"Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice" - 2016 - movie review

Just saw this film again and it's even better the second time around if that's possible. Pretty much a perfect comic book movie.

Original review starts below the line.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!

Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is the best superhero movie since Tim Burton's original "Batman". Zack Snyder has done himself proud and in the process redeemed the Caped Crusader after Christopher Nolan's ponderous and insipid Batman butcher jobs "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises".

Snyder instinctively understands something Nolan never did: that superhero's exist in an exaggerated version of our universe and that both the universe and the characters in it should reflect that. Nolan's silly embrace of "the real" had what's-his-name trying to act 'heavy' on the deserted streets of Chicago; streets that never looked like anything other than the deserted streets of Chicago. Here, Snyder puts some effort into world building and the results are magnificent.

Snyder thankfully deals with the perfunctory Batman origin story upfront. So upfront the montage serves as background to some of the opening credits before segueing seamlessly into the true opening scene which has Bruce Wayne arriving in Metropolis just as Superman and General Zod are going at it. It's a thrilling scene, beautifully crafted, and it sets the bar high for the rest of the film. Thankfully, the rest of the film delivers and then some.

There are no dead spots in BVS. At the end of its 2 1/2 hour runtime I could have happily sat through another half hour. Was it loud? Sure. But the sound design was appropriate to the action and never felt simply noisy. Was it dark? Oh yeah. Beautifully, poetically, apocalyptically dark like a Batman film should be. Did Ben Affleck ruin Batman? To my great surprise Affleck made Batman his own. Unlike some past wannabes his performance never felt forced or uncertain. He confidently shifted from womanizer on the make to vengeful son to determined champion of the human race.

On the other side of the BVS coin Henry Cavill has grown into his character and gives a far more nuanced performance than was suggested in the trailers. His Superman is a 20th century-style hero who is uncomfortable with the criticism powerful figures can attract in an almost democratic 21st century society. He thinks he should be left alone because he's not trying to undermine democracy, he simply understands that democracy has one major weakness: response times. As a result of being constantly hounded and second-guessed however he starts to lose interest in doing the right thing.

Between these two powerful figures we have Lex Luthor and Diana "Wonder Woman" Prince. The good news first; Gal Gadot is a revelation on par with Daisy Ridley. Her presence is such that she threatens to steal nearly every scene she's in. Her character seeps into the narrative over the course of the first two acts: occasionally parrying with Wayne and keeping up with events as they unfold. Slowly she begins to realize the time may be at hand when she'll need to shed nearly a century of voluntary retirement and get involved in human affairs again. When she finally ascends to the film's front ranks in the third act it seems both logical and necessary and she becomes a valuable asset to the film rather than a token distraction.

With that said I need to address the film's only weakness: Jesse Eisenberg. Mr Eisenberg has proven himself a capable actor over the years but he is in waaaay over his head here. Not sure what pictures he possesses of Zack Snyder that landed him this role but they must be doozies. A good villain is either physically menacing or radiates the sense that there's something lurking beneath their surface that would peel the paint on the walls if unleashed. Great villains possess both qualities. Eisenberg has neither. Thankfully his screen time is limited so he never becomes a significant drag on the film.

As for the story: I don't want to give away too much but basically Eisenberg's Luthor has decided to strengthen his own position by ridding the world of it's two super-powered crime fighters. In a nutshell; Superman will be given a powerful incentive to eliminate Batman, and then Lex will eliminate Superman with a weapon he fashioned from kryptonite he gleaned from the wreckage of one of the destroyed Kryptonian ships. The world will then be his oyster. It's a blissfully simple premise that manages to engage all the characters without losing the audience.

There are no huge head-scratching moments like in TDKR where you're left thinking "Why did they send the entire Gotham police department into the sewer at the same time?" or "How did bad guys that walked into the Gotham stock exchange wind up riding out on motorcycles?" Also, because the plot is straightforward there's no need for long expository monologues like the kind that weighed so heavily on TDKR. Things move forward crisply, logically and entertainingly. It's great.

Before I finish I want to go back one more time and touch on the look of this movie. Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is a beautiful film. It's not just beautiful however. Every image here is in the service of the story and not simply inserted because of its 'awesomeness'. In this sense - the harmony between dialogue and imagery - it reminds me of nothing less than James Cameron's "Aliens", perhaps the best example ever of a film that's greater than the sum of its parts. Because of this symbiotic relationship between words and pictures I could probably watch BVS with the sound off and still know exactly what's going on. And that is the true sign of quality motion picture making.

Kudos to Zack Snyder for finally delivering a Batman-related property that I want to see a second time. I can't give it a full 5 stars due to Jesse Eisenberg but if there were someone more appropriate playing Lex Luthor it would be 5 stars all the way.

Verdict: ★★★★☆

Star Wars: The Prediction Awakens

The Force Awakens is busy rewriting the US box office record books on pretty much a daily basis and will likely pass Avatar sometime in the next few days to become the new US box office champ (not adjusted for inflation of course). While that's all well and good I'm going to go on record here with my prediction that TFA will not unseat Avatar as all time worldwide box office champ. Sure, the film has yet to open in China but since it's performance in the rest of the world is currently mirroring that of the US it would need to do something like $1 billion in China alone to have a shot at Avatar's worldwide crown. And I don't see that happening.

So, for what it's worth - and because I have nothing better to do on New Year's Day - my prediction is that TFA will wind up comfortably besting Titanic but fall short of Avatar and become the new #2 movie of all time worldwide.

"It's true. Big blue people. Pandora. All of it. You won't beat them."

Top 5 Films That Should Have Been Left to Stand on Their Own

The following is my list of the top 5 21st century films that would have been better off standing on their own. In no particular order.

Transformers - The original was a fresh, exciting, funny and engaging "boy and his dog" film for the new century. Drunk with power Michael Bay then used the subsequent installments to prove he hates everyone not named Micheal Bay and in the process tarnished Executive Producer Steve Spielberg's previously sparkling reputation.



Batman Begins - This gritty, life-sized portrayal of Batman's origin was followed by two of the worst comic book movies ever made. The Dark Knight was a dreadfully dull affair set in a boring, empty city where the director gave Christian Bale free reign to indulge his pretensions. While TDKR confirmed once and for all what TDK powerfully suggested: that Nolan has no idea what to do with a big budget. (As if any more proof were needed see Inception and Interstellar)



The Matrix - Of course the original was released in 1999 but II and III were 21st century fiascos of epic proportions. Another case of big budget-itis this time with the Wachowskis instead of Nolan doing the deer-in-headlights imitation. Each film had the unmistakable air of being made up as it went along by people with very little imagination who were still trying to fathom how they could have got so lucky. Good question indeed.



The Bourne Identity - In spite of Matt Damon the first movie succeeded in demonstrating the untapped potential of the spy thriller. The sequels did little to build on that potential. All they really accomplished was to point out that the main character isn't smart enough to buy some sunglasses or wear a hat and that the 'actor' portraying him has the dramatic range of a turnip. Oh yeah, and how about that editing. Pretty radical.



The Hangover - The sequels were nasty, pointless affairs that rested firmly on the hope that celebrity would trump quality and put consumer butts in theater seats. To a degree that hope was validated.

Why "Breaking Bad" Sucks

While I'm aware that the subject of this post is not a movie, it has nonetheless obsessed many of my movie loving friends and stuck it's mangy head into many an otherwise interesting movie-related conversation, making it fair game. Also, spoilers ahead. You have been warned.

Yesterday I had the latest in a series of... let's call them "discussions" with another of my friends who thinks "Breaking Bad" was something pretty special. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, in this case his opinion, like the opinion of many other friends on this subject, couldn't be more wrong: Breaking Bad sucks.

When pressed to provide reasons why Breaking Bad was the greatest thing since sliced bread my buddy, like everyone else I've ever met who liked the show, couldn't get much past "Bryan Cranston is awesome." This tells me that what we had with Breaking Bad was a really popular show that people thought was great because it was really popular because people thought it was great because it was really popular... you get the picture. I was really hoping that when the final season made its way into the cultural dumpster so would any memory of this abomination, yet the thing persists; like pee stains on white pants, to taunt me.

But back to last night's conversation that spawned this diatribe.

That conversation was progressing with the usual "Bryan Cranston is awesome" silliness when my buddy crossed a line and, with a completely straight face, compared Breaking Bad to "The Sopranos". It was at that point I resolved to dedicate a post to the Kim Kardashian of "serious programming"; Breaking Bad.

So let's get something out of the way right off the bat: comparing "The Sopranos" to "Breaking Bad" is like comparing the Rolling Stones' "Sway" to the Rolling Stones' "She's So Cold". One is art, the other is a consumer product.

That said here are just some of the many, many reasons Breaking Bad sucks (numbered for your convenience).

1) Bryan Cranston can't act his way out of a paper bag. He has two expessions; mouth agape and squinty eyes.

2) His character's story arch is laughably bad. Sure guys go through crises when facing the void, but even the void wouldn't turn Mr Rogers into Attila the Hun. Mr Rogers might go get himself a Miata, but he's not changing from a wall flower into a guy who tells psycho cartel leaders where to stuff it.

3) They do the "Gee we lost all our money again" thing about 12 times too many. They go back to that well more than Peter Jackson dips into the dead/not dead well.

4) The wife is loathsome. The character is abysmally written. As inconsistent a characterization as I've ever seen. One season a yuppie new age air head, next season a hard-boiled prison wife, next season scared, so scared. So, so scared.

4) The brother in law in the DEA is stupid beyond words. Imagine if they made Carmela's brother head of the Jersey FBI organized crime division. Just lazy, stupid writing.

5) The trope that he's dying of cancer is the most naked attempt I've ever seen of a writer trying to tug at heart strings to try and justify a character's assholedness; and make no mistake, WW is an a-hole of historic proportions.

6) He's such an indescribable a-hole I kept hoping someone would kill him. I don't think I'm supposed to be hoping that.

7) The idea that WW could kill a cartel leader and still be walking a week later is stupid.

8) The notion you could use an RV as a meth lab is stupid.

9) The idea you could cook in houses waiting to be fumigated was funny for about 5 minutes. Then I realized how stupid it was.

10) ABQ is about as compelling as minute rice.

11) Aaron Paul is an even worse actor than Bryan Cranston, and that's saying something. It's no accident he hasn't been seen since the show ended. Also, his character may be the most meaningless and poorly written in a show packed with meaningless, poorly written characters.

We can't act.

12) Flash round
I knew the RV wouldn't start.
I knew the kid on the bike would kill the fat drug dealer.
I knew the kid on the motorcycle would get killed.
I knew WW's cancer would go into remission.
I knew it would come back.
I knew the brother in law would find out.
I knew the cartel guy was going to die at the pool party.
I knew the chicken guy was going to kill the cook guy in the lab.
I knew Skyler was going to walk into the pool.
I knew the girlfriend was going to stiff the kid in front of her dad.
I knew she was going to eventually OD.
I knew Jessie was coming back, every damn time he came back.
I knew the old guy who couldn't talk had a bomb in his wheelchair.
I knew Jessie would discover the secret of the cigarette.

Whew! But wait. I'm not done.

13) The comedic moments say more about the writer's ineptitude than their ability to know when to throttle back.

14) Jerry Seinfeld had Bryan Cranston pegged pretty well: a second rate character guy, good for a few minutes of light diversion here and there.

15) The entire series seems like a Lifetime tv take on what it must be like to be a meth dealer. Like Lifetime went into high schools looking for writing talent to bring their 'bold' idea to the small screen and harnessed the best 10th grade writers in ABQ.

16) And for the record; the brother-in-law as he exists in the show does not get the job as head of the ABQ office. Ever. He also doesn't change from being class clown to being large and in charge. People are what they are. Often within a range, sure. But they are what they are. Good writers understand this.

17) The disabled son serves no purpose other than as a ham-handed device intended to show us WW may be hurting innocent people. They could completely ditch the kid character and instead show some of the thousands of lives WW is laying waste in his quest to get his wife Starbucks money for life.

18) The meltdown of Jessie toward the end is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. Laughably bad from beginning to end. He just took the same high-school-drama-club-quality "I'm mad" look that he's had in every scene since the first show and ramped it up a few degrees until he looked like he was taking a shit in his pants while setting the house on fire.

I could go on but what would be the point. Good riddance BB. You sucked.

Chris

Ben Affleck as Batman? Really?

OPINION: At the risk of generating a flurry of correspondences whose main argument is what a "hater" I am I have just one thing to say about the announcement that Ben Affleck will be playing Batman opposite Henry Cavill's Superman: I hate this idea.

That's not to say I hate Mr Affleck. I've never met the guy and for all I know he's a champion human being. I also really liked "The Town" and congratulate Benjamin on developing into a top-notch director. However, Ben Affleck as Batman is one of the worst, if not the worst, casting decision since Sophia Coppola in "Godfather Part III". Affleck simply doesn't possess the complex, alternately charming/menacing persona the part requires. When he's trying to look tough he looks like he's trying to look tough and he never seems all the comfy around the ladies either; a big problem if you're trying to portray a billionaire playboy.

No Ben Affleck should continue to cultivate his directing career and DC et al should announce it was all a really early (or really late) April fool's joke and that they'll have an actual announcement next month or something. Then everyone can go back to looking forward to the upcoming Batman/Superman movie instead of erasing it from their 'must see' list for 2015.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Ridley Scott's choice to pen "Blade Runner" sequel is...

"You've got to be kidding..."

Michael Green? Really? You're going to entrust the sequel to one of the greatest motion pictures in history to the guy that wrote the incredibly underwhelming "Green Lantern"? Really? The story via thewrap states that nothing has been signed yet and I, for one, hope Scott has a change of heart before pen hits paper. All of the major problems with Scott's "Alien" prequel "Prometheus" were script related and one would hope that an intelligent guy like Ridley Scott would learn from his mistakes and do things right this time around. Wasn't it just last summer when original scribe Hampton Fancher was said to be in talks to rejoin Scott for "Blade Runner 2". What happened? How did we get from Fancher to Green? Is (gulp!) Damon Lindelof next?

I don't like where this is going one tiny bit.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" banner (I think)

While I appreciate that JJ Abrams has for the most part tossed the old Trek movie template in favor of a more up-tempo, irreverent, action-oriented take on things this latest banner leaves me scratching my head (and not because I've run out of Selsun Blue). Take a good look at the banner below and answer me this question: What's wrong with this picture?

While the new banner is full of heroic (as well as demonic) presence with all of those torqued bodies, furrowed brows and icy stares and the sense of 'realism' is reinforced by the desaturated color one thing I don't see anywhere is a visual reference to Starfleet. Nary a uniform, star ship or for that matter even a lowly insignia appear anywhere in the banner (The one possible exception is some very vague, structural-type massings in the background that could suggest the Enterprise. But you've really got to be looking for them.) Hell, even Spock's pointy ears are hidden in shadow. So few are the indications that this is a banner for a futuristic sci-fi film that if it didn't have the words "Star Trek" in it it could stand in quite nicely for a contemporary action film simply called "Into Darkness". While this is no doubt precisely what Abrams and Co intended it is nonetheless a wee bit jarring for this long-time Trek fan.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" hits IMAX screens May 15th.

"Django Unchained" yanked from Chinese cinemas

Just about everyone in Hollywood has been on their knees in front of China's unelected for a few years now chopping up their movies to appease the politburo and their henchmen in the Chinese censorship bureau. Most recently Quentin Tarantino agreed to alter his latest film in order to secure release in ol' Cathay. However FilmBiz Asia in now reporting that "Django Unchained" has been unceremoniously yanked from screens across the reich for what state oracles hilariously refer to as "technical reasons". Gee, you mean appeasing tyrants doesn't always work? I'm shocked.

Reminds me of a line from "The Empire Strike Back" - Darth: "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Roger Ebert dies

The world became a little less familiar today when it was announced that film critic Roger Ebert had died after years of health problems. The details of his death are not as important as the life he led, which was one he dedicated to the art form of moving pictures. He was a tireless champion of film, both gi-normous, summer tentpoles and tiny, independent features as well as an unabashed champion of the movie experience. As such he was a vocal opponent of things he felt turned the cinematic experience into a gimmick (like the recent rash of 3D blockbusters). The lucidity of his writing proved that intelligent discourse didn't have to be elitist and his humor and geniality shone through even when he didn't exactly love a movie.

As Steven Spielberg said today "His reviews went far deeper than simply thumbs up or thumbs down". He was a student of film history and didn't voice opinions he hadn't thought out. Partly because of this he was appreciated by many in the film industry who were always assured that the nation's best known critic would at least give their movie an honest chance.

“The death of Roger Ebert is an incalculable loss for movie culture and for film criticism." Martin Scorcese.

I don't know what I could add to that, except that I grew up watching, listening to and reading Roger Ebert. He was part of the fabric of the culture. As he now departs to join his former reviewing partner Gene Siskel in the big balcony in the sky that culture becomes ever-so-slightly less user friendly.

"An Unexpected Journey" to the toy store?

I come from a culture where a person is encouraged to voice their opinion, to share their fears and doubts lest those negative emotions act like acid upon the soul and lead one to dastardly deeds down the road. So I'm going to share my thoughts, doubts and fears about Peter Jackson's soon to be released "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" in the hope that by airing them I'll be able to walk into the theater on opening night with an unsullied outlook.

So what has me worried about Peter Jackson's upcoming "Hobbit" trilogy? Let's call it the "Return of the Jedi" factor. That film was humming along magnificently when suddenly, out of the redwood forests came the Ewoks. It's at that point that the original trilogy came to an end for me. To this day Return of the Jedi is the one film of the original trilogy that I can't watch because the Ewoks represent the point at which Lucas looked beyond the fans in the theater to the kids at the toy store. The effect was like being out on a date with a hot babe and having her suddenly lock gazes with some guy behind you. At least with the hot babe I can tell her I have to go to the toilet and then bolt, leaving her with the tab. No such recourse exists for the movie fan.

When the first stills were released from the set last year showing Jackson's take on the dwarves for The Hobbit I got an intense sinking feeling in my gut. "I've waited a decade for that?" Take a look at the image below where I've juxtaposed the dwarves from "The Fellowship of the Ring" with the dwarves from "The Hobbit". How did those wonderfully crusty curmudgeons of Fellowship with their layers of world-weariness morph into the lovable plush dolls of The Hobbit?

The dwarves of "Lord of the Rings" (top) and those of "The Hobbit" (bottom). Images copyright New Line Cinema.

Subsequent blog posts, trailers and TV clips have gone some way toward mollifying my concerns and settling my stomach but I can't help thinking that it's all an elaborate ruse, a multi-million dollar misdirection campaign, and that before I've finished my popcorn the bastard spawn of the Ewoks will have commandeered the movie, Smaug, uh I mean Jackson, will have added my coin to the pile he's sitting on and somebody behind me in the theater will be thinking "You know, I'll bet my 4 year old would love a plush dwarf doll for Christmas!" Nothing against 4 year olds mind you. What I'm talking about here is the sanctity of the film experience and whether or not Jackson will honor the unspoken pact between the theater goer and the film maker or will he become the trollop with the wandering eye ala Lucas? To be absolutely specific about things: was toy marketing the driving force behind the radical redesign of the dwarves for The Hobbit? Because if it was then Jackson has willingly chucked his integrity out the window.

Jackson could, I suppose, have built an escape clause into his Hobbit project's initial release. Just look at the title: "An Unexpected Journey". Jackson may be covering himself for the inevitable backlash. "Hey, the film's called 'An Unexpected Journey'. What's more unexpected than a three hour long ad for premium action figures?" It's possible and I'll tell you why.

About a decade ago Bob Dylan released one of the great albums of the last 20 years. Dylan called his album "Love and Theft". After its release it was revealed that some of the lyrics from Love and Theft bore a striking resemblance to passages from Japanese writer Junichi Saga's book "Confessions of a Yakuza". The Bard's response to the storm of criticism that followed was basically to direct people's attention to the title of the album and get on with his life. Is Jackson planning something similar? (In the case of Love and Theft the theft Dylan alludes to in the album's title didn't in any way compromise the quality of the finished musical product. I bring it up merely as an example of someone covering themselves in what, in hind sight, seems a perfectly obvious way but which at the time didn't necessarily seem obvious at all.)

One more thing. I'm well aware Tolkien's manuscript is essentially a young people's book. I get that. I've also read the book and know that it's complex enough to lend itself to a treatment that could and should satisfy both young and not so young people. Just because it's not full of sturm und drang doesn't mean it must therefore become a three hour get-out-the-customer drive for Toys-R-Us. While most major films these days have some form of marketing tie-in to outside products the important thing is whether or not those tie-ins constitute the major justification for making the film, as was the case with Lucas' uber-cynical Return of the Jedi. I can live with action figures appearing as a consequence of a great movie. Where I balk is when the movie exists primarily to move action figures. Which category The Hobbit will fall into is anybody's guess at this point.

The Weyland-Tyrell Corporation?

"Alien" and "Blade Runner" are two of the most influential movies of the past 50 years. They each sent shock waves through their respective genre's that are still being felt today. "Blade Runner" pretty much created the modern dystopian template; a world so divorced from being a 'society' that replicants are the only ones capable of emotional connection, while "Alien" opened up space to working stiffs and shifted our idea of what an alien life form might be from the basically human dweebs of "Star Trek" to giant, bipedal, blood-thirsty beetles with hi IQs.

As compelling as both of Ridley Scott's early masterpieces are no one, to my knowledge, has suggested a link between these worlds: until now. According to a heads-up article over at firstshowing there's a "supplementary pod" on the "Prometheus" Blu-Ray entitled "Merging Ridleyverses" where concept artist Ben Proctor is talking about conversations that went on during production of Prometheus including one where Scott reportedly says "Maybe the bodyguards, you know, that come out with Weyland, maybe one of them says Batty on his uniform." and another where Scott proffers this idea: "You know, I'm thinking what if it's the Weyland-Tyrell Corporation? Is that cool?" I suppose that depends on who you ask.

While neither of these ideas ever showed up in Prometheus the fact that Scott is including their mention on the Blu-Ray indicates that they're not just him idly kicking a conceptual can down the road. He must certainly have known what kind of cyberspace shit-storm he'd be setting off just by mentioning the idea publicly. And there's more. The article also includes the graphic below which a fan apparently captured from the UK Prometheus Steelbook Blu-Ray and is purported to be an email of sorts from Peter Weyland in which he discusses some very familiar characters.

So is Ridley Scott setting us up for a Weyland cameo in his upcoming "Blade Runner" sequel? Or could it be that the daughter Ripley lost to old age while she was floating through the core systems in the Nostromo escape pod was Deckard's love child? (I know, Scott himself has said Deckard was a replicant, which would imply he is unable to procreate. I'm just trying to make a point.)

That point is that, personally, I think it's a mashup too far. Some things are best left untouched, to be appreciated as stand-alone creations. There's no compelling reason to glum one masterpiece onto the legacy of another, no jaw-dropping narrative symmetry that's come to light that requires exploration. In fact there's no artistic reason to do it, only marketing reasons. A far reaching Ridleyverse could potentially be exploited by Scott Free Productions and 20th Century Fox for years to come by creating a more heady alternative to the Avengers universe. But is box office alone sufficient justification? It all seems so tacky. So AVP to me. Think a little harder Ridley. Come up with some new, original ideas and don't try and build bridges between masterpieces solely in the interest of free trade. Some things should be above crass, commercial considerations.

"Prometheus" trailers - some final thoughts

WARNING: The following is my opinion of how "Prometheus" will unfold as a story based on the just released trailers (standard and IMAX). Some may conclude that I'm revealing facts about the film, which I'm not. I have no way of knowing what's in the script. It's only my opinion. If you don't want to think about the story line and how the movie might unfold before you see it you may want to take a pass on reading further.

So what is to be taken from the 2 "Prometheus" trailers released over the weekend? Well first, it seems abundantly clear that the new film will have more than a trace of "Alien" DNA running through it. Everything from the space jockey to the fact that he's piloting the ship designed by H.R. Giger for the original film to the alien imagery on the walls to the alien "slime" that's shown between someone's fingers to the split second shot of what look like "alien" tendrils to the cries of "Get it off! Get it off!" speak to this film fitting snugly into the overall "Alien" lineage.

However it also seems clear that Ridley Scott has taken a lot of time and energy trying to develop other aspects of the story as well and what I think we'll see (and this is only my opinion) is that the "Alien" storyline is slow to develop within this film and is probably reserved for the second hour if not the last half hour or so. It seems like Scott is going to have a lot of story telling to do before we get to that point. He's got to set up all these new characters and then tell the tale of what brings them to LV426 (the "invitation" of the trailer), then get them there, then set up the events that will unfold in the climax. With that being the case (if that's the case), and because I would assume that he doesn't want the audience to tune out the first 60-90 minutes of the story/film that he's worked so hard on, he's naturally playing down the "Alien" aspect in his public pronouncements.

There's a short but telling snippet in the trailer where Noomi Rapace says "We were sooo wrong!" This is the kind of thing you put in a script once you've had the characters spend a great deal of time establishing one idea. This almost always occurs late in a story when things happen that reveal previously unknown elements which change or completely discredit an hypothesis. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that she's making that pronouncement after the alien aspect of things has been revealed which means it's going to be late in the movie before that dreaded species enters the picture.

So why are the trailers so heavy with Alien references? Probably because Scott's trying to make trailers that people will remember and that will put butts in the seats so he's mostly using footage from the final couple of reels where the alien appears and most of the action takes place. Which is understandable. However, I think that by making the trailers so action heavy and by linking them so clearly with the earlier film he runs the risk of creating unrealistic expectations in the audience and could wind up with a lot of disillusioned fans who went expecting chestbursters and got (mostly) something more cerebral.

I for one am going to try to enter the theater on June 8th with an open mind. I don't want to miss the majority of what looks like and amazing film because I'm sitting there thinking "Where the hell is the facehugger?!?!?!"

I could be entirely wrong. But that's my two cents.

Who is this? If I'm only waiting for chestbursters I might never know.

Beetlejuice sequel

A couple of personal thoughts on the momentum that's apparently building around the idea of a "Beetlejuice" sequel.

First, while Seth Grahame-Smith and David (son of Jeffrey) Katzenberg state that their proposed film would be a true sequel and not just a remake of Tim Burton's classic and that they'll only do it if Michael Keaton agrees to reprise his role as the used car salesman from hell, getting him to agree to it 23 years on would seem to be something of a challenge. Still, who knows? Maybe they'll make him an offer he can't refuse. And secondly, Burton himself would apparently not be helming the sequel which to me sounds like a good enough reason to give it a pass. What would the original have been without him? Nothing is the short answer. Burton and Beetlejuice were as much a part of each other as any director/film pairing in history. Putting someone else behind the camera to "extend" what was essentially a personal vision seems like a recipe for disaster, or at best, mediocrity. Guess we'll just have to stay tuned and see how it plays out.