Dear mother of god…it has been nearly two years since I last posted anything. I’ve missed a crap ton of good trailers. I mean, there were, like, two Disney movies since I last posted…and Tangled had SUCH an amazing teaser trailer. I mean, still, whenever I hear “Trouble” by Pink, I can’t help but think of that awesome trailer!
Too bad you missed it.
And what about The A-Team, or Kick Ass, or Suckerpunch?! You missed so much because of me. I guess that’s what you that’s what you get for depending on me for your one source of trailer info.
All I can say is sorry for the long delay and it’s better I come back later rather than never, right? What? Okay, you’re just bitter. Why don’t I come back and talk to you when you are more reasonable?
[imdb 9]The setting for this movie is fantastic. Aside from the fact that it is “after our world,” there is very little that would be familiar for the audience. The characters in it look like a cross between Fraggles and the creature from Little Big World. Therefore, I think the technique of making this trailer into a music video, of sorts, was a very good approach. Instead of laying out the plot for us, like so many other trailers do, “9’s” trailer SHOWS instead of TELLS.
People are not only visual creatures, but they are also aural creatures. We like pairing images and pictures together. I tend to remember a series of images much better if there is a musical piece to go along with it. That is why montages work so well. The music chosen for “9’s” trailer fits the images very well. There is a heavy metal aspect that lends itself to an age of industrial destruction, but towards the end of the trailer, there is the light, whimsical bit of music, which is very reminiscent of renaissance minstrels, which captures the fantasy aspect of the film.
By making this trailer a music video, it definitely appeals to the hip audience. It shows the viewer that this isn’t a kiddie movie, despite being animation. This movie is going to rock your socks. Who’s to say that the trailer author is telling the truth, but from a marketing standpoint, that really doesn’t matter. The trailer shows that this film is going to be pumped full of action and fantasy, and I’m all for that.
[imdb Up]Why does Pixar feel it needs to inundate its trailers with the logos from its past films? Jr. the Lamp is recognizable enough, we don’t need a list of Pixar’s credentials. I’m such a child, as soon as I spy Jr., I wet my pants in excitement. “What new savory delight does Pixar have in store?” I do not need to be reminded of the company’s past hits. Up, I firmly believe, can stand on its own merit, or trailer, as the case may be.
That being said, Up’s trailer does a great job of setting the story. I’ve always found these sorts of adventure stories, where the characters are lost, especially in a balloon, a tad dull. I guess I was more the swashbuckling type, rather than the explorer type. However, in just two minutes, the trailer author manages to perfectly introduce us to these three unique characters. I am always more interested in the story if the characters are awesome. You could have a movie set in a barcode factory, where the characters draw lines all day, but if those characters are well fleshed out, I’ll sit through the whole film.
This trailer also nicely highlights the humor. All of the little bits takes (“No,” and slamming the door; “Squirrel;” little boy dragged across the bad guy’s window) were neatly timed. Those little takes, like when the GPS goes out the window, are more reminiscent of Looney Toons than early Disney. There are some heavy vaudeville influences in the humor in the film. I sense there will be some nice, unexpected laugh out loud moments in store.
Tornado Ari, here, with a tidbit of news. With the help of Hurricane Dan, my trusted and loyal webmaster, I have Figured out how to embed Hulu trailers into my posts, as opposed to YouTube. Yay!
Why for, you ask? Well, if you skim my page, you’ll notice how absolutely freakin’ awesome the Hulu videos look! I mean, wowzas! Can you say slick? As well as the fact that Hulu is a condoned, sponsored site that helps get rid of the grey area the YouTube trailers wallow in. The major film companies are all for Hulu (depite the fact that they are confessed aliens…), and these videos will be up much longer, and will not be in violation of terms of use.
So, anyway, please enjoy the vid upgrade…I know I will. I’m in the process now of re-posting the older posts’ videos, so if you’ve missed any posts, feel free to check them out now, whether you’ve seen the films now, or not.
Also, don’t be afraid to comment. I love comments!
[imdb Haunting in connecticut]Haunting in Connecticut was well done. It was chilling, thrilling, it had a good story and well-developed characters. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film, despite having already seen some of the scary parts in the trailer.
I think the trailer was put together in such a way that the emotions made more of an impact on the viewer than the images. When I would discuss The Unborn with my friends, before I had seen the film, everyone knew of the trailer from the creepy old man crab walking down the hall, the evil little boy in the film projection, and the scary dog/demon creature wearing a ghoulish mask.
With Haunting in Connecticut, the trailer gives you much more of a sense of plot. I did recall the weird picture of the boy with ectoplasm foaming out of his mouth, but it was such a strange image that my brain could not focus on it, because I had nothing familiar to connect it to. It wasn’t till I saw the whole film that I even knew the weird bubbly mass was ectoplasm. I was more creeped out over the kid from Veronica Mars than the icky film clips.
Thus, when I watched Haunting in Connecticut in its entirety, the startling moments truly startled me, because I remembered the trailer as a whole as creepy, instead of remembering specific scenes. Despite being bombarded with scary clips, I was still pleasantly surprised. I guess there is something to be said for overloading the senses.
[imdb 17 Again]17 Again was very cute. The trailer portrayed it very well: a light-hearted, magical romp where everyone finds their true place in life. Yes, it’s an old story, but the film does a good job of taking a tired fairy tale and giving it a new spin. There weren’t any especially riotously funny parts, but it gave my friend and me a good time.
I think the trailer did a nice job of succinctly setting up the main plot of the film without giving us a play-by-play. There were a few details in the set-up that were rightly left out of the preview, and made for some nice dramatic tension. This strategy is in direct opposition to, say, Funny People’s trailer, where the audience already knows the ins and outs of the conflict without even watching the film.
On the whole, though, the trailer for 17 Again leaves very few surprises for the viewer. You can pretty much guess how to film is going to flow. Just from watching the trailer, my fiance took note of the scene where Effron has his arm around his “daughter” Michelle Trachtenberg. Dan predicted that there was going to be a little confusion on the daughter’s part, what with the sexy, talented new kid paying her a bunch of unwarranted attention. Who can blame the poor girl? Just goes to show you that magical time-travel can lead into some sticky situations (see Back to the Future).
[imdb tt1198138]Watching the trailer for Beyonce Knowles’ new film, Obsessed, is about par with snorting smarties. The film doesn’t look like anything worth seeing in the first place, so a hit off the trailer is just as worthwhile as going to see the movie itself. Especially since the preview shows the entirety of the plot, going so far as to show the ultimate reduction of the two female leads dissolving into an utter hair-pulling, claws-bared, teeth snapping girl fight. The only things the trailer doesn’t show are the paddling pool filled with chocolate pudding and Idris Elba sitting on the couch, shoveling popcorn into his mouth.
While I have now seen this trailer more than dozen times, I must say that I was tired of it halfway through the first viewing. The Fatal Attraction element of the film is revealed almost instantly. Fair enough; essentially it is what the movie is about. Then we see exactly how the formerly gap-toothed Heroes star insinuates herself into a scandal that shatters all of the hero’s credibility. Okay…usually that is a twist reserved to surprise the audience, but it’s also a very common plot point used in thrillers. They want the audience to empathize with the poor, misunderstood main character, so I guess that spoiler can be forgiven, also.
However (note the pause), I cannot, by any means, forgive showing the audience the sudden switch of protagonist from Elba to Knowles. Don’t change your trailer’s premise mid promo! I’m with Elba, for the first half. He’s obviously a middle-aged man, bored with his marriage and money, but we all can understand the yen for a little excitement in our lives. I am with him, mentally and emotionally, when this little voyeuristic indulgence gives off mixed signals and gets a little hinky. Against my will, I am still with him when the gorgeous cousin of Alex Forest (Glenn Close), entraps him in her spikey little web of deceit.
So, why on earth would you, as the trailer author, break that flow, that confidence and connection the audience has with the hero, to not only give away the exciting climax of the film, but also switch horses mid-stream and try to force us to start caring about what happens to this other character that has been hounding her husband throughout the trailer. How idiotic! I don’t care about Knowles’ character. You give us the film from strictly Elba’s point of view, set the wife up as a friction causing element, she is emasculating, jealous, suspicious, untrusting. So why would we, the audience, suddenly switch our loyalty. No don’t get me wrong, if the trailer was from Beyonce’s point of view, I’d be all for seeing little miss thang kicking some blonde bimbo ass; however, we see this world from Idris Elba’s point of view, so technically, we are supposed to want to side with him, through good and bad, or else there will be no point to sit through the two-hour film.
I know this seems like a small, tedious problem to have with the trailer, but the fact is, the story-telling of the trailer is downright shitty. It makes for a very messy view of the plot. I am slowly realizing that a lot of people do not watch movies for the same reasons or in the same manner that I watch them. Most people are not as demanding or critical as I am. However, I refuse to ignore glaring problems simply because everybody else will. There should be a set standard that trailers need to live up to, even if it is only in my mind.
P.s. Ali Larter may be smokin’, but that does not hide the fact that she walks like John Wayne.
[imdb 17 Again]Artistically speaking, there is not much to the 17 Again trailer. It is simply a straightforward presentation of the plot through a montage of various clips. Blah, right?
Almost. However, I find this to be a pretty good trailer, for what it is. True, it doesn’t elicit the same sort of emotional response Last House on the Left’s trailer did, but 17 Again does exactly what it should. It presents the basic information, such as cast and plot, but it doesn’t go so far as to reveal the juiciest bits of info, nor does it spoil the ending.
Furthermore, I think the author did an amazing job exhibiting the humor of the film. The jokes shown in the trailer are tame, but still amusing. As the viewer, I get the sense of the style of comedy the film is reaching for. The jokes in the trailer all have the same sort of punch to them, so I don’t feel as though they are dishing out the best material just for the trailer. Unlike, for example, the films pumped out by the Judd Apatow crowd. They suffer from flasher syndrome, where the trailer authors go around flashing the film’s funniest bits, leaving the audience with no real payoff in the theaters.
17 Again feels as though there are probably some more humorous gems waiting for the audience to discover on their own. The jokes in the trailer make me giggle, but only enough that I am sure I can expect funnier bits to come. I appreciate trailers with reserved comedy tones just as much as I appreciate a trailer that doesn’t give away the ending. Yet again, what is the point of shelling out hard earned cash to see a film when all of the funny bits were already given to you? There is no point. Surfing youtube’s trailers is way cheaper in this economy schlump. So here’s to hoping 17 Again has a few cards up its sleeve.
[imdb tt0844708] So I’ve been avoiding having to do a review on this trailer. There are just too many emotions I have about this film. Three years ago, when I first moved out here to L.A., fresh out of college, I, of course, was unemployed. I was also bored out of my gourd. During that time, I became frustrated at the prospect of having to choose from my collection of 150 movies I’d already seen, and set about raiding my roommates’ libraries. Jason and I are constantly bickering about films, so, almost out of spite, I bypassed his collection, and instead checked out Carrie’s.
Carrie is a horror film addict. Her walls are covered in horror film posters, and she has almost every slasher film you can think of. Her favorite director is Wes Craven (she especially loves the Scream series), and tucked in with all her DVDs I found The Last House on the Left. “Hmmm,” I thought, “looks interesting.” It looked like a film that belonged in my mother’s cult classics book, which, when I was younger, I would surreptitiously read about The Legend of Billy Jack, Pink Flamingoes, Harold and Maude, and Behind the Green Door, as though it were forbidden knowledge…and as though my mother would even care I was sneaking a read.
So, I settled myself in front of the tv, to watch the film while I mated socks and folded laundry. It isn’t really a sock mating movie. It was like a train wreck; I was transfixed. It was probably the most gruesome film I’d ever seen. When Carrie came home that night, I mentioned it to her, and even she said that she had only seen it once, and once was enough for her.
It’s not as though I shy away from films with gritty subject matter. I don’t devote all of my hours of film watching to Disney Princesses and dog movies. I like a film that can turn my stomach and still make me think. Hard Candy, The Hole, and Heavenly Creatures still resonate with me (all H movies…interesting). There is something about certain films that hit you in just the right way that they embed themselves into your subconscious.
Last House on the Left certainly did that, and that is why I am so disgusted by the idea of the remake. It would be like remaking Casablanca or Citizen Kane. The Last House on the Left was Wes Craven pushing the boundaries of the horror film. He literally dissected what was on screen in order to show as many of the guts of realism as he could, without being completely censored and cut off. There is a nausea inducing element to the film where the audience empathizes with the characters to the extent that they imagine what it would be like to be them. Craven shows the baseness of human nature that audience members can’t see from the news or reading the papers. I applaud him for that…but I cannot condone this repackaging and franchising of the film. The first thing I think when I see the trailer is they are just in it for the money.
Yes yes, aren’t they all, you might say, but young Wes Craven wasn’t? He set out to evolve a genre, and he did just that. But now, instead of putting energy into trying to find something NEW, he just pulls out the tattered old script and says, “Here!” Wipes his hands together, “I’m done for the day.”
Shenanigans, I say.
Well, as for the trailer, it shows everything. There is nothing left to the imagination. We know what happens to the girls, we know the parents find out, and we know they take revenge. There is no reason to see the movie except to maybe compare it with the original. It’s appalling. The only thing that I’ve heard people are surprised about is the rape scene, which, if they knew anything about the original film, they should have expected. Furthermore, it annoys me that people would be so gung-ho to see this film when the trailer is riddled with violence, and then they’re offended at the rape scene. Why is society so ho-hum about murder and bloodshed, but rape is a no-man’s-land?? Do they not understand that it is all violence? Do they feel guilty about watching a rape but not about watching a paralyzed man with his head in a microwave? Does nobody see the imbalance there? Yes, rape scenes are uncomfortable, but they are no more or less “artistic” than the dozens of throat slashings, point blank head shots, and eye gouges. If you are going to see this movie to get that thrill that comes with seeing so much violence, I think you deserve that entire uncomfortable experience.
On the other hand, I love the last half of the trailer, with the horrific violence, the images of the parents avenging their baby girl, with the Taken by Trees cover of Sweet Child of Mine overlayed. The sweet slow pace of the song gives the viewer the sense that the parents themselves are immune to the brutality they are inflicting on these strangers, thinking only of their sweet child, dying on the kitchen table. Despite the fact that the author has probably shown us all of the highlights of the film (at least the ones they’re allowed to show on tv), the song choice intermingled with the content makes me want to give the film a shot. Thus, I’ll probably rent it on DVD.
That is why I review film trailers, because whatever audience the film ends up attracting is usually dependent on the quality of the trailer.
[imdb princess and the frog] Okay…I’ve been excited about this film since it was first announced…what, two years ago? For one, The Frog Prince story is one of my favorite fairy tales. For two, I lived in New Orleans for a few years during my impressionable years, and I still have very fond memories of the French Quarter, the mardi gras float museum, and king cakes with little plastic babies sawed in half. Okay, they aren’t perfect memories…but they’re mine, okay?
Anyhoo…this is also Disney return to hand drawn animation! Not that there’s anything wrong with CG, but there is nothing prettier than hand drawn cells, in my opinion. Lastly, it’s about damn time there was an Black Princess. Damn straight. The closest we have had up until now was Nala from Africa who was a freakin’ lion. Princess Tiana has had an arduous journey to get to this point…she’s had like three different names, two different occupations, lots of concept art…but here she is now, in all her sassy splendor. I would mention the stereotype about the sassy black woman…but most Disney princesses are sassy in SOME way. Belle is my favorite, and she tamed a beast, so I think we can forgive Tiana that personality trait.
Disney is a little shaky when it comes to being politically correct. Most cartoons are. Children’s (adults’ as well) brains work on a level where it is much easier to marginalize certain traits. We see Speedy Gonzales and Slow-poke Rodriguez…and they are very stereotypical characters…animators took certain traits that are recognized in large groups of Mexican people (as seen through our white washed perspectives) and marginalized them, and packaged them into easily recognizeable characters. For those of us that are not familiar with different cultures…we can see Speedy and say “Mexican.” Then when we watch, say, The Three Cabelleros, we look at a character and say “Mexican.” That is where cliche and stereotypes come from. As long as it’s not insulting, it’s usually for comedic sake and it works well with children’s brains…it’s not necessarily right, but it isn’t going to stop.
That being said, I am slightly concerned about the stereotypes guaranteed to crop up in the Princess and the Frog. Already, just in the teaser, there is a cajun firefly with bad grammar and teeth missing. Most likely, if the frog does turn into a prince, he will probably also be African-American…because god forbid there be racial mixing in a children’s movie. I just wonder where the line is between appeasing the masses and pushing the envelope. This will probably be a fun sweet movie with beautiful art and amazing voice acting…but how will it differ from other Disney features? Where is the evolution? Where is the innovation Disney prides itself on?
Don’t get me wrong, I really want to see this film. I think it’s kind of lame that Disney bent to criticism about starting Tiana off as a chamber maid. All of the Disney princesses were chamber maids of some sort. Cinderella, obviously, Snow White cleaned up after dwarves, Aurora cleaned her little hovel and gathered berries, Belle cleaned up after her dotty father and then the beast. I also think it’s lame, though, that these heroines can only better their situations by getting married. How archaic is that? Tiana not being a maid because she’s black is stupid because you are then saying there is something wrong with being a maid. I was a maid; I didn’t like it, but I don’t think less of other maids. However, the fact that the story is about a Princess makes her being a maid a little out of place. Ignore, of course, the fact that it takes place in Louisiana, where there are no princesses. All I’m saying is that there are other things wrong with this film, not just the maid issue.
That also being said, Tiana is adorable and I wouldn’t kiss a frog either…even if he promised to turn into a hunk straight out of an Ambercrombie ad.
