Trailer Parking 6

Well, my flow of trailer reviews was interrupted by the holidays and then I blinked and January 2008 was gone and now I’ve developed quite the backlog of trailers to diss and praise.  So, I guess I better get started…First, I’ll just clean house by lumping together all the waste o’ time trailers that do not motivate me one iota to see the movie.  These all have two things in common:  they all get a grade of “F”, and they represent the worst that movies offer… 

Prom Night (liked Brittany Snow on TV’s American Dreams, she has talent, must’ve needed a quick pay day here)

The Ruins (yucky, gross, depressing)

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (retarded on so many levels I’m not even going to try to list them, hard to believe this is from the same producer who once made Field of Dreams and The Rocketeer)

Doomsday (stale concept, violent, disturbing, dumb)

In Bruges (boy, hitmen are so funny and quirky and clever, killing sure is hilarious, you get the idea)

Witless Protection (hick humor is often funny, but this is too crass for my taste)

Charlie Bartlett (perhaps unfair to include this on the list, but I’m not into another dark comedy about a messed up teen and his messed up relationships)

And an early nominee for the worst trailer of 2008 is a little gem called Never Back Down.  It’s so bad that you have to see it (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/neverbackdown/).   Don’t know how anyone got through a single take with a straight face.  Djimon Hounsou needs to fire his agent ASAP.  That a lot of kids will probably find this cool is sad.  Could unintentionally be the best comedy of the year.

And now for some regular reviews:

Step Up 2: The Streets

This looks like a dumb sequel to a dumb movie.  Features some never-before-heard lines like, “She doesn’t have what it takes” and “In those competitions, you are risking everything”.  Apparently, when you decide to take your moves and ‘tude to “the streets”, the stakes couldn’t be higher.  This looks ridiculous to me, but if you’re into dance, it’s probably right up your alley.  The trailer has plenty of bouncy beats and peppy choreography, which I suppose just registered enough on my entertainment meter to keep it from joining the list of shame.

Grade:  D+

http://www.apple.com/trailers/touchstone/stepup2thestreets/ 

Iron Man

If you’ve read any of my trailer posts before, you know I’m burned out on comic book movies.  Well, this one looks like an improvement primarily because of the superior effects and a large dose of humor.  Who would’ve thought that Robert Downey Jr. would make a good superhero?  Not me.  But he looks pretty convincing here.  His cocky attitude provides some of the preview’s best laughs.  One negative is that they reveal too much of the first act when Bob Downey is held captive in a cave and busts out.  But the end features some sweet flying shots that prove my point from previous posts that effects can be done convincingly.  This is going to enjoy huge B.O. and a big reason why is director Jon Favreau (hey, that rhymes!).   

Grade:  B+

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/

Star Trek XI

I’ve never given more second chances to any franchise or characters than I’ve given to Star Trek.  I always hope it will be cool and action-packed, but it usually lets me down.  So, I wouldn’t care much about this upcoming installment except that J.J. Abrams is piloting the ship, which means it suddenly has actual potential.  This is very much a teaser with nary a character shown, but it has some decent shots of the Enterprise under construction.  If the movie’s any good, this could be the highest grossing Trek outing in ages.  Thanks to Abrams’ involvement, I’m cautiously optimistic.

Grade:  B

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/

Stop Loss

I almost reviewed this one late last year, but stopped because I couldn’t decide what to say about it.  On the one hand, it’s definitely an eye-roller in the here we go again with another America is evil because we’re in Iraq sense.  On the other hand, it does deal with a troubling aspect of military policy that sends soldiers back to the front even after they’ve fulfilled their service requirement.  So, while I’m more interested in this than most of the other anti-Iraq-war movies, I won’t remotely expect a nuanced, balanced approach since this is from MTV Films and writer/director Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don’t Cry).  Since MTV’s attached, here’s betting that the B.O. will be more than the combined take of all of last fall’s America is evil movies.  Which means about $5.  Just kidding.  Overall, this is a provocative, occasionally effective preview.  It has potential, but I’m not holding my breath.   

Grade:  C+

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/stoploss/

Vantage Point

I like a good thriller.  Unfortunately for would-be thriller-makers, we now have the Bourne trilogy which set the bar out of reach for most.  I don’t know if Vantage Point will quite measure up to the Bourne standard, but it looks like it will make a valiant effort.  Expertly edited at a frenetic pace, this trailer provides enough teasing info to suck you in without giving away too much (which is quite a feat these days).  At first it all seems rather straightforward, revolving around an assassination attempt on the President.  But then it looks like the assassination was faked somehow, and then all heck breaks loose with car chases, yelling, and explosions.  The cast looks great and includes Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forrest Whitaker, William Hurt, and Sigourney Weaver.  I’ve been a fan of Matthew Fox since his Po’5 days and always thought he could be a big movie star (he’s not too shabby on a little show called Lost either).  This could be a positive step for him toward some more cool action roles.  If the story is as twisty and fast-paced as this preview, the B.O. will be robust.

Grade:  A-

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/vantagepoint/

What Happens in Vegas

Even though a big part of this premise was photo-copied from the Friends episode when Rachel and Ross accidentally get hitched in Vegas, this is a very humorous trailer.  A lot of folks like to knock Ashton Kutcher but I like him and actually think he’s pretty good in comedies like this.  It’s a good thing he’s in it too, because I’m not really a Cameron Diaz fan.  It remains to be seen if they’ll be a believable onscreen couple, but the preview indicates there will be plenty of laughs, so their believability might not matter much.  Should be pretty clear B.O. sailing for this one.     

Grade:  B+         

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/whathappensinvegas/ 

21 

his looks intriguing mainly because it was supposedly inspired by some actual events.  I’m sure most of the truth has been discarded for sexy Vegas glitzeratti (new word I just invented), but my interest was piqued by the notion of MIT students using their brains to cheat casinos and then getting caught by Laurence Fishburne.  For the record, I wouldn’t want to get caught by Laurence Fishburne.  I don’t know squat about casino games, but this zippy trailer makes it all look fairly entertaining.  B.O. prospects are pretty average.     

Grade:  B-

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/21/

Made of Honor

After seeing Patrick Dempsey in several similar rom-com roles (I guess I’m thinking Sweet Home Alabama and Enchanted), I can’t figure out if he doesn’t really have much of a sense of humor, or if he’s just very good at playing the straight man.  He’s apparently some kind of ladies’ man in this movie, only realizing he’s in love with best buddy Michelle Monaghan after she’s engaged to another gent.  The usual wackiness ensues, but this gets bonus points for decent funniness and a field trip to picturesque Scotland.  It’s all pretty familiar, but I grinned enough during the trailer that I’ll probably give it a whirl.  A lot of ladies apparently like Dempsey, so B.O. will likely be decent.

Grade:  B 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/madeofhonor/

Son of Rambow

Don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before but I’ve kind of been into British comedies for awhile, or at least comedies set in Britain.  Not sure exactly why.  I guess British people are just funny.  Rambow is quite the quirky little trailer, starring mostly unknown Brit kids making their own version of an action movie in the 80s.  It’s unusual and frequently funny.  Kinda reminds me of a British Napoleon Dynamite, therefore methinks I just might see it.  Because it’s that kind of odd, indie flick, this will barely be a blip on the B.O. radar.

Grade:  B

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_vantage/sonoframbow/

Tyler Perry’s Meet the Browns

Many people have told me that I need to see Diary of a Mad Black Woman.  I still don’t want to.  I just can’t get past the drag thing.  Since Tyler Perry has become such a cottage industry though, I should probably check out one of his movies one of these days.  He keeps churning out these relatively inexpensive movies that all look relatively alike and often feature a cameo from him as the Mad Black Woman.  And all of them are huge B.O. hits relative to their cost.  So he must be doing something right.  The problem is, his movies all look pretty cheesy too.    

Grade:  C    

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/meetthebrowns/

Crazy Talk: A Christian on Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60

Aaron Sorkin made me tear up recently.  Granted, it was late at night, so I was fatigued and my manly defenses were thus likely weakened, but I think the bulk of the blame goes to Sorkin.  The catalyst was an episode of the canceled NBC series Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip called “K & R” that I was viewing on DVD.  I only bring it up because it’s so rare that a show or movie touches me like that.  This thing really snuck up on me.  I’m sure it was the potent combination of acting (kudos to Sarah Paulson and Matthew Perry), music, editing, and direction that caused this to happen, but I mostly blame Sorkin.  He wrote the script, and from what I understand, when he writes it, it gets shot word for word the way he intended (a writer’s dream come true!). 

The misty moment for me came at the tail end of the episode and revolved around characters Matt and Harriet’s ongoing debate about Christianity vs. reason.  I won’t try to rehash the sequence here, because it wouldn’t have the same effect, and even if you saw it, you’d probably think I was nutty for springing a leak over it.  You often can’t predict these things.  One man’s The Notebook is another man’s idea of inspired comedy (alright, that’s an unfair example because I still haven’t seen Notebook, but I digress).   

I think my thing with this episode of Studio 60 was a culmination of the whole season’s dynamic between Matt and Harriet.  There wasn’t anything spectacular about their on and off romance compared with countless other similar TV iterations except for one thing:  Harriet is a committed Christian and Matt is most definitely not.  This oft-emphasized facet of their relationship was absolutely fascinating because, as commonplace as American Christians are, I’m just not used to seeing one on a network TV series, at least not handled as intelligently as Sorkin does.  It was further fascinating because the Harriet character is a decently accurate depiction of a serious Christian, particularly coming from a writer who isn’t one.  Sorkin apparently drew much inspiration from his real-life failed relationship with Kristin Chenowith who is a Christian.  Needless to say, Matt and Harriet’s conflicted relationship provides some of the most interesting, snappy dialogue of the series. 

As a Christian, I really appreciate Sorkin’s effort to create a realistic Christian character as opposed to the absolute morons usually seen.  Granted, Sorkin has written his share of moronic Christian characters in the past (Kiefer Sutherland in A Few Good Men comes to mind), but the Harriet Hayes character showed some maturation on his part.  As a side note, I found it annoying and ironic that for all the boo-hooing that goes on in some Christian circles about our under-representation in mainstream shows/movies, no one talked about the interesting Christian character on Studio 60.  I don’t recall reading or hearing a single thing about it in Christian media.  Well, it was their loss.  The sequence that grabbed me out of the blue at the end of the “K & R” episode is funny, sad, sweet, bittersweet, hopeful, and hopeless all at the same time.  It’s a distillation of what I like so much about Sorkin’s writing.  Maybe it affected me more because I happen to believe in Jesus, but it was great TV nonetheless.      

Even though Sorkin and I are on the opposite ends of the political and religious spectrum, I respect his writing because he frequently gives decent voice to opposing views.  He was very adept at this on The West Wing, particularly with the Ainsley Hayes character (Emily Procter) who was a lone Republican in the liberal White House.  Sure, Sorkin’s political ax-grinding sometimes veers into grating territory, and naturally, his liberal heroes usually win in the end, but he can certainly write up some very convincing conservative and/or Christian arguments when it serves his story.  For all his eye-roll-inducing liberal talk points, he is able to wrap them up in such fun dialogue and entertaining stories that I keep coming back for more.  Whaddya know – libs and cons can come together!   

The great “K & R” episode ending that resonated with me so, just reminded me what a shame it is that NBC kicked Studio 60 to the curb so fast.  I understand that it’s a business and they need eyeballs on the screens, but really, Celebrity Apprentice?  Granted, Studio 60 doesn’t represent Sorkin’s best work, but it was still better than, oh, 95% of the rest of the shows out there.  It had its share of belly-flopping moments – namely when it tried to shoe-horn serious political issues into what was ultimately a light-hearted SNL-type setting – but at least it tried to show some originality, as opposed to most of its mind-numbingly formulaic competition.  Aaron Sorkin is probably the best screenwriter in the biz, so you’d think NBC would’ve been willing to give him some more time to find the show’s footing.  

Anyway… Aaron, if you’re trolling the web, reading blogs about yourself because of WGA strike boredom, I just wanted to say thank you for blind-siding me with that “K & R” Kleenex moment.  You never know when or how what you write may affect someone.  Keep up the great work! 

Trailer Parking 5

Hancock

By now we’ve come to expect that Will Smith will make predominantly good movies. The one title in his filmography that he always gets panned for is The Legend of Bagger Vance, and I really liked that one (his weakest outing was actually MIB 2). He’s just an all around fun actor to watch and it looks like Hancock will easily continue the tradition. When I first read about the concept for this one, I was skeptical since it’s yet another superhero tale. But, the impression presented in this first trailer is that Hancock is a rather reluctant, lazy, jerky guy with superpowers who will save the day only when he gets good and ready. And it’s Will Smith, so it comes across good-naturedly. For a movie that fairly recently completed production, there are a surprising number of effects shots in the trailer, and they all look pretty good. The biggest crowd-pleasing bit is Hancock saving a beached whale. Quality stuff right there. This is a sharp, funny, hip, but still tongue-in-cheek trailer. I’m becoming quite a fan of director Peter Berg’s visual style – that, combined with Will Smith and a cynical tweak of the superhero genre, has the makings of a super-fun summer movie. The movie will have to be horrendous not to do huge B.O.

Grade: A

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/hancock/

Wall-E

Earlier this year, there was a briefly circulated trailer introducing audiences to Wall-E, the latest from Pixar. It may be the most pretentious trailer of the year because it mostly featured real-life Pixar honchos reminiscing about “a lunch” they had way back in the day in which they pitched each other their ingenious future mega movie hits. I’ve never seen a trailer where the filmmakers tout their own work like that. It was a little weird and over-dramatic. It would’ve worked as a preview on a DVD, but not in the theatre. Pixar is undoubtedly the definitive, best animation studio on the planet, but that trailer rubbed me the wrong way because it seemed so self-aware and self-important. It would be better if they’d just continue wowing us, humbly, instead of waxing poetic about their genius vision.

It feels like Pixar’s approaching a crossroads of sorts, because they’ve got a lot more competition (primarily from DreamWorks and Blue Sky), and their last two movies, though still huge hits, hinted of self-indulgence. The half-an-hour-too-long Cars, particularly gave that vibe (by the way, I hope the writers of Doc Hollywood are getting some Cars residuals because they share astoundingly similar story elements). And though I enjoyed Ratatouille, it’s the first Pixar movie that kind of alienates kids (like how do parents explain the relationship between Linguini’s ma and Chef Gusteau?!). It’s hard to know where they want to go with their animation. Kids are their biggest audience, but especially with Ratatouille, it seems they’re aiming for more adults.

So now there’s a full-fledged teaser featuring Wall-E, a little robot character who looks like Short Circuit junior (Number 5 is alive!). He has a little robo voice that elicits multiple coos from female audience members who dig cuteness. There is still very little story information except that Wall-E is apparently a robot living on distant-future earth who does nothing but pick up trash all day, until a giant spaceship lands, he grabs on, and hitches a ride into outer space. The animation looks, naturally, exquisite.

If I sound overly harsh toward Pixar, it’s only because I’m rooting for them. They’ve made some truly classic movies and I’m looking forward to Toy Story 3. You just see it a lot with artists after they’ve had big successes – they have trouble figuring out how to top themselves. This latest teaser trailer looks promising, but I need further convincing after that self-back-slapping trailer earlier this year. I really hope Wall-E hearkens back to those first few Pixar movies with humor, warmth, and no hint of self-consciousness. Of course, even if it doesn’t, it will still be a huge hit.

Grade: B-

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/walle/

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

The movie business is truly funny because you see a trailer like this and wonder how it ever got greenlit. Not that it’s bad necessarily, you just know it probably won’t make back it’s budget. Movies are an unpredictable blend of commerce and art. I’m glad things like this still get made for some variety, otherwise every movie would be Iron Man, but there’s just not a lot in this trailer to make me want to see it. It’s apparently an old-fashioned, screwball comedy thing that takes place in 30s London. Somehow, Frances McDormand ends up working for an American actress played by Amy Adams and highjinks ensue. Judging a movie by its trailer may be as wrong as judging a book by its cover. But since I’m all about judging a movie by its trailer here, I’m obligated to say this looks very ho-hum to me. Amy Adams is great (check her out in Enchanted), but it’s not really enough to coax me to this movie.

Grade: D+

http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/misspettigrewlivesforaday/

Mad Money

Here’s the deal with Mad Money: I don’t like crime movies. Even if it’s supposed to be a hilarious comedy, I just don’t get jazzed about movies where the main characters, whom we’re supposed to like, rob a bank or whatever. Maybe that means I’m going to miss out on the funniest movie of the year (I doubt it), but I just don’t do crime. This features the odd combo of Queen Latifah, Diane Keaton, and Katie Holmes. I’m sure their characters need that cash real bad, but… zzzzzzzzzzzzz… sorry, I nodded off there for a moment because this is a movie about stealing money. There are a few chuckles in the trailer, but it’s mostly chump change. This ain’t my cup of tea, but I can see it making respectable numbers since a lot of moviegoers don’t mind crime played for laughs.

Grade: C-

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/madmoney/

27 Dresses

Katherine Heigl is one of those actresses that I feel cool about because I feel like I discovered/recognized her talent years before she hit it big with Grey’s Anatomy and Knocked Up. Mainly what I’m talking about is seeing her in a made for teeny-boppers TV movie called Wish Upon a Star on Disney Channel back in 1998. It was a surprisingly pretty good flick for a TV movie. Katherine demonstrated she could do the comedy bit and she was cute to boot. So all that to say, I think she has a lot of potential as the next rom-com queen. Now most actresses would probably cringe at the idea of being pigeon-holed as the next Sandra Bullock/Meg Ryan, but there are worst things than being known for good romantic comedies.

This confection looks as light and fluffy as they come. It seems Katherine’s always the bridesmaid, but never the bride until James Marsden comes along and possibly snaps the losing streak. One humorous note: during the trailer, the announcer says, “from the screenwriter of The Devil Wears Prada”. I love the lengths movies will go to associate themselves with past hits. It struck me as humorous because the screenwriter is never touted in any promo material, unless you can somehow tie them back to a blockbuster. And this one’s even more of a stretch since Prada was based on a book. Anyway, yikes, I sound like some bitter, old, striking writer. Sorry ‘bout that.

This is a bouncy trailer overall, with lots of weddings and girl talk. It doesn’t really make you want to buy your tickets online, but there are no real red flags either. If I can scrape up some babysitting, this looks like a good hubby/wife date movie. The B.O. force should be strong with this one thanks to Heigl’s rising star power and the reliable rom-com lure of the female crowd.

Grade: B

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/27dresses/

Fool’s Gold

Somebody thought Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson made a good onscreen pair because they’re back in a sequel to How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days… just kidding, it’s not really a sequel. But the pair is back in a new very wacky looking romantic-comedy-treasure-hunting-adventure romp. They’re a married couple with a rocky relationship. Healing ensues while searching for treasure. Director Andy Tennant has a lot of experience with this genre, so this has potential. Matthew looks more crazy-eyed than ever, which is funny because when I first saw him in A Time to Kill, I thought he was going to be a drama guy. This gets bonus points for quite a bit of nutty action and even some explosions, which aren’t really standard rom-com fare. I’m also a sucker for island locations. The specific setting isn’t clear in the trailer, but it was shot in the Bahamas and Australia so wherever it’s supposed to be, it looks cool. The bottom line on this one is, I’m not particularly stoked about the story, but it looks like goofy fun and I appreciate its tongue-in-cheekiness, like the clip where McConaughey leaps from his jet ski to snatch a lady’s hat out of the air. Since this is coming out during a slow time of year, the B.O. prospects are mostly sunny.

Grade: B-

http://foolsgoldmovie.warnerbros.com/

The Other Boleyn Girl

Good cast, including, Eric Bana, Natalie Portman, and Scarlett Johannson. Nice period detail, including dresses, castles, and tapestries. It all has something to do with one of England’s King Henrys, and though I’m something of a history buff, I don’t know much about that period of English history, so I’m just not that interested in this. The trailer is average – nothing glaringly wrong, but nothing urgently must-see about it. Because I’m ignorant of this particular British history, I have no idea if any of this is based in fact. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look interesting enough for me to find out. B.O. for this will not be pretty. These kind of projects generally fare better on cable than at the movies.

Grade: C

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theotherboleyngirl/

Leatherheads

George Clooney is a great actor and continues showing promise as a director. I generally like him best when he does comedy and he looks good here. This trailer isn’t the funniest I’ve seen or anything, but it appeals to my movie taste for several reasons. For one, besides Clooney, this features the up-and-coming John Krasinski who is so great in The Office. The combination of Clooney and Krasinski helps cancel out the downside of having Renee Zellweger. Another plus is the period football setting. I’ve never seen a big-screen depiction of this early era of football. As a kid, I ate up books about Red Grange, Jim Thorpe, Bronco Nagurski and other leatherhead heroes, so I’m keen to see it brought to life. Finally, I’m interested in the fact that the script is co-written by Rick Reilly, a long-time, very funny Sports Illustrated writer whose columns and sense of humor I really enjoy. It all makes for an interesting mix that the trailer makes look like a lot of fun. It’s kind of an old-fashioned romantic comedy fused with unique football action that is all rendered with the best production values money can buy. There aren’t many folks who could get a movie like this made. Fortunately for us, George Clooney’s one of the few. B.O. will probably be just okay for this one. I’m excited about it, but I don’t really expect it to catch on.

Grade: A

http://www.imdb.com/video/trailer/me60563368

Trailer Parking 4

Kit Kittredge: An American Girl
I’m not fully hip to the “American Girl” phenomenon, though as the dad of a 3-year-old daughter, I’ll probably become better acquainted shortly.  From the little I do know about the franchise, I like the fact that it supposedly weaves some American history in with the doll fun.  Kittredge is the first big screen adaptation of the American Girl brand and it looks cute.  It’s apparently set in the Depression era 30s and has a journalistic theme, with the current flavor of the month child actress Abigail Breslin getting into mischief and writing stories on one of those clunky typewriters of yesteryear.  There’s nothing earth-shattering here, but the tone feels like good clean innocent fun and the period details look to be quality.  It’s hard to say how successful the B.O. will be.  Could be huge if all American Girl fans show up, but I don’t really think they will.  Plenty will probably catch this on the small screen, but B.O. will likely be modest since it’s scheduled for release in the middle of the summer movie heat.  It’s funny, but for all the griping about the dearth of quality family movies out there (those gripers are wrong, by the way, but that’s for another post), people don’t really show up for most of these movies.  Don’t know that I’ll be seeing this one myself, but if my daughter was a little older, we probably would.
Grade:  B

http://www.americangirl.com/movie/

Penelope
This is the second trailer floated for what is an odd-looking fairy-tale-like flick starring the odd Christina Ricci as a rather odd young woman who has a nose that looks more like a pig snout.  It’s hard to describe this trailer, because it’s not bad, I mean, I kinda like it’s slight originality and slight humor, but it doesn’t really do much to win over my cash.  And frankly, that pig nose is rather hideous, which I understand is the point, but still.  I think the first trailer for this was a bit more successful because it didn’t ever reveal the snout, so there was some mystery to it.  Well, it’s on prominent display now, and you’re not quite sure whether to laugh or look away.  The cast is an intriguing mix with Reese Witherspoon (in an apparent cameo), Catherine O’Hara, and the suddenly mister everywhere: James McAvoy.  This has a Tim Burton-y feel about it, which isn’t necessarily bad.  It could be one of those movies that I don’t care to see upon initial release, but then catch down the road and it ends up being great.  This looks fairly edgy for a PG-rated movie, which will probably muddle its B.O. chances.
Grade:  B-         

http://www.penelopethemovie.com/

   
The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything
There is a fair amount of VeggieTales media at my house thanks to my daughter, so I’ve been around the Veggie block and I like their sense of humor.  The animation’s middle-of-the-road in this trailer.  It looks better polished than something like Hoodwinked, but still not in the same Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky league.  But then, Veggie strength lies more in its character and humor-based stories, so the animation level can be forgiven.  I love the title for this and the trailer indicates a funny send-up of Pirates of the Caribbean, among others, but the funny stuff elicits more chuckles than actual laughs.  It’s a decently paced trailer right up until the underwhelming song number, which hopefully ends up sounding better in the full movie release, because here… yikes.  For some reason, the song just doesn’t have a hefty movie sound (and it’s not because of weak theatre speakers – I’ve seen this on numerous screens).  The song weakens the onscreen action.  Anyway, I think they would’ve benefited from omitting the song from the trailer, but in the end, this is aimed at kiddos, not 30-somethings, right?  So for a kid movie, this is pretty good, but not a must-see.  B.O. will probably be about like the last big screen Veggie outing:  profitable, but not a big hit.
Grade:  C+   

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/veggietalesthepirateswhodontdoanything/

Cloverfield
This is the second trailer for this unusual, much buzzed about, apparent monster movie from bespectacled producer J.J. Abrams.  It must stink for this movie’s writer and director that JJ gets all the credit.  People keep referring to this as a JJ movie, even though he didn’t write or direct it.  Now, I’m not trying to rain on JJ’s parade.  I like most of the stuff he’s connected to on TV and in movies.  So, even if he didn’t technically create Cloverfield (or TV’s Lost – he has much less to do with that show than most folks realize), he obviously knows how to pick great material.  Because of JJ’s connection to Lost though, I would like to know why the creature’s growl here sounds so similar to ol’ smoky’s roar in Lost.  Wait, maybe I’ve hit on something… maybe Cloverfield is really a big screen continuation of Lost!  I wish.      

I’m as intrigued by this trailer as everyone else seems to be.  Even if it does end up being a conventional Godzilla-like story, the trailer is mysterious, spooky, and original.  The documentary-like, shaky-cam approach makes it all seem a little more real, which is cool, though the shaky footage does get a little tiresome by the end of the trailer.  I really like the eeriness of the one shot where you kind of glimpse a shadow (or something) of some kind of creature.  I’m not sure how they’re going to maintain the documentary approach through the whole movie, or how it will be explained if they cut between conventional movie point-of-view, and the POV of a character’s camera, but I may be over-thinking it.  I appreciate the originality here and the fact that not very much story is revealed.  This trailer is dark, shaky, and noisy, elements that usually annoy.  But when the Statue of Liberty head falls from the sky and skids through the street, I have to find out what caused it.
Grade:  A-           

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/cloverfield/

You Don’t Mess With the Zohan
I’m not a huge Adam Sandler fan, but some of his movies are quite funny.  I like that he doesn’t seem to take himself or his movies overly seriously and that he’s still making goofy comedies after all these years.  This trailer is one of the funniest I’ve seen in awhile.  Sandler sports a funny faux Israeli accent and a ridiculous hairdo as a former Israeli anti-terrorist super-agent who moves to NYC to become a super-hairdresser.  It’s all ridiculous and frequently hilarious, with a few bonafide laugh-out-loud moments.  One highlight is a hysterical clip of some terrorists (methinks Sandler regular Rob Schneider in heavy make-up is one of them) calling the Hezbollah help line.  Nothing like some terrorist-tweaking to get me in the theatre.  A potential red flag for me, though most of the trailer is pretty clean for a Judd Apatow co-scripted comedy, is the fact that it is a Judd-Apatow co-scripted comedy.  The guy obviously has some pretty funny bones (for much cleaner proof, see mid-90s Disney flick Heavyweights), but he’s been so filthy in recent efforts that I’m skeptical about Zohan.  I just don’t like gross, crass, potty-mouthed comedies.  This trailer’s great, so here’s hoping they filter it down to PG-13.
Grade:  B+

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
This is a solid trailer.  All the good sequel signs are here, including the same main kid actors and a similar look and feel.  I wasn’t a giant fan of the first movie, though it wasn’t bad by any means.  I guess the first movie seemed occasionally awkward because they want it to be Lord of the Rings, especially in the battle scenes, but the PG-rating and Disney brand kept it in a sort of limbo so that it ended up a little bland.  This trailer gave me similar feelings, especially the shots obviously inspired by other epics, like the decorative facial armor and variable frame-rate sword fighting (thank you, Gladiator!), plus the huge overhead catapult battle shot (‘preciate ya, Return of the King!). 

I like the subtle opening shot in London, with the camera tracking past a giant lion statue as the kids hustle into a subway station.  It’s also a cool scene that returns them to Narnia, though again, it doesn’t seem a coincidence that the kids are attired in school hats, scarves, and skirts that not-so-subtly remind you of Harry Potter, or that the magic happens in a train station (okay, it’s technically a tube station). 

So the trailer’s going along great with lots of intriguing visuals, like Narnia being in ruins, but I was slightly disturbed when Fabio – I mean, Prince Caspian – is revealed, and he utters, “I am Prince Caspian,” in a Euro-Fabio accent that doesn’t inspire confidence.  I half-expected him to follow up his intro with, “I can’t believe it’s not buttah.”  But the trailer pulled me back in with lots of epic eye-candy and some effects that renewed some of my confidence in CGI after much recent effects-despair.  Overall, there is enough here to lure me back to Narnia next May.
Grade:  A-

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/

10,000 BC
A couple years back I got sword & sandal epic fatigue.  As I recall, I think the last straws were Troy and Kingdom of Heaven, which were both huge on spectacle but sorely lacking in the emotional payoff department.  They were cool to look at, but t’weren’t no soul there.  This BC trailer gives me the exact same feeling.  There are some amazing visuals here including pretty well animated wooly mammoths, convincingly rendered ancient cities, well-animated dirty dreadlocks on all the humans – oh, wait, those are real… I think.  There’s a slightly fake-looking saber-tooth tiger, but I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one of those in a movie before, so it’s kinda cool.  It doesn’t give me the impression that there’s much of a story to write home about – but how ‘bout those wooly mammoths? 

Okay, I don’t mean to sound so cynical, because this is a fairly exciting trailer, with several eye-popping shots, but the thing is, I don’t trust Roland Emmerich the director.  I didn’t used to have an issue with him.  I really liked Stargate and Independence Day when they were first released.  But then he made Godzilla and The Patriot, both disappointing, and possibly the worst movie I’ve seen at the theatre this decade:  The Day After Tomorrow (I’m not exaggerating – it’s horrible).  So that’s three mega-budget summer stink bombs in a row.  Actually, The Patriot’s not a stink bomb, it was just a bit of a let down.  It’s probably not fair of me to let a guy’s past work color my view of his next movie, but I can’t help it.  Even though 10,000 BC looks semi-cool, I don’t care to see it.  This will probably open at number one, but I think it will be lucky to make its budget back domestically.     
Grade:  C

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/10000bc/

The Dark Knight
I wasn’t a huge fan of Batman Begins.  I enjoyed it, but I didn’t think it was as great as most folks seem to think.  I didn’t like that Commissioner Gordon got to drive the Batmobile.  I didn’t like that the baddies break into the Wayne mansion and burn it to the ground.  I didn’t like the hallucinatory Scarecrow stuff.  And after all these movies, there still wasn’t enough action!  But, despite all that, Christian Bale makes a good Batman and I enjoyed Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman.  Christopher Nolan is a good director and I think he’ll do a good job on Dark Knight.      

On to the sequel:  this is a great trailer.  Moody.  Spooky.  Decent action.  Returning cast members.  All good stuff.  I wish Heath Ledger’s Joker look hadn’t been leaked on the internet months ago, because it really would’ve been shocking to see that face suddenly leer at you for the first time in the trailer.  Now I just hope the movie isn’t really all about The Joker the way those late 80s/90s Bat-movies were all about the villains.  It’s good to have a worthy bad guy, but I don’t want to pay to see Joker.  I want to pay to see Batman beat Joker.  Anywho, there’s a lot of potential here.  It’s a snappy trailer that does a good job showing enough to intrigue without giving too much away.  B.O. is a no-brainer for this one.  It’ll probably do bigger biz than Begins.          
Grade:  A

http://thedarkknight.warnerbros.com/videopage.html

Kung Fu Panda
DreamWorks animation supposedly imposed a several year ban on developing animal movies.  I fully support their decision and ask only why this wasn’t done about five years ago by every studio.  It’s just a worn-out path.  But then along comes the first trailer for Kung Fu Panda which makes me wonder if the animals weren’t really the problem because this actually has potential.  The Panda trailer isn’t groundbreaking or anything, but the combination of animals and kung fu is humorous and semi-novel.  It doesn’t really show much story-wise.  It’s mostly just some brief character intros, with the funniest saved for last as the title character is revealed to be secretly snacking instead of mastering his martial arts.  Yep, this looks like groovy fun, but the number one reason to see this is Jack Black as voice of the titular Panda.  Brilliant casting!  I like the sense of humor, sharp animation, and tongue-in-cheek slo-mo action shots on display here.  If the movie delivers on this trailer’s potential, it will be a B.O. smash. 
Grade:  A      

http://www.kungfupanda.com/

Jumper
The Jumper trailers are proof that it’s frequently a good idea to trot out multiple versions of a trailer.  The first version mostly under-whelmed.  I can’t quite put my finger on why the second version worked better, but it moved me from being ho-hum about it to semi-intrigued.  I’m pretty picky about sci-fi stuff, so this story about people who can instantly transport themselves wherever in the world they want to go didn’t do much for me.  It’s okay.  Hayden Christensen is the main teleporter dude.  I haven’t seen him in enough post-Star Wars stuff yet to be convinced that he can act.  He mostly pouts and scowls here like he did as young Vader.  Another Star Wars link is Samuel L. Jackson as the bad guy who’s always shooting this rope contraption thingy at Hayden, presumably to get him to stay in one place.  I guess it works like a leash.  It’s weird.  On the big plus side, Doug Liman directed.  I liked what he did with The Bourne Identity, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith was visually cool, though I didn’t care much for the movie overall.  The guy knows how to orchestrate good action, so this has potential.  I guess it’s the teleporting concept that doesn’t really work for me.  It’s certainly a unique trailer, but I’m not quite sold.  This is supposed to release in February, a typically dead movie month, so B.O. will likely be solid, at least upfront.
Grade:  C

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/jumper/

Rambo
Rocky Balboa last year?  Absolutely.  A new Rambo?  No.  Because I love the Rocky movies, I’ve always given Stallone the benefit of the doubt for the most part.  For some reason, he’s just one of those guys who critics have always loved to pound (post-Rocky at least).  Sure he’s been in some duds, but who hasn’t?  I’ve just never really understood why he’s so critically loathed compared to his peers.  The fact that he’s donning the ol’ bandana for another crack at Rambo either indicates guts or that he’s a glutton for punishment.  On the one hand, even though another Rambo may’ve been in his master plan all along, it seems he might just be trying to capitalize on Balboa’s surprise success last year.  On the other hand, I kind of get why a guy in his later years, with all the perspective and experience that brings, might want to revisit his most iconic roles to wrap them up in a more satisfying manner.  He certainly achieved that with Rocky Balboa, so maybe he can pull it off with Rambo.  I just don’t think I’ll be in the theatre to find out, based on this trailer. 

It’s actually a decent action trailer, but the problem is it’s way too dark, damp, ugly, and violent.  And it has cobras.  Lots of cobras.  The plot is sort of intriguing – it seems R’bo decides to go rescue some missionaries.  But all that violence and all those snakes!  Yuck.  My main objection here is Stallone appears to have upped the ante on the violence.  Now I know the 80s versions had their share, and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen them so I can’t say for sure, but it seems the violence in the first three movies was more cartoonish than realistically graphic.  Stallone seems to be going for a Saving Private Ryan level of shocking realism here.  No thanks.  I think Stallone has a lot of potential as a director, so I’d like to see him try something subtler.  A lot of action fans will be intrigued by this, so it will likely be quickly profitable at the B.O.  Just don’t count me in.
Grade:  D+

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/rambo/

Movie Review: National Treasure: Book of Secrets

The critics who didn’t like National Treasure or this fun sequel are just cynical boneheads who don’t know how to have any fun or don’t have a sense of humor or something.  I’m a cynical bonehead too, but I think I still know how to have fun.  The thing is, if you liked National Treasure, you’re really going to enjoy Book of Secrets.  Film snobs see/hear the words “Jerry Bruckheimer Production” and head for the hills.  I see/hear those words and say, “pass the popcorn”.  Jerry is oft quoted as saying he’s not in the movie business, he’s in “the transportation business” because his job is to take audiences on a fun ride.  I like Jerry for that, and apparently so do a lot of other movie goers because his movies rarely tank at the B.O.  I guess the fact that I like most Bruck pictures and spurn film snobs who don’t, makes me a different kind of film snob. 

The lesser known name behind this movie is Jon Turteltaub, who, as I mentioned in a previous post is probably my favorite director.  Jon really knows how to concoct a good show.  They’re bright, peppy, well-paced, well-acted, good-humored, and stylishly shot without being pretentious.  They’re just plain fun, which is what movies ought to be most of the time.  Book of Secrets continues Jon’s streak of superbly-crafted popcorn movies. 

One of the reasons I enjoy the National Treasure movies so much is because I’m interested in American history.  It’s fun to me the way they weave lots of true historical detail with movie fiction.  In Book of Secrets, for example, they use the historical fact that there are pages missing from the diary of John Wilkes Booth as the jumping-off point for another big treasure hunt.  One of the things I loved about the first movie was all its real American historical locations.  Even though they understandably felt the need to expand to a couple international locales for the sequel (Paris and London), the visits are historically well-linked to the U.S., and there is still plenty of time spent at nifty U.S. locations – especially Mount Rushmore. 

After the original’s excellent high-concept of finding a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence, I was admittedly skeptical about the Booth diary/President’s book of secrets thing for the sequel.  I know it’s just a movie, but having Nic Cage et al be willing to risk life, limb, and incarceration just to clear the good name of his great, great grand-pappy initially seemed quite a stretch.  But, the movie adequately works out this issue by, if nothing else, distracting me with enough chases, puzzles, and humor that I didn’t think about it too hard.  You know a movie is doing a good job entertaining when it manages to pull off the kidnapping of the U.S. president in semi-plausible fashion (I sincerely hope the typing of those last few words doesn’t suddenly put me on some kind of FBI watch-list). 

I like it best when sequels fit with the original.  The most essential element is getting back the original cast.  Fortunately, this one has everyone back, plus a couple of solid new additions in Ed Harris and Helen Mirren.  The cast is a huge part of this franchise’s success.  Nicolas Cage has rarely been more likable.  Diane Kruger and Jon Voight are also fun.  Justin Bartha, who was a relative newcomer and tremendous surprise in the original, is still one of the best things about the Treasure adventures.  His humor leaves you wanting more. 

Another vital element is not having “sequel swagger”.  This is the unfortunate phenomenon in which a sequel knows it’s cool and tries too hard to be bigger and badder than its predecessor.  I much prefer it when a sequel expands slightly on the original, but still fits with it in overall tone.  In that sense, Book of Secrets is excellent.  There is no trace of sequel swagger here. 

One minor hiccup is Ed Harris’ character.  It seems some of his background may’ve been edited out because it’s not entirely clear what his motivations are and just how bad of a villain he is.  It gets particularly murky during the movie’s climax – but not murky enough to put much of a damper on the fun.  There is plenty of other plot nit-picking that could be done here, but the fast pace, location hopping, and cast chemistry far overshadow any logic stretches.

Disney has a mega-winner with this franchise.  Here’s hoping that the holiday B.O. treasure will be enough to make this a trilogy.  I mean, we have to find out what’s on page 47, right?

Grade:  A-

Movie Review: I Am Legend

So I watched one of the holiday season’s big-budget extravaganzas on its opening day, and I’m just now getting around to writing up some thoughts about it. Not because I needed a week to digest it or anything, I’ve just been busy with lots of other stuff.

Legend is a really good movie. Not a great movie, but a really good one. A fun time at the ol’ theatre, for sure. Now here’s the thing: I don’t do horror movies – at all. Absolutely no interest in them. Can’t stand the gore. But I like good suspense, so if there’s some creature-related spooky suspense, I can dig it. Since I don’t do horror, I like Shyamalan’s movies, because to me they’re scary, without being gory. That’s what I like about Legend. It is frequently scary with no gore.

I was intrigued by this concept from the get-go, even though the first teaser trailer left some to be desired, the follow-up trailer was one of the best of ’07. There’s just something spine-tingling to me (and probably to most humans in general) about being completely alone. And not just being alone, but having something(s) out there trying to get you. Ever had those dreams where you’ve been abandoned somehow and you’re totally alone? It’s not cool. I recently heard a fascinating sermon which debunked many of the stereotypes about hell. The speaker described hell as a place of utter, miserable isolation and separation from God – the loneliest possible existence. In that sense, poor Will Smith’s character experiences a form of hell on earth. Fortunately, he has a dog buddy to keep him semi-company.

The eeriness of an empty NYC is evident from the start. With all the behind-the-scenes stuff available nowadays, it’s rare that you see anything onscreen anymore that wows you. This movie truly amazes with its production design and effects (presumably computer-related) that wipe the streets bare of humanity. It’s fun to be able to see something and say you honestly don’t know how they did that. Seeing Will speed through abandoned streets, hunting deer in Times Square, or whacking golf balls off the tail of a fighter jet, is just weird, cool, and eerie.

Another strange (and risky) thing about this movie is that it is essentially a one-man show. There are very few actors I’d be willing to hang with for a ride like this. Will Smith is one of them. This guy’s a great actor. He’s come an amazingly long way from his first Fresh Prince episode where you can actually see him mouthing the other actors’ lines while he waits his turn. I guess it just proves you can’t judge an actor by their sitcom. He just knows how to blend the right amount of humor, strength, vulnerability, and angst. He’s fun to watch.

Other plusses: I like the way the apocalyptic stuff is revealed in flashback. Flashbacks aren’t easy to do, but it works here and I preferred this approach to unfolding the disaster chronologically. Also, I’m not a dog person at all, but the relationship between Smith and canine here is actually poignant, and at one point semi-gut-wrenching. I guess when you’re the last man on earth and crazed, blood-thirsty things are out to get you, a good dog’s not a bad thing to have around. While overall the movie doesn’t quite deliver emotionally the way I thought it might, there is an excellent scene where Will begins to crack when he discovers something very out of place. It is sad and quite frightening at the same time. I’d watch the movie again just to see that scene.

As for what’s wrong with this, there is so much good build-up that the last act doesn’t fully deliver the way you expect it to. It all ends up feeling a little rushed. There are also several head-scratching, unexplained details (unless I just missed something), like how/why does Will have immunity to the disease? Those things are small potatoes compared to the most glaring, most annoying, most frustrating thing about the movie: the awful CGI of the infected-creatures. Why, oh why on earth would you spend over $100 million on a blockbuster movie and settle for video game quality rendered baddies? It boggles the mind. I guess all the cash was spent on creating the desolate sets and the vast photo-shopping it undoubtedly required, which is truly amazing, but apparently didn’t leave much money for the creature animation.

Here’s another question: why did the creatures need to be animated at all? The very first time we see them is the movie’s scariest creature visual, because we only see them from the back, gathered in a hideous, mysterious huddle. But every time they’re running, jumping, or climbing they just look like cartoons. And the worst shots are their leering close-ups. Ever seen The Mummy? These creatures have a similar look. So every time they cut to one of these video game close-ups, the creatures cease to be believable or scary. That was very frustrating to me because it marred an otherwise suspenseful movie. I just don’t get, with the sophisticated make-up effects available today, why the filmmakers didn’t opt for more human-looking creatures. Less is almost always more. Just ask Spielberg or Shyamalan. Have they never seen Jaws? I say don’t use CGI unless there’s no better way to do it.

Still, despite that fakery, if you like Will Smith and you like suspense, you will have a fun time at I Am Legend.

Grade: B

Trailer Parking 3

The Great Debaters
This looks a little too special for my taste. And it really doesn’t help the movie’s case to have Oprah’s name attached as producer (I’m surprised she’s not credited as “Very Special Producer”). I really do root for this genre of movie. I love sports/competition movies, especially ones supposedly based on fact, but I guess my feelings about this genre are similar to how I feel about romantic comedies – I really want them to be great, but most of them aren’t. And despite my opening comments about this trailer, I’m really not a total cynic. I just prefer competition movies that hold their emotional cards a little closer to the vest, that way the emotions feel sweeter and better-earned. That’s why movies like Hoosiers, Searching for Bobby Fischer, and Rocky are way better than movies like Coach Carter or Remember the Titans. Pulling off a great competition flick requires the deft juggling of action, emotion, music, and dialogue (and lots of other things – those are just some biggies). This trailer doesn’t inspire confidence that this movie will find the right tone balance.

I think one of the main things that make this iffy are the speeches. Good speeches are hard to write in real life, much less in the movies where they must seem bigger and more powerful than real life to be effective. So all that speechifying in the trailer seems potentially cheesy. Another thing is John Heard playing the latest incarnation of the pudgy, fake-drawled, white bigot that we’ve seen a gazillion times before. John Heard’s not the problem – it’s his clichéd-looking character that is getting tiresome.

This isn’t a bad trailer by any stretch. The true story it’s based on looks intriguing. The production values seem to be solid. Denzel Washington is a terrific actor, of course. I might have a better prediction of this movie’s likeability had I seen Antwone Fisher, which was Denzel’s other directorial effort. The Debaters trailer just doesn’t have any great hooking qualities about it. This will probably do modest business in the crowded December marketplace. I’ll skip the theatre for this one, but might eventually catch it on the tube.
Grade: C
http://www.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK//video/trailer/me60544458/

Inkheart
Sorry, Inkheart, you’re late for the prom along with your buddies The Dark Is Rising, Spiderwick Chronicles, and probably half a dozen others. There are so many of these kid fantasy movies now that they’re stumbling over each other out of the release gate. They might all be great, but they just seem so similar that it’s hard to get very pumped about any one. I’m not really a fan of movies where a story or book the characters are reading comes to life – which is what happens here. It seems to be a popular idea these days: Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy have movies in development (Bedtime Stories and Nowhereland, respectively) where similar things happen. However, I had similar reservations going into Bridge To Terabithia, and that movie has ended up being one of my favorites of 2007.

So, despite my reservations about Inkheart’s story and the genre’s increasing blandness, there is enough in the trailer to keep my mind barely cracked open. Brendan Fraser is in this and he can be entertaining – so there’s one glimmer of hope. Another is Andy Serkis. This is the guy who played Gollum in LOTR. He’s a bit strange-looking and wacky and seems to be a good actor. He’s apparently the bad guy here and it looks to be a positive. There also seems to be a humor element here that is often missing from the genre. Some of the effects shots even looked none too shabby – not pristine – but better than most recent CG-heavy trailers. There’s nothing too original here, but in a trailer lineup of all these similar fantasy movies, this one stands out… slightly. B.O. forecast looks partly sunny and mild.
Grade: B-
http://www.inkheartmovie.com/

Speed Racer
I’m conflicted over this trailer because it is a mixture of both nifty and ridiculous clips. Admittedly, I’m not hip to the Speed Racer phenomenon. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the cartoon, so I don’t get all the hype.

From the little I know about the basic setup, it seems Emile Hirsch will make a decent version of Racer. I also might like John Goodman as his pop. I like the razor-sharp HD photography and candy-colored production design.

One major beef I have with this trailer is the fake race cars. Come on! I understand that it’s a cartoony movie, but why shoot in HD with the ultra-realistic way the actors and sets pop off the screen, only to juxtapose that sharpness with the video game cars? I just don’t get it. From previous trailer reviews it would be easy to surmise that I have an anti-CG bias. I really don’t mind CG, if it’s as photo-real looking as possible. This isn’t. You expect unrealistic-looking CG on B-movies like Garfield, not on mega-budgeted fare like Speed Racer.

I’m also leery of the Wachowskis. Yes, The Matrix was awesome and very original… but those sequels… yikes! I’ve rarely seen such sequel swagger (you know, when sequels get too big for their britches compared to the original). These filmmakers are obviously talented, but seem a little too cool for school for my taste. If I see this movie, it will be because of the trailer’s over-the-top, frequently eye-popping visuals, not because the story looks great. My bet is that a lot of guys will want to check this out for similar reasons, so B.O. will be decent to good.
Grade: B
http://speedracerthemovie.warnerbros.com/cmp/main.html

 

Semi-Pro
As far as I’m concerned, Will Ferrell can stick to making sports comedies for the rest of his career. I’m a big fan. Kicking & Screaming and Blades of Glory are hilarious. I just find Will very funny.

Semi-Pro is a great concept: set in the 70s world of second-tier, pro round-ball. The trailer – like Ferrell’s fro – is over-the-top. It has all the ingredients of other funny Ferrell movies with familiar co-stars, slapstick, and a wild animal (this time it’s a grizzly bear). It all feels quite familiar because of Will’s past movies, like the 70s angle that he already used for Anchorman. But that’s okay. It’s just Will doing what he does best.

Frankly, this trailer doesn’t have as many laugh-out-loud clips as I would prefer from a Ferrell flick, but because he’s one of my favorite comedians and he has such a great track record, I trust they’re saving the funniest stuff for the movie (which is how it oughta be). Keep up the goofy sports movies, Will! This one’s a slam dunk (intended pun). When it’s Will Ferrell with a fro and knee-high basketball socks, who needs a trailer? I would’ve seen this based on the teaser poster alone.
Grade: B+
http://www.semipromovie.com/#TRAILER

Horton Hears a Who
Computer animation is getting blander. Used to be that almost every computer animated release made nearly $100 million. So, everybody and their brother started releasing computer animated movies with wildly varying degrees of animation quality and box office success. I’m not really sure what would lure me in about computer animation anymore. I saw Ratatouille last summer, even though I wasn’t that pumped about it. I ended up enjoying it for the most part, though I thought it would bore most kids. I guess the novelty of the genre wore off for me after the first few Pixar pictures. Or, maybe I’ve just been waiting for something to amuse me as much as the Toy Stories, Monsters, Inc., and The Incredibles.

What I’m getting at is that Horton feels flat, judging by the trailer – which is what I’m all about here. I’m referring to the second trailer, which is much improved over the incredibly flat first version, but still feels flat, despite the wider range of scenery and characters shown that weren’t in the initial trailer. This looks great on a visual level, seeming to capture pretty perfectly the Dr. Seuss look (a lot better than the live-action Grinch did), but you kinda keep waiting to be wooed by the trailer and it never happens.

One of the main concerns is the story material. When the trailer feels like it’s trying to stretch a short story into a feature, imagine what the whole movie will feel like. I understand why studios want to adapt Seuss’ books, because the stories are humorous, the visuals vibrant, and they’re properties everyone knows and loves. But the fact is, they’re short stories. The only thing that kept The Cat in the Hat from being unbearable was Mike Meyers’ humor, which was totally unrelated to the source material. It just felt awkward trying to pad so much story. That’s the feeling I get with the Horton trailer.

The other chief concern is that for a movie using the voices of two of my favorite movie comedians in Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey, it’s totally unfunny! Where’s the funny? I much prefer saving the bulk of the funny for the movie, but don’t they have more they can tease me with? The potential is present for a quality animated movie (I think Seuss is better suited for animation over live-action), because of the visuals and Carrell & Carrey, but this trailer is weak. A property like this doesn’t really need a great trailer though, so families will likely still flock to it.
Grade: D+
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/hortonhearsawho/

Dan’s the Man: Why Dan in Real Life is my favorite movie this year

With apologies to The Bourne Ultimatum which is excellent but not really comparable since it’s on the opposite end of the genre/tone spectrum, Dan in Real Life is my favorite movie of 2007 so far, with few remaining prospects to usurp it.

Dan in Real Life surprised me, something that is increasingly hard to do in this internet age where scripts sometimes show up online before a movie’s finished shooting (sometimes before it starts shooting).  Dan surprised me because, while I didn’t expect it to be bad, the ho-hum trailer didn’t set my expectation bar very high.  A lot of times you can judge movies by their trailers, but not in this case.  It was only after seeing the movie that I understood why the Dan trailer wasn’t great:  because it would be very difficult to distill its unique blend of heart, humor, and melancholy down to a couple of catchy minutes.  (See for yourself at: http://daninreallife.movies.go.com/)

 

One warning sign of a bad movie, particularly one that purports to be a comedy, is when the “funny” clips from the trailer are the only funny bits that show up everywhere else (TV spots, late night talk show clips, etc.).  Every time I saw something about Dan on TV, the same clips ran – not that they weren’t humorous – it just made me wonder if they didn’t have much else to hook us with.  No one likes to watch a movie having already seen the funniest parts.  By the way, isn’t it annoying when folks in the theatre who have seen the trailers/TV spots numerous times, anticipate a funny bit or a joke and say the line aloud for all to enjoy, then laugh heartily as if it’s the first time they’ve heard it?  Anyway, with Dan, I feared I had already seen most of the funny parts via the trailer, but I was quite wrong.  It’s not knee-slappingly hilarious, but that’s not what it’s trying to be.  As it turns out, this is a true dramedy with the funniest stuff omitted from the trailer (finally – thank you!), much of it subtle humor, coupled with the right dose of drama.     

So what elements make me like this so much?  If I had to boil it down:  Steve Carrel and the movie’s un-cynical portrayal of family.  I liked Steve Carrel before.  Now I really like him.  Admittedly, I was a little skeptical going in because I sensed this role was going to be a little more dramatic and it kind of annoys me when comedians try to go Oscar-bait on us, but Steve pulls it off here.  By deftly walking the tightrope between comedy and drama, he makes the movie.  Now for several critics I read, the family element rang false, or unrealistic, or a little annoying, or all three.  But for me, the family depiction is realistic – there are actually families that can generally get along and mostly enjoy each other’s company, which is what this shows.  There’s still conflict, but it’s not the usual screaming-at-each-other variety.  Okay, Dan’s daughter does scream at him at one point, but it’s a very funny moment.

Two other surprises are Dane Cook and Juliette Binoche.  I’m not a big Dane fan, but he’s quite believable in this role, even managing a successful dip into the drama pool.  Likewise, I wasn’t particularly hip on Binoche playing the love interest, but she’s great here.  Then there’s the family, comprised mostly of actors I’m not familiar with, who are all quite convincing in that they seem like a real family.  There are a bunch of kids running around throughout, but the filmmakers were smart enough not to give them a lot of lines, so we’re not distracted by forced cuteness or potential weak line readings. 

I’m not a big indie movie guy, but the occasional dose can be refreshing.  For a studio movie, this has a slightly indie feel, without seeming cheap or like it’s trying too hard to be quirky.  It doesn’t have an intricate plot, yet the pacing works.  In fact, it’s remarkable how well it unfolds for a story that mostly takes place around one location (Dan’s parents’ house in Rhode Island) without the plot feeling forced or over-wrought.  The family’s interactions weaving in and out of the house are really well choreographed, so that none of it seems phony (something deceptively hard to pull off). 

The movie’s not perfect, but then none really are that I’m aware of.  I would’ve liked to see a few tweaks here and there, particularly the way the unrealistic bathroom/shower scene unfolds.  I also would’ve preferred a less-hasty resolution, but ultimately my nitpicks are small potatoes in the overall barrel. 

Sometimes movies just land in your lap at the right time.  You’re in a certain mood and the movie just meshes with where you’re at.  That doesn’t happen to me very often, but I think it’s what keeps us going back to the theatre – the hope that the movie’s going to affect you in one way or another.  That’s what happened for me with Dan anyway.  I went in with very neutral feelings about it and by the time it was over knew I would have to add it to my DVD collection (which for me is a big stamp of approval).  We all have different things we hope to get out of movies, even if we can’t quite put our finger on what those things are.  Dan in Real Life won’t wow everyone, but you’ll have to work very hard not to have your heart warmed.          

Check Your Compass

So after all the talk and build up and controversy and one of the largest movie promotional efforts in history (particularly in number of product tie-ins according to Variety), The Golden Compass finally lands in a theatre near you this Friday.  As previously indicated by my review of the Compass trailer, I’ve never much cared to see the movie, but it has much more to do with my boredom with the fantasy genre and what I perceive as the semi-shoddiness of the effects work than it does with the religious controversy.  I’m even a fan of some of director Chris Weitz’s work:  he directed About a Boy, and produced In Good Company and American Dreamz which were written & directed by his brother, Paul.  All that to say, I’ve no compass to grind.  But as a long-time Christian, I am interested in all the hullabaloo surrounding this release.

As a brief preface for those unfamiliar, it should be noted that Christianity in America is like Baskin Robbins with the 31 flavors.  Except we probably have a lot more than 31 (I’ve never tried to count).  So, when you hear that Christians are boycotting something, it definitely doesn’t mean the whole Baskin Robbins is participating.  Unfortunately, when one or more flavors leave a bad taste in someone’s mouth, the whole chain gets blamed.

I think people generally remember when you’re against something a lot more than they remember you being for something.  That’s why every time a movie riles up one of the Christian flavors, someone always brings up the rowdy organized protests against Scorcese’s The Last Temptation of Christ… which came out 19 years ago.  Granted, that movie deserved protest more than most, but how often do you hear about Christians being for a movie (The Passion of the Christ doesn’t count – that was an anomaly)?  I’m afraid that all our protest does is reinforce the stereotypes that Compass author Philip Pullman and some in the movie industry have about Christians.        

I might should clarify that I’m not advocating Christian silence over this movie, but I think a boycott is unnecessary.  We should definitely be talking about the movie and the source material it’s based on.  Heaven knows we can be some very uninformed entertainment consumers (but not any more so than non-Christians).  What bugs me is the alarmist tone of the emails making the Christian rounds and the bright yellow flyers being distributed at church.  These pieces all contain similar hyperbole that this movie was made in the hopes that it’ll sell more of the book trilogy.  As if a Compass movie ticket is going to put people in a trance (like those bowler hats in Meet the Robinsons – see it if you haven’t), mindlessly carrying parents straight from the theatre to the local B&N where they’ll be forced to purchase junior the entire trilogy, with conversion to atheism immediately following.  Perhaps these pieces need a reminder at the bottom that purchasing the books is not actually a requirement of seeing the movie. 

I don’t know, I guess it just strikes me as sounding very naïve to imply that New Line wants to sell atheism to our kids.  New Line is in the movie-making biz.  How many books get sold is much more important to Pullman than New Line.  New Line wants to sell movie tickets, DVDs, related merchandise, and TV rights, but they don’t make a dime off someone becoming an atheist.  Just because New Line is not a Christian company doesn’t make them an anti-Christian company.  And remember, New Line did release The Nativity Story last year (Christians stayed away from that one too, but that’s another story).   

Perhaps the most annoying thing about all this is the time and resources spent warning folks about this movie when there is zero – that I’m aware of – protest against the Saw’s of the world.  Have you seen any of the trailers for these horror movies that even secular journalists now refer to as “torture porn”?  Hideous.  Did you happen to catch the very large, entirely prominent standee that adorned theatre lobbies this fall for Saw IV?  I hope you didn’t.  Where’s the outcry?  Maybe we don’t bother with those because we don’t feel our faith is being overtly challenged.  It’s a slippery slope to start comparing evil in movies, but it’s hard for me to see how The Golden Compass is more evil than Saw IV or any of its ilk, and it certainly can’t be more dangerous than those for kids. 

Ultimately, all this Christian squawking will likely just help New Line’s marketing department.  Ever noticed how in American pop culture, most things have a pretty short shelf-life?  A few years back I remember being annoyed by the TV success of The Osbournes and Queer Eye.  Well, they’re not even blips on the radar anymore, and haven’t been for a few years.  When NBC tried to make a go of a series called The Book of Daniel a couple years ago– my curious Christian mom asked me about it.  I confirmed that the premise was retardedly anti-Christian from what I had read, but not to worry because it would be off the air in three weeks or so.  I think it lasted two.  While raising awareness is good, raising a fuss sometimes ends up making things hang around longer than they would have otherwise.

Anyway, that’s my several cents’ worth.  For some good write ups on this Compass issue, check out these other links:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/fearnotthecompass.html

http://www.crosswalk.com/movies/11560628/

Trailer Parking 2

Definitely, Maybe
There was a time in my young movie fan life that I didn’t care about romantic comedies.  It was probably because I hadn’t seen any good ones.  But then one day I saw a little movie you may have heard of called Sleepless in Seattle.  Later, I actually ventured into a theatre to catch a screening of While You Were Sleeping, mainly because I thought Sandy Bullock was cute.  In both cases, I was unexpectedly charmed as an apparent romantical side of me awoke.  Now most cynics – I mean, critics – dismissed Sleeping as goofy fluff, but I found it (and Sleepless) amusing and dare I say it as a man… sweet. 

Thus, with most subsequent rom-com trailers since my initiation to the genre, I usually give them the benefit of the doubt in the hope that they might charm like those Sleep movies.  They rarely measure up (it ain’t easy to make a good, original rom-com), but I kinda give ‘em a free pass until they’re released and prove unworthy.  With that long of a preface, you can probably surmise that the Definitely, Maybe trailer is rather mediocre – and you would surmise correctly.  I’ll give them credit for trying to be original:  exploring three of Ryan Reynold’s past loves in his quest to find true present love.  But the story looks like it’s going to unfold in flashback, framed by Ryan’s daughter (Abigail Breslin) trying to figure out which of Daddy’s past girlfriends is her mom.  Eww.  As the dad of a little girl myself, that part makes me cringe.  See, the trailer makes this rather large plot device seem mostly cute, like a great father-daughter mystery game, but it struck me as a little sad… and weird.

Still, as sometimes happens with iffy movie premises, the cast just might redeem it.  While I don’t think Reynolds is one of our next big Oscar collectors, he can be funny (check out Just Friends for ample evidence).  And I like the casting of his character’s past lady friends in Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz, and Isla Fisher.  This is not a bad trailer – it’s just a little uneven.  It’s energetic in spurts, but between the spurts are some awkward pauses that don’t really deliver laughs or clever dialogue or other elements that might subliminally imprint “must see” on your brain.  Based on this trailer, the movie is probably so-so and will do middle-of-the-road B.O. biz.  But thanks to the cast and the fact that there are no shots of Ryan and Abigail lip-synching into wooden spoons, I’ll definitely, maybe give this one a chance to win me over.

Grade:  B-                   

P.S.  I Love You
My special rom-com-sidestep-my-cynicism-free pass almost didn’t work for this trailer (see Definitely, Maybe trailer review for more info).  I don’t know, there’s something about Gerard Butler hamming it up in wacky suspenders and boxer shorts, as well as The Next Karate Kid – make that Hillary Swank – singing karaoke while tripping on microphone wires that made me cringe a little.  This is the unfortunately tricky thing for trailer makers:  no context.  Those scenes may actually be quite cute, clever, and/or funny in the movie, but when you don’t know the characters yet, these things sometimes come across as cheddar cheese. 

In spite of those clips, this one has some bittersweet potential.  It’s hard to pull off, but I like a good dramedy.  It seems Gerard dies young, leaving Swank a trail of scavenger hunt-type letters to help her live life to the fullest in his absence.  Swank has a good cast of supportive folks around her including Lisa Kudrow, Gina Gershon, and Kathy Bates.  But then there’s that karaoke… okay, I’ll quit harping on that.  By the way, music is so vital to a trailer (who didn’t want to see Anchorman after the slo-mo clips set to Enya’s End of Days?!).  Music can truly make or break a trailer and in this case, the Vanessa Carlton-ish tune almost broke it.  I don’t know the name of the song or who sings it, but it’s overused.    

So why am I still likely to see this?  Well, it’s good to see Hillary lighten up after a string of heavy dramas.  I liked the warmish photography.  It looks like Gerard’s letters send Hillary to some photogenic locations.  Hillary is photogenic.  Plus, there were a few humorous moments like Lisa Kudrow cutting to the chase with potential dates. 

There is one other unusual factor that makes me feel like giving this a chance.  A couple years ago I saw a good little Scottish movie called Dear, Frankie that starred a pre-300 Gerard.  I liked him in that role.  The story took place in Scotland.  It looks like part of P.S. I Love You takes place in Scotland.  I visited Scotland once and loved it.  Sometimes these movie-going decisions are based on a complex formula.  And sometimes you just want to see Hillary.     

Grade:  B                         

The Spiderwick Chronicles
Poor Spiderwick Chronicles.  It might be the best kids fantasy movie ever made and I will likely never see it based on the trailer.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen way worst trailers this year, it’s just that this is coming out after scads of similar movies, so nothing looks very new here.  It’s the hot genre of the day, although if these continue doing The Seeker: The Dark is Rising type numbers, the fad will pass.  Since I’m not familiar with the books, the trailer confused me with a couple shots of what looks like two Freddie Highmores.  Is he playing twins, or does he have some magical Spiderwick clone?  Or is it a time-travel thing where he’s hanging out with his future or past self?  It turns out Freddie’s playing twins, but I had to look up the info since the trailer’s vague about it.

I don’t mean to sound cynical.  I root for quality family/kids movies even if I don’t particularly want to see it myself.  Even if I was still a kid, I still don’t think I’d be interested in this though.  I think the main problem was that it reminded me of too many other movies.  Wild animals invading the house had echoes of Jumanji and Zathura.  Evading strange things in the leafy forest reminded me of Bridge to Terabithia.  It could be confused with The Dark is Rising which came out earlier this fall.  It does have a bit of a creepy vibe with things jumping out at the kids and an ominous villain thingy near the end.  I’m also a fan of Freddie Highmore, although I question the choice of having a British kid actor try to do an American accent.  Overall, there’s just not enough visually or narratively in the trailer to get me pumped or even very curious.  Since this movie has the Nickelodeon brand behind it, I suppose it could scrape up Terabithia-like B.O., but I doubt we’ll be seeing future Spiderwick episodes on the big screen.

Grade:  D+