I like this trailer a lot. What I like about the Roger Moore Bond movies was their sense of scale. Sure, many of them are sort of silly, but the villains tended to be larger-than-life, as were their schemes.
Specter seems to harken back to those movies (or the trailer does, at any rate).
The Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan Bond movies also tried to meld the esthetic of Moore’s movies with a somewhat more grounded approach (Dalton’s Bond, with perhaps the exception of The Living Daylights, never quite seemed to gel, while Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough were probably the strongest from Brosnan, and Die Another Day the silliest–and the most Moore-like), an esthetic that has grown into its own with Daniel Craig’s interpretation.
Jason Zada’s The Forest revolves around Aokigahara, a 14-mile forest that sits in the shadow of Mount Fuji. It’s also known as the Suicide Forest because hundreds of people have killed themselves there over a twenty-five year period.
As if that weren’t horrifying enough, according to Japanese mythology the forest is demon-plagued.
Heck, the movie almost writes itself, which is why I was dismayed to read a review from FilmBook, which pretty much says that the movie shat the bed, replacing any sort of tension and horror with jump scares.
It amazes me–if the review is accurate–how filmmakers can take events, places and things that are actually horrific, and somehow make them less so. The review reminds me of Ouija, a not-very-good movie that somehow managed to make a terrifying object–just looking at ouija boards gives me the willies–boring (luckily the sequel is being directed by Mike Flanagan, who knows a thing or two about horror, having directed Oculus).
And that’s not that an easy thing to do.
If you’ve haven’t been living in a cave–or were in a place with more to offer than what’s coming on television–you probably noticed that The X-Files was coming back in the form of a six-episode series.
And I think that that’s a good thing. The cast looks pretty much the same–Gillian Anderson is aging really, really well–though what I am more interested in is that the series had typically been ahead of the curve in terms of its perspective on the very real growth of the surveillance state, combined with an interesting take on various paranoid-mined musings, urban myths and folk tales.
If the trailer is any indicator, it feels like they’re playing catch-up (and while I am admittedly curious, didn’t Cancer Man die via missile toward the end of the show’s television run?) this time around, though they’ve been off the air for awhile.
Part of what led to the downfall of original series–if you call a nine-year run a ‘downfall’– for me was its convoluted mythology, which after a point seemed to make scarcely any sense at all. It’s an error that I hope the limited series doesn’t make–they don’t have the time to–and decides. while the truth may be out there, some things are better left unsaid.
The latest teaser trailer for Marvel’s Jessica Jones is perhaps one of the best trailers I have seen–for anything–in a long while.
And while some might think that that’s hyperbole, take a look at it, and you’ll see what i mean. So much information about Jones is given in a very short span of time, which is impressive. You can tell that she lives in a small apartment, she’s flirting with alcoholism, is a bit of slob, has a problem with rules (no one sets their alarm at 9AM when there’s no pressing need to do so) has superpowers, and parties pretty hard.
All of that just from a camera panning across her room for a few seconds.
I have seen whole television series that have had less character development.
Why? Why? Why? I don’t even think Angry Birds the video game is particularly engaging, but they’ve somehow managed to stretch it into a movie?
The animation is pretty good, as far as I can tell–check out the closeup of the feathers on the red bird’s fist–but in service of what?
I just don’t understand.
I think that the next movie that i am going to catch is Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials. What’s most interesting about that is that I really disliked The Maze Runner. The story was needlessly elaborate, and often laugh out loud silly. And that’s not hyperbole. What unfolded on screen was so preposterous at times that I literally couldn’t restrain from voicing my disdain.
And that’s unusual for me because I typically can find something that engages me about most movies, even those that I don’t particularly like, though The Maze Runner, while it didn’t drive me to anger, did frustrate me.
So why do I want to see the sequel? It might have a little to do with me being curious if the sequel somehow redeems what came before.
And speaking of The Maze Runner, was there any point to Kay Scodelario’s character? She may be important to the books (I have no idea since I haven’t read them) though she didn’t serve any real purpose in the movie that I could see. She’s nice to look at, but while the males had something to do, she just ran around a bit and seemed entirely superfluous. I could see why the producers would want to introduce a female character, but it would have been nice if she were a little more than a warm body. Besides, Scodelario was pretty good in Skins, so I get the feeling that the cypher that was her character had less to do with her as an actress than with the writers not knowing how to handle the character.
Or maybe i’ll just catch Ant-Man again.
The teaser trailer to Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book has recently dropped, and visually it reminds me of Ang Lee’s Life of Pi (which isn’t a bad thing, especially considering that it was remarkably successful despite the having actors unknown to most Americans–and probably a large percentage of international audiences as well–with perhaps the exception of Gérald Depardieu and if you push it, Rafe Spall and Irrfan Khan).
I wouldn’t be particularly enthused about this movie, if it weren’t for Favreau’s Zathura and Chef, both of which show that he has a way of bringing out the best in child actors.