5 films om naar uit te kijken in 2018

Nu dat ik mijn gebruikelijke oudejaarslijstjes voor 2016 heb gepost, krijg ik van alle kanten de vraag opgedrongen naar welke releases ik het meest uitkijk in 2017. Daar kan ik natuurlijk een antwoord op geven, wat ik ook een paar keer gedaan heb. Of ik kan de vraag vanaf nu lekker negeren en niet aan de verwachtingen voldoen, door een lijstje te maken van films in 2018 waar ik reikhalzend naar uitkijk. Hierbij doe ik het laatste. Wat ook een beetje dom is natuurlijk, want de vraag voor 2017 blijft zo bestaan. Ach, een beetje vooruit werken kan geen kwaad...

Han Solo Star Wars spin-off

Met Rogue One als mijn onbetwiste nummer één van 2016 ligt de Han Solo-solofilm (wat bekt dat toch lekker!) voor de hand. Tuurlijk heb ik hier zin in. Han Solo is de ultieme schavuit van het witte doek. Hoe vaak zagen we charme en moed enerzijds en hebzucht en hartenleed anderzijds zo treffend verenigd in één personage? En je krijgt er altijd gratis een wandelend vloerkleed getooid met een ammunitiegordel bij. What's not to like? Nou, nieuwe acteurs die die iconische rollen spelen bijvoorbeeld. Harrison Ford doe je niet zo maar dunnetjes over. Dat is ook het bezwaar dat ik heb tegen prequels/re-imaginings/spin-offs gecentreerd rond personen in plaats van gebeurtenissen. Je bent afhankelijk van personages die je al kent maar die zowel herbevestigd als heruitgevonden moeten worden, en dat is een gevaarlijke zaak. Willen we überhaupt wel meer van hun achtergrond weten, neemt dat niet weg van hun mystiek? Bad Han Begins? Han Solo's ontstaansrelaas boeit me eerlijk gezegd minder dan de geschiedenis rond de eerste missie van de Rebel Alliance, een stukje historie waarvan we de afloop al kennen, maar waarvan we verder amper iets afwisten. Bleek Rogue One toch goed voor een hoop intrigerende nieuwe personages, alsmede voor optredens van oude in kleine rollen die onze harten deden smelten van nostalgisch wederzien. Het valt te bezien of de nog titelloze avonturen van Young Han Solo even aangrijpend blijken.

 
Avengers: Infinity War

Die andere grote actie-franchise onder Disney's paraplu, het Marvel Cinematic Universe, kijkt juist vooruit, naar de toekomst. Ook hier tig oude personages (en legio nieuwe), maar in nieuwe situaties. 'Tig' behelst in dit geval volgens Marvelbons Kevin Feige maar liefst 67 personages. Ik vond de hoeveelheid figuren in Captain America: Civil War al wat veel van het goede... Desondanks, in het bronmateriaal, de Marvel Comics die ik al ruim twintig jaar verslind, werkt dit soort mega-crossovers vaak als een tierelier, dus ik gun ze het voordeel van de twijfel. Infinity War is bovendien de apotheose van het MCU, sinds in The Avengers de eerste tease naar super-superschurk Thanos plaatshad en er vervolgens in elke tweede Marvelfilm wel zo'n Infinity Stone de revue passeerde. Tijd om na tien jaar alle plotlijnen bijeen te brengen en het kookpunt dat steeds verder bereikt lijkt in het MCU eindelijk eens tot bedaren te brengen. Waarop Marvel vervolgens vast een nieuw tienjarenplan in de kast heeft liggen. Marvel Zombies of zo.

Isle of Dogs

Voor wie minder opheeft met al dat Hollywoodspektakel, ligt er in 2018 eindelijk weer een nieuwe Wes Anderson in het verschiet. Wes wie? Je weet wel, die briljante Amerikaanse indie-regisseur met zijn unieke visuele stijl, die narratief altijd zo geslaagd het midden houdt tussen tragedie en komedie en wiens films zo quintessentieel 'quirky' zijn (een treffende Nederlandse vertaling is nog niet voorhanden). Misschien wel mijn favoriete regisseur. In 2018 is het alweer vier jaar sinds zijn laatste, het briljante The Grand Budapest Hotel, dus het wordt wel weer eens tijd. (Tenzij je kunt leven met zuiver commercials van zijn hand in de tussentijd, die mij juist alleen maar naar meer doen smaken...) Stop motion bovendien, slechts zijn tweede film in dat format, na het briljante Fantastic Mr. Fox. Waar gaat het over? Iets met honden en Japan en meer weten we nog niet, maar de naam Wes Anderson is voor mij al ruim voldoende. Dat geldt ook voor de acteurs, want het lijkt tegenwoordig wel alsof er een wachtlijst is voor rollen in Wes Anderson films, zo graag wil iedereen met die man in zee gaan. Vaste partners Bill Murray, Edward Norton en Jeff Goldblum zijn opnieuw van de partij, terwijl dit keer ook Bryan Cranston, Scarlett Johansson en Tilda Swinton acte de présence geven. Als stemmetjes van stop motion honden, dat wel. Onder Anderson kan dat alleen maar tot briljante taferelen leiden.

Early Man

Over stop motion gesproken, 2018 zal een goed jaar worden voor die techniek, aangezien er ook een nieuwe Aardman op ons ligt te wachten. Je weet wel, die heerlijk Engelse animatiestudio van Wallace & Gromit en Shaun the Sheep. Dit keer geen vervolg op een prijzenwinnende short, maar een origineel concept. Over holbewoners die samenleven met dino's. Okee, zo origineel is dat concept niet - laat staan wetenschappelijk verantwoord! - maar het potentieel als de koddige versie van One Million Years B.C. is groot. De Britsheid blijft behouden met stemmenwerk van in ieder geval de heren Redmayne en Hiddleston. Hier kan simpelweg niets misgaan.

Jurassic World 2

En dan is er deze titel nog. Uiteraard de film waar ik, als Jurassic fanaat, het meest likkebaardend op zit te wachten. Nieuwe regisseur (want als je de kans geboden wordt om een Star Wars film te regisseren zeg je geen nee, zoals Colin Trevorrow) is de Spaanse J.A. Bayona, van wie ik nog niets aanschouwd heb (ligt aan mij, want hij heeft wel degelijk eerder films gemaakt). Dit keer geen park op een eiland, geen getrainde Raptors en geen mixklonen (of toch...?). In JW2 ligt de techniek voor het klonen van prehistorisch gespuis te grabbel, dus 'anything goes'. Chris Pratt (met gun) en Bryce Dallas Howard (met hoge hakken) mogen eens te meer aan de bak om het aantal verspilde mensenlevens te beperken. Aangezien iedereen het leuk vindt om te zien hoe dinosauriërs mensen opvreten, zullen ze daar niet geheel succesvol in zijn. Verder helaas nog weinig details. Rex & Raptors gegarandeerd. Hopelijk voor de afwisseling eens mét veren, zoals het hoort. Wordt uitgebracht een week vóór mijn verjaardag. Heel strategisch, Universal...

2015: Het beste en het slechtste in de bioscoop

Het jaar zit er min of meer op, dus is het tijd voor de gebruikelijke lijstjes. Welke films die dit jaar het licht in het donker vormden kan ik iedereen aanbevelen, en welke moet een ieder absoluut zien te vermijden? Hieronder de links naar de lijstjes zoals ik die heb ingediend bij mijn voormalige werkgever, MovieScene.nl, en mijn huidige, FilmTotaal.nl, gevolgd door mijn wat uitgebreidere originele tekst.

MovieScene: Beste Films 2015

MovieScene: Slechtste Films 2015

FilmTotaal Top 10


Top 10 Beste Films


1. Jurassic World

Nou nou, wie had dat aan zien komen voor een JP fanaat als ik... Objectief gezien natuurlijk niet de beste, maar over Jurassic ben ik nooit objectief geweest en iedereen mag het weten. Ondanks die paar tekortkomingen (rennen in hoge hakken en zo) die ik domweg negeer, bleek het een emotioneel weerzien (vier keer, veel te weinig eigenlijk) met een oude vriend die ik veel te lang heb moeten missen (veertien lange, onafzienbare jaren). Een werkend park en hordes dino's is precies wat ik wilde hebben en precies wat ik kreeg. Welcome to Jurassic World! In de negen titels hierna volgt die gewraakte objectiviteit.

2. Mad Max: Fury Road

George Millers krankzinnige comeback naar de gekkigheid die hem eind jaren zeventig op de kaart zette blijkt zowel voor fans van het eerste uur als de nieuwe generatie een volslagen surrealistische en hyperactieve hellevaart. 'Over the top' krijgt een geheel nieuwe invulling en het publiek de beste actiefilm in jaren. 'What a film, what a lovely film!'


3. The Martian

Sir Ridley weet science in space na Nolans bombastische en wetenschappelijk absurde Interstellar weer interessant te krijgen met een zowel intiem als episch drama. Louter topacteurs en Mars zag er nog nooit zo prachtig maar toch zo vervaarlijk uit. Plus de beste Lord of the Rings verwijzing ooit.


4. Ex Machina

Dit fenomenaal gespeelde drama kruipt onder je huid en zet de verhoudingen met je techologische gadgets weer op scherp. Machines zijn zowel verleidelijk als beangstigend in deze intelligente maar constant onheilszwangere Sci-Fi thriller. Oscars voor de hele main cast alstublieft!

5. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

De hype was zoals verwacht een tikkeltje extreem, maar toch bleek TFA een geslaagde nieuwe Star Wars film die ons de teleurstellende prequels deed vergeten. Hoewel het verhaal bij vlagen een herbewerking van ouder materiaal leek, wist zowel de oude als de nieuwe cast te overtuigen. Het geheel werd met zoveel liefde door overduidelijke medefans geleverd dat het onmogelijk was er niet in mee te gaan. Toch zal ik meneer Abrams de begane misstappen bij die andere space opera franchise, Star Trek, niet vergeven.


6. Inside Out

Wie dacht dat Pixar tussen alle sequels door geen tijd meer had voor innovatieve ideeën bleek zich schromelijk te vergissen. De geest van Pixar leeft als nooit tevoren in deze Pixarfilm over de geest. Wederom een tranentrekker voor het hele gezin van de bovenste plank.


7. Sicario

In de 'war on drugs' is het recht de grootste verliezer, stelt pessimist Denis Villeneuve. Dankzij dit zenuwslopende drama moeten we hem gelijk geven. Intense spanning, fantastische acteurs en een luguber einde dat nog een tijdje na blijft galmen, alles wat we gewend zijn van onze favoriete Canadese zwartkijker.


8. Ant-Man

Na de teleurstelling van Avengers: Age of Ultron waren we wel toe aan iets heel anders, iets kleiners. We kregen het letterlijk in deze superheldenkomedie met een hart van goud. Ondanks het opstappen van Edgar Wright blijft zijn stempel qua komische opzet en energieke montage goddank herkenbaar behouden.

9. Er Ist Wieder Da

Lachen om Hitler, mag dat? Ja hoor, maar de boodschap dat de komst van een nieuwe Führer met even onfrisse opvattingen als de oude dichterbij is dan we wellicht zouden denken, gaat niet aan de kijker voorbij. Hilarisch maar confronterend tegelijk.


10. The Walk

Robert Zemeckis' ode aan doorzettende durfals kent een simpel plotje maar wordt met bijzonder veel vaart en enthousiasme verteld. Maar het is de techniek die deze bioscoopervaring compleet maakt. De derde dimensie wordt zelden met zoveel effect geleverd. Mensen met hoogtevrees kunnen wellicht beter thuis blijven. Jammer genoeg zal deze film in de thuisbios lang zo'n indruk niet maken.


Troep zat er helaas ook genoeg tussen dit jaar...

Top 5 Slechtste Films


1: Vacation

Wat vroeger werkte, werkt nu vast ook wel, dachten de Hollywoodbonzen. Dus gaan we weer met de Griswalds op vakantie in de wetenschap dat alles fout zal gaan. Inclusief de grappen, want de humor is wel heel erg onleuk. Hoeveel lichaamssapgrappen kunnen er doodslaan in één klucht? En waarom moet alles sowieso terugvoeren op fysieke en seksuele onzekerheden in deze zeperd? Als alleen de auto nog een beetje op de lachspieren werkt, weet je dat het goed fout is gegaan.

2: Fantastic Four

Au... De slechtste Marvelbewerking tot nu toe. Wat ging er mis? Zo te zien alles, want werkelijk niks deugt aan dit fantastische viertal. Wie dacht dat de FF in 2005 al op hun bek gingen: het kan dus nog flink veel erger. Schrap dat vervolg a.u.b.!


3: The Green Inferno

Eli Roths kannibalenfilm met wel heel weinig kannibalisme, die veel te lang de tijd neemt om de irritante hoofdpersonen richting de kookpot te sturen waar we ze het liefste zien. Daar is een woord voor: saai.


4: Knock Knock

Eli Roth (alweer) imiteert Funny Games maar dan met twee wulpse maar vervelende jongedames. Dat pakt opvallend preuts uit en wordt nooit eng of confronterend. Wel slaapverwekkend.


5: Fifty Shades of Grey

Ik besef me dat ik de doelgroep niet ben, maar ik krijg het niet warm van al dit kitscherige gedweep met zweepjes. Wat mij betreft de saaiste seksscènes van 2015 in de minst opwindende erotische thriller. 


2015 werd van tevoren al geacht een jubeljaar voor de industrie te zijn met het aangekondigde overweldigende filmaanbod. Hoewel de kassa's naar verwacht behoorlijk vaak en hard rinkelden (geloof me, ik heb het gevoeld!), viel het inhoudelijk beschouwd toch een tikkeltje tegen. De hype overheerste, maar werd meestal niet echt waargemaakt. Blockbusters die alles mee leken te hebben vielen tegen (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Spectre), voor elke heropgezochte klassieke reeks die onze gunst verwierf (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Mad Max) viel er een andere vies tegen (Terminator, Vacation, Fantastic Four) en het aantal verrassingen vanuit het onafhankelijke/arthousecircuit was ook niet overdadig hoog. Wat dat laatste betreft moet ik eigenlijk mijn mond houden, want als deze lijstjes iets duidelijk maken is het dat ik het dit jaar veel te mainstream heb gehouden en te weinig aandacht heb geschonken aan de rest. Uiteraard heb ik er in mijn taak als recensent wel een aantal mee kunnen pikken, maar tijdgebrek heeft mij desondanks genoopt er te veel links te laten liggen. Daarin ligt dan gelijk een goed voornemen voor 2016... Minder hype, meer de grenzen opzoeken.

Today's Column: Franchises fighting their past

Another month, another column of mine:

Column: Franchises in gevecht met hun eigen verleden

Nostalgia is key in the current Hollywood strategy. Of course the studios are eager to get the new generations acquainted with classic fare it might not have bothered to check out on their own accord - if their parents think it's awesome, it can't really be, right? - but at the same time, the existing fan base and its substantial financial potential are not to be ignored. So today's new istallments in major franchises like Terminator, Jurassic Park and Star Wars are drenched in the stuff that generates that good ol' feeling for the older fans. Old actors return, old oneliners are uttered throughout and old locations are revisited. Not to mention old plot lines are blatantly rehashed, as with the disappointing Terminator Genisys. However, the nostalgia of these new films only brings to mind the truly classic installments, ignoring those sequels that didn't either turn a profit or please the fans. Do we want to be remembered of less than stellar fare when we can set our minds on the glory of the true undying classics that preceded them? Maybe not, but it sure as heck doesn't help the consistency in these franchises. They're not remakes, or even reboots. They acknowledge what happened before happened in the same universe, but they refuse to acknowledge all of it, leaving us with major questions. What has become of Isla Sorna? Did Ripley not die, but was it a hypersleep dream? Terminator Genisys uses the Trek way out and states the current story takes place in an alternate time line, which is supposed to be a smooth way to ignore Rise of the Machines and Salvation, but makes for an overly convoluted whole in the Terminator franchise. So that wasn't the smartest move, or the most respectful since there are still plenty of fans - myself included - who actually didn't think so little of Rise of the Machines and Salvation.

Basically Hollywood is suggesting to us which films we should remember fondly and which had best be forgotten. But why should the studios dictate what is canon and what isn't? Isn't that up to the fans who embrace these franchises and the stories they tell, taking the good with the bad? The case of the recent 'recanonizing' of the Star Wars universe, to make it work more in Disney's favour, is a poignant example of how a studio is appropriating a franchise for its own gain rather than the fans'. Thirty years of Expanded Universe, mostly written by fans who turned their love for the space saga into a profession, is brisquely declared 'non canon', even though many stories are actually more intelligently crafted and more emotionally compelling than some of the canon entries. Such rewriting of history won't stop the fans from appreciating the good stuff and detesting the bad in the future. They'll make up their own mind on what things they will lovingly look back at.

Judging from the lackluster box office results and the poor audience reception, Terminator Genisys might not be one of those things...

Today's Review: Jurassic World

Told you another review was up soon. I assume you didn't need to guess for which movie?

Jurassic World - Recensie

A life changing experience after an anxious 14 year wait? That's saying a little too much. A worthy successor to the first trilogy? Sure was. Not on par with the original Jurassic Park film of course, but whoever expected that knew they were deceiving themself. It was obvious from the get-go they would never rival the magic of that game changing film that revolutionized digital effects. In fact, there's plenty of those throughout the movie, but they are never as awe inspiring or jaw dropping as they were 22 years ago. To be honest, I would actually have preferred a more extensive use of animatronics, since a lot of people tend to forget JP proved to master their use to great effect specifically in combination with the digital aspect, both of them completing the other in bringing that dinomite magic about rather than fixing it on their own accord. JW opted for a 95 percent digital FX rate and it was a little too clear at times, but not so much it took you out of the movie. It's still a major Hollywood blockbuster with a huge budget after all.

And it sure felt as one of those. In both a positive and a negative way. It didn't leave much room for narrative surprises, and the third act was largely an exercise in predictable storytelling, but it still handled it in such an epic way you could not help but roll with it despite your hesitations. There's a few instances in which the audience cheered and so did I, as if we were eight year old kids again (the increasingly strict Dutch rating system unfortunately won't allow kids of that age to experience the new Jurassic dawn, as JW has sadly been issued a '12' rating, despite not being more frightful than that first movie). Kids who had seen most of this stuff before in different guises though, but youthful exuberance abounded nonetheless. A contemporary blockbuster needs a star, and Chris Pratt is it for this film. Combining Alan Grant's common sense with Ian Malcolm's wit and wisecracking, the human hero of the piece certainly felt more heroic that any previous main human character in a JP movie. I don't mind for once, but I do hope the studio isn't gonna craft the next installments, unavoidable considering box office records are again being stamped on, around Pratt's persona and status, since few will deny the true stars are still the dinosaurs, as they should be.

Those stars sure got a chance to shine, as JW provided the most amount of dinosaur time of any of the movies yet. The number of species portrayed easily rivals that of its predecessors, even giving the occasional formerly neglected species (like Ankylosaurus) their due. The most attention as always is directed at the carnivores, with JW dividing most of their screen time between a trained foursome of vicious but communicable Velociraptors and a genetic hybrid named Indominus Rex. Both the notion of taming Raptors and of creating mix-up dinosaurs is handled by director Colin Trevorrow with enough narrative and real world sense not to distance the legions of JP fanatics, as it easily could have done. Ample time is cleared to discuss the ramifications of both with more depth than is usual for a blockbuster film, before diving deeply into the dino fighting. That said, there's two prehistoric characters that are not featured as strongly as we would have hoped for, one being the iconic T-Rex which is intentionally kept out of most of the loop before making a most welcome resurgence. The other is the heavily advertized aquatic Mosasaurus, which unfortunately is allotted only a few more seconds of screen time than already seen in the promotional material, and thus ending up an underwhelming animal we would liked to have seen a lot more of, but which we are sadly denied.

Executive producer Spielberg made the right choice hiring a fairly inexperienced director like Trevorrow for the Jurassic job. Trevorrow proves not only respective of the material and the franchise legacy, but he's clearly a JP fan himself. He shows it off in many scenes, both in composition of shots, score and sounds, but also in many references big and small to that most beloved movie from 22 years past. Potentially polarizing plot pitfalls are handled with the utmost care to make them plausible and relatable, thus adding his own signature to the thankfully enduring Jurassic Park legacy. Though there's still a few things to hold against the movie, both in terms of plot (one-dimensional human bad guy, vague corporate shenanigans) as in execution (too little animatronics, too much reliance on digital creations), Jurassic World succeeds in taking us back to when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and sparing no expense in guaranteeing they will continue to do so for another generation at least.

Today's Special: Top 10 Movie Dinosaurs

I don't write stuff like this very often, but this week I got inspired.

Top 10 Filmdino's

I guess you'll know what fired said inspiration. It's a Jurassic World this week and you're just living in it. Lucky little me got to see the movie in a press showing in advance and he liked it well enough. Nowhere near as magical or mindboggling as the original Jurassic Park, but I doubt anyone would have expected that. It was a fun dinosaur flick with sufficient original angles to make it worth this JP fan's while. Review up soon!

The day before I got to see JW I decided I needed to take a break from playing with JW Lego and write a piece on dinosaur movies. Again. But last time my historical overview (check the Archives here for details) was met with lackluster enthusiasm for not fitting the criteria properly. This time it does and with the dinosaur craze running rampant, it's as appropriate a time as it ever will be. Nevertheless, some overlap with the previous piece proved unavoidable. Consider them companion pieces.

So here's the 10 individual dinosaurs or dinosaur species I consider to have made the most inpact on cinemagoers since cinema's inception. It's a varied bunch, ranging from 1914 to the present, with most conceivable techniques of bringing the beasties to life included, from hand drawn animation to stop motion to guys in suits to expensive CGI. Only the live lizards with fins and horns glued to their bodies are absent (for obvious reasons). Some of these dinosaurs are scary as hell, vicious carnivores eating their way through prehistory. Others are mostly everyday animals driven by nature's instincts. Some of them are loveable, the sorts you'd want as pets. Others you'd never want to meet face to face, though paleontologists would gladly sacrifice a limb to see them in the flesh. The Number 1 pick is pretty obvious, and the why is again made apparent in Jurassic World. My predictions proved correct in terms of its role in that film. It's one of the movies' most memorable effects for a reason, not to mention the most popular dinosaur ever. And as this list illustrates, it and all other dinosaurs will forever captivate people's imaginations, proving that even extinction could be called relative.

The park is open...

Today's Column: Judgment Day approaches for the Jurassic Park fanboy

This month's column is up!

Dag des Oordeels voor de Jurassic Park fanaat

No real controversy this time, just a lot of nervous anticipation. The day me and many others have been waiting for for 14 years is close at hand. Should we be excited it has finally dawned, or will all of our hopes and dreams be shattered in two hours of Hollywood viciously demolising our cherished childhood memories? Looking at the trailers and everything they tell us about the story, it honestly can still go both ways. It may be the greatest movie experience in many years for the JP fans, or it may leave us with a major dinosaur sized hangover that will cause us headaches for years, as this is definitely not the end of something, but rather the beginning. The beginning of the Jurassic World franchise replacing the much beloved Jurassic Park franchise, or the continuation of the latter in the guise of the former? I dare not speculate. Where Jurassic is concerned, I'm currently a nervous wreck.

I want to immerse myself fully in the hype, believing it's gonna be the best thing ever, but past experiences with similar Hollywood hype have left a sour taste for the very term. No mindless swallowing and tirelessly rejoicing about every little bit of info released - in fact, aside from the trailers I try to avoid most additional promo footage - but keeping a watchful eye on the development of this soft reboot. It's not like the story offers so many major new directions compared to the original film. There's still a theme park of dinosaurs on a remote island and shit still happens despite humanity's typical overconfidence it won't. Enter new characters learning the same old lessons by being chased by new dinosaurs (and a few old ones). It's the way things are handled that makes for a different experience, for good or for bad. So soon we will know whether entrusting this giant blockbuster of a film to a fairly inexperienced director, who only ever made one movie prior to this (though at least it was pretty good), was a smart move. Soon we will learn whether the overwhelming sense of wonder and awe the first film instilled in so many of us is preserved in Jurassic World, or blatantly traded in for generic blockbuster action and dito oneliners. Soon the wait is over, and we will all know whether Jurassic Park still lives strongly in Jurassic World, or whether a highly derivative but feeble follow-up of the former is the promise for the next few years.

How will this end? Tune in next month for the answer!

And here's a little joke to keep things light.

Today's News: Jurassic's wonder posters

It was a good week for Jurassic imagery, but not so much for the production of Wonder Woman.

Nieuwe poster Jurassic World

Wederom nieuwe poster Jurassic World

That's what I'm talking about! Less logo (awesome and iconic though it may be) and more striking visuals to entice folks from visiting the new park. Two down, one more to go, and the second trailer just around the corner. Even though the creature is wholly incorrect from a scientific viewpoint, I cannot help but drool over the Mosasaurus one-sheet. The thought of a giant marine reptile - not a dinosaur, as the studio would like you to think - in a tank is such a simple concept, but it totally works. I feel as excited as the little boy on the poster beholding this critter. The shark, less so, I imagine. From what I hear from the script going round, these fish have to be cloned to serve as the Mosasaur's food, since they're on the endangered species list. A fun little side notion with little to no plot consequences, but also a delightful little inside look at the awkward logistics of a dinosaur theme park. The I-Rex poster serves as a decent reminder of the whole man versus nature dichotomy, basically the franchise's philosophical routine. I like the set-up, though if it was applied to hide the appearance of the Indominus Rex, it's a wasted effort, considering the merchandise and I-Rex action figures are already available in many stores around the globe. Of course, the general audience may not be aware of that fact (yet), but it's also not very courteous to misdirect them into thinking the I-Rex is as large as suggested on this poster, as it actually isn't judging from the trailers. But hey, it's a fantasy creature, so some artistic license are allowed, not to mention copyright is installed on the creature's name and likeness. So what's on the third poster? It's gotta be the T-Rex. I guess many fans will still feel it needs to reassert its dominance as the Tyrant Lizard King after JP III, even though that's a moniker bestowed on it by man rather than by nature. Obviously the T-Rex is gonna kill the I-Rex in some spectacular climactic battle, as it doesn't take kindly to people cloning rival superpredators. So it does deserve a poster of its own, and tomorrow we may find out whether JW's plot and promotional campaign are that predictable. But it's gonna be awesome regardless.

Regisseuse Wonder Woman stapt op

And then there's this less predictable story. Sucks too, as I considered Michelle MacLaren the finest choice to direct Wonder Woman, if a female director is obligatory. Someone who helped make The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones to be as great as these shows are would have been a damn fine asset to this picture. But of course, the studio had to screw it up by restricting her input over the story. The usual creative differences ensued, and the best choice departed the project. So who did they pick as her replacement? Patty Jenkins of all people. Ironic to say the least, considering she herself walked off the set of Thor: The Dark World a few years ago because of the same creative differences. Who's to say Jenkins will know any greater liberty directing for DC than she did for Marvel? Then again, she likely knew this when she signed up for WW, so maybe she has finally grown to accept the restrictions placed on the creative input of directors picked for these pieces of the larger superhero cinematic universe puzzles. Man or woman, when working for Marvel or DC, a director must know his or her place, subject to the whim of the studio. No room for emancipation here.

Today's News: Dinosaurs avenge Lego Huntsman

This week's load of news. Some bits felt a little repetitive.



Nieuwe poster Avengers: Age of Ultron

Nieuwe posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

Meer character posters Avengers: Age of Ultron

How many characters can you cram on a poster without it looking too crowded? Marvel put ten Avengers on one poster and added a bunch of homicidal robots too, and the result is a one-sheet that looks a little too busy for its own good. Just look how poorly the new characters are reflected, insultingly pushed into the corners. Heck, Hulk's arm muscles are printed in greater close-up than the much anticipated sibling mutants genetic test subjects. Good thing there's the nigh obligatory character posters available to remedy this injustice. So far, no character posters featuring those new characters have been published though. It likely will still happen, after all there's six more weeks before this film opens (eight in the USA even). So until we get to see the final posters for Vision, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, we have to make do with the old line-up of superheroes. Cool characters, but rather conservative and bland posters though. I doubt anybody is getting any more hyped up from these one-sheets than they already were thanks to the trailers. Maybe Downey Jr's upcoming 'big announcement' can get that hype to pick up more momentum perhaps. What could it be? Spider-Man references in this second Avengers flick? Or maybe something a little closer to home, like him stepping down as Iron Man, or that character getting killed off entirely? It's unlikely the last two scenarios would be announced before the film opens, that would be highly spoilerific. I guess we just have to be patient for both this impending news flash and those last few character posters then. Oh, the hype...!

Regisseur gevonden voor Lego Movie 2

I've probably seen a bunch of episodes of Community the new director for Lego Movie 2 helmed, though I can't recall them specifically. However, Community's quirky, whimsical humour is also to be found in the first Lego Movie, so on that note the guy seems well suited. No feature films on his resumé though, but that's not exactly uncommon in directing animation. Besides, he's directed Community's tribute to the classic G.I. Joe cartoon from the Eighties, which means he has both experience in animation and with adapting a toy line into an audiovisual feast. The Lego Movie 2 could have done worse for a director. But how about the Lego Batman spin-off, which is supposed to hit theaters first, but doesn't seem to be as deep in pre-production at this point? Anybody with experience directing toys, animation and superheroes in a humorous fashion? That's a much tougher call, so it's logical to see potential directors have to be screened more thoroughly for that one. How about one of the guys from one of the Toy Story films (Buzz Lightyear sure counts as a superhero in my book)? That would be striking little gold bricks for sure!

Chastain gecast in The Huntsman

Oh Jessica, why would you bother? Snow White and the Huntsman was a decent flick, but not the stuff of sequels. This separate Huntsman movie is just a cash grab that only features a character or two from the first movie and most of the team involved in its production has moved on to more original projects. So why would an Oscar-nominated A-list actress waste time and talent on this flick? The money is probably good. I doubt she'd do it because it'll prove such an acting challenge or because she wants to be closer to Chris Hemsworth's robust manly six-pack. Oh well, the audience only benefits from terrific actors, that means the film is secured of decent performances, even if all else may prove forgettable. So far three damn fine actresses signed on for this flick already, Chastain herself, Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt. So at least Hemsworth flexing his muscles and mumbling his way through the movie will have some actual talent to go up against. Otherwise, this movie, rife with development problems so far, simply doesn't get my hopes up.

Dinosauriërs Jurassic World onthuld

Look at me, spoiling this most anticipated movie of 2015 for myself in the name of duty... Oh well, I've already seen the toys so I know what the dinosaurs will look like. Besides, half the dinosaurs shown here won't make it into the final film, hence the paleoart covering their appearance, rather than the CG rendered models. Sucks that the hand drawn creatures look far more appealing and much more paleontologically accurate. They're putting their movie brothers to shame. Pronated hands, feathery bits and splendidly vibrant colours; quite the opposite of the bald, scientifically incorrect and blandly coloured animals we'll see in the movie. Far more exotic species too, but the audience wants to see T-Rex and Raptors, because that's usually all they know. Forget about the more intriguing, poetically named likes of Metriacanthosaurus or Microceratus, those names don't have the star power or the necessary 'sexy' quality to them needed to entice audiences. Or so the studio thinks. Velociraptor and Dilophosaurus weren't exactly house hold names before JP came around. At least we'll have some new species, like Dimorphodon and that genetically engineered bastard that's going to be the main baddiesaur. It's a Hollywood movie, so we shouldn't expect any realism. As further illustarted by the size chart that shows a huge Sauropod like Apatosaurus to be smaller than T-Rex. At least the kids will know better, they might educate their ignorant parents a bit on the subject. As for me, I refuse to let this bring down my enthusiasm for a new Jurassic film. I've had to wait too long for one and I need my dinosaur fix. It's not like there's such a thing as an accurate portrayal of a dinosaur anyway. We simply can't know.

Jurassic World: official trailer released!

And so it's here. The trailer arrived three days earlier than announced, but I can't say I mind.

I have reservations about this. I won't deny I'm quite excited, but there's also a bunch of story elements I knew would be involved that I'm worried about, since the trailer confirmed their presence.

Even though a lot of it is obviously digital (as is usual in trailers, since the movies they promote are still a work in progress, so I'm not gonna whine about that), I will say it looks pretty spectacular. There's a working park now, it has been in operation for a while, and everything seems to be running smoothly. The park looks state of the art and few people wouldn't want to visit something grandiose like this. There's monorails and gyrospheres and all types of futuristic gadgets, but at the same time iconic imagery like the Main Gate is present. That in itself recalls the folly of people making past mistakes all over again, considering the events of the previous JP films, which are not ignored since this is indeed a sequel of sorts, rather than a total reboot. Of course, cynics will say the set-ups offer little new narrative possibilities and they're not wrong, as in the end, it's still mostly about people running from hungry dinosaurs. Hollywood after all engages in the same type of recycling the JW scientists apparently do, but it's been that way for decades.

Of course, the primary new ingredient comes in the shape of a new dinosaur. An engineered dinosaur, that didn't ever exist before man went and created it. An actual theme park monster, called a Diabolus Rex (shitty name, I know). It's supposedly created to make for a more exciting attraction, as if ordinary dinosaurs aren't exciting enough. This troubles me somewhat, though it also sounds intriguing. On the one hand, the notion of the hubris of scientists to mess with nature's creations in order to spawn something that fits human desires is both straight out of the original book by Michael Crichton - where it goes even further in discussing the possibilities of cloning tiny and cute herbivores to make pets for people! - and right up Jurassic Park's alley of its main 'don't play God' philosophy. Hopefully the ethical debate involved in creating a tailor made dinosaur in a lab is seriously addressed, for it is indeed a fascinating and contemporary topic. However, it basically allows for dinosaurs to be turned into stereotypical 'movie monsters' even more than the Hollywood industry already emphasized them as. In comparison, both the first and second Jurassic Park movies had the decency to handle dinosaurs mostly as real animals. Dangerous and unpredictable animals of course, but still recognizable as not behaving all that differently from most present day animals.

On the other hand, the exact same notion is twisted the opposite way in this trailer's display of the Velociraptors, which are actually trained by the protagonist (Chris Pratt). These are not the highly intelligent vicious killers that assumed the spotlight in the previous movies as nearly psychopathic killers. Rather, they're simply predatory animals that can be tamed if raised by humans from birth, much as what happens to the likes of everyday dogs and cats, or even lions and tigers. Though on the one hand I applaud this concept of literally humanizing the otherwise lethal and too often demonized Raptors, I'm also quite hesitant about Pratt using them as his personal hit squad. Nevertheless, in this case a species of dinosaurs invariably portrayed as murderous monsters is shown as not being so black and white 'evil', but more relatable than we would have thought possible from the previous trilogy of films.

Then there's the Mosasaurus. It's staggeringly huge, probably for dramatic reasons, unless the final plot will reveal its size was genetically modified to make for a good sensational show, too. The gimmick of its eating Great White Sharks appears to be a typical 'because it looks cool' rationalization on the writers' part. I can live with that, even though I consider the idea of endangered species being served as food abhorrent and ridiculous. But who knows, maybe they have a lab on the island for the sole purpose of cloning Mosasaur snacks. Introducing a species of marine reptile largely feels like a gimmick. We've had the flying kind of prehistoric critter in the previous installment, now it's time for the aquatic type to make for diversity, is probably the studio's line of thinking. Fine, but please don't make it feel like a gimmick only. Add a bit of substance to it. And bother to explain where they found its DNA. Judging from its humongous size, I wouldn't be surprised if the plot makes good use of this beastie to defeat the rampaging D-Rex, as of course nothing else could kill this highly intelligent raving creation of science gone wrong. Doesn't matter, as long as it looks cool.

There's a lot of possibilities for the plot of Jurassic World to go south, from the looks of it. But if handled well, these same dubious plot elements could truly add to the franchise. On a more basic level, at least I like the look and feel, combining old and new, clearly revealing director Colin Trevorrow is a fan of the original. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm not as wowed by this first trailer as I hoped I would be. Jurassic World is still a place I would visit instantly if given the chance, and of course the same goes for the movie. Nevertheless, I cannot help but remain skeptical. But I never for a second thought this film would ever come close to the original Jurassic Park anyway, and I'm not gonna hold that against it.

I mean, which dino fanatic could turn down a beautiful vista like this?:

It's finally happening!! Jurassic World is coming...

Breaking news, as far as I'm concerned. I only had to wait 13 years for new JP footage after all...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158089/eerste_teaser_jurassic_world?cache=false

Normally I tend to look at teasers and trailers with a more dispassionate, objective viewpoint. In this case, I simply can't. I can only hope my faith in director Colin Trevorrow is not misplaced. He's still inexperienced, as this is his first Hollywood movie. But from the looks of things, he's a fan too. And this little teaser sure is for the fans. Thanks, Universal Pictures!

Now if only the toys look half as promising. The first Lego Jurassic World dinosaur sure looks sweet:

2015 is gonna be a year to remember...

Today's News: climbing back on top of myself

Gotta love Sundays, there's usually no or little news to report on. Today proves no different, which gives me an opportunity to catch up with myself at commenting on the news of the week. Still a bit more to be posted here, but the bottom of the barrel is in sight. For now.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157592/concept_art_star_wars_episode_vii_gelekt

Oh no, this beautiful art is getting me excited, too! And I so vowed not to get drawn into the hype, especially with J.J. 'Kill Trek' Abrams on board. But I must admit there's some gorgeous pieces of conceptual art here. Especially the artwork tying into the visual imagery of the old trilogy gets me where it's aimed at. The notion of a wrecked AT-AT Walker being refurbished into a makeshift shelter is simply splendid, as is the array of Imperial and rebel designs found among the imagery of new characters and locales. Can't say I'm too stoked over the design of the new villain, but I didn't think it would ever be possible to top Darth Vader anyway. It'll be fascinating to see just what makes the final cut and what doesn't. Even though this stuff was leaked to the studio's chagrin, I doubt they would order all of these scenes redesigned. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was an intentional leak, geared at getting up the hopes of sceptical fans (like myself), of which there are still many, but likely a few less now. In my case it's working, though I still refuse to get overexcited. Incidentally, don't ask me why my editor only posted a 'selection' (like, a third) of these concept art pictures on the site, while I actually took the time and effort to post links to all the available pics in my original message draft. Editor politics, I suppose.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157578/downey_jr_gecast_in_captain_america_3_civil_war

Another paycheck of a whopping 40 million bucks in Robert Downey Jr.'s pocket. For a role in another Avenger's movie no less. I doubt that would sit too well with Chris Evans. So no wonder Marvel is anxious to do Civil War on the big screen, it means they can start killing off some major characters and thus save money on the actors portraying them. The winds of change are set to replace the old regime with a wholly new bunch of characters, even though most of them have yet to be introduced (like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange) and thus still need to win our hearts. I'm not convinced Civil War is the best story to tackle at this point though. There seem to be a bit too few characters to mine to make it work as well as it did in the comics. Also, the necessary emotional scale simply doesn't seem present yet. These characters, nevermind their limited numbers, don't have enough history with each other to make the impact of an ideological inner conflict with deadly consequences feel as touching and as compelling as required. I think Marvel had better wait a while longer until their upcoming TV shows, which allow for ample opportunity to introduce novel characters who would take sides in this fight, are in full swing. Granted, in that scenario we would be looking at another four or five years down the road, and Marvel doesn't want to wait that long to bring this much beloved story to theaters because DC is bringing the heat down on them with their own long-term plans. I would certainly argue that when dealing with important narratives like these, set to have major ramifications for all other Marvel properties and characters for many years to come, patience is a virtue. Either way, Robert Downey Jr. is the real winner here. Seems he already turned out the great victor in the civil war going on within Marvel Studios.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157591/teaser_poster_jurassic_world

Ooh, it's all dark and brooding! Someone took a cue from the currently popular method of reigniting franchises. Glad they at least didn't tweak the familiar logo much. They just removed all colour and added a distinct layered feel, hinting at the 3D-release this movie is due. 'The park is open', the tagline ominously says. It'll be open for the tourists to gaze at the prehistoric critters, and soon they'll find it's open for the dinosaurs to eat the tourists en masse. That will be fun to watch, no doubt. This teaser poster adequately serves its purpose, but definitely doesn't get my blood pumping in joyous anticipation as its recent San Diego Comic-Con counterpart did. Too bad those go for like 500 bucks on eBay right now...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157604/nieuwe_teaser_hunger_games_mockingkay

A short little teaser to kill some time for the fans in waiting between the trailers and the final release, I'd say. Not much new information is relayed here, other than the fact the District 13 resistance uses Katniss as a propaganda tool as much as the Capitol did, and in that regard may not be much better company in terms of morality. It's such intriguing political machinations that make The Hunger Games more than just a simple starry-eyed young adult flick, though the obligatory love triangle with its wooden acting gives a good shot at bringing the quality level down a bit. At least there's the strong performances from the more seasoned veterans (Jeffrey Wright, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland et al.) among the cast to look forward to. Jennifer Lawrence sure has some great actors to bounce dialogue off with. Philip Seymour Hoffman could have done worse for his last role on film, even though he's sadly not such a major character.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157617/scarlett_johansson_wellicht_hoofdrol_in_ghost_in_the_shell

Any excuse to show Johansson on screen is worth the effort in my mind. I'm not at all into Manga, and I'm not afraid to admit I haven't seen a notable genre entry like Ghost in the Shell. I guess the Hollywood adaptation caters just to people like me then. Since the studio seems to finally start fast-tracking this project after a few years of it laying dormant, I doubt they're gonna get Scarlett, even for a 10 million dollar salary. After all, she's already done a few action heavy big FX movies recently, and her last one dealing with the symbiosis between (wo)man and machine, Lucy, didn't turn out so great (though it sure as heck did fine at the boxoffice,much more so than most would agree it deserved). Of course, an even better reason for her turning down the project is her current pregnancy, which is likely to keep her from active duty for a year or so. Would the studio be so anxious to get her for the part as to adhere to the necessity of waiting that long? I personally doubt that. I think it's very likely Johansson will pass on Ghost in the Shell and we'll hear of another actress being cast fairly soon. One in Johanssons class seems unlikely, as she really is in a class all her own.

Today's News: more and more

News just keeps piling up. At times it seems like I'm the only one posting any on MovieScene lately. Which is one of the reasons my blog is witnessing a decrease in updates. Oh well, at least all this news means there is always something to post on my blog when there is time available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156615/marvel_voegt_nog_vijf_films_toe_aan_huidige_planning

Seems overkill, to announce movies so far ahead without anything to go on but a title (at least, I hope Marvel has some to fill in those release dates, though they're not spilling those beans just yet), and of course, a plan. However, this is not so much about the movies, as it is a show of strength and confidence. Marvel flexes its muscles to let the world know they're totally prepared to accept DC's recent challenge in annual cinematic universe crafting. DC has so far revealed they're planning ahead up till 2019, now Marvel does the same. You didn't think it was a coincidence this latest planning of the House of Ideas ran until 2019, did you? Plus, DC so far sticks to one movie a year, while Marvel eagerly doubles that amount, and in case of 2017 even triples it. With this slate of release dates, Marvel is making a statement they mean to stay the biggest player in terms of superhero movies. And backed up by the ever expanding might of Disney, they can make good on it. However, unlike DC, Marvel hasn't named any properties yet that can fill those slots. They better put their money where their mouth is soon, because (most) people don't remember release dates, they remember names. Like The Batman in 2019. I wonder what marvel hero gets to go up against that one, DC's strongest franchise still. Ant-Man 2 maybe?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156632/nieuwe_comic-con_poster_jurassic_world

The first real Jurassic Park poster since 2001. And it's both beautiful and bad news. Of course, this is a great mix between the old - the thrashed Explorer vehicle, the beloved Velociraptor, the Isla Nublar setting - and the new - Jurassic World being built on the bones of the previous park in the background, but it also displays a disturbing, deeply rooted conservative attitude towards the JP dinosaurs. This is 2014. No respectable paleontologist will back that retro dinosaur as being an accurate representation of a Velociraptor. It worked in the early Nineties, but today's Raptors don't have arms like that and they are covered in feathers. However, Colin Trevorrow seems more adamant to recapture the glory of the first Jurassic Park film by reintroducing that vintage dinosaur look than by adhering to one of the elements that made JP great: making realistic animals of what otherwise would have been typical movie monsters. Say about Jurassic Park III's narrative quality what you will, at least it dared to show progression by adding feathered dinosaurs, and thus up-to-date science, to the mix. It would be a definite step back if Trevorrow chickened out on that just because audiences didn't think that much of JP III. Why? Because JP's representation of dinosaurs resonates strongly through popular culture. It's basically the dinosaur franchise that all others tend to copy. So if JP gets it wrong (and they admittedly have a few times), others will copy those mistakes and audiences are spoon fed the wrong notions about actual dinosaur looks and behavior. After two decades, Dilophosaurus is finally showing signs of ridding itself of that nonsensical neck frill and venom spitting action in the collective mind of the general audience. Does Trevorrow mean to reuse such silly concepts too, just because they look cool? If so, Jurassic World's dinosaurs are just that indeed: living theme park monsters, not actual animals. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions here though. I know that Raptor image on the poster is copied from a still of the kitchen scene from the first movie. It's probably too early to apply one of the final dinosaur designs for Jurassic World on any promotional material yet. So for now I'll keep my faith in Trevorrow. And I want one of those posters, but I'm not gonna get it as I don't care to visit San Diego just to pick one of these up.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156631/eerste_trailer_the_imitation_game

Benedict Cumberbatch adds another socially awkward genius to his repertoire. This time it's Alan Turing. And once again he excels in playing such a character, it would appear. This trailer makes me very interested about the actual movie. There's some terrific actors in there and a fascinating historical background to serve as a dramatic narrative. I'm not at all familiar with the director - the Norwegian Morten Tyldum - but this type of film seems to suit him. Or the studio's had some great trailer editors working on it, that's also a possibility. And already there is Oscar buzz generated around this film. Kinda obvious; solid actors, war story, gay emotional conflict, all typical Academy Award ingredients. I'm always put off by people dropping the word 'Oscar' around a movie that is still so far from its release date. It goes to show just what a political game the Oscars are. Then again, people suggested Oscar buzz for The Monuments Men well in advance too, but they haven't been doing that again since its release. Was it because it was a disappointing movie, or maybe because there was no homosexual aspect to any of it? Nevertheless, this trailer suggests a good film to me, so until I see it in theaters, that will suffice. But I'm not prematurely jumping on the Oscar bandwagon until the nominations are in. I am increasingly getting in on the Cumberbandwagon though. Ever since Sherlock, I developed a much more appreciative sentiment towards the man, and I'm even willing to forgive him his transgressions partaking in the further exploitation of the Star Trek franchise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156643/nieuwe_trailer_star_wars_rebels

Speaking of exploitation, Star Wars has experienced that ever since 1978. And since Disney has bought the franchise, exploitation has been turned up a few notches. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Disney scrapped the then running animated series The Clone Wars and is now replacing it by Star Wars Rebels, which is... another animated series from the same creators! And it's set only a few years after Clone Wars, allowing the series to reintroduce some of that show's characters (like Obi-Wan Kenobi, as this new trailer shows). Other than that, the sense of adventure in a war torn galaxy remains the same, though this series does go for a slightly younger target audience. However, both this show and its predecessor feature a young Force sensitive protagonist, while the style of animation hasn't changed a bit. It basically makes you wonder why Disney didn't just pick up with Clone Wars where it left off. It makes little difference to me. I didn't watch Clone Wars, I have little interest in Rebels either. I prefer to stick to the big screen, even though I'm dreading what J.J. Abrams is doing to the franchise.

Today's veritable cascade of news

 

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.

Today's News: daredevils and dinosaurs

Hot off MovieScene!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155944/netflix_vindt_zijn_daredevil

Despite the sudden change of guard in showrunners (see yesterday's news), the Marvel/Netflix show seems to be picking up speed. Most importantly, a principal actor has been cast to assume the mantle of the Man Without Fear, and it's Charlie Cox. Pretty good choice, even though some people might be annoyed they went with the safest route and opted for an Englishman to play a (fairly iconic) American comic book vigilante. If he can throw a convincing Irish accent, like he did on Boardwalk Empire to great effect, US slang ought not be an issue. He fits the bill in most other respects - apart from not being blind, obviously - as he's the right age, charming but able to switch to a darker, more distressing persona effortlessly. Okay, so he looks in no way like Matt Murdock as in the comics, but that's something easily remedied I reckon. I think a good casting choice was made for this show. Cox's general '(dare)devil may care' attitude would suit the show, which is still only as good as its writers. There's talent in that regard as well. For the moment, I have little doubts as to the quality of this upcoming Marvel television series.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155955/regisseur_onthult_details_jurassic_world

Douts I have aplenty about the plot of Jurassic World though. But not about its director. Most of the plot has been leaked online, and instead of firmly denying everything (which in Hollywood irrevocably ends up being an act of blatant lying), Colin Trevorrow takes his time to acknowledge unavoidable fan doubts and reassure them he respects the armies of dinosaur devotees eager for another Jurassic bite. Whether they want to hear about the plot contents he just gave away is their own affair. I for one am trying to steer clear off spoilers insofar as at all possible for someone moving in the circles I do. My duty as a movie news poster sometimes leave me little choice in the matter. Do I like what I hear about JW? Not all that much, to be quite honest. The notion of a park open for visitors, where dino shit again hits the fan in that finest of 'jaws and claws' tradition, is hardly the stuff of originality. Even though it would be nice to see the original island of Isla Nublar again (though you cannot help but wonder how anyone could be so stupid as to repeat such dreadful past mistakes: all of Ian Malcolm's ramblings seem to have fallen on deaf ears, alas!). Velociraptors I have found to be overrated in this franchise and the idea of training them to establish a 'relationship with humans' is too vague to make any impression: surely both species already have a relationship, as hunter and prey? They're not gonna train them as watchdogs or bioweapons or something silly like that, are they?

The concept I'm most uncertain about, as is the majority of the fanbase, is the 'genetically modified dinosaur', by which Trevorrow hints at a made up species rather than an existing one. Of course, this was hinted at in the books where the idea of dinosaurs suited to human needs was touched upon - like Sauropods reduced to dog size to make cute pets - thus further underscoring the notion of humanity playing God. Also, none of the dinosaurs so far were actually supposed to be accurate live reflections of the fossil record, as they were already 'theme park monsters', equipped with frog DNA to fill the gaps in their genetic code as well as those in the plot. In this case, the shady corporation pulling the strings has seemingly ordered a theropod that does justice to the popular conception of giant carnivorous dinosaurs as scary monsters rather than actual animals, allowing for the creation of a 'Diabolus Rex'. Sounds ludicrous, but in terms of the Jurassic Park ideology, not wholly without merit. On the one hand it's a logical next step in man's messing with nature, on the other I would much prefer up to date paleontological accuracy to be felt as well. Maybe we'll have both. Until such time as any of the dinosaur animatronics or digital effects shots have been revealed, don't blame me for being on the (electric) fence about this one. But my faith in Trevorrow remains.

Today's News: and lots of it

Posting news here naturally took a blow due to recent tragic events that intervened in the general routine of my everyday life. So here's a fair bit of belated news updates I posted on MS: hopefully we won't be seeing this sort of delay more often.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154889/gwendoline_christie_toegevoegd_aan_hunger_games_mockingjay

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154890/judy_greer_gecast_voor_jurassic_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154858/nieuwe_trailer_en_posters_expendables_3

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154859/eerste_trailer_luc_bessons_lucy

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154822/toby_kebbell_als_nieuwe_dr_doom

I only know Kebbell from his more comedic roles (which weren't particularly funny), so based on that I'd say he's not the right choice for an iconic villain like Dr. Doom. However, judging from his resumé he has played emotionally different types of characters too. For one thing, he will play the abused and scarred chimp Koba in the upcoming Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and I'm sure there will be no laughs in that capacity. An actor with a versatile background is a good thing, as there's more to Doom than just plain villainy for villainy's sake. I might say Kebbell is too young for the part, but so are the four leads picked to play the FF if you look at it that way. And since it's said this reboot will be based more off the Ultimate Fantastic Four comics - which among other things featured a Johnny Storm who was still in high school - a younger cast is a given, whether we like it or not. I will remain neutral in the usual fan bickering about whether or not Kebbell is the right choice or not. It's not like the previous incarnation of Doom in the 2005 and 2007 FF films was any good. Doom is simply a tough character to do justice, and a definitive take on this masked nemesis has still to be pulled off on the big screen. Kebbell's performance at least can't be much worse than what was seen before.

For those who know their movies, one single word should spring to mind after watching the trailer for Lucy: Limitless. The movie appears based around the same premise of drug induced mind expansion as that particular thriller flick, except this time it afflicts a woman's mind. The scale of expansion that follows suggests female minds are far more complex than males'. I didn't see Bradley Cooper stopping time or physically changing hair styles at will, let alone boggling Morgan Freeman's mind (but then, he wasn't in Limitless). With Luc Besson at the helm, fancier things could be expected where the brain's dormant power is concerned. Not to mention a great deal of explosive action, as is his forte. People who can't get enough of seeing Scar-Jo kicking mens' butts after The Avengers and Cap 2 are sure to get more of such girl power endeavours out of this revenge thriller posing as a Sci-Fi spectacle. Luckily for the bad guys in this film, Scarlett doesn't eat them, though they might lament the fact she might have had sex with them first, as is the case in her other upcoming science fiction thriller, Under the Skin. Better enjoy it while you can; considering her current pregnancy it'll be a while before we see her engage in such shenanigans again.

Folks we will see getting violently physical again soon (predictable segue if ever I wrote one down, I realize that) include Stallone and his crew of aging machos in their third Expandables outing. Bruce Willis has been traded in for quite a number of other (mostly overly muscled) actors, among them the likes of such noted veterans like Harrison Ford, Antonio Banderas and Mel Gibson. The female presence in this film appears minimal, with only one woman pictured among these sixteen (!) character posters. The trailer attached to this bit of news - an element I didn't include in my original post because it hadn't been released just yet when these posters hit the web - shows little of the story other than summing up the names on the posters some more, plus a fair amount of gun fights and explosions to get our anticipations geared up. After two of these films, it's getting as old as these movie stars themselves, but the plot synopsis sounds pretty intriguing for a change, apparently paving the way for a younger generation of Expendables that might carry on fighting the brutal fight in more sequels. Too bad those upstarts aren't nearly as iconic as super stars like Schwarzenegger or Stallone, or even Statham. You think names like Kellan Lutz or Victor Ortiz are gonna leave enough impression next to such screen legends to warrant a sequel of their own without them? Not gonna happen.

Judy Greer is off to Jurassic World, eh? The dinosaurs will have a laugh then. Greer is mostly known for her funny roles, and even in more serious ventures like The Village there was a certain comedic touch to her presence. It's interesting she's only now getting more noticed in Hollywood, despite having built up quite a lengthy resumé in the last fifteen years. Apparently she's on a Sci-Fi roll, not to mention a prehistory roll, doing two dinosaur movies in 2015. Word on what character she'll play is nonexistent as of yet. I do hope Trevorrow can see past her expertise as a comedian and recognize her other qualities as well, though I don't think he's the type of director/screen writer to apply base comic relief characters to his scenarios, if his debut, Safety Not Guaranteed, which carried quite a comedic overtone as well but was equally apt at its more dramatic moments, was any indication. The diversity in Jurassic World's cast remains growing, as Greer could be called a female counterpart to JW star Chris Pratt, with a similar background in comedy under her belt, but also doing the occasional less-funny-more-serious thing. Whether any other relations to Pratt in the case from her character's part will be present time will tell. And for those who don't like Greer (if any), who knows, maybe JW will finally break the unwritten but never broken rule that women can't get killed by dinosaurs.

A female character that is not likely to get either eaten by prehistoric critters or to receive time off to get witty and snappy for laughs, is Commander Lyme, the District 13 leader who leads the uprising against the vicious Capitol in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay (Parts 1 and 2). Lily Rabe, whose body of work I'm totally unfamiliar with but who looks like she can portray a tough cookie is now set to be replaced for the second and final installment in this tetralogy of movies by someone I know full well to be able to play such a butch woman: Gwendoline Christie. Katniss sure will find it immensely helpful to have Brienne of Tarth at her side fighting tyranny. There's a lot of strong women opposing the male dominated Capitol it seems. Julianne Moore had previously been cast as the president of the rebels accordingly. But Moore is more the political, manipulative sort who uses the mind to fight oppression, while Christie has demonstrated her physical prowess to basically beat the shit out of people she doesn't like, thus making a nice addition to this rebellion as a sort of older Katniss. Sucks for Rabe she won't be able to continue playing the role, but scheduling conflicts are an often heard tragedy in the business. Rabe's loss is Christie's gain, as her career, which was rather a short list of projects to her name thus far, will get another boost playing in a major franchise, but this time on the big screen. I guess TV was just too small a medium to fully appreciate or hold Brienne.