I got some more stuff up on MovieScene yesterday and managed to post it here today, as ought to be the natural routine I have increasingly less time to adhere to, alas.
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154236/nieuwe_fotos_sin_city_a_dame_to_kill_for
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154235/eerste_trailer_transformers_age_of_extinction
This is so typical. I loathed the previous threesome of Transformers flicks, yet I still keep looking forward to the next installment even though I know it's gonna suck robots balls (and that these robots even have genitals is something unfortunately established in the second movie). I should know better by now. Maybe it's because this time there's dinosaurs involved too? Yeah, like that makes a difference for the overall (lack of) quality as long as Michael Bay is still directing! If I didn't care for supposedly paleontologically correct dinosaurs in the recent Walking with Dinosaurs 3D flick, robot dinosaurs also doesn't exactly sound like stuff right up my alley. I guess I've become too picky as I've grown old and sour. Trading in Shia LaBeouf for Mark Wahlberg is also less than a stellar improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. As was the case with the previous Tranny films, there's some good actors around, but this is not the type of films that revolves around acting. These are eye candy movies for immature audiences, where half the movie consists of overly loud, endless action scenes with explosions every other minute and the rest of the time is filled with hot chicks bending over socially sexualized vehicles while utterly cringe worthy poop jokes are produced. Inbetween there is something of a story line to discern but it makes little sense and is otherwise completely forgotten when the credits end rolling. There are visual FX driven movies that provide a singularly memorable, thoroughly absorbing viewing experience, like Gravity, and there is its exact opposite: Transformers 1 through 3. Fourth time is the charm? I don't think so. Yet I will still end up torturing myself as I go and see it (for free, obviously: torturing yourself and paying for it is just too much pain). It will probably be another bad film, but at the very least robots morphing into dinosaurs can't be worse than robots shapeshifting into cars. It just can't, I refuse to believe it...
And then there's the type of VFX movie where the effects form the setting, dominating the visual style but not driving the story per se, as that is still up to the actors. Like Sin City. And its sequel, A Dame to Kill For. In the case of such films, acting is a quintessential ingredient, and the actors find their capabilities tested to their absolute limits acting against nothing but blue (or green, it varies) all around them. Some actors don't do so well in this scenario, as Rosario Dawson and Jessica Alba showed in the previous adventure taking place in the City of Sins. Hopefully they've grown and prove more up to the task in the sequel, as both of them are back for more. As are characters like Hartigan (Bruce Willis) and Marv (Mickey Rourke), despite both of them kicking the bucket before. As this movie takes place before the events of the first film, that ought not be an issue. In fact, this film will answer questions raised by its predecessor. For one thing, why did Dwight have to change his facial appearance (from Sin 2's Josh Brolin to Sin's Clive Owen)? With exactly the same people both in front and behind of the camera, I have full faith in this project, though I agree it doesn't score points in terms of originality. If the quality of the movie gets anywhere near the level of the first installment - still a much appreciated entry in my personal Top-29 of 10/10 rated movies - you won't hear me complaining. Even if Alba once again takes out her no-nudity clause and keeps her clothes on while playing the stripper, despite the graphic novel the movie so faithfully reproduces for the big screen revealing quite a lot more black&white skin.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten