Today's News: one more hero returns to the marvelous fold

MovieScene got it first (thanks to me) the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146577/daredevil_terug_bij_marvel

I can only say I'm pleased by this decision. So far Daredevil wasn't treated with the proper respect that should have been this devil's due at Fox. The 2003 Daredevil movie was mildly entertaining at best. And Elektra got it even worse, being a very eligible candidate for 'Worst Marvel Adaptation' yet, its lack of quality being a prime reason it didn't even get a Dutch theater release but was released straight to DVD. And even if Daredevil had stayed at Fox with that studio's intention of creating its own 'anti-Marvel' Marvel Universe, the character would have felt awkward between the other studio properties, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. You would have two seminal superhero teams... and this one blind guy stuck in the middle as a bonus. I couldn't see that working. Still, having him join forces with some of the superheroes belonging to those teams might have worked out: a Daredevil/Wolverine crossover could have been fascinating material. But now that 'the Man without Fear' has officially returned to Marvel, that's not gonna happen.

And considering the potential alternatives we are presented with now, that's not much of a loss. Marvel Studios can go ahead and reboot Daredevil properly, carefully planning his role in the bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe as they undoubtedly intend to do. And after all, why not? Even though Daredevil isn't exactly a mighty superhero powerhouse compared to the likes of Thor or the Hulk, he fits right in with the more down-to-earth kinda heroes like Black Widow or Hawkeye that were (mostly) done justice in The Avengers. Plus, he resides in New York, which is conveniently also the location of the Avengers' base of operations, so they would be bound to run into him sooner or later. And of course, Daredevil has had a stint running with the Avengers for quite some years in the comics with which it all began (even though that was much later in the run of the series). So there's plenty of reasons to start incorporating Daredevil into the larger context, somewhere in Marvel's Phase 3 (which probably won't start until 2016). But let's start with his own movie first of course, making us forget all about the Ben Affleck flick and proving to the audience that Daredevil can still be a compelling character in his own rights. And worry about Elektra later, please. For now, it's all speaking long term, since Marvel's Phase 2 has all been planned out already.

And speaking of Marvel Phase 2, it has begun this week with Iron Man 3 hitting theaters. I haven't had the chance yet to go and see it, but I did get to see the after-credits scene (which will save me from having to sit through the end credits with that horrible tune!). I think fans of either the Hulk or Mark Ruffalo will get a kick out of it, even though it's mostly for laughs and doesn't hint at a future Hulk movie for sure. Think The Avengers' shoarma scene, but with more dialogue. I laughed.

Today's News: there's a Storm coming

Look what came flying in from MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146510/eerste_foto_halle_berry_in_x-men:_days_of_future_past

Other than the intriguing (and far less sexy, which is appropriate for this darker story) new outfit for Storm, what interests me most at this point is Bryan Singer's blatant readyness to communicate with the X-fans. Whereas most directors and studios try to keep the amount of officially released information rather limited so as to entice moviegoers by their lack of knowing what it's actually all about (I'm talking to you, Star Trek Into Darkness!!), Singer happily continues to tweet bits and pieces like this. Of course, no major plot points are revealed so far - not that there'll be that many of those, since X-Men: Days of Future Past is said to follow the original Uncanny X-Men story line of the same name fairly closely - and any existing cast list on sites like IMDb will tell you X-veterans the likes of Halle Berry, Shawn Ashmore and Patrick Stewart are returning to the mutated fold with a vengeance, but still, it's good to see an established director like Singer taking some of his valuable time to personally relay news goodies like this to a fanboy world that's eager to see this new X-travaganza of his. Here's to hoping we'll get a decent update on Tyrion Lannister's Peter Dinklage's character and costume soon, though I'm guessing that might prove to be just a little too big a spoiler after all.

I'm kinda digging the new outfit. Cape seems a bit small though, but hey, there must be economic crises in bleak, near Apocalyptic alternate timelines too, eh?

Today's Review: Kid

Wrote this review for MovieScene the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146055/kid_-_recensie

So overall, an interesting concept, but not the best execution imaginable. It's a rather inaccessible and at turns downright dull film, but it's surprising to see the climax works as well as it does regardless. Does it help us better understand the inner mind of children after an intense trauma like the violent death of a parent? Not particularly. Does the plight of the main haracter(s) compel us enough to feel a sense of shock at the unpredictable conclusion of events? Apparently so. Considering we spent most of the time watching at people staring at each other in overly drawn out silent close-ups, Troch must have been doing something right after all. But that doesn't make for a fully satisfying cinematic experience.

Today's News: Fast 7 is a go

This just in from MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146359/fast_and_furious_7_krijgt_releasedatum

This is a trend Hollywood seems to appropriate more and more: they spread the word about a sequel just mere weeks before its predecessor hits theatres to boost awareness of that film in question. That way, they suggest they have real faith in the upcoming film - even if it turns out to be a total dud and the studio knew it all along - so everyone should go and see it to make sure the promised sequel will indeed happen (even if we do not yet know whether we want it to happen ourselves). Sometimes this backfires on the studios, as in the case of John Carter where such a tactic didn't pan out: the film flopped (sadly, since I happened to like it) and the sequel we were told in advance was sure to happen got canned after all. However, in this particular case Universal risks less, since Fast and Furious has already been established as a proven concept that continues to draw audiences because it delivers the simple goods spectators expect to see: fast cars, tough guys, pretty girls and mesmerizing highway stunts. Considering Fast Five did surprisingly well at the box office, Fast Six was a logical next step: interest is still very much alive and awreness is fairly fresh, so the studio took a minor gamble on announcing Fast Seven just before Fast Six arrives in theatres. Releasing such news via the lips of the main actor (Diesel) at a movie convention, instead of using a regular press release, shows the audience is rewarded directly for its loyalty by making the star promise his return directly to them to wow them once more. 'Do ut des', as the Romans once said with relation to their gods: I give if you give. As long as we go and pay to see the film, we'll get what we want, with the promise of a continuing fruitful relationship in the form of more of these fun action flicks down the road. Until one of these sequels turns out truly horrendous of course, and the deal is broken.

Do I want to see Fast Seven? I dunno, haven't seen Fast Six yet... However, I liked Fast Five more than I thought I would. Though, I got the feeling the story was about to be concluded for good in the upcoming installment of this franchise, all loose ends neatly tied up: hence the tagline 'all roads lead to this'. Apparently there's some more roads nobody knew about that lead to part seven. But hey, I should have known better, since Hollywood doesn't really care about loose ends: it just creates it own ends if needs be, and money is certainly such a need.

Today's News: more Star Trek Into Darkness stuff I'm not interested in

Recent news posted on MovieScene by me, myself and I:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146259/nieuwe_poster_en_tv-spot_star_trek_into_darkness

By now I doubt there's anyone I know that isn't aware of my contempt for the new Star Trek by J.J. Abrams. It's called "Star Trek", but it only bears the name, since in terms of content there's very little that is reminiscent to real Trek. Certainly not the social awareness, the politics, the science, the philosophy and all those other intelligent elements that made Star Trek into the beloved adult science fiction franchise it once was. Abrams' take on it is an overly bombastic and loud CGI-fest filled with lens flares and expensive visual effects to wow audiences (which is ever harder to accomplish, considering contemporary audiences are satiated by the possibilities of digital effects artistry), all the while ignoring what made Trek so special compared to the likes of Star Wars, which is downright science fantasy instead. In fact, Abrams' Trek was much more similar in tone and style to Star Wars than it was to real Trek, which is not so surprising, considering Abrams has never been a Trekkie but has been outed as an avid Star Wars fan on several occasions. Now that he is finally "moving up in the world", set to direct Star Wars Episode VII, I had hoped he would hand the Trek franchise over to someone who does actually care, but unfortunately that doesn'seem likely.

So why do I post news on a movie I have little hope for and would rather not see happen? Integrity. This was news and it had not been posted yet. I had the time to do so and nobody else was doing it. Plus, like it or not, I have some knowledge about this film and the people around it that might come in handy when posting bit of news like this. This will occasionally happen and I can either just accept it or whine about it 'till I look as green as an Orion slaver. I opted for the former. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one) after all. But I do not expect Abrams to understand such sentiments...

Today's bunch of mini-reviews

Great Expectations: ***/*****, or 6/10

Mike Newell's take on the classic novel by Charles Dickens. The elaborate visual look to the film suggests a director who has dabbled in big Hollywood pictures, correctly so with the likes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time on Newell's resumé. Despite his experience in big American movies, Great Expectations is decidedly British in tone, as it should be considering it's based on a British novel centered on a poor British boy getting involved in the affairs of wealthy British folk. Little Pip leads a normal harsh life in the lower class, struggling to make a living. He soon finds himself entranced by the eerie Ms. Havisham, a bat shit crazy lady who was betrayed by her bethrothed and since hates all men. The woman sets him up with her young but cold ward Estella with the purpose that he falls in love with her and she gets to break his heart, which kinda happens. Later in life Pip (now played by Jeremy Irvine) is invited to become a gentleman in London, learning the do's and don'ts of high society, courtesy of an unknown benefactor. He soon meets Estella again, now performed by the ravishing Holliday Grainger (of Borgias fame), but is dismayed to hear she is set to marry a not so likable other. Can Pip rescue his love from the clutches of the upperclass? Will he become a gentleman after all? What's the deal with Ms. Havisham and who is paying for his upbringing? Thanks to the lovely acting of the cast of Harry Potter notable veteran English actors, among them Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes and Robbie Coltrane, we are about to find out. And still, despite this solid cast with its impeccable performances and a grandiose detailed period look, Newell's Great Expectations just ends up being somewhat dull. Is it the fact the story has been done so often in years past (even South Park has done an episode around it)? Is it the dated story of social inequality and upperclass intrigue? Who's to say? Truth is, it's better not to foster too great an expectation beforehand, since you might end up disappointed, but it won't be the actors' or the production designer's fault. And don't expect any robot monkeys either.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters: ***/*****, or 6/10

This is not the fairy tale you heard as a kid, about two young siblings killing a witch in an oven. Well, that does happen, but this movie mostly focuses on the successful career of slaying witches those children made afterwards as they grew up. Thanks to Norse director Tommy Wirkola, who in his own country is noted for his 'Nazi zombie' flick Dead Snow, this new spin to the fairy tale ends up being a slick, action packed horror flick filled with many an over-the-top witch kill and creepy monstrous crones to match (good make-up effects there!). Hansel (Jeremy Renner doing what he always does, which is not so interesting) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton, always interesting!) scour the land as bounty hunters, often being hired to track and eliminate local witch infestations. Now, they must face the ultimate ordeal of converging black magic as a powerful witch leader (Famke Janssen) is determined to perform a dark ritual that would grant her great power to the ruin of all good things. As an added nuisance, she needs Gretel's blood to do the trick and Gretel doesn't agree with that decision. Soon the pair must fight off more witches than they ever did before, at the same time learning a new thing or two about the place of witches in the world and the fate of their parents they always thought abandoned them in the woods to die. A typical simple plot bereft of true narrative surprises, but a decent stage for nice hardcore action and a plethora of thrilling stunts. The movie delivers in those regards, and with a running time of just under 90 minutes doesn't overstay its welcome.

Oz: The Great and Powerful: ***/*****, or 7/10

Big budget semi-prequel to The Wizard of Oz (more so to the book than to the 1939 classic film, also for copyright reasons), directed by Sam Raimi who gets more family friendly than we've ever seen him before. Down-on-his-luck country magician Oz (James Franco) gets swept to the far away fantasy land of the same name via balloon and tornado where he is hailed as the saviour of the realm. Since it would make him king, earn him the love of several gorgeous woman (Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz, lucky bastard!) and provide him with a fabulous treasure, the greedy swindler all too eagerly accepts, despite the fact he's expected to kill a wicked witch (a lot of witches in Hollywood all of a sudden: I guess vampires are retro by now). Accompanied by several digital characters, Oz sets out to complete his task, which will cost him more effort than he initially considered. Even though our protagonist is basically a truly egomaniacal dick, the obligatory stereotypical moral lessons soon do their work (this is Disney after all) and all ends well with Oz being outed as a good man with his heart in the right place. This is not a movie you see for character development, but one you watch for visual thrills. Oz has never looked so ominously breathtaking, the Emerald City has never been greener and the Yellow Brick Road is just so dastardly yellow. Inhabited by a multitude of strange creatures (including terrifying flying baboons to scare the kids... in 3D!) and adorned with all manners of spectacular vistas, the technical aspect of the film is secure. In fact, it's underscored by a delightful nod to the classic film – they just couldn't ignore that one – as the film opens in black & white, in the original Academy frame ratio, up until the moment Oz meets Oz and we're colourblinded by contemporary digital possibilities in three dimensions. It works well enough, despite the story being largely 'been there, done that'. It's not Raimi's most original production, but there's great fun to be had for the whole family for a good two hours, as is Disney's goal in life.

Today's Review: Jurassic Park 3D, at last!

Fresh off MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146189/imagine_2013:_jurassic_park_3d_-_recensie

Needless to say this was the best moviegoing experience I had in twenty tears time. I have never felt both so old and so young at the same time. All the good experiences I had as a kid (and there have been many!) I relived, while simultaneously it dawned on me just what an impact this film has made on my life for two decades, most vigorously in the last eight years since I became a true die-hard JP collector. Despite having undergone a digital makeover, it is clear Jurassic Park has aged more gracefully than I could ever hope to do myself.

This anniversary celebration (though to be strict, for the Netherlands the exact mark would be September 30 of this year) also marks another milestone (possibly and quite probably) in my cinematic life, my first visit to EYE in Amsterdam. Much to anybody's surprise if they ask me what I think of the new Filmmuseum, I never actually went there until two nights ago. It took my all-time favourite film to persuade me the time was now, and I do not regret it. It's a wonderful building for sure. It works great as both a museum, which it strikingly appears to be in every conceivable facet - grotesque overly futuristic visual look, overuse of bare white walls, big dining facility, funky gift shop selling books, umbrellas and postcards (all overpriced), etc. - and as a genuine movie theater, housing several large theater rooms where one can sit in the dark and enjoy good cinema endlessly. It was kinda fun to see the actual theater looked in no way like the rest of the building on the inside, but more like any decent 'bioscope' theater. It was a pretty big theater at that, with a capacity of some 300 spectators I reckon. The show wasn't fully sold out (for shame!), but with at least 200 to 250 people still rather crowded. Thankfully all of them were pros when it came to watching films, so they behaved properly and sat quietly, undoubtedly as awestruck as I was myself. The 3D glasses were not my favorite model, being those pesky electronic, battery run devices, that are placed tightly around your head (cutting off some of the blood flow around the ears after a while) and are overly cumbersome in terms of weight: but they did their job adequately, and considering the nostalgia extravaganza I was undergoing I couldn't be bothered noticing them all that much, except of course where it concerned good use of 3D effects in the movie itself, which could be found surprisingly often. But for that I'll just let you read the review above. Here I'm just informing you of my first visit to EYE, which beyond the shadow of a doubt won't be limited to this single experience (though I doubt there will be any trips that can surpass or even equal it in quality).

The funniest thing about EYE I consider to be the restaurant, which completely lacks the feel of the rest of the building, except for that huge screen forever showing the movie that is the life and times of Amsterdam (I'm referring to the giant panoramic window over the IJ, for those of you who did not get the gist). Basically the restaurant is a separate entity inside EYE, a parasitic organism thriving on those audience members who feel the need to whet more than just their visual appetite. It's devoid of the stylistic touch of the rest of the building and has a menu to match, which one can use to order all kinds of stupendously fancy food, among them quails' egg pastries and other exotic dishes containing dead animals. The whole menu had an 'elite' feeling to it. Heck, even the butter for the free bread sidedish was some classy brand with a label that mentioned some ancient Duchess used its secret family recipe (now clearly open to all) only for royal occasions. Say what you will, it did have a sort of theatrical touch to it, as if you were in a movie yourself. Or maybe I just don't go out to restaurants enough. Sorry, I'm too busy going to the movies, and I did exactly that after finishing my plate of French Fries (they did have those too, but not on the menu, you had to ask for them specifically). After all, I came here to watch a film, my detour to the restaurant was only meant to satiate my appetite and to have a nice place to sit down and talk to my friend. I didn't go alone as you might have thought. Jurassic Park after all is far too good a film to watch alone, especially if you can watch it with someone else who thorougly appreciates its supreme quality. EYE sure delivered in that regard, as we both had the time of our lives. Again, after so many years.

It's ridiculous really: EYE's been open for over a year, yet I never bothered to cross the water and go there so far, despite the many classic movies they have exhibited there. Of course, none of those classics could ever be as classic for me on a personal level, but in hindsight I really should have made time for sweeping epics like Lawrence of Arabia or marvelous adventure flicks like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Oh well, JP 3D turned out such a great experience the ice has definitely been broken. Now if only they had more vacancies available so I might get the chance to get to know EYE on a truly professional level. And I don't mean serving quails' egg pastries...