Today's Triple News: Jurassic. Spider. Busters.

More news just keeps piling up:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154577/omar_sy_in_jurassic_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154563/lego_regisseurs_in_race_voor_ghostbusters_3

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154530/laatste_trailer_amazing_spider-man_2_online

Another Spider-trailer. Whoop-dee-doo. Let's hope it's indeed the final trailer, since I'm sick and tired of posting more of this movie's overly extensive marketing campaign. Still a month to go, so the online hype-building ought to die down now, in favour of building tangible hype in people's everyday lives offline; TV-spots when the commercial breaks hit, posters in bus stands and other places you can't escape from the wallcrawler's renewed cinematic presence, etc.. But online we should be safe from Spider-Man now for a few years. Good thing too, since between all the trailers, posters and other publicity I posted, I feel like I've seen the whole movie already. So for me, that's that over with. At last.

Unlike Jurassic World, production of which is finally getting into gear. Casting continues, and soon shooting finally begins for real, after only twelve years of anticipation from big Jurassic fans like myself. This time Omar Sy, from Intouchables fame, has joined the cast, says he and director Colin Trevorrow on Twitter in two languages. Sy is a fine comedian, that's for sure. Whether he is equally adept at playing different kinds of roles remains to be seen. As he's playing Bishop in X-Men: Days of Future Past, not a character known for his cheerful, lighthearted disposition, I think he's capable of more than just generating laughs. I have no clue what type of character he will play, I just hope it's not some kind of one-note comic relief role. I doubt it though, they could have just picked an American for that. I gotta say, this film's cast is getting increasingly international. So far we have actors from three continents and four countries, so I guess Jurassic World is an appropriate title in multiple respects. Still no word on dinosaurs though, I guess they're still on the drawing boards/work shop benches. And the plot is still wrapped in mystery too. So despite following every bit of news surrounding this project so far (I have to, I write for a movie website after all), there's still plenty of unexposed material to look forward to. But if I keep sticking this close to the movie, I will hugely spoil things for my eventual viewing pleasure. So I had better take a step back and let my fellow news editors post Jurassic World in the future. If I can keep myself from beating them to it.

Another popular franchise that hasn't seen any real action in ages - and far longer than Jurassic Park too - would be Ghostbusters. The third movie has been in development hell for years, but Sony finally seems decisive to get the project going. First order of business: finding someone to take charge. The original director, Ivan Reitman, just backed out because his dearly beloved friend Harold Ramis died. Regrettable but understandable, and a respectful decision for sure. Ramis would also have aided in writing the screenplay for the third installment, so his death is bad news on more than one level for this project. Nevertheless, the studio is persistant in making that 2015 release date. So who 'you gonna call' to save this wacky comedy adventure? Why, people who specialize in wacky comedy adventures of course! Especially the sort of folks that has already made a few for the studio in recent years to great financial results, and is currently top news for pulling off another such film. Chris Miller and Phil Lord are a predictable but trustworthy choice. This type of oddball underdog humour is right up their alley: compare The LEGO Movie, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street. All enjoyable in their own regard, though not likely to become franchise films as popular and enduring as Ghostbusters. Can't hurt for their career to add such a name to their directing credits. I for one am not particularly waiting for another Ghostbusters flick, especially one so late in the game. Heck, I didn't even think the first two movies were that good to warrant their longevity in terms of popularity (well, sorry!). Nevertheless, I like Miller & Lord, I like their quirky style and I think they may just be Sony's best bet to get this film going properly. But I would prefer them to assemble The LEGO Movie 2 first. While the fans can put together that upcoming Ghostbusters LEGO set:

Jurassic Park Chaos Effect: Ankyloranodon

Year of release: 1998

Description: bearing features of both the flying Pteranodon and the armoured Ankylosaurus, Ankyloranodon has a muscular small body with a pair of large wings and two legs featuring sharp claws. Its head is about the size of its body and looks very spiky due to the long curled crest sticking out the back of its head and the hook at the end of its beak. Its also has bumps on the side of the lower jaws. The wings sport a sort of bat pattern, consisting of muscular arms with long fingers sticking out which hold the skin forming the wings. Each wing also carries a sharp hook. This beast has a flexible tail that ends in a large solid club adorned with spikes. The tail section forms the basis of the attack action this animal is equipped with. On the middle of its back, right above the legs, a large green lever disguised as a spike sticks out. Pulling this lever makes the tail curl downward so the creature violently smashes its tail around to inflict damage. This monster’s back is covered in armour, running from the back of the head to the end of the tail. The armour carries spikes (though not very sharp ones), including two rows of black spikes on its back.

Ankyloranodon sports a mixture of purple and green colours. Most of the lower parts of the animal (legs, belly, throat, lower jaw, underside of the wings) is coloured bright green, as are the hook on the figure’s beak and the large crest on the back of the head. Also, the arms and fingers of the wings are painted this same colour. The upper parts of the creature’s body (the armour on its back and neck, as well as most of the upper jaw) are painted purple, with some purple spots adorning the lower jaw. The skin that forms the largest part of the wings is also purple, but strangely enough only on the top side. The figure’s tail is entirely coloured purple, but of a lighter shade (it’s also made of a softer material so as to enhance the flexibility needed for the tail smashing action). The club is mostly red, but for some black lines and stripes running between the spikes and bumps it’s composed of. Black can also be found covering parts of the head, mostly around the eyes, which are bright orange (no pupils), and around a large dark purple (again a different hue) spot on each side of the beak. Additionally, a thin line of black is found on either side of the crest, while the tongue is also black. Its teeth, which aren’t very fearsome (hinting at the herbivorous Ankylosaurus DNA, since Pteranodon had no teeth) are white. A large black JP Chaos Effect logo is located on the right upper leg, along with the number .48. Its claws are not painted in a different colour.

This figure does not come with any pieces of capture gear. However, it needs to be assembled first because the tail club and wings are separate components when the figure is carded; otherwise the figure, which takes up quite some space compared to the other smaller Chaos Effect dinosaurs, wouldn’t fit on its card.

Analysis: this is without a doubt one of the coolest new dinosaur sculpts devised for the Chaos Effect toy line. It features a great and original attack option and a wonderful overall design. The paint job is about average, but not necessarily bad. Bright green and purple are a typical colourful Chaos Effect paint job, but from an aesthetic viewpoint they’re not the most appealing combination. Especially vexing is the fact the underside of the wings isn’t painted like the upper side.

The design of this figure is quite neat. It definitely looks mean and nasty, not something you would want to mess with. The wings, which are quite poseable, and can swing in almost any direction, look somewhat battered and worn out, due to the way the fingers run between the skin, and the fact they feature small pieces of damage at the lower side of the skin, like some ferocious carnivore slashed at them. The creature comes with muscular legs and large claws on its feet: though not poseable themselves, Ankyloranodon can hold other figures (smaller dinosaurs, human figures) between them and carry them through the air. Adding to the creature’s horrific look are the various hooks, bumps and spikes found on its body. Though the beast’s teeth don’t look so imposing, the large hook on its beak as well as the black tongue make up for that. The only thing which makes this deadly hell spawn look somewhat silly, is the long thin, curled crest on its head. It lacks the feeling of sharpness and danger the other protrusions on this monster have.

The very best thing about this figure is the awesome tail pounding action. Pulling the lever on its back makes the tail swing downward, causing the club to viciously hit anything in its way. The tail is rotatable (though not very easily and it might cause damage to the action feature’s mechanism over time), so the creature can also swing its tail in other directions. The thrashing tail option works very well and knocks over most smaller figures. However, Ankyloranodon’s legs can get in the way, so you might have to move them in a different position. Despite this minor nuisance, the tail swinging works perfectly and is a lot of fun to play with. This particular action feature is also quite original, since it had not been featured on any figure before this one and wouldn’t be used in the same fashion again (though the JP III Brachiosaurus featured a similar, but definitely inferior, tail attack action).

Playability: quite high. The wings are particularly poseable due to the mechanism with which they’re attached to the body. They can move up and down, slightly back and forth and in a full circle. Also moveable are the legs and the head (from the neck up), though the beak unfortunately can’t be closed. The tail section is rotatable, though less easy than the other body parts. The tail swinging action adds a very playable and easy to perform attack option to this great figure.

Realism: Ankyloranodon is obviously as fictional as the rest of the Chaos Effect series, and is yet another fantastical addition to this imaginative toy line. The figure obviously carries features from both the Ankylosaurus (armour, tail club) and Pteranodon (wings, beak, crest). It may not be believable a large and heavily armoured creature like this, weighing nine tons according to the card, could ever take to the skies, but as a predator it has significant advantages over its fellow Chaos Effect monsters. This creature can swoop down unnoticed, quickly kill prey with a deadly hit of his lethal tail club and fly off again carrying its victim with its large claws. The armour and array of spikes over its body provide solid protection against any adversaries that might be dangerous to this beast, if any. Realism be damned, this is the perfect carnivore!

Repaint: no. This is an original sculpt designed specifically for this toy line and as such, it would not be repainted for later toy lines either.

Overall rating: 8/10. Though the paint job isn’t all that good, Ankyloranodon comes with a fun new attack option and great playability, making it one of the more successful new Chaos Effect sculpts. It’s not the easiest figure to find and you might have to search for it somewhat, especially in regions where it didn’t get a proper release. However, it should totally prove to be worth your while, if you're at all into Chaos Effect weirdness.

Today's Triple News: sequels, fairy tales and super heroes

New news keeps pouring in on a daily basis, faster than I can discuss it here. Doesn't stop me from trying though:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154509/sofia_coppola_regisseert_mogelijk_the_little_mermaid_

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154508/disney_maakt_cars_3_en_incredibles_2

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154488/mangold_terug_voor_wolverine_2

People who think Coppola might not be suited for directing a fairy tale are overlooking the fact that the basic contents of The Little Mermaid are much like some of Coppola's earlier work, they're just packaged differently. Stories about teenage girls living in a fantasy world all their own and trying to have things their way which backfires on them doesn't sound so different thematicaly from the likes of The Bling Ring, Marie Antoinette or The Virgin Suicides to my mind. They just appear dissimilar on the surface. That said, the notion of doing a "kid-friendly" family film is probably what deters most people who prefer to see Coppola tackling more (young) adult oriented material, as she hasn't done a project like this yet. However, that's not to say she is not capable of making such a movie. Let's face it: Coppola's career as a director of feature length films spans nearly two decades but has only spawned five movies in total. That's not enough of an output to judge a director's capacities on, it's only an indication of what type of films he/she is particularly drawn to. As I have stated before, directors need change, and I'd say here's a chance for Coppola to prove her directorial versatility. She has two young kids of her own, for crying out loud; why wouldn't she be interested in a fun movie for the whole family, that still allows her to incorporate her signature themes to some extent? Even though I'm personally not all that stoked for this project - which definitely has something to do with the fact the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is the first movie I ever saw in theaters, and the second too - I think the studio might just have made the perfect choice with Coppola.

Speaking of Disney, they're steering Pixar, formerly known for their sublime creativity, into a rampant case of suffering severe sequelitis. Currently, the studio is working on only a single original project, The Good Dinosaur, which was already put on hold for a whole year. Other than that, it's all sequels for the next few years: Planes 2, an alleged Toy Story 4, Finding Dory, Cars 3, The Incredibles 2. People used to praise Pixar for doing something new every time, while their competitor DreamWorks was maligned for milking itself dry completely. They won't be doing that anymore, as by now the situation seems to have reversed entirely. It appears Disney decides to play it safe by counting on established multi-billion dollar franchises instead of letting original ideas take precedence. And if those sequels weren't enough, there's a few more 3D re-releases slated too, making the studio more money by pushing the same stuff on us again, just at higher admission prices. That said, I prefer a re-release, so we can all enjoy those classic Pixar movies again before they're totally spoiled by their unneccessary and undesirable sequels. However, Pixar proved with Toy Story 2 and 3 that they can do justice to the originals be making sequels that manage to actually surpass the quality of their predecessors, but ever since Cars 2 and the terribly uninspired spin-off Planes - at a point when Disney had taken over the company - the odds of that happening again are not in our favour. Let's hope The Good Dinosaur will at least live up to its name.

And the X-universe just keeps on Xpanding cinematically (see what I did there?). Ever since the mind boggling success of Marvel's The Avengers, rival studios that own a piece of the Marvel Universe have taken a hint as to how they ought to approach handling their properties to achieve similar success. Unlike Sony, which only manages a single big name and its various supporting characters, Fox has the luck of owning a big name tentpole franchise, X-Men,  that consists of a lot more characters and therefore a lot more possibilities for sequels, spin-offs and such, making for an easily growing cinematic legacy. Apparently the 'Avengers approach' is already applied in full swing with X-Men: Days of Future Past, a storyline which will continue into X-Men: Apocalypse (2016), the latter of which might actually deal with the infamous Age of Apocalypse mirror universe, or else with a variation on the established cinematic X-routine. Days of Future Past might end with its broken time line fixed or not, and still able to pave the way for coherently branching off into multiple temporal directions. X-Force (2016 or 2017) for eXample will certainly pick up where Apocalypse left off, as it deals with Apocalypse's primary nemesis Cable and his merry band of young mutant acolytes, but it can still take place alongside the regular X-storyline that we last saw in last year's The Wolverine, either being interwoven with characters we already know, in various possible iterations (future/present/alternate universe) no less. And now The Wolverine is getting a sequel too (2017/2018?), which most likely will continue on the events of Days of Future Past - as those were already foreshadowed in its mid-credits bonus scene - but could skip over Apocalypse altogether, while still relating to X-Force in a minor capacity. And if things aren't complicated enough by all these Xses being thrown around, Fox still has to think of how on Earth they're going to incorporate their other Marvel franchise, the Fantastic Four, into all this too, as they have stated to be their intention. Because of all the time travelling and alternate reality possibilities, directors working on this corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe might face a tougher job that those who work on Marvel's own, which is served more straightforwardly on a narrative level. James Mangold might just have his job cut out for him. Or he may ignore Days of Future Past, Apocalypse and X-Force completely and just have The Wolverine 2 follow his previous movie directly, focusing only on its titular character. For Sony, such a reliance on a single character is kind of a curse, but for Mangold it just might be a luXury.

Today's (Semi)Review: American Hustle

Wrote this one as an informative piece for Filmhuis Alkmaar, but since at this point it's the question whether this title will make it for release in that arthouse-theater for various reasons, I might as well post it here on my blog, and save me the effort of writing it again in English (though in that case it would have been longer and more detailed). Considering it's kind of a puff piece and there's no room for exploring the movie's downsides - you want to entice people to go see the movie by pretending there's nothing to hold against it after all; you're basically performing a con yourself, so to speak - I can't honestly describe it as the most balanced of reviews. That said, I found little to be wrong with this movie, save for the ending which, like most movies dealing with hustles and con artists, typically leaves something to be desired in terms of credibility. We're led to believe the situation is what it is, until it suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and things happen to fit together quite differently, stretching the limits of how much we're willing to swallow. However, the strong personalities and terrific performances of the cast, coupled with delicious production design and gorgeous costumes and make-up, make it all the more acceptable for us to be conned as hard as we turn out to be. American Hustle is worth checking out on those accounts alone.

American Hustle: ****/*****, or 8/10

'Sommige van het volgende is echt gebeurd', is de boodschap waarmee American Hustle opent. Het is zoveel eerlijkheid als je gaat krijgen van regisseur David O'Russell (The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook), die geen overdreven historisch accurate pretenties koestert in deze bewerking van de FBI's Abscam-operatie aan het einde van de jaren zeventig. Voor dit luchtige misdaad-drama bewijst O'Russell eens te meer een uiterst bekwaam acteursregisseur te zijn, die het beste uit zijn hoofdrolspelers haalt om zijn verhaal over de oplichterspraktijken van hun personages te vertellen. Zijn alle acteurs immers niet bedriegers?

American Hustle vertelt over het duo 'con artists' Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) en Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) die na een mislukte poging tot fraude door FBI-agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) ingezet worden in een heimelijke operatie om mogelijk corrupte politici uit de tent te lokken. Een neppe zakendeal met een Arabische sjeik die wil investeren in Amerikaanse projecten moet beelden vastleggen van burgemeesters en senatoren die smeergeld aannemen en zo als omkoopbaar aan de kaak gesteld kunnen worden. Het is een gewaagd plan dat Irving en Sydney slechts onder dreiging met een gevangenisstraf kunnen aannemen. Onder druk van het onvoorspelbare gedrag van Irvings vrouw Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) en zijn onverwachte vriendschap met hun eerste slachtoffer, de energieke burgemeester Polito (Jeremy Renner) van Atlantic City, wordt de zwendel steeds uitgebreider en moeilijker in toom te houden. Als vervolgens ook nog de maffia bij het stiekeme schandaal betrokken raakt heeft de operatie zo'n grootscheepse omvang aangenomen dat het onmogelijk lijkt het geheel nog tot een goed einde te brengen. Kunnen Irving en Sydney zich het vege lijf nog redden in deze schijnbaar totaal uit de hand gelopen situatie?

O'Russell begreep wel dat hij een sterk staaltje geschiedenis in handen had dat door zijn publiek met een flinke korrel zout genomen zou worden. Het maakte hem er slechts vastberadener op American Hustle te serveren als een sterk verhaal dat de kijker diverse keren op het verkeerde been zet, met een juiste balans tussen drama en humor om de bizarre aspecten van de Abscam-zeepbel te onderstrepen. Zijn grootste troef blijkt echter zijn fabuleuze acteursensemble dat elkaar bijkans van het scherm af probeert te spelen in veelal geïmproviseerde scènes, waarin ze het meer van hun gevoel als begenadigde acteurs moesten hebben dan van een script dat hun dialoog netjes op een rijtje zette. De acteurs en hun personages vullen elkaar uitstekend aan, met Bale als de ervaren maar voorzichtige oplichter met overgewicht; Adams als zijn partner-in-crime en stiekeme liefde van zijn leven; Lawrence als het secreet van een echtgenote, volstrekt egocentrisch en onverantwoordelijk: Cooper als de gedreven maar overambitieuze FBI-agent; en Renner als de sympathieke en gepassioneerde burgemeester met maffiabanden. Dat Bale, Adams, Lawrence en Cooper allen beloond werden met een Oscarnominatie blijkt geheel terecht en bewijst dat ze O'Russells beproeving moeiteloos doorstaan hebben. Het sublieme acteerwerk maakt de film een feest om naar te kijken.

Het sterke spel van zijn acteurs is niet het enige dat American Hustle tot een valse maar toch geslaagde cinematische vertelling van het Abscam-schandaal maakt. O'Russell doet de late jaren zeventig ook voortreffelijk herleven dankzij het visueel schitterende productiedesign. Ook hier vormen de acteurs het stralend middelpunt dankzij de nauwgezette reconstructie van de uitgebreide mode en weelderige haarstijl uit die periode. Maar ook de tijdsgeest waarin zij vertoeven, de auto's en technologie van weleer, wordt met de nodige flair nieuw leven ingeblazen, en weet zich daarbij gesteund door een hippe soundtrack die met een vette knipoog naar het Amerika van destijds refereert. Het geheel sleurt de kijker volledig mee in de deceptie, maar de relativerende humor die het absurdistische van het schandaal onderschrijft zorgt er doeltreffend voor dat de toeschouwer gepaste afstand houdt met het wel en wee van de oneerlijke personages als hun zwendel op een gevaarlijk kookpunt dreigt af te stevenen. Hoe grotesker de uitkomst, hoe leuker voor ons.

O'Russell maakt er geen groot geheim van dat hij ons diverse keren op het verkeerde spoor zet en ons bedriegt door het niet zo nauw te nemen met de historische feiten. Zijn hervertelling van de Abscam-operatie is letterlijk zowel te bizar als te mooi om waar te zijn, maar met een prachtig eindresultaat als American Hustle maken we daar geen enkel moment bezwaar tegen.

Today's News: Spidey loses his Webb

Yesterday's hottest news today on my blog!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154451/webb_niet_terug_voor_amazing_spider-man_4

All good things come to an end, and for most directors, the number three is that magical line where they tend to call it quits. There's exceptions of course, like Michael Bay on Transformers, but then, that is not a good thing. It doesn't happen very often that a director working on a major franchise continues to work in that capacity beyond three movies. Sam Raimi stepped down as director on the previous Spider-Man trilogy at a point where that was still intended to feature more than just three movies (but as history willed it, Spider-Man 4 was dropped by the studio in favor of the current rebooted series). Marc Webb seems to follow closely in his footsteps in this regard. You'd think Webb might want to show off and do at least one more of these films just to stick it to Raimi, but such frivolous thoughts of competition apparently do no enter his mind. A job as advisor is enough for him when he has finished his trilogy, he says. And who can blame him? We gotta cut these directors some slack when doing three movies in a row and then deciding to call it a day. They spend years and years working on the same characters, the same type of films, propelled by the same high expectations by the studio and the general audience alike. That takes its toll. Webb will have spent the better part of a decade doing Spider-Man when he's done. Maybe he'd like to spend more time with the wife and kids for a change? Though no doubt he liked his experience on the first movie - and the paychecks that accompanied the job - well enough to have at it two more times, there comes a point where any director needs something new to keep thoroughly engaged. Directors are creative people that continuously crave new challenges and different types of projects. If they keep regurgitating their energy for doing the exact same thing for ten years, quality of the end results is bound to suffer, and nobody will be the wiser. Raimi's much maligned Spider-Man 3 already seemed to suffer from such deterioration, and we have yet to see how well Webb will cope on his third Spidey movie. Nevertheless, since these new Spider-Man movies too make the studio stupendous amounts of money, you can't blame them for wanting to keep the momentum going. Especially when they see how great Marvel Studios is doing with their Avengers approach, which they have now copied with the intention of exploring and expanding Spider-Man's universe, for the moment seemingly ad infinitum. Not only have they slated two more Amazing Spider-Man movies after next month's second installment, villain spin-offs Sinister Six and Venom are also in the works, whether the audience wants them or not. Hey Webb, how about doing Venom when you're done with Spider-Man? He's just like Spidey, except in black and evil, so totally different. There's your creative challenge right there!

Today's News: Lupita going to the Dark Side?

Here's a newsflash for you, this one more recent than most of late:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154439/lupita_nyongo_mogelijk_in_star_wars_episode_vii

The term 'rising star' - in this scenario, a blatantly predictable pun which even I could not refrain from using - has fallen more than a few times over the last few weeks in Nyong'o's case, and rightfully so it would appear. This actress is still at the start of her career, but has already won an Oscar and is now up for a role in what is probably the most major, highly anticipated blockbuster event of the next couple of years. Other than a recurring character in a TV show and a side role in a fairly standard action thriller, her on-screen resumé is a notable blank. It's likely we'll be hearing a lot more of her in the future, though she may also be one of those cases that witnessed a quick burst to stardom and an equally swift demise back into obscurity. Wouldn't be a first, even for an Academy Award winner. But let's not assume a worst-case scenario just yet.

Let's see whether she gets the Star Wars part first, which seems likely. After all, thanks to the Oscar there's a lot of sudden hype around her name, and that's what attracts studios these days. Her talks with J.J. Abrams took place prior to the Oscar ceremony, but now that she has won it's safe to say interest in her participation on the next chapter of the Star Wars saga is at a high and the studio is willing to go the extra length to ensure she bites. But like everything Episode VII, the question remains just what she's sinking her teeth in. Rumours abound of course. The strongest indicate she's a villain, and a Sith no less. That means she'll probably be working closely with Adam Driver, who recently was cast as a bad guy too. If there's any truth to these rumours, so far we have baddies aplenty, though the word on the heroes is still spread thin, particularly how they connect with existing characters we've come to love that are apparently up for an old age reprise, like Luke, Leia and Han. It's likely we'll be introduced to a new generation of Jedi learning the ways of the Force from Master Luke, that find themselves at odds with the usual 'anti-Jedi' Sith Lords and the remnant of the Galactic Empire. How these characters relate to each other is still in the clear, and it may not be as much of a family affair as before (face it: Episodes I through VI were all about the Skywalkers, the good and the bad, especially if you subscribe to the theory that Palpatine Force-fathered Anakin). Odds are strong we'll be treated to the offspring of the original heroes, but the villainy will likely originate from elsewhere. I doubt Nyong'o will portray a character related to the Skywalkers (though that thought may spring from the racist inside me). Heck, Nyong'o might not even play a bad girl at all. Such rumours have a tendency to start their own life online and are often revealed to have no basis in reality. Until we hear more concrete details about Episode VII's plot and characters, it's probably better for our sanity to regard every bit of news about this project - and there will undoubtedly be lots of those! - with an appropriately dispassionate grain of salt. 'Lupita Nyong'o might be up for a part in Star Wars', you say? Get back to me when the deal at least is closed, please.

Today's News: multiple directors interested in Marvel's strange project

Another older bit of news from my hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154380/meerdere_regisseurs_in_de_race_voor_doctor_strange

If the top boss of Marvel has a personal favorite, it's only a matter of time before said character gets himself a movie. Doctor Strange has been rumoured and reported on for a few years now, so it's about time the project really got going officially. So far most "news" has addressed the issue of who should play the titular character, with many names suggested (most interesting to my ears would be Viggo Mortensen, but fat chance of that happening!), but over the last few weeks the matter of a director has taken precedence instead. Marvel CEO Kevin Feige has so far shot down almost all possible contenders, but not the latest trio of rumoured names up for the gig: Mark Andrews, Scott Derrickson and Jonathan Levine. Each of them has dabbled in the fantastic, the horrific or the supernatural before, so all of them seem like they might fit the bill for directing a film about the Sorcerer Supreme battling various mystical, otherworldy adversaries that seek to claim humanity's souls or its dimensional territory. Levine is known for both horror and comedy (Warm Bodies, 50/50), applying both of them in a decently offbeat approach. Derrickson was responsible for one big winter blockbuster movie (the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still) which did well enough at the box office but proved disappointing for both audience and critics: he has shown more substantial skills in directing horror films though, which is not a bad thing considering the interdimensional terrors and grizzly ghouls among Strange's many antagonists. Andrews has only done one movie and it was animated (Brave), but it was the most lucrative of the bunch and also a definite work of fantasy and sorcery, bordering the substance of Doctor Strange the closest thematically. My money is on Andrews. It wouldn't be the first time a Pixar director went on to do a major motion picture, though the financially disastrous John Carter, directed by Finding Nemo/Wall-E veteran Andrew Stanton, is probably not an example studio execs want to be reminded of. Nevertheless, Andrews brought in the most dough and knows the genre best. However, since Doctor Strange is unlike any other Marvel project, the studio might very well decide to do things differently and pick the least expected director for the job. I gotta admit, the term 'unlike any other Marvel movie' keeps coming back, having prior been used to describe both Thor and the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy. The more movies get made that are 'unlike any other Marvel movie', the less impact the phrase carries. With a moniker like 'Marvel', you can always expect the unexpected after all. Doctor Strange may be a weird character, he's no more implausible or odd than Norse gods in present day America or talking interstellar raccoons and trees. Now hopefully Mortensen will see that too and decide playing such a strange role is right up his alley.