Today's News: a journey of crime bosses, authors and dictators

Always another bit of news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156891/eerste_trailer_laatste_seizoen_boardwalk_empire

I'm currently watching my merry way through the fourth season of this magnificent quality show, so I can't say too much on the story hints in this trailer for Season 5, other than to utter my surprise as to which characters still live and which don't. Of course I got myself spoilered to some extent in this context too, but that comes with the territory. Whatever has caused Boardwalk Empire's all too early demise, it's not the writing, the acting or the look. Most of those elements approach flawlessness in my opinion. Maybe it doesn't connect with regular viewers because their expectations on what basically constitutes a gangster show get in the way, as the series tries to avoid such roads most travelled. Some would say there's too much talk and emotion and too little action. Agreed, but it's only for the better, since the moments the shit does hit the fan the shock is felt all the harder. I have no reason to believe Season 5 will show any decline in the greatness of the show and I'm confident the series will go out with an appropriate bang. I am a little concerned about the applied time frame though. Seasons 1 through 4 all took place in a rough five year time span (1920-1924), but this final season jumps forward to 1931. It indicates the writers had a destination for the main characters they still intend to reach by speeding things up, forced by the impending end to the series. This kinda echoes what happened to another great historical show on HBO's resumé, Rome, where a similar process took place as the show was finalized quicker than anticipated. Though the gaps of time in that show also felt a little disconcerting narratively, it didn't hurt the quality of the show much. I hope the same can be said of Boardwalk Empire in hindsight, as the show deserves a proper send-off.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156889/game_of_thrones_actrice_wordt_mary_shelley

Good for you, Sophie! About time the very capable younger actors of the Game of Thrones cast got some recognition resulting in other jobs. And this sounds like a very interesting job at that. The story of how Frankenstein: or, the Modern Prometheus came to be is almost as legendary as the story the book tells itself. Writing such an iconic novel at such a young age was as much an accomplishment then as it is now, I reckon. A wonderful period drama can be construed around the tale of the Shelleys and their trip through Europe that inspired the influential Gothic horror novel, which itself has been adapted to the big screen so often (though never again as compelling as the 1931 Boris Karloff version was). Since Turner already has the necessary experience dressing in fancy period costumes and dealing with all kinds of messed up characters in the role she inhibits, the part sure seems right for her. Hopefully her portrayal as Mary Shelley will prove just as strong and watchable as her work as Lady Sansa.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156911/schrijvers_the_conjuring_pennen_twee_journeys

Speaking of classic novels, at the moment I'm also working my way through Jules Verne's most celebrated works. What rollercoasters of adventure yarns they prove to be! There's a reason they have been turned into movies throughout the history of the cinema, starting in its earliest days (Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902), for example). Small wonder Hollywood continues to be interested in additional retellings. It worked well enough for them with Journeys 1 and 2 (Journey to the Center of the Earth and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, respectively). Though the first film didn't see as wide a release due to the relatively small number of movie theaters equipped with 3D technology, Journey 2 proved quite the boxoffice smash, possibly also because of the involvement of Dwayne Johnson (who replaced Brendan Fraser as the adult male lead). And so the studio is eager to see more Journeys and Johnson reprising his role. I gotta say, I'm not against more sequels based off the delightful works of Verne, as these movies in many ways incorporate the catchy adventurous spirit of his novels (though admittedly not their attempts at scientific uplifting). I just wish they weren't so kids oriented by making a teenager the protagonist (though letting two horror writers pen the script sure is a step in the right direction!). Then again, Josh Hutcherson is only playing a teenager, as he's currently 22 years of age. However, following his and Johnson's merry romps is still a far cry from experiencing the fascinating exploits of intrepid scientists, as is the case in the source material. Plus, two more sequels back to back feels a little excessive. Even if they do deal with From the Earth to the Moon and Around the Moon both, that two-book story can easily be condensed into one film, as the entire first novel deals with preparing to get the protagonists off-world. I bet Hutcherson and Johnson reach our beloved satellite a lot faster by comparison. Or maybe they won't go to the moon at all, but will end up stuck in a balloon for five weeks. Still plenty of Verne stories left after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156900/rogen__francos_the_interview_digitaal_aangepast

If Sony didn't want to piss off North-Korea they shouldn't have made this movie in the first place. Seems a little late and a little pointless to make cuts now, as the damage is done. The premise alone guaranteed an angry response from everybody's favourite Stalinist nation. I can't imagine it never occurred to studio execs that the Great Leader and his minions might take offense by a film that deals with his assassination at American hands. It would of course have been great if the North-Korean response would have been as silly as the movie itself appears will be, by stating they would have preferred Kim being killed by Will Ferrell instead of Seth Rogen or something. However, I doubt humour is in the North-Korean dictionary, if indeed there are any other words in it than Kim (oh my, what an incorrigible Western white racist I am!). Anyway, Sony seeks to keep all mockery of the beloved dictator to an appropriate minimum. I doubt it will do them any good, but I hope two different cuts will be available so we can appreciate the differences. I'm pretty sure neither version will be allowed on the North-Korean market though.

Today's Triple News: pure evil, corrupting the law and Inhuman

To boldly post news that no one has posted before (except on other movie sites):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156865/ed_harris_gecast_in_hbos_westworld

Westworld's cast keeps growing ever more impressive. That is to be expected, as talent draws talent and when you've got Sir Anthony Hopkins on your cast list you can get basically everyone. Ed Harris for example. Good choice. He's had experience in both westerns and Sci-Fi, and has played major villains before, so why not combine the three for him? I am worried about this 'Man in Black' character, who's supposed to be the definition of utter villainy. Aside from the fact that I don't recognize such a character decision from the original Michael Crichton movie, I know this exact same concept didn't pan out so good on another J.J. Abrams produced TV show, which 'lost' its quality the moment this aspect started to dominate the series. Westworld does deal with the philosophical rhetoric of good and evil in distinguishing artificial morality from our own and reflect our all too human flaws in the process, but why make it so literally black and white by adding a purely evil character into the mix? And what part does he play narratively? If he's dressed in black, my first bet would be the infamous Gunslinger (Harris does look a bit like Yul Brynner after all). But he's not intended to be purely evil; he's just driven by his original programming after shortcircuiting, doing what he was designed to do (shooting folks), but without the convenient security of an off-switch. Or will this series maybe also delve with the poor sequel Futureworld, in which there was a silly sinister ploy of replacing world leaders with robotic replicas? Could this Man in Black be behind a similar scheme? Many questions abound, but the quality of acting won't be in dispute. It's the writing we may have to worry about. Still human work, you can't hire robots for that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156864/eerste_teaser_better_call_saul

Ten seconds of footage, that's what I call teasing. And we learn nothing new about plot or characters from this clip. Basically, it only confirms Saul Goodman is once again played by the impeccable Bob Odenkirk, who perfectly balances charming and conniving for the part. So far so good. Reading the basic plot description makes me a little hesitant though. There's more than just a few major parallels between this series and its glorious parent, Breaking Bad. Both follow the rise of small-time everymen who turn their respective talents into a way to make money, but find their humanity degraded in the process, hurting those around them for personal gain. And both shows co-star Jonathan Banks. Big difference is there's no clock ticking here, as the main character isn't dying. In fact, knowing he won't risk kicking the bucket before long (or better yet, at all) might also form an obstacle for being sucked into this story as much as we were into its predecessor. However, it's too soon to let cynicism run rampant and state Vince Gilligan is just repeating the success of Breaking Bad by merely tweaking its premise for Better Call Saul. I bet he has a few surprises in store for us yet. And if he doesn't, I won't go so far as to sue him for not living up to my expectations.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156880/maakt_marvel_inhumans

Seems Guardians of the Galaxy hit the right accords in terms of connecting with the audience, considering its swift and immense success. No wonder Marvel seeks to expand the cosmic part of the comic book universe for expanding its cinematic equivalent. Inhumans might work out just right for them. It's a whole other thing from the merry, rogueish Guardians, these ancient super powered Terran outcasts opting for self-imposed exile from their home planet in order to keep them from butting heads with humanity which would lead to great loss of life on both sides. It's basically 'X-Men on the moon', which is a good thing for Marvel as they're not allowed to introduce the term 'mutant' due to potential copyright infringement. Inhumans is the next best thing, different enough from similar premises. It's a more serious, darker corner of the Marvel universe though, so that might not sit well with the folks who were drawn in by Guardians. Or it will, just because of its differences. Personally, I was never a big fan of the Inhumans, they're a little too ethereal and devoid of humour for my taste. Their long history and ties with both terrestrial and extraterrestrial life seems hard to tell in a two-hour movie in a way that makes you really care about their plight. We're gonna have to wait and see whether Marvel can overcome such hindrances and make Inhumans work a good as they did the Guardians.

Jurassic Park III: Triceratops

Year of release: 2001

Description: this four legged rhino-like dinosaur is easily recognizable by its large head with the round crest around it and three horns on it, two large ones above the eyes, and a smaller one on the snout. It has a beak resembling the beak of a parrot. The crest is adorned with small black spikes sticking out of it (16 in total), as well as several white bumps (19 in total). It has a sturdy body, about twice the length of the head, ending in a small thick tail. Four thick elephant-like legs support the body. Very noticeable, this figure sports a dino damage wound on its left side, showing ribs and muscle tissue. A small button can be found in it, which produces a low howling growl. A second sound can be made by pushing the tail upwards, which also causes the head to rise upwards, as if attacking something with its horns. This second sound is more aggressive, like a hissing growl. A black JP III logo is located on the Trike’s left hind leg. This Ceratopsid is coloured in various tones of brown, with a large copper green tint on its back. Its belly is tan brown, while the rest of the body, including the head is light brown with darker brown stripes. The horns and beak are coloured greyish white.

Analysis: this is not a bad Ceratopsian dinosaur figure. The size is good enough, though a little bigger would have been nice. The colours are pretty bland, but reminiscent of the colours the Trikes in the first two JP movies sported. The dino attack action is a bit unoriginal, since almost all Triceratops figures have had a head butting move. But since the head and horns are such a prominent feature this is not surprising. The mechanism used to make the head move isn’t very good though. The tail has to be pushed quite hard for the head to move, which means it’s best to hold the figure in your hands to get it really right, making it harder to realistically strike an opponent. It could have used a better design.

The sounds are good, and it’s believable an animal like this could have produced such low growling noises (though of course we will never know for sure). However, it would have been better if the sounds were reversed, because the attack noise sounds a lot like the creature is squealing in agony, while the dino damage noise is less dramatic. Like all JP III dinosaurs the dino damage would of this figure sadly can not be covered up. It’s something we’ll have to live with. Fortunately this figure looks well enough to ignore such minor disappointments.

Playability: the playability this figure provides is pretty good. Unlike most of Hasbro’s dinosaur figures this sculpt stands in a relatively neutral position. It assumes a slightly defensive posture, but nothing as extreme as most of the other dinosaurs Hasbro produced. Though the mechanism of the dino strike action isn’t the best ever, it works good enough, and the head can also be lifted up by just using your hands. All four legs are poseable, though some of them won’t get very far because of its body shape getting in the way, but that’s not a huge problem. This dinosaur is electronic, so if you want the electronics to keep working you shouldn’t play too rough with it. But other than that it’s playable enough.

Realism: though it’s rumoured there are Trikes in JP III (probably in some of the vista shots), I’ve never been able to spot them. So I can’t tell you whether this dinosaur looks like them. It does look very similar to the Triceratops we saw in the first movie, both in shape and colour, and not unlike the Trike one can see in TLW, though that particular specimen had a huge crest on its head, much bigger than this one’s. This Ceratopsid is also pretty similar to the regular real Triceratops, though its upper horns might be a tad too long. Also, compared to the figures, it might be a bit too small (some Trikes could get awfully big), but it’s not stated this animal is an adult per se. It certainly is recognizable enough.

Repaint: no. This animal would be repainted twice though, for the JP Dinosaurs 2 and JP 2009 toy lines.

Overall rating: 7/10. It’s not the best Triceratops figure (in my humble opinion that honour goes to the large JPS1 Triceratops, though mostly for nostalgic reasons), but it’s good in its own right and worth having. It’s not rare, so if you want one or can get one for a good price, you certainly shouldn’t ignore it.

Today's Triple News: zombies, terminators and mockingjays

A short summary of recent news by my hand follows. As usual.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156816/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_leeft_weer

Glad to see this offbeat project in the land of the living (dead) once more. We could use more weird movies like these. The premise is overly simple: take a classic piece of literature and spice things up with a rather unusual element few people would commonly associate with it, and you got yourself a movie with an intriguing title that begs a visit in theaters to see what exactly must be made of this. Worked well enough with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, by the same author, which proved a rollercoaster thrill ride of an action flick that actually connected the history with the horror in a fashion that made sense from a narrative viewpoint - i.e., vampires controlling the Southern slave trade to guarantee an unlimited amount of human blood while keeping the human economy rolling - but didn't pretend to be anything but utter fiction. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies seems determined to repeat that notion in very much the same way, perhaps carrying the risk of feeling repetitive. Nor does the title alliterate as delightfully as its own follow-up Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. However, I say go for it, and so does the creative team behind it, including producer Natalie Portman, who wouldn't give up on it. So far the casting seems to be doing well, especially if they do manage to acquire Jack Huston for a part. With his particular character from Boardwalk Empire on his repertoire, a deteriorated undead look is right up his alley.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156838/schwarzenegger_onthult_titel_nieuwe_terminator

Strange title. I assume the deliberate misspelling refers to a plot point which has yet to be revealed, so I won't bitch and moan about that until I can either confirm or disprove that assumption for myself, even though I am a bit of a grammar nazi. It's not a title funky enough to get me geared up for this film though. The cast does a better job at that. I can't get over the irony that Sarah and John Connor are being played by Emilia and Jason Clarke respectively, while there is no direct relationship between them. I also appreciate the trick of fate that Emilia is now playing Sarah Connor, while her Game of Thrones co-star Lena Headey assumed that mantle before on the unfortunately short lived TV show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I'm quite pleased with this assembled cast overall, except for Schwarzenegger. Personally I felt Terminator Salvation was a breath of fresh air because it shied away from using him, making it feel different and less predictable than its predecessors, which started to feel repetitive. Same goes for the aforementioned TV show, which also established convincing Terminators can be played by a diverse range of actors of various shapes, sizes, races, ages and creeds. Schwarzenegger in my mind is the cliché the franchise would do well to avoid. However, considering the series' cancellation and Salvation's lackluster worldwide box office takes, public opinion might be against me in this matter. I guess most people just want to see the Austrian Oak kick ass in their Terminator films, despite the much wider story possibilities available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156834/nieuwe_posters_the_hunger_games_mockingjay

Mockingjay's marketing strategy seems to follow Catching Fire's closely. The routine of a logo poster first, character posters second, is strictly sustained for this second sequel to The Hunger Games. No doubt a 'Katniss on fire in logo' poster will follow soon. This time, there's more than a trio of character posters though. So far, six different one-sheets have been unearthed in the viral marketing campaign, and more are likely to follow. I guess there's just much more characters, and much more fine actors portraying them, to go around this time. I reckon the studio wants to capitalize on the loss of Philip Seymour Hoffman by attributing a poster of his own to his character: dead actors mean public interest in their final movies after all, like it or not. Simultaneously, if you hooked a great and well respected actress for a part you want to convey that in your promotional campaign too, and so Julianne Moore also gets her own poster, which makes for the debut of her character in the public mind. Interestingly enough, so far all of these character posters seem to revolve around supporting characters, while the movie's main trio - the subject of Catching Fire's comparable character one-sheets - is nowhere in sight as of yet. Considering how much the teenage demographic loves - or how much the studio execs think it loves - the love triangle that is going on between Katniss, Peeta and Gale, I bet their place in the spotlight is simply reserved for later. So these character posters showcasing much of the fine supporting cast are basically a treat to people who love movies and good acting, while the franchise's fanbase with its various Team Gales and Team Peetas will no doubt soon get to drool over posters depicting their young heroes. By which I don't mean to imply Jennifer Lawrence can't act. I meant to imply Josh Hutcherson's and especially Liam Hemsworth's acting capabilities leave a lot to be desired. So now I might need to prepare myself from vicious attacks by Hunger Games fangirls. Thankfully I happen to know few of those read this blog of mine.

Today's News: women take over, men get left behind

Quite the girl power news all of a sudden:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156794/bridesmaids-regisseur_beoogd_voor_ghostbusters_

Since reuniting the original cast and crew seems ever more unlikely - since one half is dead and the other has lost heart accordingly - starting from scratch might very well be the best bet for the Ghostbusters franchise (other than just let it be, which is not how Hollywood works). The studio now seems intent on adding some flair by making the next generation of exterminators of ghostly apparitions an all-female team, as opposed to the old guard which was entirely male. Shrewd manoeuvring. It makes the new Ghostbusters appear different enough, while thematically and in terms of content, nothing much changes at all. I don't see the zany comedic approach of old traded in for a major new plot direction just because the protagonists have swapped genders. The more things change, the more they stay the same, would be the best way to describe this apparent state of affairs. However, I must call for some consistency by saying the studio had better go all the way now and also hire a female writer and director. But if they insist on Paul Feig for the director's chair, that would constitute a missed opportunity. Feig already seems to be Hollywood's go-to-guy for comedies involving mostly female characters aimed at a predominantly female demographic. Basically the girls are still told what to do by a guy. Why not stray away from this routine for Ghostbusters? Because so far it's making the studio money, obviously. So you bet Feig stays on, and he'll likely bring Melissa McCarthy (and probably Sandra Bullock too) with him, as she's Hollywood's go-to-funny-gal, basically the female equivalent of (a younger) Bill Murray. You might be inclined to believe the new Ghostbusters is heading into new territory by the sex reversal, but so far, it seems you are wrong in that assessment.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156803/sony_wil_vrouwelijke_spider-man_spin-off

On the other hand, the same studio (Sony) does seem hellbent on entering new territory for the Spider-Man franchise. However, it becomes increasingly clear they still don't have a long term strategy as how to handle the character's universe they are so eager to translate to the big screen. Initially, it seemed pretty straightforward with Amazing Spider-Man 2, 3 and 4 in the works and possible spin-off worthy characters introduced in those films along the way before acquiring their solo features. Now, however, the spin-offs seem to overtake the main character's story line. The Sinister Six and Venom movie - the latter of which was revealed to be titled as the woefully uninspired and spoilerific Venom Carnage this week - will now debut well before Spider-Man's third film. Which means half the team of villains as well as the titular symbiote will be introduced to new audiences in their own film, while Spider-Man seems relegated to a side role. Seems like a terribly illogical way to approach things, likely to confuse audiences. To top it all, Marvel's top boss Kevin Feige commented on the lack of superheroine centered flicks thus far and the intention to remedy that, after which Sony swiftly announced they're also planning to make just such a film, dealing with a character from the pages of Spider-Man's history. They wouldn't say her name. You know why? Because they don't know who they're gonna pick. It's become apparent Sony desperately wants to make the big bucks by following Marvel's Avengers example, but they have no clue as how to carefully construct such a universe as they are in such a hurry to catch up with Marvel proper. As a result, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 already turned out to be a mess, more concerned with introducing as many characters as possible than with delivering a balanced plot. Considering their current suggestions, Sony seems about to repeat that film's mistakes. I sympathize with the poor superpowered girl on who will be bestowed the honour of starring in the first superheroine film in this studio's current chaotic affairs, as well as the female target audience that needs to be enticed into liking superheroes via the movie of a studio that can't be bothered to get their spidershit together. Better make it a Spider-Woman movie at least, as most of the incarnations of that character don't share as many ties with the webslinger and could prove to stand on their own in greater capacity.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156813/eerste_trailer_left_behind

And now for something completely different: the Rapture. Works on men and women both and does not discriminate in terms of race, religion and ideology either, or so Left Behind seems to suggest. Admittedly, the premise is intriguing: what would the effect, both emotional and existential, of the Rapture be on those who turned out not to be eligible to join their Creator? The result in Left Behind seems to be a fairly average break-down of society, after which the film feels the need to focus on the microcosmic tale of a father and a daughter coping with their loss and just trying to survive. Not the most original or effective way to deal with such a world shattering event. Casting Nicolas Cage as the protagonist also doesn't seem to be the safest bet considering the number of lousy movies he has made over the last few years, many of them also dealing with Heaven, Hell and the human condition (e.g. both Ghost Rider movies, Season of the Witch and Drive Angry). Cage of late seems to be the go-to-guy for religious B-fare. From the looks of this trailer, Left Behind seems to risk being the stuff to be added under said category in the not too distant future.

Jurassic Park III: Tyrannosaurus Rex (T-Rex)

Year of release: 2001

Description: like many of Hasbro’s bigger dinosaur models, this figure doesn’t stand in a neutral pose. It stands in a bent position, as if circling potential prey. Its predominant colour is green. It has a greenish white belly and a very dark green stripe running from it’s snout over his back to the end of the tail: smaller stripes in the same colour protrude from this large stripe. Other than that it’s mostly dark green in a lighter tone. It’s adorned with reddish brown stripes. Black claws stick out of his toes and fingers. A black JP III logo is found on the right leg. It has a large dino damage wound on his right flank, showing bones and muscles. Inside this wound a button is located: when pushed it activates a rather high pitched roar. A second button is placed on its throat. Pressing this button produces a fierce attack roar, and makes the jaws open.

Analysis: this figure looks fairly decent, but is plagued by the same design flaws we encounter with the Spino, Alpha Raptor and Dilophosaurus from this toy line. Its position is annoying, severely hindering playability, making it mostly fit for dioramas. Again, the wound cannot be covered up, so the creature has no option but having its inside exposed for all the world to behold. The button to activate the attack action is poorly located, and the action isn’t very menacing or impressive. The head sculpt is quite ugly: this dinosaur looks a bit like a mongoloid Rex.

Though a lot can be said against this sculpt, it has some redeeming qualities. The paint job is pretty good: not great or anything, but better than most of Hasbro’s toys. It also is almost identical to the colouring of the Ultra T-Rex made for this toy line, adding some consistency in Hasbro’s work. The sounds are fine, and certainly reminiscent of the sounds Rex made in the JP movies. The sound quality unfortunately isn’t very high, but good enough.

Playability: not great. Like mentioned above, this figure stands in an awkward position, limiting playability options. A neutral position (like most of Kenner’s toys had) would have been preferable. Fortunately its limbs are poseable. The dino strike action is both predictable and unoriginal, and doesn’t work all that well. It can’t really grab dinosaurs its own size or bigger with this rather small mouth, but only human figures and smaller dinosaur models fit.

Realism: this figure is recognizable as a T-Rex, but doesn’t resemble the Rex featured in JP III all that much. The paint job differs, even though that Rex was greener than any of the Rexes in the earlier movies: it wasn’t this extreme though. The arms are slightly too long. It’s also out of scale with the human figures, but if we pretend it’s only a juvenile that’s not a real problem. A bigger Rex was made for this toy line after all. The sounds certainly remind us of the great roars the Rexes in the movie produced, so it’s good they kept them for this toy.

Repaint: no. This figure would be repainted several times though: once for the JP III Camo-Xtreme line, twice for the JP Dinosaurs 2 and 3 toy lines and once more for JP 2009.

Overall rating: 5/10. It’s not very good, but has some positive features. So it’s not recommended but you might find it worth your while. It’s not rare, so if you need one you can probably acquire it without much difficulty, for a decent enough price.

Today's News: trailers and voice actors revealed

The latest batch of news reports I penned for MS over the past few days is here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156748/nieuwe_trailer_the_maze_runner

Another young adult hit novel gets the silver screen treatment with The Maze Runner. I admit the premise is intriguing, though more than a little similar to that of The Hunger Games. Visually there's a lot of opportunity here, though I'm not so sure about story and characters. There's your typical bunch of angsty teenagers thrown into a dangerous situation together, and none of the young actors portraying them stand out. Not even that kid whom I was so glad to see viciously killed off in the most recent episode of Game of Thrones. There's no Jennifer Lawrence to be found here, nor as it would appear  a grand cast of older supporting character actors. So what remains is the hope of a thrilling tale of mystery, suspense and teen violence (likely an average one at that) paired with the usual obnoxious hype surrounding this latest of so many horror/dystopian flick aimed at an audience at young adults. Remember, for every one of those that spawns into a successful franchise, three of them do not. And financial success of the lucky ones notwithstanding, those of singular impressive quality number in even lesser quantities.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156777/eerste_trailer_disneys_into_the_woods

Another trailer for a movie that hopes to captivate audiences without offering anything substantially new, is this one for Disney's live-action fantasy musical Into the Woods. Based on the Sondheim play, which I had never heard of, as is usual for Sondheim plays until someone bothers to make a motion picture adaptation out of them, it seems to be a mash-up of various fairy tales paired with a rather everyday message of parental responsibility, love and cooperation. The look seems identical to most other Hollywood family fantasy flicks of today, taking a note from Tim Burton but sugar coating it quite a bit. There's a definite Snow White and the Huntsmen/Oz the Great and Powerful/Maleficent look to the piece, which isn't a good thing per se. Good cast though; Meryl Streep as a wicked witch and Johnny Depp as a giant, what's not to like? Maybe their singing. Then again, Depp has proven to possess some vocal talents in Sweeney Todd, and Streep for Mamma Mia, so in their cases I worry naught. However, the trailer fails to get me geared up towards seeing this film. Kinda seems like a been-there-done-that type of film. Or maybe it's just the ominous sense of Holiday season dread it instills upon me. That period of the year is no fun if you happen to work in a movie theater and that mood kinda fouls the experience for me, even months prior.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156790/bill_murray_doet_stem_baloo_in_jungle_book

Another feeling of repetition forces itself onto me in the case of this new incarnation of Jungle Book Disney is currently producing. You'd think the truly classic Disney classics withstand the test of time so much Disney could just re-release them in every conceivable medium ad nauseam, instead of creating a very expensive reboot. Maybe the taste of those films has gone sour due to all their unnecessary and unpopular sequels the studio felt like releasing for the home video market. Whether there is a need for it or not, at least Disney seems to get the voice cast just right, featuring some very notable and strong actors in roles that seem right up their alley. Bill Murray as Baloo the Bear seems an open door in that regard. Murray has made a habit of playing characters reminiscent of the bear due to their carefree way of life and irresponsible sense of handling things. Nevertheless, no matter the great ensemble of actors brought together, I'm more intrigued by the other Jungle Book movie currently in production, the one studio Warner is making with Andy Serkis as its director. Could be a lot different since it needs to carefully distinguish itself from the Disney versions. And the question remains whether Serkis is as skilled as a director as he is an actor. You can't mo-cap directing after all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156789/marvel_onthult_thanos

To round things up, there's a little bit of Marvel news. After all, these days no news update of mine comes without it, so why should this one be any different? Marvel has seen fit to reveal what Thanos looks like for those who couldn't bother to wait to see him for themselves in Guardians of the Galaxy. I could have of course, but my job is to spread the word on tidbits like these, so I did just that and ruined the surprise for myself. What does he look like? Well, Thanos looks like... Thanos. There's hardly any change to his appearance in the comic books. He bears little resemblance to Josh Brolin, who has voiced him in this film and will in the ones to come. Whether Brolin also did some motion capture performance for the character, like Mark Ruffalo did for the Hulk, I don't know, though I doubt he did, considering how brief Thanos' role in this movie supposedly is. Right now, I'm more curious what the actor made him sound like. But for that, I really advice people to go and watch the movie instead of spoiling themselves online.