Today's Triple News: magic Aquaman of the galaxy

There's news, and then there's more news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156134/meer_character_posters_voor_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Got a mail from my editor at a quarter to midnight. Marvel posted the last two character posters online and he though I should finish what I started by posting them on MovieScene. I couldn't agree more, even though I was about to go to bed instead (that'll teach me not to check my e-mail at so late an hour!). All part of the job, even though it's only a voluntary position. This pair of posters continues the eye catching colourful, flashy and distinctly space opera vibe carrying trend the earlier two (of Rocket & Groot and Gamora, if you recall) started. Drax ominously has his back turned to us, amply revealing his daggers, while enemy warships approach in the distance. It obviously isn't the most inspired piece of advertising (compare the final poster for The Chronicles of Riddick for instance), but it looks decent enough and adequately showcases his muscles and (to my mind, lousy) war paint. In Star-Lord's case, battle has commenced and he's resorted to using his futuristic double ray gun in the heat of battle, his ship flying in the background. Am I glad Drax already is the muscleman on this film, so we don't get to see a topless pin-up of the protagonist in an attempt to cater to the female demographic too obscenely. Of course the obligatory shirtless scene will follow somewhere in the course of the movie, as it's all part of the Hollywood strategy to draw girl audiences to what is otherwise (unjustly) considered a largely male attracting movie experience. At least the trailers indicate Gamora can't keep her shirt on all the time either. They better keep that bit in to ensure a sexually equal atmosphere.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156165/game_of_thrones_schrijver_pent_magic

If you've done one fantasy gig you can do another. I bet that's what Hollywood was thinking in this scenario. Of course, there's an epic difference between Game of Thrones and this upcoming Magic: The Gathering movie. One's based on a series of books, the other on a roleplaying card game. One is better suited for television, while the other gets the silver screen treatment. One has conquered the hearts and minds of a global audience, while the other still needs to prove it can attract bigger audiences than just its loyal fanbase, shedding its 'nerd' stigma. The latter starts with a good writer, and at least Cogman has proven himself just that on Game of Thrones. Still, his resumé is more or less confined to those writing credits only, so he can't be called the most experienced of screen writers. You'd think he'd feel like doing something other than fantasy for a change, but apparently he prefers to stay in that comfort zone, even though this is a wholly different kind of fantasy (or so I think, since I don't know jack squat about the Magic card game; are there any cards with depictions of twincest or overtly gruesome dismemberment?). Or maybe he's just not comfortable or interested yet in expanding his so far genre restricted mindset. Could be for the best, since there's still a fair bit of writing on Game of Thrones to finish and we wouldn't want him to be distracted by the real world too much.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156168/jason_momoa_mogelijk_aquaman

Someone who has seemingly already finished on Game of Thrones - he's not the only one - is Jason Momoa. Khal Drogo has been dead for three seasons now, so Momoa has moved on, and as it appears, in the right direction career wise. His involvement with some DC project or other has been the stuff of whispers and speculations for seven months now and it's doubtful he can maintain claiming ignorance for much longer. Is he gonna be Aquaman? That seems most likely, though other characters have been suggested too. Momoa certainly doesn't look like Aquaman, but in this digital age that is not much of an obstacle to speak off. Bradler Cooper doesn't look like Rocket Raccoon after all. I'm sure an expert make-up job alone would suffice to mask any dissimilarities with what fanboys perceive to be the 'good look' for Aquaman. I'm more worried about the many character set-ups that are currently slated to appear in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (such a unnecessarily lengthy title!). If I'm not mistaken, this now makes three additional super heroes in a movie that largely revolves around two others. And then there's still the supervillain(s) to contend with. Already feels like an overly padded and crowded movie, which unfortunately is a prevailing tendency in contemporary comic book adaptations, done by studios driven by grandiose ideas of universe building. Several recent Marvel movies suffered in terms of quality due to these tactics, and as DC is in haste trying to keep up with its rival, the same mistakes appear to be made in the process. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to take a note from Game of Thrones when the number of characters becomes too large to manage properly? Though it would be a bit unfair to Momoa if he suffered a similarly untimely demise once more.

Today's Triple News: it's a Marvelous world

Here's a few more news flashes, all Marvel related (coincidence, or a sign Marvel/Disney is slowly but surely taking over the world):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156092/eerste_character_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Character posters! Always fun! Attractive pieces of marketing and usually very collectible in the long run. Not often very imaginative though (all they need to do is display a character after all, without giving too much plot away), and this one proves little different. It does what it needs to do, showcasing a dynamic pose of an intriguing pair of characters in this case, designed to entice the audience to go see the movie to learn what their deal is. We're talking about a talking tree and dito armoured raccoon, so I suppose there's quite a deal to be talked about here. Otherwise this poster leaves little clues as to the movie itself. You can wonder about the affiliation of the two different types of star fighters in the background, but that would be a bit too nerdy even for me. This is one fine piece of advertising, but it doesn't make me want to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy movie any more than I already did. The new Gamora poster however... check back later for more on that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156083/ant-man_vindt_nieuwe_regisseur

Sick and tired about all the Ant-Man buzz of late? So was Marvel I guess, and that's why they finally settled on a director. The job goes to Peyton Reed, reponsible for such noted classics like Bring It On and Yes Man. That's a joke of course, as those are not at all memorable movies. Decent enough fare for gloomy Sunday afternoons perhaps, but not something people will talk about in twenty years time. Nevertheless, if the whole departure debacle of Edgar Wright on this project showed, Marvel does not want visionary directors for their films. They want stooges that know how to direct a decent film but also know when not to interfere with studio planning, especially when it concerns long term universe building the like Marvel is currently engaging in. Wright likely did not fit in as much as Marvel at first had hoped, having too much ideas of his own that might not have sat well with the studio (came you blame the guy, he worked for nigh a decade developing this project!). Wright just isn't a gun-for-hire as much as all his potential successors, including Reed, are. They all have a background in directing contemporary basic comedies, but none of them share Wright's distinctly British finesse, or in fact, any sign of true character. However, they do know how to follow studio orders no doubt, as is the case with the majority of the Marvel directors thus far. Louis Leterrier, Jon Favreau (before he got too big for Marvel after having done two Iron Man movies, at which point he was replaced), Shane Black, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston, the Russo Brothers... all capable directors, but none of them fan faves because of their originality, likable offbeat approach or signature style, unlike Wright. The only exception to the rule seems to be Joss Whedon, but who knows for how much longer? I'm also a little disturbed by Marvel's tendency to actively search for a comedy director only for Ant-Man. Does a movie about a shrinking superhero talking to ants have to be a comedy per se? After all, this is a man with a very serious and dark side to him. He beats his wife for crying out loud! Please don't let that comedic element dominate the others. The last thing we need is the Avengers' very own Jar Jar Binks.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156114/vincent_donofrio_gecast_als_daredevils_doodsvijand

What we do need is an enemy that gives the devil his due. In the case of the Daredevil comics, that has always been Kingpin. Sure, the stupendously obese mobster plagued Spider-Man on many occasions, but he was not his most recognizable or memorable villain (I'd say that would be Doctor Octopus, like or not). Daredevil himself may not be as recognizable or memorable a superhero as Spidey, but most people that don't know him from the source material will know him from the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, where he was also confronted with the might of the Kingpin of Crime, then played by the late (and surprisingly, African-American) Michael Clarke Duncan, who proved more fun to watch in that role than Aflleck as the titular character. This time a white guy has been casted (casting another black man would probably have invited accusations of racism, not wholly unfounded) and it's Vincent D'Onofrio. He's shown he knows how to pull off comic book baddies, if you recall the hideous Edgar (the bug) in Men In Black. Of course, Kingpin is a whole different animal. Decidedly human, supremely intelligent but utterly ruthless, cold and calculating, shadowy, out for monetary gain but still not adverse to taking over the world in a fashion... that's all Kingpin. Fortunately D'Onofrio has done enough episodes of Law & Order to know the workings of those on the opposite side of the law through and through. A fine bit of casting if you ask me, less likely to stir fan feelings in both directions than casting a Brit as an American superhero.

Jurassic Park III: Billy Brennan & Pteranodon

Year of release: 2001

Accessories:

-Pteranodon figure

-Hang glider

Description: this figure wears a grey sleeveless shirt, blue trousers with two scratches in it, and black shoes. He has brown hair and very bright blue eyes. He has some asymmetric black details, including belts, wristband (right arm), glove (left arm), shoulder cap (left arm) and a backpack with a hole in it so the glider can be attached to the figure. Most notably, his left arm can move differently from the average figure, not only forward and backward, but also up and down. The figure stands in an odd position with his legs wide apart and appears to be looking down. The glider is coloured bright red with silver highlights. It basically resembles a red triangle. The Pteranodon figure is tan brown with green spots and stripes, and an orange head. It’s got a black JP III logo on the underside of his left wing. It’s positioned with its claws open and its head looking to the right, its left wing raised upwards.

Analysis: this is an interesting figure. Though it still stands in an awkward position, like most of the JP III human figures, the left arm with additional movement possibilities is a plus. The figure is well painted, though the asymmetric detailing is a bit weird: why is he only wearing one glove and shoulder cap?

The answer lies in his relation to the Pteranodon figure, which can grab his left arm, so that it looks like Billy is holding it and looking at it, while the animal looks back at him. Sort of. It works nice when he’s holding him, but hinders playability options, since both figures are in an odd position when cut loose from each other.

The glider is nothing special. It’s little detailed and its colours are pretty dull. The glider can be attached to Billy’s back, but when it is, it doesn’t look like Billy is flying with it, but merely standing up with a large red triangle on his back. In fact, it looks very fake. The Pteranodon can also grab on to several parts of the glider with its claws.

Playability: it’s fifty-fifty in this case. Though the extra arm movement certainly adds some points, the fact that the figure stands with his legs wide apart and the odd pose of the Pteranodon takes some points away. The glider doesn’t add much unfortunately. Luckily Billy can hold stuff with both hands, though one hand is kind of pointing at something.

Realism: this figure does resemble the Billy Brennan (Alessandro Nivola) in the movie, even though his eyes are way too blue. However, this Billy sports an entirely different outfit than his movie counterpart. Billy’s lucky pack is unfortunately missing. There was no glider in the movie, but there was some parasailing equipment (like a parachute). It would have been a lot cooler if this figure has a parasailer instead of a glider, but that would have been harder to make, so undoubtedly Hasbro opted for this instead. Disappointing, but we’ll have to live with it. The Pteranodon looks similar to the adult Pterosaurs in the movie (except with more green), but doesn’t resemble the hatchlings we saw in the awesome bird cage scenes much. It looks more like a miniature figure of an adult Pteranodon. It also resembles the larger Reak-Atak Pteranodon figure released for this toy line, so at least there is consistency.

Repaint: no. Billy and his glider would be repainted once for JP Dinosaurs 2 though, and again for JP 2009, this time including the Pteranodon figure (making that its only repaint, unlike most other small Hasbrosaurs).

Overall rating: 6/10. It’s a fairly decent figure, and better than most of the JP III human figures, but as stated above it could still use some work in certain areas. It’s not really rare, so if you want one, you’ll find it relatively easily and probably not at huge cost. The only reasons I recommend it for are the cool left arm, nice paint job and the neat Pteranodon figure.

Today's Review: Godzilla

Godzilla: ****/*****, or 7/10

You can't keep a classic monster down. All you can do is keep him locked in the fridge for a while, until the time is right to introduce him to a new generation. And so it is with that most iconic King of Monsters, Godzilla. Toho, the Japanese studio behind the creature, hasn't released a new Gojira flick of its own ever since his big 50^th anniversary showdown Final Wars in 2004. As the Big G is turning 60 this year, it seemed about time to revamp him once more for an international audience. Teaming up with studio Warner Bros., making audiences forget about the previous American remake, the dreadful 1998 Roland Emmerich movie, proved the least of challenges. This time, the director's chair was given to somebody who had proven experience carefully balancing human drama and monster action, the man behind the guerrilla style low budget Monsters, Gareth Edwards (whose credits until that point included only that movie). His take on the giant reptilian behemoth makes for one of the finest Godzilla movies yet, but it also frustratingly illustrates just how little you can do with the character.

Thematically, Godzilla has always been an obvious case of 'man versus nature' and this time proves no different. Man's folly playing with powers (usually atomic) beyond his control that end up wrecking civilization has been a prime franchise message since day one, but as it has been a decade since it was last sent to audiences, this is as good a time as any to reapply it to Godzilla's latest origin story. However, Edwards opts to focus most of the plot's attention not on examining Godzilla's existence, but his foe's instead. This story thread is neatly interwoven with the fate of the Brody family. Living in Japan in 1999, father Joe (the always formidable Bryan Cranston) and mother Sandra (Juliette Binoche) work at a Japanese nuclear power plant, where things soon mysteriously go awry, leading to the plant's destruction and Sandra's dramatic death before her husband's eyes. The area is soon declared a quarantine zone, but Joe can't stop investigating the strange events of that fateful day for the next 15 years, alienating him from his son Ford (a rather bland and forgetful Aaron Taylor-Johnson).

When his father once again causes trouble with his illegal excursions into the forbidden zone, the now adult Ford, a US Navy officer, indulges him to present his case or shut up about it forever. Their father-son bonding trip into the zone makes for a frightful, haunting return to their old family house in a now abandoned, rundown city. Alarming news imagery of the Fukushima area in the wake of the terrible tsunami and the nuclear disaster that followed is successfully evoked by the ruined town set to give this Godzilla movie a 21^st century update that accordingly makes it feel sufficiently current and underscores Godzilla's original themes still claim merit. Stumbling onto a secret government operation, the Fords are confronted with the 'MUTO', a giant insectoid creature, millions of years old, that has laid dormant for countless ages, but is now waking up. And all the military might in the world is not gonna stop it from following its natural instincts to feed on atomic energy – it eats nuclear bombs, which kinda sounds like a solution really – and procreate. To the latter end, it has signaled a wake-up call to its mate and the two beasties proceed to hook up again, likely to humanity's demise, with more tragic consequences to the Fords, directly caught in its wake.

Edwards spends quite some time setting up the MUTO's motivations and the plight of the Ford family, soon making you ask a most pertinent question: where is Godzilla? It must be stated that there is surprisingly little scenes of the actual Godzilla in this movie, but when he finally does appear, he does so with a vengeance. The giant reptile is the MUTO's natural enemy of ages past and as one big bug called the other, so too their predator woke up to find its prey, as expert Dr. Serizawa (Hollywood's obligatory Japanese actor, Ken Watanabe) explains, while donning a foreboding look of concern and alarm that irritatingly stays for the entire film. The name Serizawa will sound familiar to Godzilla aficionados, and is just one of many little tidbits Edwards has lovingly thrown in as an hommage to the Japanese movies. The MUTO's, however, are a new invention specifically for this film, but they serve their purpose adequately for resurrecting Godzilla and providing for a good old-fashioned Kaiju brawl at the movie's climax. Just like the Godzilla themes of old have hardly changed, so too does the audience's taste for big monster battles remain, as Edwards all too clearly understands. It just takes quite a while to arrive at that point in the film where the fight finally goes down. We have to sit through many a scene of human character drama that ultimately doesn't make us really care about their plight before we get what we want. Though patience is required, it cannot be denied that the introduction of both Godzilla and his adversaries is slowly but surely built to a crescendo. When the Big G finally does appear for the first time, it will be hard for fans to repress a chill at this reunion with their old friend. It would have been even more effective had the classic Godzilla score been applied, but the current soundtrack proves effective enough.

It's clear Edwards sees no point in redefining Godzilla's look, as Emmerich did before, as this new incarnation of Godzilla stays rather true to the recognizable Japanese forms. Of course, this being a big blockbuster movie, the beast has grown in size considerably to accommodate the humongous budget and the expected onslaught it wreaks on both human cities and the military forces thrown at him. Edwards' respect for the classic Kaiju movie approach of men in suits playing the monsters shows, as you'd almost be inclined to think Godzilla is brought to life again in just that manner. Even the MUTO's motions seem decidedly human at times, but make no mistake: all three monsters are fully digital creations, not guys in suits smashing cardboard sets. Nevertheless, Edwards' ode to sixty years of 'suitmation' is well appreciated. Still, the notable differences in Godzilla's appearance compared to his predecessors, particularly his rather obese bodily features, are bound to tick off some fans.

Unjustly so, as this Godzilla, both the execution of the titular character and the movie as a whole, form a vast improvement over the previous American capitalization of the Japanese property. That said, in terms of story Edwards adds little novelty to the previous fifty years of Gojira. The message remains the same, and is delivered in a rather serious fashion, as this particular Godzilla is certainly one of the darker takes on the character: for Edwards, giant monster movies are a serious business and there isn't much room left for levity. The usual tendency towards flat human character development interspersed between delightful monster battles remains. The fact is, there's only so much you can do with a giant monster. Edwards will be hard pressed to find innovative angles to take his successful reboot in for the next installments. However, as this movie demonstrates, times haven't changed enough for the cautions against man's tampering with nature to subside, nor has the audience changed to such an extent they can't appreciate a good ol' titanic monster clash on the big screen. Even if the upcoming sequels fail to deliver notably new directions for the franchise, clearly Godzilla has enough of a fight left in him for another fifty years.

Today's many little bits of news

Someone has been a busy little bee posting movie news these past few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156058/nieuwe_poster_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is a poster I'm going ape over. So that's not a very original pun in this context, I know. Nevertheless, it fits the bill. The more I see of this sequel to the already surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the more I feel it's gonna be very much worth our while. Top notch, groundbreaking visual effects notwithstanding, there's a definite heart and soul to the story of man's (and ape's) incapability of coexisting alongside beings that on many levels should be considered equal (read: other humans with different points of view). Such intolerance can only lead to our own demise in violent revolt, for which we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Of course, apes make the same mistake as humans (ape shall not kill ape; yeah right!), showing that they're truly not so different. This poster hearkens back to the climatic events of the previous installment very nicely, even though the bridge portrayed on the one-sheet doesn't seem to be the same as in that final showdown. Apes on horesback wielding firearms are new to the (rebooted) franchise though, and just shows how far primate progression has come since. Or more aptly, just how much they resemble us now, considering their eagerness to carry weapons to purposefully harm others and subject animals to do their heavy work. Since mankind has been largely wiped out in this flick due to the pandemic set up in the credits of the previous film, both sides are now on equal footing in terms of strength. Will this incarnation of Planet of the Apes devolve into mutual annihilation as did its Seventies' predecessor? Or will a more hopeful outcome prevail instead to demonstrate such violent times have passed? Considering a third movie is already in the pipeline, don't expect an answer too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156034/marvel_will_derrickson_voor_doctor_strange

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156075/marvel_overweegt_hardy_of_cumberbatch_voor_doctor_strange

While Ant-Man is still stuck without a director (at least five candidates have passed the job over the last few weeks), Marvel is quickly moving forward with Doctor Strange regardless. In fact, at this rate it feels like the latter will beat the former to theaters, which might work too if the Marvel scribes shuffle their various set-up pieces for the larger Cinematic Universe around to accomodate these production problems. Strange has landed a director - Scott Derrickson, with the lousy Day the Earth Stood Still remake on his resumé, but also a recent tendency to deliver decent horror flicks - and consequently the studio is now focusing hard on finding a lead actor. The most promising name once attached to the project, Viggo Mortensen, is not on Marvels mind anymore, sadly. Instead, they choose to opt for 'hotter' names and at the moment that list has been narowed down to two: Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy. Both solid actors with a diverse enough background for me to realize they could adequately play this supernatural character. Both careers flawed by their involvement with much lamented Star Trek projects, as Hardy portrayed Picard's angry clone Shinzon in the feeble Star Trek: Nemesis, while Cumberbatch wasted his time and talent boringly repeating an unrepeatable Khan in the even worse Star Trek Into Darkness. I'll forgive those sins, as they have proven they are still very capable actors since. If it indeed has to come down to either one of these two, Cumberbatch would be my pick. The characters he has played usually prefer mind over matter, his unsurpassed take on Sherlock Holmes being the prime example. By comparison, Hardy's roles have tended towards men who let their muscles do the talking: not mindless necessarily (e.g. Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, who is both very strong and extremely intelligent), but still more driven by their physical attributes. The Sorcerer Supreme is very much a being of the mind. Sure, there is a physical aspect to him, with all his silly gesturing when uttering spells and whatnot, but otherwise his intellect takes precedence, his mind literally leaving his body when voyaging on the astral plane to keep humanity safe from supernatural harm. I'd feel more comfortable seeing the lean and elegant Cumberbatch in that capacity than the bulky built Hardy, as there's enough overly muscled Marvel heroes prancing around on the silver screen already. But still, I would have preferred Mortensen entirely.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156042/wachowskis_jupiter_ascending_uitgesteld

An unexpected move, but an understandable one for such an FX heavy film. At least the film was already announced to be in 3D, so unlike G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which witnessed an eeriely similar dramatic push in release date, this movie is not being postponed because the studio wants to pressure a 3D release on us. Nevertheless, Jupiter Ascending has all the hallmarks of a big summer blockbuster (popular stars for both male and female demographics, a recognizable pair of directors, epic effects, fairly typical plot), so to reduce it to a February release seems an odd move. It's likely the studio wants to ensure it has little competition at the box office, as it previously had to compete with equally big movies like Transformers: Age of Extinction, Hercules, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and the not so dissimilar Guardians of the Galaxy. Currently, the only film slated for February remotely in its league is the fantasy spectacle Seventh Son (which features less stellar names, a rather unknown director and also underwent its fair share of production problems and release postponements, as it was shelved for a year or two). Even though the late winter season isn't most noteworthy in terms of financial success, if there's few other big movies to contend with, the higher your attendance numbers will be. Or so the studio hopes. Time will tell whether they're right. I kinda hope so, since this movie looks rather promising. Even though both Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis far from get me stoked, I'm always in for another space opera as too few of those are produced to my liking.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156059/watts_en_kim_gecast_in_insurgent

Divergent is another one of those franchises that tries to narrowly avoid blockbuster season by appearing in theaters just before the storm of big movies hits. Understandable, as the first film wasn't quite a big film itself, though considering its success its sequel, Insurgent, seems better endowed in that respect. Jupiter Ascending now steers clear of that one too, appearing some six weeks beforehand. The Divergent movies so far have still to rely on their popularity with the young adult female demographic for the most part, which worked so well for the books aimed at the same target audience. The first film was ambitious, but had a reasonably low budget and only one big name (Kate Winslet) to speak of. Now that the ice has been broken and an audience for its successors seems guaranteed, the studio is expanding its scope. The series seems to follow the Hunger Games blueprint in that regard: for good reasons, as its audience and its thematic contents are largely identical. However, the second Hunger Games film (and the upcoming sequels) dared to enter the winter blockbuster season to establish a clear breakthrough to the top (to great effect), something Insurgent still avoids. A bigger budget is a given though, and names to match are swiftly added to the project. Octavia Spencer was already on board, while Winslet remained too. These two Oscar winners are now joined by a third, Naomi Watts. A lot of strong, talented actresses apparently. Good thing too. Hopefully the young women that form the core audience will take hints from them instead of the rather bland teen leads whose adventures they follow.

Today's Column: what to do when the end credits start rolling

My monthly contribution to MS's slate of columns has thus been posted for this June:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155987/column_te_blijven_of_niet_te_blijven_dat_is_de_vraag

To be completely honest, I don't always stay for the entire run of end credits, unlike I;m suggesting here. Call me a hypocrite if you must. It's one of the perks working in a movie theater to know when stingers are attached and when they're not. And even if I know there's post-credits scenes available, chances are good I saw them prior to watching the actual movie itself. Of course, it's not all about stingers, though they're the most attractive part of end credit sequences. The creativity invested in the end credits, though not mentioned in this column (it was running overly long, as usual) is also of note in this regard. I can't imagine many people leaving during the wonderfully designed, stunning credits of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. If a credit sequence looks that good, you obviously stay. Paying respect to those who got the film to where it is now, in theaters for my enjoyment or amazement, should not be ignored as a factor. If a film is good enough I stay; if it's bad, mediocre or passable it depends on my mood and the time at my disposal. Since I tend to go to the movies after work predominantly, and I do not work so close to home as I would like, I'm usually eager to fetch my train and get home. Another element prohibiting me from staying or leaving is the score or soundtrack that accompanies the credits. If it concerns a good, solid, orchestral score I'm usually entranced to keep listening, and therefore, watching, accordingly. If however the producing powers-that-be attached some awfully loud and unattractive (for me, that is) song, as part of their synergy driven promotional campaign, the decision to hurry home is all too quickly made (unless it's a good song, which is not often the case). Nevertheless, that hilarious scene and poignant quote from Return of the Killer Tomatoes always springs to mind when the end credits advance. I bet most mothers of directors (and other production departments too) wouldn't take kindly to people so easily ignoring all the names of people who worked hard to deliver them their dose of entertainment. Or the dirctors themselves for that matter.

Today's Review: In the Name Of

I did this review of a Polish movie (original title: W Imie...) for MovieScene last week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155980/in_the_name_of_-_recensie

I found it a fairly decent arthouse flick, which revealed more novel information about the relation between religion and (homo)sexuality in Poland specifically than in general, as this theme has been explored (not to mention parodied) before. The main component in its favour was the strong and thoroughly compelling performance of its main actor, Andrzej Chyra, who delivered a veritable tour-de-force in his role as a talented country priest torn by his devout Roman-Catholic beliefs and his natural, human yearning for love. It wasn't even about him being gay, that was rather secondary to be honest. Of course, if he was interested in female companionship it would have been even less innovative, as that topic has been addressed in cinema hundreds of times before. The homosexual aspect was important mostly for showing just how ordinary gay people are to the general Polish audience, as yet not so convinced of that fact I hear. For a Dutch audience, that element of the film was hardly an eye opening notion. However, the premise of a homosexually frustrated priest working with underage boys in the countryside without deteriorating into sensational stories of sexual abuse in church circles is a refreshing one. Not every homosexual priest is a child molester, ya know. Thanks for informing and comforting us on that front, Malgorzata Szumowska.