Not a very inspired sequel to an otherwise effective and stylish predecessor. It wasn't the actors, it wasn't the atmosphere, it wasn't even really the story that made it a rather boring watch devoid of real scares. It was simply the running out of gags, recycling the scare tactics applied in the first film, with nothing new to creep the bejeesus out of us added to the mix. That's usually the curse of these horror sequels: you know what shenanigans the evil portrayed in these films is up to and how it goes around attempting to frighten us, the spectators, while they are doing it. You can change settings, but not the nature and established tricks of the evil itself. Take Jason Voorhees for example: even transplanted to a spaceship in the distant future he was basically up to his same old bloody slashing routines. There's only so much you can do with your typical horror monsters, without inventing a new set of rules, which is often viewed (and not wholly incorrectly so) as a blatant cop-out, illogical in terms of narrative compared to the events of the previous film(s). There's simply not much more to a ticked-off ghost lady with a fetish for driving innocent children to suicide than the first film displayed and this second film regurgitated. Angel of Death certainly has proven the limits of the angry spectre's effectiveness to scare us. No need to prove it again with a third Woman in Black film, I'd say. But if this second movie makes money, that's very likely exactly what will happen.
I had hoped for this, so I'm glad the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs isn't letting a second John Carter of Mars movie gestate for another 70 years. I was really disappointed Disney's John Carter flopped so hard at the boxoffice. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a damn fun movie with great visuals and it had solid franchise potential. Maybe I liked it more than I should, but subject material like this - strange aliens, exotic alien worlds, sexy alien chicks, etc. - really is my cup of tea, always has been. Granted, the movie made its fair share of mistakes both in terms of development, narrative and marketing, but in my mind it truly deserved a better fate. And so ERB, Inc. thinks, too. The original books were groundbreaking, swashbuckling rollercoasters of adventure novels that have endured for many decades, so there must still be an audience for them somewhere. No harm in trying again, starting from scratch, maybe not spending such excessive amounts of money on them this time. I'm really hopeful the company can find a new partner, a studio that still feels there's room for old fashioned Sci-Fi adventures like these. At least this time they know what not to do to make it work. Though it would make sense for both the estate and the studio to wait a little longer, after Jupiter Ascending and Star Wars Episode VII have hit theaters, so they can see whether there's still an audience for grandiose space opera in the ERB tradition.
Seems like more of the same. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the first Woman in Black was quite a decent horror flick with its wonderfully creepy and moody period look. Trading in a late Victorian style for a WW II era visual look is not a bad thing. From a story point of view, it makes sense as to why people would allow kids to visit that horribly haunted house again. It seems a better place for children to be than a bombed-out London, any regular parent would think. City folks don't believe in countryside ghost stories after all. And not having Daniel Radcliffe as the protagonist is probably a good notion too. His post-Potter presence in the previous part tended to overshadow the movie as having its own identity. The Woman in Black is still commonly referred to as 'that spooky film featuring Harry Potter', and I don't think that does it any justice at all. Then again, the second installment stars Potter's Narcissa Malfoy, for those who weren't aware. Hopefully it doesn't mean the movie will soon be acknowledged as 'that spooky movie starring Draco's mum'. That is, if Angel of Death turns out as decent a scary movie (or more so) as its predecessor. Otherwise, I couldn't really care less anyway.
Another Steve Jobs biopic? There was one in theaters only a year ago. Than one, however, didn't win much favour with audience or critics with its rather bland and straightforward approach. Nor are its director and main star (Ashton Kutcher, if you recall) considered such bankable talents as Christian Bale and Danny Boyle. So yeah, why not make another? There's still plenty to tell about so inspiring and innovative a man, no doubt. Plus, there's better storytellers available, and Boyle sure is an intriguing choice. I don't mind Bale, though he tends to go a little too far in his acting, reminding you that you're not watching the character he plays, but that you're seeing Bale doing his extreme thing again. The script is in the capable hands of Aaron Sorkin, who seems to be in danger of being typecast as the screenwriter for penning biopics about important folks in the digital industry for hugely talented directors (he also did The Social Network, after all). You think we'll get multiple Bill Gates motion pictures when that Microsoft man logs out of this life? If so, Sorkin is likely to be Hollywood's go-to guy to pen a script about Gates' life.
Hopefully poor Jesse Eisenberg fully realized what he got himself into before signing on as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Considering DC's overly ambitious plans for its own cinematic universe - clearly copying Marvel's designs, but still - it would be natural for a bad guy of Luthor's stature to appear in multiple DC movies soon. Luthor, after all, has his greedy conniving arms wrapped aroud a lot of shady businesses in the DC comics, and has had them there for decades. The movie version is expected to be just as busy controlling an evil empire, one that's not restricted to simply plaguing his nemesis Superman, but many of his fellow heroes as well. Right now the most apt comparable character available in the Marvel Cinematic Universe villain would be Loki, who also started out the archenemy of one but soon demanded a bigger piece of the superhero pie. Luthor is likely to do the same. Nevertheless, his skills would make him more of an evil Nick Fury, controlling strings of a lot of other baddies behind the scenes, as Fury does with good guys (or what he considers to be such, at least). In this case, it seems he's the guy responsible for forming the supervillain team called Suicide Squad, soon to give the Justice League a hard time. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and thus Eisenberg, make regular appearances, both minor and major, in many upcoming DC movies. And I'm sure Eisenberg won't particularly mind, it just keeps him occupied while the pay checks keep coming in at a steady flow.
Seems somebody was inspired by Nolan's seminal Dark Knight trilogy. The whole look of this show, based on the trailers so far, screams Nolan in its display of realistic psychopaths and criminals and dark steel and glass canyons. No trace of the more outlandish, fantastic elements of Batman lore. Considering it's an origin show that can still come of course. You've got to show the everyday people behind these heroes and demons before going overboard with any otherwordly shenanigans they might offer. So for the time being, the villains to be set up will dabble in the more commonplace criminal enterprises instead of revealing their odd personality quirks out loud. I doubt we'll be seeing Poison Ivy controlling plant life with pheromones anytime soon, which is probably for the better. It seems that at the heart of the story remains young Bruce Wayne's loss of his parents and honest cop Inspector Gordon's subsequent quest to apprehend their killer, which forms a personal bond between the two of them based around their need for justice. That's as Batman as they come without introducing the alter ego of the Caped Crusader. It's also a basic element of the Batman make-up that the Dark Knight movies kinda raced through, which does make the show stand out more on its own. Question is, will Gordon catch the murderer, or will he fail at that, which makes the urgency for young Bruce feel all the more pressing? And how do all these token Batman villains, like Catwoman, Penguin and Riddler fit into the grand scheme of things? Despite the copycat style, still a lot to look forward to.
The popular trend of giving succesful horror films a sequel of sorts that doesn't feature any of the characters from the previous installment continues, whether we like it or not. The Woman in Black was a very effective chiller, but its ending seemed fairly definitive, even though it was established that exorcising the vengeful spirit from the title didn't work. That's enough for any studio hungry to cash in on decent box office results (can't imagine they were stellar or anything), so the murderous ghost will soon be at it again. Hammer Studios has a history of fondly remembered horror movies and their many follow-ups, and in a way it's reassuring to know the recently revamped horror specialist studio isn't afraid to use its tactics of old. Do we want a second Woman in Black? Not particularly, but I'm all for period movies with Gothic looks. Hammer has always had a knack for those and the 21st Century seems no different for them in that regard. The premise isn't so bad either. Snotty kids evacuated from WW II London are relocated to a creepy countryside mansion, and instead of finding a delightful fantasy world in the cupboard they encounter a sinister spirit hellbent on enticing them to suicide there. Basically sounds like an evil Narnia, so what's not to like?
This is quite a setback for the ExpendaBelles project. If you consider old grunts like Sly Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose primary decade of fame and fortune was the Eighties, as the prime action movie stars of their day, Sigourney Waver was their definite female counterpart, thanks to the first two Alien movies - groundbreaking pictures in that regard - and Ghostbusters. There's not that many well remembered powerful older action gals around that remain as active as she is. Terminator's Linda Hamilton maybe? What has she been up to since then? For any other similar femme fatales, you'd have to look for more recent fare. Weaver would have been the project's greatest asset in iterms of casting, so who could fill her shoes now? Sure, there's plenty of grand dames of the cinema who could, but not that many with a memorable action movie background that would warrant their presence. It just goes to show how rare such roles were for females back then. Which made this female equivalent of The Expendables a risky venture to begin with, as there was always a realistic chance those few girl power women of old would turn down a part. Considering The Expendables 3 is not doing so well at the boxoffice - to say the least! - maybe it's a clear signal there's no particular public demand for this type of film at present. However, it's the female bits (no pun intended) that would have made the difference here, and I was quite intrigued as to how that would play out. It would have been great to see theatres hosting a Ladies' Night that doesn't feature a typical romantic comedy for a change. Guess that's gonna take a while longer to transpire, if it doesn't fall through at all.
