When it comes to wondering who Warner Brother's will chose to direct their planned Justice League film, numerous names have already come up including last summer's big rumor that Ben Affleck (The Town, Argo) was asked to directed and star in the film, and the countless rumors of Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy) helming the project. Well while most of these names brought up have since been denied to have any involvement with the JL film, one director in particular is still definitely a major contender for the job, and that's none other than Man of Steel director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen). But now the latest issue of Empire Magazine seemingly confirms that if Man of Steel is a success for WB, Snyder will in fact be asked to direct the Justice League film.
According to the article from Empire:
"Warner Bros.’ long-term view has been revised to embrace this new vision, just
as the Dark Knight films resisted the commodification of Marvel.
Whether we get a Justice League, they say, depends on Man of Steel. If we do, they say,
Zack
Snyder will be asked to direct."
The news really doesn't come as much of a surprise as it sounds like WB is putting the fate of their Justice League movie and any plans of a shared universe on the shoulders of Snyder's Man of Steel. While I'm sure Christopher Nolan was their first go to guy for the job, he's really made it clear that he'll have no involvement with the film despite producing Man of Steel. Snyder seems to be the next best thing after Nolan, and there's definitely some things that Snyder can bring to the table that Nolan wouldn't be able to such as Snyder's signature action sequences and CGI effects that would be assets that the JL film can use a lot of if it wants to compete with The Avengers.
By now Snyder has probably more experience then any other director at adapting material from comic books as he's done with 300, Watchmen, and now Man of Steel. If Snyder's able to really prove that he has the strong understanding of the Superman character that it seems he does based on the recent trailer for the film, it'd make sense that WB would be much more comfortable with him adapting their other characters in the team-up film. It's also worth noting that Snyder has already done the whole superhero team-up film with Watchmen, and while so people had their complaints about the film I found it to be one of the strongest films ever in the superhero genre. Snyder's already proven that he can balance the presence of all these very different character and talented actors in Watchmen, so there's no reason he shouldn't have the same success if he directs JL.
Now along with the fact that Snyder will most likely be asked to direct if Man of Steel is a success, David S. Goyer who wrote the screenplay for Man of Steel is also being eyed to pen the script for JL. Goyer has a track record of comic book movies that's sort of a mixed bag as he's co-written TheDark Knight trilogy with the Nolan brothers, but he also wrote for Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance which wasn't exactly received well by audiences or critics. None the less it seems Goyer's doing a good job with the Superman character with Man of Steel, and reteaming him and Snyder could emulate the success MOS most likely will have.
So would you be happy if Zack Snyder was chosen to direct Justice League? Do you think David S. Goyer should write the script?
Twas many years ago (Around 2007) was when we first learned of Marvel's plan for launching their cinematic universe with the hit film Iron Man, and it's hard to believe we're now entering Phase 2. When Iron Man was first released it was the first of it's kind, a movie unlike any other produced before from Marvel. A movie that seemed to spark millions of fans around the globe, yet Marvel didn't stop there, they decided to add a little bit of a treat for fans by having veteran actor Samuel L. Jackson play the role of S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Nick Fury in a post credits scene. From then on we watched the countless number of Marvel films in order to watch them all lead up to Marvel's The Avengers, and now we soon await this year's Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, and many other successors, and eventually the conclusion to it all?
What is beginning to scare me as a fan is that the Marvel story telling aspect is becoming somewhat repetitive and predictable. Each hero in a sense has a damsel, every damsel is in danger at one point or another, an enemy with a whole lot of power that manages to lose even though they may have a whole army behind them, or their a power house themselves, and that one point in the movie where the hero seems to have "lost hope" or must overcome a "struggle" that pushes them to their limit. And while I haven't seen Iron Man 3 yet, judging from the clips and trailers we've seen so far, it seems IM3 is following this exact formula.
For example, that moment when Tony Stark has his reactor pulled from his chest, the moment when Dr. Bruce Banner had the Hulk "removed", when Thor couldn't lift the hammer, the list goes on and on. So why do the films looks so awesome and then when you look back they don't seem that exciting? Simply because of timeliness. In each Marvel movie we get that one event that makes us go "OH SNAP, ITS ABOUT TO GO DOWN!" or "THAT LOOKS FRICKIN' AWESOME!" yet in the film that moment lasts only 2-3 seconds and the thing that made you go wow, now makes you go"...That's it?"
I am indeed a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe but what else can it do to make me astonished other than the same old cinematic schemes. It is not as bad as the Michael Bay Transformer trilogy which ends up being a game of look for the big old alien technology to save the world gig over and over, yet it will eventually become played out. What if Marvel were to stop giving us quantity and give us a higher quality. What if the Universe were done more carefully in order to get almost a flawless type execution. There were parts of The Avengers everyone loved, and other parts that when you look back on simply don't make sense. One thing that really is starting to confuse people is the fact that Agent Coulson is not dead and will be returning for the upcoming Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show, which was the main reason The Avengers teamed up in the first place.
Where can the MCU take us from here? There are a limitless amount of possibilities, yet in my opinion when we get the MCU movies back to back we tend to loose some of the quality that can make these films remarkable and fine tuned in a sense. For example Iron Man 2, it wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't a film that was striking in the sense that it could fit well with the rest of the MCU films. The movies overall point was to introduce Black Widow and a new War Machine but other than that Iron Man 2 lacked any main purpose. Whiplash was not a truly threatening villain, just some guy who wants copyrights for his father's invention, and other than that drones going after Iron Man is all in a days work.
Marvel needs to give fans the SHOCKER. By the shocker I mean something that will make audience's jaws drop and leave them speechless. When rumors of Pepper Potts being killed off in Iron Man 3 arose, this gained many fans attention, but as time progressed we soon learn there is a possibility of her survival and its just another walk in the park. What if marvel were to give us the death of Captain America or Tony Stark? Marvel fans would be angry yet it would make for a good movie. Good movies either mess with our emotions, our childhood, our religion, or our perception of the world. By killing a main character they mess with our childhood and drive us to watch more MCU movies to see if that character will return or be replaced with an even more memorable and iconic character. On example is Bucky Barnes taking over for Steve Rogers as Captain America after his death in the comics, which is something we could see happen after Captain America: The Winter Soldier hits theaters.
To conclude, Marvel has a long way to go in terms of films and it will be interesting to see how they handle the whole post Avengers incident. Our review of Iron Man 3 willdetermine a future post on Marvel's first punch into the MCU's next phase. Let's see if Iron Man 3 surprises us with a very different approach then the other Marvel films.
So do you think Marvel should change or keep their formula for their films?
Recently we've bee hearing a lot about Marvel's Phase 2 movies, including the recent set photos and costume change for Captain America: The Winter Soldier, casting for James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy, and all the media attention anticipating the release of Iron Man 3. But one Marvel film that we haven't really heard much about apart from some casting and set photos last November is the sequel Thor: The Dark World. Now it would seems Marvel's increasing the anticipation for their next film this year by finally kicking the marketing for the film into gear, with the first teaser poster, trailer, and official still from the film all released.
Here's the first official trailer for Marvel's Thor: The Dark World:
The trailer gives us a much better feel of just what direction Marvel and Alan Taylor are going with for the sequel, and we get our first glimpse at the film's primary antagonist Malekith the Accursed played by Christopher Eccleston (Doctor Who). One major complaint that people had about the first Thor film was the fact that it primarily took place on Earth and not Asgard, but the trailer seems to show that Thor: TheDark World will be taking the opposite approach. But we still do get a few glimpses of Earth, and one that really stand is that of some sort of Asgardian space ship is destroying a university campus in London where Jane Foster most likely is located. So it would seem not even Earth is safe from Malekith, and Asgard isn't really his only target.
One major moment that the trailer gives us is that of Thor asking for the help Tom Hiddleston's Loki is one the primary villain in last year's Avengers film. I think we were all interested in seeing just what happen to Loki after the event of The Avengers and the trailer seems to show that he might have had a change of heart (Or most likely more plans of deceiving Thor) since we last saw him, and he'll definitely be heavily involved with the film's plot. The trailer also hints at the famous love triangle we've been hearing about between Jane, Thor, and Sif (Jamie Alexander). While we didn't really see much of it in the first film, it would seem that Jane's arrival in Asgard will definitely spark up a lot of controversy because of the fact she isn't a goddess the the conflict will probably occur among Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and the rest of Thor's family as well.
So just a recap, the trailer basically confirms that Jane will be heading to Asgard with Thor, Malekith won't just be bringing trouble to Asgard, we will be seeing a love triangle here, and Loki will be joining Thor and Jane on their journey (All though we don't know the specifics of it yet). There's still a lot that we have yet to so though, as we haven't really heard any words spoken or any action from Christopher Eccleston as Malekith, as well as not seeing to many familiar Asgardian faces such as the Warriors Three (And Chuck star Zachary Levi as the new Fandral) or the return of Heimdall (Idris Elba). We also haven't seen the films secondary villain Algrim the Strong played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lost) who is a dark elf presumably working alongside or for Malekith.
And here's the all new Thor: The Dark World teaser poster:
Click to enlarge
And here are two official screenshots that Marvel Studios has released from the film:
So what do you think of the Thor: The Dark World trailer? Are you excited for Marvel's next film?
The release of Iron Man 3 is nearly just two weeks away from us, and while it's really been getting most of the spotlight, who can forget the other two sequels Marvel has planned for us in the next two years. We haven't heard of much from Marvel's Captain America sequel Captain America: The Winter Soldier other than it's cast which includes the returning cast members Chris Evans, Sebastian Stan (Bucky/Winter Soldier), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), and Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), as well as new comers Anthony Mackie (Pain And Gain), Emily VanCamp (Revenge), Robert Redford (The Sting), and Frank Grillo (Warrior) among others. But today that changes as we have the first released still from the movie, along with the all new suit Cap will be wearing in the sequel along with Falcon and Winter Soldier's suits, and the first set photos of Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson from the film.
I'm going to star off with the all new concept art for Cap's suit in the sequel, which to many fan's surprise strays a way from the classic red white and blue striped uniform we've seen in the First Avenger and The Avengers. I am glad that they've brought his costume back to the more soldier type equipment rather from the First Avenger rather than the pajama looking one we saw in him sport in The Avengers.
The suits definitely much more reminiscent to a modern day version of his World War II suit, and fit well with more 'political thriller' description the film's been given. The costume as bares striking resemblance to the one Steve Roger's wore during the Secret Avengers storyline of the comics where he no longer dawned the mantle of Captain America but rather that of Commander Steve Rogers without his mask. While it seems much too soon for any Secret Avengers or Commander Steve Rogers storylines to be included in The Winter Soldier, it may be hitting at a future adaption of that incarnation of Steve Rogers in the MCU.
Now Marvel has also released some new concept art for Captain America: The Winter Soldier which includes our first look at Falcon (Played by Anthony Mackie), and the revived Bucky Barnes (Played by Sebastian Stan) now as the Winter Soldier. The Falcon costume is obviously going for a much more modern approach very similar to the Ultimate comics suit he wears, rather than his classic (And pretty corny) red and white suit from the original comics. As for Winter Soldier, he seems to be pretty much a direct adaption of his comic incarnation costume wise with the exception of the domino mask he usually wears now being replaced by a practically full face mask. The mask is very reminiscent of Harry Osborn's New Goblin mask in Spider-Man 3 which is a pretty odd direction to take it in, although maybe it's really meant to keep the identity of Winter Soldier realistically concealed from Steve. Take a look at the concept art below:
And lastly are the first set photos showing us Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Rominoff/Black Widow and Chris Evans suited up as Cap. So far from what we know of the movie it will be taking place in Washington DC and following the Winter Soldier comic storyline, and S.H.I.E.L.D. will be heavily involved in the the film hence the inclusion of Black Widow, Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Sam Wilson/Falcon, Sharon Carter, and the recent casting of Robert Redford as Agent Alexander Pierce. We also know that Winter Soldier will not be the only enemy Cap and company will be facing as Frank Grillo is set to play Crossbones in the film. But these recent set photos supports rumors that Black Widow will be the second main lead in the film, which makes sense due to her past as an agent for the Soviet Union and Winter Soldier himself. If this turns out to be true, it would seem Captain America: The Winter Soldier will be the only Marvel sequel closely related to The Avengers in comparison to Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World which seem to be more independent stories. Check out the set photos below:
So what do you think of the set photos and concept art from Captain America: The Winter Soldier? Are you happy with Cap's new suit?
Waddup. So I'm due to see Oblivion tonight, as where I live it has been out for 9 days, so I'm itching to see the latest Tom Cruise extravaganza. I personally have been waiting for this for several months, and is probably one of my highly anticipated movies of 2013. But there's a problem. In the 9 day hiatus since Oblivion premiered in my country there has been some, negativity. My friends claim the plot makes no sense, and the Rotten Tomatoes rating currently stands at 59%. Oh dear. It's something of a disappointment. I'm quite a large Tom Cruise fan, and even though he may be insane, I don't base my views on an actor by his personal beliefs, he's a very good actor who still makes good movies, case closed.
So here's what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna write part of this, and state my expectations, then I'll go see the film, return and complete my review. Sounds fair, right?
Oblivion has a bunch of key factors that really attract me. One, it was directed by Joseph Kosinski, whose only other movie is Tron: Legacy. Which no-one likes. Now this is why I like both Kosinki and Legacy. First, Joseph is a visual genius. For me, Legacy is the most visually stunning movie I have seen to date. It surpasses films like Avatar because for me, it just seemed unrealistic in their setting, ie an alien planet. In Legacy the setting is in a computer, so there's not the same problem of realism. Because it's not real, y'know? Anyway, one criticism was that the characters and plot like sucked. I'm sorry, but have you seen TRON? Have you seen it? The characters are less than one-dimensional, bar Jeff Bridges slightly a bit, and the plot is that these guys have to get from one side of the Grid to the other. THAT'S IT. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY. THEY JUST HAVE TO. The reason it's so amazing and a cult classic is that it's 90 minutes of amazing awesome computer made fighting fun. I seriously recommend this film. My point is, it's pretty much the exact same as the original, and I like that. It's fun, looks good and Jeff Bridges is in there twice. So I was expecting more super fun from Joseph's next film. Until I heard about...
The Cruiser himself. I like Tom Cruise. And his movies. For all the hate he gets, Collateral and Minority Report are among my favourite movies ever. He's also made a bunch of other really good action and science fiction films, like War of the Worlds (by the way, I don't consider that an adaptation of the book, nor a remake, more a different perspective of what's going on while the invasion happens. More like a sequel set at the same time) the Mission Impossible movies(the best of course being Ghost Protocol in my opinion) and Top Gun (which is a lot of fun). He's also made some really good dramas, like Rain Man. He's a confident, talented and enthusiastic actor who only stars in films he cares about. He may not put lots of effort into preparation like Daniel Day-Lewis, but at least he cares about what he's in. Unlike some similarly aging movie stars *cough, Bruce Willis*. If I ever made a movie I think it would be great to have Tom Cruise in it. Because you know he cares about it. Which is good. As an aspiring director, the worst thing for me in a film would be none of the actors caring about what's going on. That would suck.
So finally, the last thing. The premise. Earth is ravaged. Sweet. Tom Cruise has a laser machine gun and scouts the planet. Excellent. He can't remember before the war and events arise that lead him to think that there's something about him that he has to discover or something. Fantastic. Can't go wrong, right?
See, it can, I've come to realize. Because whilst I like Legacy because of the action, look, music and Jeff Bridges, I didn't really care about the plot. Nor did it matter. We wanted to see what we saw in TRON. However Oblivion seems to be very dependent on plot, meaning that if it's fluffed up, there's more disastrous consequences than that which happened when the plot in Legacy was fluffed up. You with me? Basically, a bad plot is less important in a movie that doesn't centralize around the plot.
And FYI, I don't really care if Morgan Freeman is in this movie, I mean I think he's a great actor and I know he'll do a great job, but it wasn't a contributing factor to my interest in this movie. Sorry Morgan.
OK guys, I'm heading off to see Oblivion, catch you soon.
So I saw Oblivion. Now let me start by saying that when I first heard about Oblivion, my excitement was similar to that mentioned above. Unfortunately in the last few weeks after reading reviews and hearing about it from my friends, all I got was a 'Meh.' As in, it's ok, I guess. My hopes were, if not shattered, beaten up a bit. So as I entered the cinema and took my seat I feared, not the worse, but mediocrity. And dammit was I wrong.
I loved it. It was fun, exciting, well-acted, entertaining and it looked SO GOOD. I mean, you know how I said I didn't like landscape CGI because it doesn't look realistic because at the end of the day, you cannot recreate nature on a computer. Well, Oblivion did so much better. The barren landscapes seem to have a sort of majestic and lush feel to them that the bright garish scenes of Avatar did not. Now don't get me wrong, Avatar was a modern technical breakthrough that we haven't seen since The Wizard of Oz, I just felt more engaged in Oblivion with the scenery.
The cinematography is fantastic, it really captures the emotions being played on screen. I also recommend checking out a bunch of the behind the scenes videos, as they show you the extent of the physical props they used, it's really great.
Then there's Tom. Old Tommy. Thomas the Cruiser himself. I liked Tom Cruise a lot in this movie, you could tell he was having a lot of fun. I don't think that Olga Kurylenko's character was as important or developed as it should have been, and was actually overshadowed by Andrea Riseborough's character, the controller of the majestic tower where she and Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) lived and worked. For me, she was probably the most interesting, for both her attitude to their mission and situation and her relationship with Jack and then with Olga's character.
To be honest, I liked Morgan Freeman's character. He wasn't as integral to the plot as other characters were, meaning his presence on the poster was strictly marketing, hell, he doesn't turn up for like the first hour. However he acted well and I liked the character so no harm done.
The music also excels, although never really reaches the high standards Daft Punk's Legacy soundtrack did. Towards the end the soundtrack really picks up, Fearful Odds is worth a listen, as is the credits song, Oblivion. At parts it sounds too similar to Inception, which is a real shame. And while we're on the topic of originality...
For an original science-fiction movie, Oblivion borrows and takes plot points and aspects from a wide range of movies, from Total Recall to Wall-E.This never really is a problem in my mind, and some of these are just aspects that are common place in many films. Not only that, the plot was actually written in 2005, so that kinda nullifies claims of ripping of 09's Moon. Some parts are a bit distracting though, a few times I felt "Oh that's a bit like..." which kinda took me out of the viewing experience. Other than that, I had no real problem with it.
WARNING, I'm not going to say any spoilers, but I will hint at their existence, if you want nothing about the plot hinted at, just scroll down to where you see the dash line.
The plot is easy enough to follow, with some parts more heavily explained than others, usually the parts that needed to be explained more were left to be assumed. There's a few plot twists, the first you can see coming, like from the trailer. But then there's the other one.
I'm gonna describe what it was like. Imagine you're watching a magic show, and it looks good and enjoyable and you're having a good time. But then the magician reaches into his hat, pulls out a giant fish and slaps you across the face with it. That was the effect of the plot-twist. And actually, I liked it. It could be argued to be clever, but if it's not it's certainly not out of place. It's believable and in due time they explain it. So everything's fine. However not all people will like it, that's a fact. You'll just have to see for yourself.
And yes there's plot holes. Quite a few, come to think of it. I'm sure most can be explained to an extent, but it would take too much time for something that shouldn't have to be explained at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oblivion is undeniably a fun movie. It's definitely watchable, and can be thoroughly enjoyed. It harks back to Star Wars, which was a movie made for fun really only. Because while Joseph Kosinski may not be able to do plots, he definitely can make you have a hell of a time. And so Oblivion may not have the most coherent plot or character development or dialogue, it certainly is an astounding piece of cinema technically, and a very enjoyable one. To summarize, I'm going to take a quote from the film, but amend it slightly,
Speculation has arisen in the case that Jamie Foxx had no resemblance to the traditional green and yellow, old fashioned Electro who often is seen trying to electrocute our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, but after recent photos from the set of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 we can now see the intention was never to go for the original Electro design but rather the Ultimate Spider-Man concept. In this form he is completely blue skinned made of almost complete electricity. As seen in the photo, not only is Jamie Foxx's skin painted blue but he is also accompanied by some sort of LED lights within his hood. See more set photos of Foxx as Electro aka Maxwell Dillon below.
In my opinion there's a pro and con to the new look for Electro in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. In a way you can say he does resemble Mr. Freeze played notoriously by Arnold Schwartznegger in Batman and Robin, or that he also resembles an oversized Smurf reject. Yet on the other hand with advancement in CGI and the fact that his character does control electricity, there's a possibility that his character can live up to what comic book fans hope to see in action.
Jamie Foxx has reached even more stardom now after his career performance in the movie Django Unchained, it'll be interesting to see what he brings to the film. Rumor has it that he will not be the only villain within the film; being accompanied by the villains Rhino (Played by Paul Giamatti) and possibly Venom, as well as a newly introduced Norman Osborn (The future Green Goblin) played by Chris Cooper. The inclusion of all these villains along with Electro could mean one of two things, either it will be diminishing his role with constant use of one liners, or a new tone for the The Amazing Spider-Man series that will give it the boost it needs to be a darker and more realistic Spider-Man trilogy. One of the best performances given in a Spider-Man movie to date is by Alfred Molina as Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2. What really would be interesting is to see Andrew Garfield and Jamie Foxx's chemistry on screen and how the fight scenes will be correlated between Spidey and Electro due to the fact that with his full powers Electro would simply fry Spider-Man like a bug zapper.
So the question is can Jamie Foxx deliver a performance that will serve as an asset to The Amazing Spider-Man series, or will his performance simply leave us shocked (You see what I did there) and not in a good way. Here are the rest of the set photos of Foxx as Electro on The Amazing Spider-Man 2 set:
What are your thoughts on the new Electro costume? Is it good, bad, or would you have to see screen test to judge it? Leave your thoughts below.
