The Best of 2014

As is expected of everyone with more than just a keen love of film - read: obsessive film nerds and the like - the last few days of December are marked by the obligatory lists of best films, worst films, etc. Why would this blog of mine be any exception to that rule? So here's my personal Top-5 of Best Pictures of the year.

5: Gone Girl

David Fincher's exploration of the darkness behind the facade that is the American Dream packs a mean punch. It's a very cynical film, filled with black humour, that shatters the hopes for wedlock of the uninitiated and might be painfully recognizable for those who have been married for a while. Nevertheless, it enlarges such fears and reservations of wedded couples to absurd extremes. No side is chosen in this battle of the sexes, which introduces a seemingly perfect married couple that is tearing itself apart as diabolical schemes to gain the upper hand between both protagonists, the pair of them positively horrible people, explode to national outrage as the relentlessly hungry media, also not spared the necessary critique, are drawn into this very personal little conflict. As usual, Fincher makes sure the ingenious narrative is always one step ahead of its audience, as he surprises us with more than just a few unexpected plot twists here and there and leaves the opening of the film intentionally ambiguous. You might decide against tying the knot after having seen this picture.

4: The Wolf of Wall Street

Though technically a 2013 movie in its country of origin, Martin Scorsese's latest masterpiece sure left its mark on Dutch theaters in the year that followed. Another magnum opus in an oeuvre that largely consists of those, Scorsese's j'accuse against the world of Big Money proves both a harrowing descent into utter debauchery and stupendous opulence, as well as an infectiously hilarious comedy, since it's all just too unreal to be believed. The veteran director once more gets the most out of his muse, Leonardo DiCaprio, in a rollercoaster ride of the life time that is Jordan Belfort's. Once simply an ambitious but caring man intent on looking out for his wife, he turns into a ravenous money monster once his position on Wall Street is secured due to his talents of outrageous scheming and charismatic persuasion. What follows is a near orgy of sexual escapades, trophy wives, excessively expensive vehicles and all the drugs large quantities of money can buy, including the Holy Grail of Quaaludes. You cannot help but both admire and abhor this man, but when you see him rolling out his Porsche half paralyzed from an overdose of opiates, drooling something fierce, while afterwards abusing his wife and kid, you know that all the money and power does not make this man someone to be envied. And you wonder how many thoroughly decadent people are still ruling the upper echelons of Wall Street thanks to Belfort's example...

3: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Star Spangled Avenger's second solo feature (sort of, since he's fortunately not without his allies) exceeds the level of its predecessor on every level, while doing a great job shaking up the Marvel Cinematic Universe to its core. Both a successful homage to political spy thrillers of the Seventies and a fabulous spy thriller in its own right, this movie marks Marvel's most intriguing plot to date. Poor Fourties' icon Cap (Chris Evans) still needs to adjust to the brave new world that is the 21st Century, but finds himself at odds with a much changed Home of the Free that in many ways is not his own anymore. To make matters worse, his worldwide peacekeeping employer S.H.I.E.L.D. turns out to be infiltrated by a villainous secret organization hellbent on world domination and marks both him and his friends as traitors to the American cause. To top all his misery, a painful ghost from his past returns to thwart the super soldier's attempts to save his country from shadow tyranny. A fantastic combination of explosive action, intelligent story telling and carefully crafted intertwining with the rest of the Marvel Universe makes the second Captain America movie the most wonderfully balanced Marvel movie to date.

2: Guardians of the Galaxy

And now for something completely different, Marvel must have thought. So rather than doing another superhero movie, as is all the rage in Hollywood, they decided to turn to one of their lesser known assets and delivered this delightful space opera. Infectiously setting up the cosmic corner of the Marvel Universe, James Gunn's talents for quirky, off-beat humour are paired with an almost Whedonesque sense of writing dialogue for ensembles, as we are introduced to an unlikely bunch of interstellar outlaws who find themselves forced to rely upon one another to save a planet from destruction at the hands of a rampagingly zealous madman. Brilliant visual effects, enticing new characters and locations and an irresistable sense of the excitement to experience in the farthest reaches of space echo the enjoyment of the old Star Wars trilogy, but with a character distinctly its own. Though the plot may not be as strong as that of Cap 2, the genuine sense of fun Guardians of the Galaxy instills in its audience simply exceeds even that film. 2014 proved a great year for Marvel, so hopefully the company can keep up this momentum a while longer.

1: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson's latest turns out to be his finest as well. All his usual ingredients - quirky humour and characters, auteurist visuals, dysfunctional family issues and a top cast having an absolute ball - are thrown into the sweetest mix imaginable. The film looks like a wonderfully prepared cake and digests as such even more so. At the same time, Anderson turns total filmophile and utilizes every old trick in the book to acknowledge the equally rich history of the medium. Editing, sound, special effects and photography are all applied to their limits, making for a picture so thoughtfully stylized it might as well be a classical painting. If there is one director that is not to be missed by anyone who claims to love the cinema, it's Anderson. And if there's one movie on his resumé that is not to be missed by anyone, it's The Grand Budapest Hotel. The only downside seems to be it's gonna be next to impossible to top this film...

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.

It's raining news, hallelujah!

Comic-Con made sure there was plenty of news to post this last week. Here's some of my more recent contributions to MovieScene's ever growing archives:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156694/comic-con_laatste_concept_art_posters_avengers_2_

I already commented on these Avengers: Age of Ultron concept art posters before, so I'll skip that for these latest one-sheet releases, which finally complete the whole picture (see above). There's not much to say about these Hulk and Thor posters, as they add little of novelty value to the project as a whole. Save for the colour of the Hulk's pants maybe, which has finally traded in the dark blue of the previous movie for the iconic pink everybody associates with the character.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156693/comic-con_gunn_terug_voor_regie_guardians_of_the_galaxy_2

This too comes as little of a surprise considering the overwhelmingly positive feedback in prerelease and press showings for the Guardians' first adventure, set to debut worldwide in two weeks. Of course it will remain to be seen whether enough audiences will connect with this oddball intergalactic team of rogues to make Marvel the big bucks as the studio is now preparing for. However, since there's little else of consequence released in theaters this upcoming month, I think it's guaranteed this next entry in Marvel's Phase 2 will do tremendously well at the box office. Which only works in director James Gunn's favour. At this moment, Marvel will stick to directors who have proven their worth and can smoothly work with the studio without creative issues, considering the woes which have befallen Ant-Man's production of late after its director resigned, which continues to have serious ramifications for the project. Stability is now Marvel's prime concern, and when that aspect is paired with profit there's no reason why a capable director shouldn't be rehired to make the second installment turn out as good, if not better, than its predecessor. So go, Gunn!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156718/comic-con_toekomstige_tegenstanders_godzilla_bekend

It seems Gareth Edwards also aims for stability when it comes to his blockbuster success, the rebooted Godzilla. Fans praised the first film's take on the titular character, but proved less enthusiastic when it came to his antagonists, a pair of mutated prehistoric giant bugs invented solely for this film. They did their job serving as cannon fodder for the King of Monsters though, but now it's time to raise the bar. And what better way to do so than by also rebooting his classic gallery of adversaries? General audiences won't mind whatever creature gets hammered by the Big G (or the occasional vice versa), as long as they get enough bang for their bucks. If there's one thing Edwards showed with his first Godzilla feature, it's that he too is an avid fan of the original Japanese films. So it comes as little surprise that he opts to reintroduce everybody's favorite Godzilla enemies: the mythical giant bug Mothra, the humongous Pterodactyl Rodan (both characters got their own movies too back in the days) and last but not least, Gojira's prima nemesis, the three headed armoured space dragon King Ghidorah. Hopefully Edwards won't play all his cards all at once, but distributes the dose of retro monsters a bit evenly for the already announced pair of sequels, so as to prevent Kaiju overkill in Godzilla 2. As superhero movies have showed of late, there's such a thing as too many cool characters in a single film making a mess of the story. Of course, the Godzilla movies are all about characters making a mess of things while the story is subservient to such rampage, but it can't hurt to save your strongest assets for later.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156717/comic-con_kong_wederom_king

And with the renewed interest in giant monsters comes word that Hollywood doesn't mean to keep that other royal creature dead for long. King Kong too will soon be seen again on the big screen where he belongs, but not in another remake. Which is a good thing, as the last one was produced less than a decade ago and proved to be quite a memorable rehash compared to most of them, so there wouldn't be a need to retell that classic Beauty and the Beast tale just yet. So it seems a prequel is the route the studio chooses, which is also not the most exciting notion to my mind. Do we need to know how Kong became King of Skull Island? It kinda seems a given: it's survival of the fittest and Kong fits that description best, killing every sinister subject that defies his will. There doesn't seem to be much more to it. Of course you can introduce another group of people stumbling on the island and exploring its monster infested interior, getting into conflict with the giant gorilla. Heck, you could even throw another pretty girl into the mix. The result would be predictable though, as we all know how Kong came to his eventual demise, and we never cared as much about the human characters' plight as we did about the ape's. Even though I loved the various incarnations of Skull Island (as I'm a big sucker for monster movies), this project makes me hesitant. That said, it's produced by the same studio - not Peter Jackson's - as the current Godzilla franchise is. Do I smell a potential crossover here?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156733/comic-con_trailer_the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies

Speaking of Peter Jackson, he too has a little franchise in the works, and it is coming to an end. A dramatic and emotionally charged end, the new trailer would seem to indicate. Not to mention epic. Needless to say this trailer got me super stoked for the final Hobbit film, which I already was to begin with (yay, Hollywood hype effectively working its magic for five more months!). Parallells with that other closing chapter of a Middle-Earth movie trilogy were bound to be drawn, and the trailer capitalizes on that sentiment by adding just another link with PJ's Lord of the Rings films in the shape of Pippin's tearjerking Home is Behind song playing over the imagery. It's a nice touch, though it hammers the point home harder than might be wise. Nevertheless, what's to dislike in this trailer? Big battles, a giant dragon (bound to be killed off in the first 20 minutes of the film due to the way the book is adapted, but still), all kinds of intriguing cultures and creatures clashing and a top cast bringing it all to life. As I'm not a Tolkien purist, I won't complain about some of the additions the writers made to the story, like that car chase over ice. Keeps some surprises to the whole if you already read the book. But what do we have to look forward to when it's all over? When Lord of the Rings ended, we had The Hobbit still to come (though that took nine effing years!). But could this truly be the end of our cinematic adventures in Middle-Earth? What do we do with ourselves then?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156732/comic-con_tarantino_bevestigt_tweede_poging_hateful_eight

I knew it! You don't brisquely cancel a whole movie, pre-production already in progress, just because someone leaks a script. Screenplays get leaked online all the time. When any movie hits theaters, few people lack the chance to get to look the whole story up on the Internet if they so choose. Which most folks don't, because they want to see it in theaters anyway. When Tarantino first scrapped the project, he stated he might publish it in book form. That would have been the true waste, as we already have a downloadable written version of this story online thanks to that leak. But in Tarantino's case, it's the filmed version we want. Why read that book if the alternative is another one of his expertly written motion pictures starring a great cast determined to make it work? So it was a given Tarantino would decide to make that film sooner rather than later after all. Which makes me wonder whether his whole tantrum about the affair, or even the affair itself, wasn't just some big publicity stunt to create public awareness and interest for The Hateful Eight. Maybe it was just a hateful Tarantino getting in the right mood to direct the project.

Today's Triple News: magic Aquaman of the galaxy

There's news, and then there's more news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156134/meer_character_posters_voor_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Got a mail from my editor at a quarter to midnight. Marvel posted the last two character posters online and he though I should finish what I started by posting them on MovieScene. I couldn't agree more, even though I was about to go to bed instead (that'll teach me not to check my e-mail at so late an hour!). All part of the job, even though it's only a voluntary position. This pair of posters continues the eye catching colourful, flashy and distinctly space opera vibe carrying trend the earlier two (of Rocket & Groot and Gamora, if you recall) started. Drax ominously has his back turned to us, amply revealing his daggers, while enemy warships approach in the distance. It obviously isn't the most inspired piece of advertising (compare the final poster for The Chronicles of Riddick for instance), but it looks decent enough and adequately showcases his muscles and (to my mind, lousy) war paint. In Star-Lord's case, battle has commenced and he's resorted to using his futuristic double ray gun in the heat of battle, his ship flying in the background. Am I glad Drax already is the muscleman on this film, so we don't get to see a topless pin-up of the protagonist in an attempt to cater to the female demographic too obscenely. Of course the obligatory shirtless scene will follow somewhere in the course of the movie, as it's all part of the Hollywood strategy to draw girl audiences to what is otherwise (unjustly) considered a largely male attracting movie experience. At least the trailers indicate Gamora can't keep her shirt on all the time either. They better keep that bit in to ensure a sexually equal atmosphere.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156165/game_of_thrones_schrijver_pent_magic

If you've done one fantasy gig you can do another. I bet that's what Hollywood was thinking in this scenario. Of course, there's an epic difference between Game of Thrones and this upcoming Magic: The Gathering movie. One's based on a series of books, the other on a roleplaying card game. One is better suited for television, while the other gets the silver screen treatment. One has conquered the hearts and minds of a global audience, while the other still needs to prove it can attract bigger audiences than just its loyal fanbase, shedding its 'nerd' stigma. The latter starts with a good writer, and at least Cogman has proven himself just that on Game of Thrones. Still, his resumé is more or less confined to those writing credits only, so he can't be called the most experienced of screen writers. You'd think he'd feel like doing something other than fantasy for a change, but apparently he prefers to stay in that comfort zone, even though this is a wholly different kind of fantasy (or so I think, since I don't know jack squat about the Magic card game; are there any cards with depictions of twincest or overtly gruesome dismemberment?). Or maybe he's just not comfortable or interested yet in expanding his so far genre restricted mindset. Could be for the best, since there's still a fair bit of writing on Game of Thrones to finish and we wouldn't want him to be distracted by the real world too much.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156168/jason_momoa_mogelijk_aquaman

Someone who has seemingly already finished on Game of Thrones - he's not the only one - is Jason Momoa. Khal Drogo has been dead for three seasons now, so Momoa has moved on, and as it appears, in the right direction career wise. His involvement with some DC project or other has been the stuff of whispers and speculations for seven months now and it's doubtful he can maintain claiming ignorance for much longer. Is he gonna be Aquaman? That seems most likely, though other characters have been suggested too. Momoa certainly doesn't look like Aquaman, but in this digital age that is not much of an obstacle to speak off. Bradler Cooper doesn't look like Rocket Raccoon after all. I'm sure an expert make-up job alone would suffice to mask any dissimilarities with what fanboys perceive to be the 'good look' for Aquaman. I'm more worried about the many character set-ups that are currently slated to appear in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (such a unnecessarily lengthy title!). If I'm not mistaken, this now makes three additional super heroes in a movie that largely revolves around two others. And then there's still the supervillain(s) to contend with. Already feels like an overly padded and crowded movie, which unfortunately is a prevailing tendency in contemporary comic book adaptations, done by studios driven by grandiose ideas of universe building. Several recent Marvel movies suffered in terms of quality due to these tactics, and as DC is in haste trying to keep up with its rival, the same mistakes appear to be made in the process. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to take a note from Game of Thrones when the number of characters becomes too large to manage properly? Though it would be a bit unfair to Momoa if he suffered a similarly untimely demise once more.

Today's Triple News: it's a Marvelous world

Here's a few more news flashes, all Marvel related (coincidence, or a sign Marvel/Disney is slowly but surely taking over the world):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156092/eerste_character_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Character posters! Always fun! Attractive pieces of marketing and usually very collectible in the long run. Not often very imaginative though (all they need to do is display a character after all, without giving too much plot away), and this one proves little different. It does what it needs to do, showcasing a dynamic pose of an intriguing pair of characters in this case, designed to entice the audience to go see the movie to learn what their deal is. We're talking about a talking tree and dito armoured raccoon, so I suppose there's quite a deal to be talked about here. Otherwise this poster leaves little clues as to the movie itself. You can wonder about the affiliation of the two different types of star fighters in the background, but that would be a bit too nerdy even for me. This is one fine piece of advertising, but it doesn't make me want to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy movie any more than I already did. The new Gamora poster however... check back later for more on that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156083/ant-man_vindt_nieuwe_regisseur

Sick and tired about all the Ant-Man buzz of late? So was Marvel I guess, and that's why they finally settled on a director. The job goes to Peyton Reed, reponsible for such noted classics like Bring It On and Yes Man. That's a joke of course, as those are not at all memorable movies. Decent enough fare for gloomy Sunday afternoons perhaps, but not something people will talk about in twenty years time. Nevertheless, if the whole departure debacle of Edgar Wright on this project showed, Marvel does not want visionary directors for their films. They want stooges that know how to direct a decent film but also know when not to interfere with studio planning, especially when it concerns long term universe building the like Marvel is currently engaging in. Wright likely did not fit in as much as Marvel at first had hoped, having too much ideas of his own that might not have sat well with the studio (came you blame the guy, he worked for nigh a decade developing this project!). Wright just isn't a gun-for-hire as much as all his potential successors, including Reed, are. They all have a background in directing contemporary basic comedies, but none of them share Wright's distinctly British finesse, or in fact, any sign of true character. However, they do know how to follow studio orders no doubt, as is the case with the majority of the Marvel directors thus far. Louis Leterrier, Jon Favreau (before he got too big for Marvel after having done two Iron Man movies, at which point he was replaced), Shane Black, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston, the Russo Brothers... all capable directors, but none of them fan faves because of their originality, likable offbeat approach or signature style, unlike Wright. The only exception to the rule seems to be Joss Whedon, but who knows for how much longer? I'm also a little disturbed by Marvel's tendency to actively search for a comedy director only for Ant-Man. Does a movie about a shrinking superhero talking to ants have to be a comedy per se? After all, this is a man with a very serious and dark side to him. He beats his wife for crying out loud! Please don't let that comedic element dominate the others. The last thing we need is the Avengers' very own Jar Jar Binks.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156114/vincent_donofrio_gecast_als_daredevils_doodsvijand

What we do need is an enemy that gives the devil his due. In the case of the Daredevil comics, that has always been Kingpin. Sure, the stupendously obese mobster plagued Spider-Man on many occasions, but he was not his most recognizable or memorable villain (I'd say that would be Doctor Octopus, like or not). Daredevil himself may not be as recognizable or memorable a superhero as Spidey, but most people that don't know him from the source material will know him from the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, where he was also confronted with the might of the Kingpin of Crime, then played by the late (and surprisingly, African-American) Michael Clarke Duncan, who proved more fun to watch in that role than Aflleck as the titular character. This time a white guy has been casted (casting another black man would probably have invited accusations of racism, not wholly unfounded) and it's Vincent D'Onofrio. He's shown he knows how to pull off comic book baddies, if you recall the hideous Edgar (the bug) in Men In Black. Of course, Kingpin is a whole different animal. Decidedly human, supremely intelligent but utterly ruthless, cold and calculating, shadowy, out for monetary gain but still not adverse to taking over the world in a fashion... that's all Kingpin. Fortunately D'Onofrio has done enough episodes of Law & Order to know the workings of those on the opposite side of the law through and through. A fine bit of casting if you ask me, less likely to stir fan feelings in both directions than casting a Brit as an American superhero.

Today's News: we have a Thanos but when will we see him?

One of MS's latest scoops was posted there by my reliable self:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155978/josh_brolin_speelt_marvelschurk_thanos

The biggest revelation in this bit of news is not that Marvel has enticed yet another powerhouse actor to play a major villain role (and in terms of baddies, they don't come much bigger than this one!), but more so the fact that we still won't see him in this, his next "appearance". The message is clearly that Brolin, for now, will be limited to voice acting Thanos in Guardians of the Galaxy only. Of course they didn't cast him solely for his voice talents, evident as they may be, but with plans to make more overt use of his acting capabilities for later projects. Just when we will get to see those remains unclear. Certainly not in Ant-Man. Likely not in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, where Earth's Mightiest Heroes already have bad guys Ultron and Baron Von Strucker to contend with. They may tease him in the post- or midcredits stingers in that film, but, as was the case with the first Avengers film, it will reamin limited to a teaser so not much will be shown of him. Other future Marvel projects are still a bit sketchy thus far. Thanos doesn't seem the stuff of Captain America 3 or Dr. Strange. My money is on The Avengers 3 at the soonest, and that won't be until 2018 at the least. Gives Brolin a lot of time to prepare for the role, while Marvel is allowed the opportunity to make the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy coherently join forces to fight this cosmic evil together. At least, it sure seems like that is the studio's intention, as they're teasing him in both their respective movies, and if Guardians of the Galaxy turns out to appeal to the audience, that's the type of überteam-up the fans will be aching for.

As for Brolin, he's solid actor, capable of playing a wide range of characters, in projects as diverse in range and scope as The Goonies and Planet Terror to No Country for Old Men and Milk. So I have no doubt he can do this splendidly. I'm more concerned with how they're gonna pull him off other than by Brolin's acting. No doubt the voice will be changed, probably lowered in volume, to accomodate the expectations that come with such a heavy, bulky and larger-than-life extraterrestrial character. As for his physical appearance, I'm quite convinced it's gonna be CGI. If I'm not mistaken, he already was a digital character in The Avengers, and we only got to see the side of his face in that one. Motion capture seems the way to go, giving Brolin more to do and exploiting his talents to their fullest. They would be building on Guardians' character Groot in a technical aspect, who is similarly brought to life by Vin Diesel supplying both voice and bodily motions. Not to mention Marvel's expertise on doing the Hulk, who's very similar in terms of body proportions to Thanos. But all of this is speculation and conjecture at this point and will remain so for quite a few years longer. Let's just wait what Thanos sounds like first. We'll get to know him bit by bit at this rate, before the big final reveal, whenever that may occur.

Today's Trailer and Poster: interstellar robots and raccoons galore

More recent news I posted on MovieScene this week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155799/nieuwe_trailer_guardians_of_the_galaxy

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155819/nieuwe_poster_transformers_age_of_extinction

Little to add to these bits of news. I'm getting ever more stoked for Guardians of the Galaxy, due to its increasingly weird and wondrously colourful space opera vibe. It was about time Marvel added something different to its mix, to showcase the diversity inherent in its comics, which really are not all about superheroes (honestly!). Not that there's anything wrong with superheroes, mind you. But there's an awful lot of that going on in theaters these days. So now we get a fun space movie with talking raccoons and trees and saucy green ladies instead. Something else entirely! This sensational trailer reveals a bit more of the personas behind the galaxy's would-be protectors annex fugitive outlaws. An eclectic bunch with a wide array of opposing personalities, just the type of ensemble that characterizes Marvel, and not all that different in make-up from, say, The Avengers. I truly hope this movie will help revitalize the space opera genre, which previously failed to re-win the hearts of the audience when John Carter flopped. The Marvel brand ought to steer people in the right direction, though it may make for misguided expectations at first. If director James Gunn does the source material justice though, there should be little difficulties getting the audience to embrace these characters too. Even that darn talking raccoon.

After all, the general audience had little difficulty accepting the mindless incredulity of giant extraterrestrial robots morphing into Earth vehicles. Nor did the lack of a decent, balanced, intelligible plot, hurt the box office three times in a row. So the financial success of the fourth Transformers flick seems to be secure. Michael Bay unfortunately returns to the director's chair to terrorize our ear drums yet again with his overly loud bombastic scenes of digital action and trademark emphasis on big ass explosions. New characters notwithstanding, the plot doesn't seem to differ much from before. Big bad robots from space mean to wipe out humanity and gentle giant robots help us out. This time the latter group is also hindered by mankind itself, fed up as we are as a species with these Trannies continuing to run amok on our planet. Misunderstood heroes, not exactly a novel motif. Titanic robots from outer space morphing into prehistoric terrestrial creatures, that is a new one though. Nevermind the absence of logic. People have shown not to care too much about logic three times before, and they will undoubtedly do so again. And against better judgment, so will I. That's the price you pay for getting to go to the movies for free I suppose.

Today's many little bits of News

Here's a few scoops I posted on MS in recent days. They just keep piling up, don't they?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155773/eerste_teaserposter_minions

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155772/nieuwe_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155749/trailer_monsters_dark_continent_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155708/channing_tatum_wordt_x-man_gambit

Channing Tatum as Gambit? I vehemently object to this, though I get the reasons why he might be considered suitable for the role. Gambit is girlbait, he's a rogue (get the pun there?), he's charming and sultry, and these are all qualities the female part of humanity generally agrees Tatum possesses. The argument Tatum 'understands Gambit because they're both from the American South' is baloney: there's a vast difference between Gambit's home state of Louisiana and Tatum's native Alabama, even though they lie next to each other. My major issue with Tatum's casting is they didn't ask my opinion beforehand.

No, that's not it.

It's what Tatum brings to the franchise in terms of starpower that vexes me. Tatum by now is a firmly established hot moviestar that mostly appeals to the female demographic (not X-Men's main audience for sure), more so for his looks than for his ability to act. X-Men by now is a firmly established hot movie franchise that mostly appeals to the male demographic (age 12-35 or thereabouts). Obviously adding Tatum to the mix is a tactic by the studio to attract new audiences, and given Tatum's status he's very likely gonna play a major role (he'll no doubt take a major salary too). So far, the franchise hasn't resorted to casting big Hollywood stars. Sure, Hugh Jackman is one now, but he wasn't when he first started playing Wolverine. Plus, Jackman cares about his character, which is why he keeps coming back to play him even though he has no contractual obligations or acting challenges in store for him to do so. That's character loyalty. Tatum has gone on record stating he's not all that much into X-Men, though he claims to like Gambit. Duh, otherwise he wouldn't have accepted the part. But this is likely just promotional bull. I doubt he read the comics or watched the cartoons just because Gambit occasionally appeared in it. I fear Tatum is gonna detract audience attention away from what really matters about X-Men. In Gambit's solofilm this is not that big an issue (though Wolverine's solofilms left a lot to be desired compared to the proper X-movies). But in X-Men: Apocalypse, you need a strong ensemble of characters performed by team players who don't mind taking a backseat if the plot demands it (Anna Paquin's Rogue being scrapped from Days of Future Past without the actress complaining because it's for the greater good is a good example of taking one for the team). That's not something I think Tatum easily accepts. Also, the movie is likely to be built around Tatum (and Jackman too, still) to accomodate his star status. Certainly for X-Men: Apocalypse, that doesn't bode well, as this story deals with a team of mutants more than ever instead of it centering around a single character (apart from Apocalypse himself in a way). It seems a wrong time to start calling special attention to one character, especially one that was seen before but played by another actor (Taylor Kitsch). I would much prefer it if Gambit was re-introduced in his own film first, then appeared in a group effort later. Kinda like The Avengers, from which every studio owning Marvel property takes a page these days. In this case, the wrong page I'd say.

Monsters was a small film shot on a low budget in a guerilla style of filmmaking. It seems the sequel Dark Continent takes a different route. I didn't even think this unusual creature feature got enough audience attention to warrant a successor, but on that small a budget, profit isn't hard to accomplish and so a sequel is a given by the rigid laws of Hollywood. Obviously on a bigger budget, considering the visual effects (and this is still only the trailer too). It seems that's where most of the money went, since the plot feels fairly generic and there's no big names attached (playing a bit part in Game of Thrones gets you noticed but doesn't make you an instant star, Joe Dempsie). I don't think a second film was needed or desired by those who saw the first film, and it seems the original director Gareth Edwards agreed with me, as he's hardly involved with the production of Part 2 at all. He's listed as 'executive producer', but that's saying nothing. Stan Lee is listed under the same credit for virtually every Marvel movie, only for coming up with the characters back in the days, but otherwise doesn't do a thing, other than appearing in his cameos for fun. Edwards of course traded a shot at directing the sequel to his baby in for doing the remake of Godzilla. Good thing too, since you'd need a monster enthusiast to get the King of Monsters right, which I hear he has done. It seems there was little more to add to Monsters though, and so far the trailer for Monsters: Dark Continent proves just that.

Now that's what I call a bitchin' poster! Okay, so it's in many ways identical to the previous posters for Marvel Studios' movies, save for the different setting and characters of course. For now, I like to think of that as studio consistency, which is something Marvel excels in as it's continuously expanding its Cinematic Universe. And it works on this poster better than ever. There's also more than a little resemblance to the way Star Wars posters were composed (especially the classics by Drew Struzan), and that's also not a bad thing to say about promotional material for an ambitious space opera like this. This poster is colourful, appealing and otherwise just plain badass. I hope the movie delivers on the goods promised here.

The first poster for Minions, that's a different thing entirely. All it shows are a few characters, a title and a date set against a plain white background, but nothing else is needed for a teaser poster. At the sight of the minions, kids will know enough. And their parents who will pay for seeing the film in theaters too, poor things. But is a film about the minions themselves a good thing? Don't they work better as supporting characters? I see a kind of Smurf motive here. Other than the fact these little creatures already feel similar to the Smurfs by their simple but easily recognizable colour coding and their own invented language, the Smurfs first appeared in a comic album in which they were not the main characters, but they soon came into their own and few people remember the names of the characters in whose story they co-starred (naturally, I do). Since then, they have taken popular culture by storm worldwide. I doubt the minions will witness a similar fate, but it's hard to deny they steal the show in these Despicable movies. It's up to the first Minions film to prove they can do without their evil master in the future. And if they fail, we still have the Smurfs.

Today's Trailer: Guardians of the Galaxy unleashed at last

Posted the teaser above on MovieScene yesterday, but everybody will agree the video below is much more interesting:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153859/eerste_teaser_guardians_of_the_galaxy

This movie is looking better and better. There's a delightful 'space opera' vibe about the whole project, a seemingly highly entertaining blend between wild adventure, quirky humour and explosive action in a fabulously otherworldly Sci-Fi setting, suppported by an enthusiastic cast that seems to thoroughly enjoy their zany characters. I even look forward to seeing that talking raccoon in action now. Nevertheless, the last movie that gave me this feeling was John Carter, which I ended up loving while most others sadly did not, as it flopped mercilessly. Maybe this type of movie is just passé, over and done with, too retro for its own good? Maybe people these days are too cynical, so it's too difficult to visually entrance them as they're being transporting to extraterrestrial sights and sounds. Call it 'Star Wars prequel trilogy backlash' if you must, you wouldn't be wrong. I'm just hopeful the Marvel logo breeds certain expectations about what audiences can look forward to - i.e., superheroes - that may not fall in line with reality, as this is not really a superhero movie. In most other respects however, this movie appears to fit right in with Marvels canon of films in tone and atmosphere. However, if the Disney logo wasn't enough to draw audiences to go and see John Carter, would the Marvel logo be enough to ensure Guardians of the Galaxy fares better at the boxoffice? Especially with the knowledge (though probably not something general audiences will ever consider) that Disney and Marvel are now sleeping in the same bed. If these Guardians succeed in winning spectators over, as I sincerely hope they will, maybe space opera will be rewarded a new life as well.

Today's News: Guardians assemble!

Another Marvel goodie I posted on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152772/eerste_foto_guardians_of_the_galaxy

The more I hear about this project, the more I like it. And this is the first actual shot from Guardians of the Galaxy I've seen now, as opposed to merely drooling over concept art so far (heck, I hardly even know these characters from the comics!). Looks like an eclectic, diverse band of people/vegetables/animals, guaranteed to provide for intriguing interspecies interactions and snappy interstellar repartee. Granted, there is a talking raccoon in there - already the most controversial character of the bunch - but stranger things have happened in the Marvel Universe to good results. I fully trust director James Gunn, known for his outrageous humour and subversive tone (e.g. Slither and Super, if you can stand high levels of gore and trippy shenanigans), with this fascinating property, definitely the true oddball of the cinematic Marvel movies so far. It ought to be, as it explores a whole new part of the Marvelverse hardly touched upon up until now in the movies: the Cosmic corner. Considering all the wild intergalactic ploys, mind-expanding abstract entities and super-supervillains with unimaginably diabolical schemes and egos to match, it's a tough act to do justice. But at least the first picture looks right, as did the teaser scene at the close of Thor: The Dark World. I guess the thing most on Marvelites' minds right now is not whether Gunn will succeed in making this a neat-o space opera, but why he decided to give Drax the Destroyer (second character from the right) a red tan instead of a green one. Maybe the producers figured two green-skinned aliens in the same team would confuse the poor audience's little brains. After all, one of them is a slender, sexy woman and the other a broad-shouldered, overly muscular tall guy, so they look very much alike, both being humanoids and such. We won't have such difficulties identifying that darn raccoon. Or the tree fella, who can only say his name.

Today's News: Del Toro becomes a Guardian of the Galaxy

A little bit of news I posted two days ago on MS found its way onto this blog of mine somewhat later than it should have:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147636/benicio_del_toro_gecast_in_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Is this good news? Of course, to my mind Del Toro is never bad news at least. However, I much confess that, though I pride myself as a bit of a comic book nerd, I know next to nothing about these Guardians of the Galaxy... I'm sticking to the comics released in the Netherlands since they're both easier (and thus cheaper) to find, and there's much less of them due to the way they were published  - collecting various issues in one big package, with a minimum of pages wasted on advertising; unlike the American releases which are drenched in the latter - and the fact the company that released Marvel comics in Holland until only a few years ago, good ol' Juniorpress, didn't publish all American series, but only the good ones. GotG wasn't among those, so I have to make due with the few guest appearences of some of these Guardians in other Marvel series. And I was never really blown away by any of those (though I liked Gamora, but she's a babe in skimpy garments so what's not to like for a nerd like me?). For me, GotG is definitely the odd-one-out in Marvel's Phase 2. Marvel seems to acknowledge the fact this line of thinking applies to most people by making this movie much more of a stand-alone release, with only a few tie-ins to other Phase 2 films. Don't expect these Guardians to appear in The Avengers 2 in a few years. This is a wise decision, considering the Guardians of the Galaxy now have to prove themselves without relying on the strength of their more Earthly (or Asgardian) counterparts. Plus, it doesn't make the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe too vast and muddled by all of a sudden throwing in a lot more characters from a lot more corners of the Galaxy that aren't so relevant for the rest of Phase 2 anyway.

If GotG turns out a dud, it will hardly affect the Marvel movies to follow (unlike Iron Man 3, which did indeed not boast well for what's yet to come). And it very much has the potential to end up an oddball film, considering director James Gunn seems to specialize in weirdness and gore as he illustrated with the likes of Slither and Super. Plus, there's a talking raccoon involved here. Maybe Del Toro will play him, since it has not yet been revealed what his role in all of this will be. I'm guessing he'll play a more regal, heavier character instead, as befits his stature as a solid actor. Unless he feels like doing something totally different from anything he's ever done before. You know how actors are sometimes.

I'm keeping an open mind until we get a trailer or something (or until I happen upon some GotG comics, which isn't likely around here), but for now I remain skeptical about this film - despite the involvement of a few good actors - and will focus my enthusiasm on other Phase 2 projects, specifically Thor: The Dark World and Ant-Man. I know what to expect from them, since Juniorpress gave me the opportunity to get to know and appreciate them in the Eighties and Nineties, albeit only in their capacity as Avengers instead of on their own. But that proved enough for me. Hopefully Gunn and Del Toro will prove these Guardians of the Galaxy are also worth our while as the more interplanetary version of the Avengers they appear to be. Just as long as they downplay the talking raccoon for their own good. We've had enough annoying digital characters already over the last decades.

Today's News: Marvel's Phase 2 sneak peek

Here's a news flash for ya:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145974/eerste_beelden_marvel_phase_2

As a comic book lover, I'm obviously very excited about these, though my enthusiasm for Guardians of the Galaxy remains restrained, considering I never really got into that cosmic stuff and none of these characters honestly appeal to me (especially Rocket Raccoon, which I think is just a lame JarJarBinksian concept). Plus, it just seems so out of whack with the rest of the current Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's good to see Marvel isn't afraid to explore other avenues from its 70+ years of comic books run than just the regular superhero stuff though, but I have yet to be convinced.
Thor: The Dark World looks pretty decent, as I expected it to be after Thor's first foray onto the big screen which turned out so well. Nice to know Natalie Portman is still onboard despite her near falling out with the studio over the departure of the original (female) director. Little vexation regarding Captain America: The Winter Soldier either, even though I understand this overly patriottic super soldier isn't everybody's cup of tea. I'm not all that high on the Falcon being a participant, though considering his long history with Cap (the pair shared a comic book series for a long time) his presence is far from surprising. His look is pretty slick (definitely Ultimate Universe inspired, which I can appreciate), but he remains a guy with metal wings on his back, which isn't a really fancy ability to say the last. Plus, his appearance in this particular Marvel movie might spell doom for an eventual (and quite often foretold) presence of the Vulture in a future Spider-Man movie. In the latter's case, again, not much of a loss for moviegoers.
Ant-Man: now that's something I look forward to! A tough nut to crack, considering his rather awkward powers: getting small, growing tall and communicating with ants. However, also a deeply flawed though brilliant personality (depending on which particular Ant-Man they will use, since there have been multiple over the years) with a plethora of human traits making him that much more identifiable. Wife beating, voyeurist activities, having people eaten by army ants: all in a day's work for the not quite so heroic Ant-Man! Coupled with capable, witty and stylistically intriguing director Edgar Wright (of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim v.s. the World fame), this might very well turn out to be the most delectable and off-beat character of the bunch. It could also suck bug balls big time of course, but let's keep a little optimism here, Wright certainly deserves it.

Make Mine Marvel Phase 2! Iron Man 3 gets to kick it off in three weeks, The Avengers 2 will finish it in a few more years (2015 probably).