So much news, so little time to comment on it all here:
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156573/lionsgate_maakt_film_over_boston_marathon_aanslag
A typical post 9/11 tale of inspirational courage and the folly of terrorism, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with that, just a fairly predictable event. We've seen movies like these before, and we'll witness them again after each attack on everyday America. I must say, they wasted no time on this one. The Boston Marathon bombing occurred just over a year ago and a movie is already in the works. Can you imagine how quickly the novel it was based on was written and released. By comparison, movies dealing with 9/11 took a lot longer to arrive in theaters, with the best known examples, United 93 and World Trade Center, both being released in 2006. That's a five year gap right there. No offense to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, but 9/11 was naturally a much more shocking and emotionally costly experience for the majority of the American population. Maybe Americans have since gotten used to this sort of thing - which nobody should, of course - and thus need less time to personally deal with the shock of the aftermath of such atrocities. Or maybe Hollywood just takes less time to capitalize on homeland terrorist attacks. For no matter how respectfully and sensitively they handle the subject matter, it's honestly not all about spreading the word of hope when movies like these get made. Money remains ever an objective.
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156575/brochure_jurassic_world_onthult_nieuw_park
Here I go again, spoiling a much anticipated movie for myself by posting new news about it online. Comes with the territory, I won't deny. I'd be pretty lousy at my job as a news editor (voluntary though it may be) if I skipped out on certain bits of news just because I don't want to know about them myself. Especially if they seemingly give away much of the plot of a movie many are anxious to see. Which appears to be just what this bit of marketing for Jurassic World is doing. You've got a list of dinosaurs that could - though not necessarily will - make an appearance, as well as various locations and set-ups that will be seen throughout the movie as the prehistoric inmates chase their human snacks around. And you have the final confirmation of Isla Nublar as the place where it all goes down, as such firmly establishing a link to the first Jurassic Park movie. It's now up to the fans to speculate what areas and species will and won't make it into the final product. I think it's safe to say Metriacanthosaurus won't make an appearance... again, as its existence was also hinted at in the original 1993 movie when Nedry stole its embryo: I'd say this is just a neat little nod to the original film on the writers' part. Similarly, Baryonyx and Suchomimus look so much alike, at least one of them won't make the cut (or maybe both, as each of them also looks a lot like JP III's Spinosaurus). The only species nobody can deny will be used in the final film is Mosasaurus, as the brochure also reveals it has its own underwater observatory, which is just too cool a notion not to make use of. Plus, marine reptiles is something none of the previous movies utilized, so it would make for an action scene the like of which has not been seen before. Of course you can complain about the logistics of acquiring Mosasaur DNA, which I won't (as I know a way they could have gotten hold of that, do you?). Compared to this Jurassic World Lagoon, it's likely we won't be seeing the Aviary, as that concept was already made use of in Jurassic Park III, which would make it repetitive in this scenario. This also makes it less likely we'll be seeing either Pteranodon or Dimorphodon. What we will be seeing is T-Rex, that's a given. Maybe eating rich tourists on the 18-hole golf course, that might be fun. For everything this brochure spoils about the movie, there's an equal amount of information that is left out. For one thing, the genetically enhanced theme park monster super predator - the 'Diabolus Rex', as it was called in previous rumours - discussed by director Colin Trevorrow on earlier occasions is not mentioned here. It's likely they try to keep that a secret for as long as they can, at least to those who have missed the director's notes of two months past. And where's our good ol' pals the Velociraptors in all this?
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156583/eerste_fotos_ultron_voor_avengers_2
And there's another spoiler for you: the look of the titular villain in the second Avengers installment. Though, if you're a fan of the Marvel comics, it is not that much of a spoiler, as the cinematic Ultron apparently doesn't differ much from the one seen on paper since 1968. More surface detail has been added, making him kinda look like a Michael Bay Decepticon, though most anthropomorphic killer robots tend to look like that, but otherwise he appears to be similar in shape and size to his comic counterpart. Unless he's holding four additional arms or something behind Cap and Iron Man's back, but let's not run rampant in speculation about what we don't get to see based on just this one preview. For in Ultron's case, we'll have to make do with just this single picture for now (nevermind his minions in the background). A few more official movie stills were simultaneously released in this issue of Entertainment Weekly, but they contain little new noteworthy information. We already knew what Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - the second one on the big screen, and admittedly it's gonna be hard to make us forget Evan Peters' fabulous take on the character in X-Men: Days of Future Past - looked like. We didn't know Don Cheadle was in the film though, likely not only replacing his role as Jim Rhodes, but also as his armoured alter ego War Machine. That's another Avenger to add to the mix, making for a confirmed total of ten. Coupled with at least two baddies (Ultron and Baron Von Strucker) and the continuing S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans of Nick Fury, it looks like this is gonna be another crowded superhero epic. But in an ensemble movie, that is to be expected. As long as this movie delivers the same amount of fun as the previous flick did, I can live with some characters taking a backseat. I'm more concerned of weaving the story of Von Strucker's HYDRA plots, which involves the Maximoff twins, seemlessly together with the otherwise apparently unrelated story about Tony Stark designing a robot to assume his mantle of Iron Man, with that thought seriously backfiring on both him and humanity. Which in itself is a fairly natural flow from the events in Iron Man 3 and adequately alters Ultron's origins, as there's no Hank Pym around in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as of yet to design the genocidal android, as happened in the comics. I think the writers turned that story in the right direction though, as it now makes sense following on from Iron Man 3. And so far it looks like they're not gonna mess up Ultron as they did the Mandarin. Thankfully!
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156585/nieuwe_poster_sin_city_2
Good new poster, keeping in touch in terms of style with its predecessors the way we like. Art is not the issue here, connecting the stories is. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For is both a prequel and a sequel to the original 2005 movie. On the one hand it tells the story behind Dwight's facial alteration, which precedes his story line in Sin City, where his character was played by Clive Owen as opposed to Josh Brolin, pictured above. On the other, it deals with Nancy's quest for vengeance after Hartigan's demise. As you can see from above, Nancy already took a few hits killing her way to the corrupt top levels to expose the Roarke empire's crimes. At the same time, Hartigan is also seen on the poster, despite his death previously. Judging from what little we saw in the trailer, he's a spectre of his former self, plaguing Nancy's mental health. Marv (Mickey Rourke) is back as well, even though he too failed to live through the events of the previous movie, hinting he'll be part of Dwight's back story, or possibly his own. How to make narrative sense of this all? It seems tough, and as a result I think this movie will serve better as a compendium piece to the first movie than as a standalone film (sucks for new audiences). But hey, as long as the visual flair is as stunning as before and there's plenty of pretty dames and tough men doing some sinning, eh? Let's hope that will be enough. Remember a not so positively received little movie called The Spirit that seemed to think the same thing? You probably don't, nor should you.
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156609/derde_deel_the_ring_aangekondigd
Do we really need this? Do we really want this? 'No' on both fronts, but does Hollywood really care what we think if there's the possibility of making a little bit more money out of the franchise? There's another 'no' for you. Besides, the Japanese original Ringu had three sequels, so we're still two behind. It's been nearly ten years since the last activity on the American Ring franchise, so it seems overly late for a sequel or a prequel. A reboot seemed more obvious, though I'm glad they didn't opt for that (though they still might). I would have been more glad if they spend their money and effort elsewhere altogether on something more imaginative, but sadly, studio executives always fail to ask me for my opinion first. So far, this has all the makings of a studio cash cow as opposed to an honest attempt of making a worthwhile successor (or predecessor, in terms of story) to the previous two movies. I'd be very surprised if we'll end up seeing Naomi Watts reprise her role for this one. Though that is probably why it's gonna be a prequel, so she won't have to. Smart thinking.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten