Today's Column: the boring months of fall

Opening the month as usual is a column of mine:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157377/column_de_cinefiel_in_herfstslaap

Unintendedly my column sparked some controversy on Twitter, I've been told (as I don't use Twitter myself). Apparently someone took umbrage against my statements that there aren't many good films released in arthouse theaters in the months of September and October. I do agree in hindsight that I came off a bit harsh in that regard, since there are a fair number of decent titles available for our viewing pleasure (and I did acknowledge the few gems among them by name, like Winter Sleep, though that is a matter of taste). Nevertheless, I do stand firm in my opinion (which of course is all a column ever really is) that though these titles are certainly good enough, they are far from memorable compared to the films generally released in the months of November up till February, when 'good enough' is replaced by 'great'. If the current titles truly are as strong as the distributors would have us believe, I'd say more people would bother to attend. The really good stuff is being kept until later this year, as it usually is.

Looking at this column now, I really feel I ought to have stuck to my ranting against the cowardly release strategy of the commerical distributors and studios only, since they're the ones that really fall short and cause these months to be so depressingly dull. Most of the titles released in your bigger theaters are simply meant to at least give us new titles, any titles, regularly, but arguably movies of good quality are few and far between. Thus audiences tend to visit a select number of titles en masse, while the rest receives lukewarm attendance at best. Currently, the only movies people bother to visit at my work are The Maze Runner and The Equalizer, while the rest of them is euphemistically lagging behind, drawing only barely adequate numbers of spectators at best, and at worst, none at all. October doesn't seem set to break that pattern from the looks of it; things won't get more exciting until November. So we'll be sitting on our elbows for a whole more month on the job (except for that darn fall school recess, when parents and kids flock to theaters in great numbers hoping to escape the cold and the rain, though decent family movies too are a rarity: however, kids don't care about that, since anything that moves and makes a lot of noise, for which they have to leave the house is exciting and worthwhile to them). Special discount events don't seem to persuade audiences to attend, as there's simply too few movies that spark their interest. That is why the National Film Days didn't do as well as the industry had hoped for: there just weren't enough movies to entice people to visit theaters at all, even at half price. And this is basically how it goes every year, a tedious situation I'm kinda fed up with, which is why I call for distributors to reconsider their shying away from decent releases in the fall, as they seem to have for the spring months which in recent years have become much more eventful since the blockbuster season is seemingly expanded, now starting as early as March rather than May. Seeing as to how well that works financially, I'm hoping studios and distributors will risk the gamble and keep some of their summer hits back for the fall. I'm sure that would sit well with people sitting at home bored wishing for good movies to be released, of which I reckon there are fair numbers available.

That was basically the discussion I had hoped to ignite, on Twitter or elsewhere. But since I made the generalizing mistake to throw arthouse and commercial releases in the mix together, that backfired on me, and I do regret it. I wonder what they're tweeting about my column. But not enough to sign up on Twitter.

Today's Double News: scorched by interview

Only two bits of news? Slow start of the week apparently.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157292/nieuwe_trailer_the_interview

So North-Korea is pissed off... at this? Only goes to show rude humour isn't that country's forte. You gotta put things into a relative perspective. Nobody is meant to take this seriously as anti-North Korean propaganda, it's too overtly rude and silly for that. It's not like the protagonists are the token Western good guys (far from it!), nor is the CIA portrayed in the most flattering light. Of course, the question is whether a similar approach taken to a movie about North Koreans plotting an assassination on President Obama would be equally funny (that is, if you think this trailer actually provides some successful jokes, which is all a matter of taste). How many North Korean movies make their way to the rest of the world for that matter? I wouldn't be surprised if there's plenty a movie with a similar theme in circulation in that part of the world already, we just don't hear anything about it. And I bet humour isn't their prime ingredient. Totalitarian states are by their very nature not particularly amusing. It would suit North Korea's own interests to stop making a fuss about this film, which only boosts attendance worldwide since everybody now wants to see for themselves what is ticking off Kim Jong-un so badly. I don't recall the Blessed Leader being so angry about another recent American movie which involves North Korea, the notable Red Dawn. In that much more seriously toned film, the American homeland is invaded in force by the stalinist state, which leaves a couple of heroic rebels (teenagers, for the most part, too) to wage guerilla war against the evil aggressor. Now that's what I call propaganda, but few people are even talking about that movie and most that do condemn it for its questionable political motives. The Interview, however, is just rude comedy. Of course, that doesn't mean 'anything goes' in the genre, but it does imply the audience should not take anything seriously, humourless dystopian agents with their own shady agenda included.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157313/vervolg_maze_runner_aangekondigd

Speaking of dystopias, those are always a blast in the pictures. The Maze Runner has shown not to be an exception in that regard, as it's doing quite well at the (North-American) boxoffice (it has yet to be released in most "foreign" territories). So the inevitable Hollywood conclusion is a sequel is warranted. And the word is we'll be getting one. Only one? Yes. Unlike with most contemporary sequel strategies, Fox is taking a somewhat more cautious approach to things by taking things one step at a time. I can only call that responsible planning. These days, studios tend to plan ahead several sequels and spino-offs over a decade before their predecessor has even properly hit theaters yet, and in many cases, that backfires on them financially (John Carter), or on us as an audience creatively (The Amazing Spider-Man 2). Still, studios don't seem to dare risk losing their momentum and so they inform audiences of their commitment to the franchise they hope to build by revealing too early what's in store. Same thing is currently happening with the suspiciously similarly themed Divergent, which already has three more movies lined up since it did well enough at the boxoffice (though certainly not as stellar as the superior equally suspiciously similarly themed The Hunger Games). Not so on The Maze Runner, which also has two books left to adapt, but there is as yet no word on filming the third (which I reckon their soon will be). So for now, only one sequel in progress. Release date: in less that a year's time. That soon?! Uh-oh, they better start running! Yes, that was a pun and a predictable one, but so is the fact movies dealing with teenagers stuck in a nasty dystopian future continue to sit well with their target audience of young adults. But that audience is growing up fast. Mark my words: that third movie will soon be up for an adaptation too, and it's undoubtedly split into two parts. Like I said, there is an momentum to consider and it may expire. And what's more, there's the potential of lots of money.

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.