvel_wil_russos_terug_voor_captain_america_3

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153359/empire_onthult_25_covers_x-men_days_of_future_past

25 different magazine covers?! Am I glad I'm not a collector of anything X-Men, saves me a lot of money in this case. I doubt there would be many people - though I know there will definitely be some - crazy enough to collect them all if they can just behold them in Hi-Def glory online. And they certainly are glorious, me thinks. (Be sure to check them out right here to form your own opinion on the subject.) Though there's the usual Photoshop editing to post the various characters overly smoothly in the shot, you can't deny the full panoramic view of all 25 covers in the right order, moving from the Sixties to the (not too distant?) future, is quite an ingenious piece of work. I must admit I didn't even notice the big picture (literally) at first when I only saw the first six covers made available. However, it's the characters, new an old, that take centerstage on both the covers and in fan interest, including my own. We finally get to see decent shots of the much anticipated new characters, as well as the grim future appearances of beloved familiar ones from Singer's own first pair of X-movies. I'm first and foremost glad and thankful virtually all of both time frame's major players have returned, including personal favorites like Sir Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and Ellen Page. Say what you will about the rather pretentious and arrogant cover text 'the biggest ever superhero movie', this film certainly has the most impressive cast to date of all Marvel flicks. The greatest fear in this regard is that with so many characters, few of them get a true chance to shine and many will be relegated to minor tidbits of interaction: a feeling not unwarranted since overcrowdedness has already cost Anna Paquin's Rogue her limited screen time, though oddly enough she's still present on these covers regardless. That said, if Singer proved one thing with X-Men and X2, it's that he knows how to handle star studded ensemble pieces, giving each character his or her due. I have faith he hasn't forgotten how to keep large casts worth our while on screen.

The most notable thing about these covers is the excellent new shots they provide of hot new mutant characters, namely Quicksilver (the first, as another will appear next year in the second Avengers film), Warpath, Sunspot, Blink and Bishop. A diverse bunch appropriated from the whole spectrum of the X-universe throughout its long history and hopefully not randomly thrown in the mix. Though Warpath, Blink and Bishop look a lot like their comic book counterparts (except with blacker costumes, to establish a sense of coherency in the bleak future X-look), Sunspot and particularly Quickie have underwent a few stylistic changes, in the latter's case no doubt to make him distinct from the other Quicksilver, which might follow the character's historically drawn dresscode more closely. As for Sunspot, maybe I'm just used to seeing him in full 'spot mode' too much to remember his actual physical regular appearance. What's more surprising than the addition of novel characters is the unexpected return of old ones, i.e. Colonel Stryker (who looks quite different from his counterpart in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, pushing that movie out of the cinematic continuity even further) and Toad (who also bears little similarity to the original as played by Ray Park). I'm guessing Toad will stay limited to playing the henchman as before, but Stryker clearly will have a bigger part to play as the film's secondary human antagonist (next to Peter Dinklage's Bolivar Trask), likely forming a liaison between the American military and Trask Industries as the pair of them engage in constructing mutant hunting Sentinels. As for those, they look spectacular. The past version looks retro and similar enough to the comic book robots to keep the fans satisfied (or me, at least), while the future Sentinel is a whole different beast altogether, which definitely allowed the design team to go all-out. As for the character design, I'm sure there will be ample whining about the black Batmanesque X-costumes, but I have little against them except they make for too uniform a look as opposed to the wildly divergent styles of costumes from the comics. Some characters make it work, like Colossus and Storm who look badass, while on others (Xavier, Shadowcat (here simply referred to by her real name Kitty Pryde)) the choice is less appealing. However, I'm all for substance over style, and as long as these are compelling characters played convincingly by capable actors, I have no qualms about their outfits. Not everyone can look like Mystique, who has found a perfect balance in that respect.

Aside from the background panorama, there's a few other little details to enjoy. I love Blink's teleporting window, revealing Warpath's back, and vice versa. Maybe the covers hint at a romantic relationship or some other personal connection between these newbie characters? Also of note is the difference between Wolverine's claws in both eras, the past showing the bone claws he originally was born with as illustrated in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (welcome back to the continuity!), the future witnessing him equipped with his well known adamantium claws instead. Since it was established Logan got the rare metal grafted onto his skeleton somewhere in the early Seventies, and the past section of X-Men: Days of Future Past as I understood it takes place in 1963 around the time of JFK's assassination, this fits the timeline neatly. And what's with the military look to Havok and Toad? They undercover or som'thin'? What's up with Quicksilver's utility belt? Why is Rogue all in white unlike the rest of her team members, and what's that spaceship looking thingy above here? These covers provide both answers and new questions, and prove more effective in terms of spawning speculation than the somewhat disappointing first trailer did.

In other news, Marvel is doing with the Russo Brothers what Fox recently did with Matt Reeves on Planet of the Apes, seemingly already hiring them on the basis of great expectations over concrete results for another sequel. I still say this is not the smartest move, but at least in the case of Marvel Studios advance planning of future projects has been shown to be taken much more seriously than is usual. And so far I have no reason to doubt the qualities of the Russos, as I very much liked what I saw of Captain America: The Winter Soldier so far. But who cares about a project at least three or four years in the future when you can drool over them X-covers some more? X-Men: Days of Future Past is only a few months away but thanks to promotional strategies like these the suspense is killing me. Considering the status of the original story line as one of the greatest X-Men classics and the presence of a humongous cast of talented actors, as well as this film's need to also serve as a decent set-up for the sequel X-Men: Apocalypse, the movie certainly has a lot to live up to. I trust Singer realized all of this well in advance. Considering his success on the first X-films, I'm willing to cut him some slack. X-celsior, Bryan!

Today's News: Paquin gone rogue

A little flash of news from mine own hand today:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152605/anna_paquin_uit_x-men_days_of_future_past_geknipt

I'm not surprised at this occurrence: considering the vast number of returning characters, not to mention a bunch of new ones, there were bound to be a few left in the cold. Apparently Rogue was only in this one single action scene, so it appears there was little substance to her character anyway. If it helps the pace and flow of the movie, sacrifices have to be made. 'Kill your darlings' is a well established editorial practice, and many a film has fallen prey to scenes featuring fan favorites being chopped out. Compare The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King for example, where everyone's preferred evil wizard Saruman was excised, despite being played by the formidable Christopher Lee (blasphemy says I!). At least that movie had an extended cut upcoming, which I doubt will be the case for Days of Future Past. At least Bryan Singer assures us we'll see the scene on the home cinema release regardless, albeit not reintegrated in the movie proper. It is always a hard thing for actors to swallow when they hear they haven't made it into the final film - the Saruman incident for instance resulted in a brief falling-out between Lee and Peter Jackson - but apparently Paquin is enough of a professional to be cool with it, even though it means she did the whole Comic-Con press thing last summer for nothing. That is, Singer tells us she agrees with the decision: we have not had confirmation of her own opinion yet, so maybe it's just a marketing tactic to assure us that despite the change everything has been resolved amicably. Something which I am inclined to believe, considering the director and actress have worked before twice, so they're probably dear friends as these things go. And as for the fanboys, get over it: there's still plenty of mutants around in Days of Future Past to make for an X-travaganza like nothing seen before. Unless Singer goes all Sentinel and terminates a few more to make the movie run more smoothly. It's Marvel, anything can happen.

Today's News: the Days of Future Past go viral in the Sixties

Business is slow of late, but don't blame me, blame business. And blame time for not being available in the quantities one would like to have at his/her disposal. Anyway, here's a bit of news I managed to slip through:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151963/viral_video_x-men_days_of_future_past_online

I like alternative timelines, I like viral campaigns for movies that make good use of them to get me excited for a movie and I like X-Men, so this is a winner. It may not be the most detailed video (and a bit short really) and it's more of a teaser for the Bent Bullet website (which it itself is a teaser for next year's X-Men: Days of Future Past movie), but it serves as a decent catalyst for public interest. The article on the website looks fascinating too, but unfortunately, as mentioned above, lack of time prohibits me from reading it (probably until the Holidays have come and gone). I glanced through it and already found a minor spoiler for characters that we saw join Magneto's cause in X-Men: First Class, but won't be featured in the sequel because life (or its exact opposite rather) intervened with their goals. So no Jason Flemyng in DoFP apparently, since he's apparently too busy getting cast for Star Wars Episode VII.

You gotta love the eternal 'what if' question. Marvel certainly does, the House of Ideas even made a long running, delightful comic book series entitled What If on the subject, dealing exclusively with alternative plots to regular series, to explore the possibilities had things turned out otherwise. What if Wolverine was a Thirties' gangster? What if Spider-Man's daughter had survived? This viral video really fits right into that same venue. After all, First Class already handled historic happenstances that we know the conclusion of (at least, students of history do), but shed a different light on the situation because of the superpowered individuals native to the X-Universe, who could have influenced such global events for intriguing dramatic purposes. Occurrences that are shrouded into mystery until this day beg a mutant involvement in fiction, so the JFK assassination is a logical topic for an alternate history revisitation. Magneto bending a bullet so it would hit Kennedy is a wonderful notion, as is the thought of Mystique disguising herself as somebody else (in this instance, Lee Harvey Oswald) and taking the shot itself to add to the public confusion and number of question marks surrounding the case. Upon learning the possibility of mutant influence in the matter, the bleak future we'll see in the next movie, where mutants are hunted and slaughtered by the robotic Sentinels to guard the human public, is not such an unlikely thing to happen. I sure hope the viral campaign for Days of Future Past will contain more similarly themed conspiracy virals. I have heard it from reliable sources that such mutant scum was also responsible for the Watergate scandal and the Chernobyl catastrophe, ya know...